Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25810059›Full record

ArticleSchizophrenia bulletin2015

Dimensionality vs taxonicity of schizotypy: some new data and challenges ahead.

Kirsty V Everett, Richard J Linscott

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Schizophrenia bulletin, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Kirsty V EverettDepartment of Psychology, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand; Porirua CMHT, Capital and Coast District Health Board, Wellington, New Zealand;
Richard J LinscottDepartment of Psychology, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand; Department of Psychiatry and Psychology, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands linscott@psy.otago.ac.nz.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Heterogeneity in the expression of schizotypy may arise from underlying dimensional processes or a taxonic population structure. In a 2-phase study, we tested the taxonicity of self-reported schizotypy within a general psychiatric sample (n = 109) and examined taxon validity by testing its association with clinical schizotaxia in follow-up subsamples. Taxometric analyses indicated a taxonic structure (schizotypy prevalence = 38.8%) provided the best description of the underlying population distribution. After a year, schizotypal (n = 14) and nonschizotypal (n = 14) subsamples returned for diagnosis of clinical schizotaxia by assessment of executive functioning, attention, memory, and negative symptoms. Seven patients met diagnostic criteria, all members of the schizotypy class. Schizotypy was associated with impaired attention and memory, more negative symptoms, poorer global functioning, and more extensive psychiatric histories. We reconcile inconsistencies in the literature by discussing threats to the validity of this and similar research on Meehl's taxonomic model of schizotypy, including conceptual limitations of the lexical hypothesis and conventions of factor analysis. Scrutiny of Meehl's model should involve disambiguation and better measurement of the schizotaxia-schizotypy phenotype.

Indexed as

Disease SusceptibilityAdultFemaleFollow-Up StudiesHumansMaleMiddle AgedSchizotypal Personality Disorderlatent variable modelingnegative symptomsneuropsychological impairmentschizophreniaschizotaxiaschizotypal personalitytaxometrics

Identifiers

PMID25810059
PMCPMC4373639

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.