ArticlePsychiatry research2018
Validity of a two-item screen for early psychosis.
Article in Psychiatry research, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
14 citing papers in PubMed.
- The Healthy Families Bright Futures Program: Open Pilot to Evaluate Acceptability, Appropriateness, and Feasibility of an Online Dating Violence and Alcohol Prevention Program for LGBTQ+ Youth and Their Caregivers.Journal of aggression, maltreatment & trauma · 2026Article
- Disconnection from care among adolescents with psychotic experiences.Psychiatry research · 2026Article
- Article
- CBT for depression and anxiety adapted for psychosis risk in primary care: controlled trial to assess feasibility, acceptability and signals of efficacy.BJPsych open · 2025Article
- Article
- Screening for psychotic experiences and psychotic disorders in general psychiatric settings: a systematic review and meta-analysis.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2024Article
- The influence of psychotic-like experiences on intent to seek treatment: Findings from a multi-site community survey of mental health experiences.Schizophrenia research · 2023Article
- Youth Mental Health Screening and Linkage to Care.Psychiatric services (Washington, D.C.) · 2023Article
- Psychotic-like experiences in childhood and early adolescence: Clarifying the construct and future directions.Schizophrenia research · 2022Article
- Development of a computerized adaptive diagnostic screening tool for psychosis.Schizophrenia research · 2022Article
- Prevalence of Individuals at Clinical High-Risk of Psychosis in the General Population and Clinical Samples: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Brain sciences · 2021Review
- Patient and Provider Insights into the Impact of Multiple Sclerosis on Mental Health: A Narrative Review.Neurology and therapy · 2021Review
- Article
- An item response theory analysis of the Prodromal Questionnaire-Brief Child Version: Developing a screening form that informs understanding of self-reported psychotic-like experiences in childhood.Journal of abnormal psychology · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Well-validated screening tools have been developed to identify people at high risk for psychosis, but these are rarely used outside of specialty clinics or research settings. The development of extremely brief and simple screening tools could increase dissemination, especially in settings with low buy-in such as those with low base rates of psychosis and/or time constraints. We sought to identify such a brief measure by modeling participant responses to three psychosis screening questionnaires (Prime Screen; Prodromal Questionnaire-Brief; Youth Psychosis At Risk Questionnaire) in a sample of 139 help-seeking individuals and 335 college students (age range: 12-25). Two screening questions with especially strong information characteristics were identified: "Do you see things that others can't or don't see?" and "Have you ever felt that someone was playing with your mind?" (Alternative two-item screens with similarly strong properties were also identified and validated using uncertainty quantified through Bayesian modeling.) The resulting measure was validated against clinician ratings of psychosis. The screen performed with a sensitivity of 53% and specificity 98% for clinically significant hallucinations or delusions, and sensitivity of 32% and specificity 99% for identifying people in an early phase of psychosis (clinical high risk or first episode psychosis).
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.