Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32065950›Full record

ArticleJournal of psychiatric research2020

A comparison between self-report and interviewer-rated retrospective reports of childhood abuse among individuals with first-episode psychosis and population-based controls.

Charlotte Gayer-Anderson, Ulrich Reininghaus, Isabell Paetzold, Kathryn Hubbard, Stephanie Beards, Valeria Mondelli, Marta Di Forti, Robin M Murray, Carmine M Pariante, Paola Dazzan and 3 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of psychiatric research, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

18 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Schizophrenia: A Review of Social Risk Factors That Affect Women.Behavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023
    Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. 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

13 authors.

Charlotte Gayer-AndersonInstitute of Psychiatry, Psychology & Neuroscience, King's College London, UK; ESRC Centre for Society and Mental Health, King's College London, UK.
Ulrich ReininghausInstitute of Psychiatry, Psychology & Neuroscience, King's College London, UK; ESRC Centre for Society and Mental Health, King's College London, UK; Department of Public Mental Health, Central Institute of Mental Health, Medical Faculty Mannheim, University of Heidelberg, Mannheim, Germany.
Isabell PaetzoldDepartment of Public Mental Health, Central Institute of Mental Health, Medical Faculty Mannheim, University of Heidelberg, Mannheim, Germany.
Kathryn HubbardInstitute of Psychiatry, Psychology & Neuroscience, King's College London, UK.
Stephanie BeardsInstitute of Psychiatry, Psychology & Neuroscience, King's College London, UK.
Valeria MondelliInstitute of Psychiatry, Psychology & Neuroscience, King's College London, UK; National Institute for Health Research (NIHR), Mental Health Biomedical Research Centre at South London, Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust, King's College London, UK.
Marta Di FortiInstitute of Psychiatry, Psychology & Neuroscience, King's College London, UK.
Robin M MurrayInstitute of Psychiatry, Psychology & Neuroscience, King's College London, UK; National Institute for Health Research (NIHR), Mental Health Biomedical Research Centre at South London, Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust, King's College London, UK.
Carmine M ParianteInstitute of Psychiatry, Psychology & Neuroscience, King's College London, UK; National Institute for Health Research (NIHR), Mental Health Biomedical Research Centre at South London, Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust, King's College London, UK.
Paola DazzanInstitute of Psychiatry, Psychology & Neuroscience, King's College London, UK; National Institute for Health Research (NIHR), Mental Health Biomedical Research Centre at South London, Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust, King's College London, UK.
Thomas J CraigInstitute of Psychiatry, Psychology & Neuroscience, King's College London, UK.
Helen L FisherInstitute of Psychiatry, Psychology & Neuroscience, King's College London, UK; ESRC Centre for Society and Mental Health, King's College London, UK.
Craig MorganInstitute of Psychiatry, Psychology & Neuroscience, King's College London, UK; ESRC Centre for Society and Mental Health, King's College London, UK; National Institute for Health Research (NIHR), Mental Health Biomedical Research Centre at South London, Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust, King's College London, UK. Electronic address: craig.morgan@kcl.ac.uk.

Funding

Medical Research Council G108/603Medical Research Council MR/S003444/1MRF_ C0439Wellcome TrustWellcome Trust WT087417
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The typical reliance on self-report questionnaires in retrospective case-control studies of childhood abuse and psychotic disorders has been criticised, due to the potential for recall bias associated with, amongst other factors, cognitive impairments and detachment from reality, among individuals with psychosis. One way to establish if any substantial bias may exist is to examine whether the concordance of reports of childhood abuse established from retrospective self-report methods versus more comprehensive interviewer-rated assessments differ between individuals with psychosis and controls. Data from the Childhood Adversity and Psychosis (CAPsy) study were used to examine the accuracy, strength of agreement, and convergent validity of two distinct retrospective measures of childhood abuse: a self-report questionnaire (the Childhood Trauma Questionnaire; CTQ) and a comprehensive interview (the Childhood Experiences of Care and Abuse schedule; CECA). In a sample of 234 cases with first-episode psychosis and 293 controls, we found no strong evidence that the validity of the two measures differed between cases and controls. For reports of sexual and emotional abuse, we found fair levels of agreement between CECA and CTQ ratings in both groups (kappa coefficients 0.43-0.53), moderate to high sensitivity and specificity, and reasonably high convergent validity (tetrachoric correlations of 0.78-0.80). For physical abuse, convergent validity was slightly lower in cases compared with controls. Both measures can be used in future studies to retrospectively assess associations between childhood abuse and psychotic phenomena, but time-permitting, the CECA is preferable as it provides additional important contextual details of abuse exposure.

Indexed as

Child AbusePsychotic DisordersChildHumansRetrospective StudiesSelf ReportSurveys and QuestionnairesCase-control studyMaltreatmentMeasurementPsychometricPsychotic disorderValidity

Identifiers

PMID32065950
PMCPMC7054833

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.