Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35692717›Full record

ArticlePsychologica Belgica2022

Translation and Validation of the French Version of the Revised Green et al., Paranoid Thoughts Scale (R-GPTS) in Two Samples: Non-Clinical and Clinical Adults.

Alizée Latteur, Frank Larøi, Catherine Bortolon

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Psychologica Belgica, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
0.7field-weighted citation impact, top 31% of its field
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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Psychometric Validation of the Italian 8-Item Green Paranoid Thoughts Scale (GPTS-8).International journal of methods in psychiatric research · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Validation of the Eight-Item Paranoid Thoughts Scale (GPTS-8) in Tunisian Arab Adults.International journal of methods in psychiatric research · 2025
    Article
  4. 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

3 authors at 2 institutions in 3 countries.

Alizée LatteurPsychology and Neuroscience of Cognition Research Unit, University of Liège, Belgium.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7588-1226
Frank LarøiPsychology and Neuroscience of Cognition Research Unit, University of Liège, Belgium.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9876-7407
Catherine BortolonUniversité Grenoble-Alpes, Laboratoire Interuniversitaire de Psychologie (LIP/PC2S), France.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5118-7827
University of Liège · BECentre Hospitalier Universitaire de Grenoble · FR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Paranoia consists of unfounded beliefs that harm will be caused with intent to hurt the subject. Paranoid thoughts exist on a continuum of severity from severe forms in several psychological pathologies to milder forms in a significant minority of individuals of the general population (Freeman, 2007). It can be measured using several types of questionnaires. One recent questionnaire that measures paranoia in both clinical and non-clinical populations is the revised Green et al., Paranoid Thoughts Scale (R-GPTS) (Freeman et al., 2019). This questionnaire is an improved version of the Green et al., Paranoid Thoughts Scale (GPTS) (Green et al., 2008) and has excellent psychometric properties. In the present study, the R-GPTS was translated into French and the psychometric properties of the new French version were evaluated in a sample of the general population (N = 600) and in a clinical sample (N = 22). Confirmatory factor analysis supported the original two-factor structure (social reference and persecution subscales) of the R-GPTS. Evidence of excellent internal consistency of the R-GPTS was found. Furthermore, good convergent and discriminant validity was also found. Test-retest reliability showed significant positive correlations over a 1-month period. The findings discussed above were found in the non-clinical sample. Lastly, the R-GPTS revealed good preliminary criterion validity established from the comparison between the clinical and the non-clinical groups. In conclusion, the French version of the R-GPTS is a valid and reliable tool to measure paranoia in the general population. Due to the small sample size of the clinical sample, further studies are needed in order to confirm good psychometric properties in clinical populations, even though our preliminary findings are promising.

Indexed as

Paranoiapsychometric propertiestranslation

Identifiers

PMID35692717
PMCPMC9165671
OpenAlexW4285061147

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.