ArticleSchizophrenia research2022
Evaluating the Social Functioning Scale modified for use in individuals at clinical high-risk for psychosis.
Article in Schizophrenia research, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Persons at risk for psychosis overestimate social functioning compared to persons with major depressive disorder and community controls.Journal of psychiatric research · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundSocial functioning deficits occur prior to the onset of psychosis and predict conversion to psychosis in clinical high-risk (CHR) populations. The Social Functioning Scale (SFS), a self-report measure of social functioning, is widely used in adults with psychosis but has not been tailored to CHR individuals. CHR syndromes overlap with the adolescent/young-adult developmental period, a time with unique social demands and contexts. The current study evaluates a modified version of the SFS in CHR individuals.
methodsTwo independent samples of CHR participants (n = 84 and n = 45) and non-CHR participants (n = 312 and n = 42) completed the SFS and a psychosis-risk interview. Resulting factors were compared across diagnostic categories (CHR, Major Depressive Disorder, Generalized Anxiety Disorder) and community controls (CC) who were not excluded for any psychopathology except psychosis, depression, and anxiety. CHR participants completed scales of negative symptoms, global social and role functioning, cognition, and finger tapping as measures of convergent and divergent validity.
resultsExploratory factor analysis identified three SFS factors (RMSEA = 0.05) which demonstrated reliability in a confirmatory analysis in an independent sample: Recreation (α = 0.82), Nightlife (α = 0.85), and Interpersonal (α = 0.69). Factors and their composite score demonstrated increased social deficits in CHR compared to CC and depression groups and showed expected convergent (r's = 0.30-0.54) and divergent (r's = -0.004-0.26) validity with appropriate measures.
conclusionsThese findings suggest that there are reliable, valid, and developmentally relevant categories of social behavior within the SFS that differentiate between CHR and MDD or CC individuals. Recommendations for future work with CHR populations are included.
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.