ArticleSchizophrenia bulletin2023
Do the Components of Attenuated Positive Symptoms Truly Represent One Construct?
Article in Schizophrenia bulletin, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 6 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
- The Complex Latent Structure of Attenuated Psychotic Symptoms: Hierarchical and Bifactor Models of SIPS Symptoms Replicated in Two Large Samples at Clinical High Risk for Psychosis.Schizophrenia bulletin · 2024Article
- Factors impacting intent to seek treatment within youth at clinical high risk for psychosis.Schizophrenia research · 2024Article
- Development of the PSYCHS: Positive SYmptoms and Diagnostic Criteria for the CAARMS Harmonized with the SIPS.Early intervention in psychiatry · 2024Article
- Development of the PSYCHS: Positive SYmptoms and Diagnostic Criteria for the CAARMS Harmonized with the SIPS.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2023Article
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 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
background and hypothesesPsychosis-risk inventories, like the Structured Interview for Psychosis-Risk Syndromes (SIPS), utilize symptom components and coalesce the information into a single-severity rating. These components include frequency, duration, in-the-moment conviction, retrospective insight, distress, and effect on social/role functioning. While combining components distills a great deal of important information into one practical symptom rating, this approach may mask important details of the greater clinical picture. STUDY
designIndividuals at clinical high risk for psychosis (n = 115) were assessed with the SIPS Score Separable Components (SSSC) scale, created to accompany the SIPS positive items by dividing each item into the 7 components identified above. The latent structure of the SSSC was identified with an exploratory factor analysis (EFA). The factors were followed up with validation analyses including hypothesized cognitive, functioning, and symptom measures. Finally, clinical utility analyses were conducted to understand relationships between psychosis risk and common comorbidities. STUDY
resultsEFA revealed that the SSSC had 3 interpretable factors with the appropriate fit (rmsr = 0.018, TLI = 0.921): Conviction (in-the-moment conviction, retrospective insight), Distress-Impairment (distress, social/role functioning), and Frequency/Duration (frequency, duration). Conviction was minimally valid, Distress-Impairment had excellent validity, and Frequency/Duration was not related to any of the candidate validators. Conviction significantly predicted elevated psychosis risk. Distress-Impairment was related to common comorbid symptoms. Notably, the factors associated more strongly with clinical features than the traditional SIPS scores.
conclusionsThe SSSC offers a supplemental approach to single-severity ratings, providing useful clinical insight, mechanistic understanding, and the potential for better capturing heterogeneity in this population.
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.