Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36905387›Full record

ArticleActa psychiatrica Scandinavica2023

The reliability and validity of the revised Green et al. paranoid thoughts scale in individuals at clinical high-risk for psychosis.

Trevor F Williams, Elaine F Walker, Gregory P Strauss, Scott W Woods, Albert R Powers, Philip R Corlett, Jason Schiffman, James A Waltz, James M Gold, Steven M Silverstein and 3 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Acta psychiatrica Scandinavica, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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.

Trevor F WilliamsDepartment of Psychology, Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois, 60208, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-2202-7020
Elaine F WalkerDepartment of Psychology and Program in Neuroscience, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia, 30322, USA.
Gregory P StraussDepartments of Psychology and Neuroscience, University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia, 30602, USA.
Scott W WoodsDepartment of Psychiatry, Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut, 06519, USA.
Albert R PowersDepartment of Psychiatry, Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut, 06519, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-3057-5043
Philip R CorlettDepartment of Psychiatry, Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut, 06519, USA.
Jason SchiffmanDepartment of Psychological Science, 4201 Social and Behavioral Sciences Gateway, University of California, Irvine, California, 92697, USA.
James A WaltzMaryland Psychiatric Research Center, Department of Psychiatry, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, 21228, USA.
James M GoldMaryland Psychiatric Research Center, Department of Psychiatry, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, 21228, USA.
Steven M SilversteinDepartments of Psychiatry, Neuroscience and Ophthalmology, University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester, New York, 14642, USA.
Lauren M EllmanDepartment of Psychology & Neuroscience, Temple University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 19122, USA.
Richard E ZinbargDepartment of Psychology, Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois, 60208, USA.
Vijay A MittalInstitutes for Policy Research (IPR) and Innovations in Developmental Sciences (DevSci), Departments of Psychology, Psychiatry, Medical Social Sciences, Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois, 60208, USA.

Funding

Yale Clinical and Translational Science Award (U Component)UL1TR001863 · NCATS · YALE UNIVERSITY · PI John H. Krystal, LUCILA OHNO-MACHADO · 2016 to 2026
$102.9M
1/5 CAPER: Computerized Assessment of ProdromE RiskR01MH120090 · NIMH · UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND BALTIMORE · PI GOLD, JAMES M. · 2020 to 2024
$2.9M
2/5 CAPER Computerized assessment of psychosis riskR01MH120088 · NIMH · NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY · PI MITTAL, VIJAY A · 2020 to 2024
$2.0M
CAPER: Computerized Assessment of Psychosis Risk SupplementR01MH120091 · NIMH · TEMPLE UNIV OF THE COMMONWEALTH · PI ELLMAN, LAUREN M · 2020 to 2024
$1.6M
2/3 Community psychosis risk screening: An instrument development studyR01MH112545 · NIMH · NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY · PI MITTAL, VIJAY A · 2017 to 2021
$1.2M
Exercise and markers of medial temporal health in youth at-risk for psychosisR33MH103231 · NIMH · NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY · PI BRYAN, ANGELA, MITTAL, VIJAY A · 2016 to 2018
$689k
Exercise and markers of medial temporal health in youth at-risk for psychosisR21MH103231 · NIMH · UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO · PI BRYAN, ANGELA, MITTAL, VIJAY A · 2014 to 2015
$489k
Neural Habituation in Ultra High-Risk YouthR21MH110374 · NIMH · NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY · PI MITTAL, VIJAY A · 2017 to 2018
$445k
NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR001863NIMH NIH HHS R01MH103231NIMH NIH HHS R01MH110374NIMH NIH HHS R01 MH112545NIMH NIH HHS R01MH112545NIMH NIH HHS R01 MH120088NIMH NIH HHS R01MH120088NIMH NIH HHS R01 MH120090NIMH NIH HHS R01 MH120091NIMH NIH HHS R01MH120091NIMH NIH HHS R21 MH103231NIMH NIH HHS R21 MH110374NIMH NIH HHS R33 MH103231
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionParanoia is a common and impairing psychosis symptom, which exists along a severity continuum that extends into the general population. Individuals at clinical high-risk for psychosis (CHR) frequently experience paranoia and this may elevate their risk for developing full psychosis. Nonetheless, limited work has examined the efficient measurement of paranoia in CHR individuals. The present study aimed to validate an often-used self-report measure, the revised green paranoid thoughts scale (RGPTS), in this critical population.

methodParticipants were CHR individuals (n = 103), mixed clinical controls (n = 80), and healthy controls (n = 71) who completed self-report and interview measures. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), psychometric indices, group differences, and relations to external measures were used to evaluate the reliability and validity of the RGPTS.

resultsCFA replicated a two-factor structure for the RGPTS and the associated reference and persecution scales were reliable. CHR individuals scored significantly higher on both reference and persecution, relative to both healthy (ds = 1.03, 0.86) and clinical controls (ds = 0.64, 0.73). In CHR participants, correlations between reference and persecution and external measures were smaller than expected, though showed evidence of discriminant validity (e.g., interviewer-rated paranoia, r = 0.24). When examined in the full sample, correlation magnitude was larger and follow-up analyses indicated that reference related most specifically to paranoia (β = 0.32), whereas persecution uniquely related to poor social functioning (β = -0.29).

conclusionThese results demonstrate the reliability and validity of the RGPTS, though its scales related more weakly to severity in CHR individuals. The RGPTS may be useful in future work aiming to develop symptom-specific models of emerging paranoia in CHR individuals.

Indexed as

Psychotic DisordersHumansInterpersonal RelationsParanoid DisordersReproducibility of ResultsSelf Reportclinical high riskconstruct validityparanoiapsychometricpsychosis

Identifiers

PMID36905387
PMCPMC10463775

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.