Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37434482›Full record

ArticlePsychiatry investigation2023

Validation of the Korean Version of the Community Assessment of Psychic Experiences in General Population.

Hyejin Sim, Seoyoung Kim, Paul Guyun Jung, Michael Bloomfield, Euitae Kim

Open access · diamondAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Psychiatry investigation, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
0.8field-weighted citation impact, top 27% 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

1 citing paper in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. 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

5 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Hyejin SimDepartment of Brain and Cognitive Sciences, College of Natural Sciences, Seoul National University, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
Seoyoung KimDepartment of Neuropsychiatry, Seoul National University Bundang Hospital, Seongnam, Republic of Korea.
Paul Guyun JungTranslational Psychiatry Research Group, Research Department of Mental Health Neuroscience, Division of Psychiatry, UCL Institute of Mental Health, University College London, London, UK.
Michael BloomfieldTranslational Psychiatry Research Group, Research Department of Mental Health Neuroscience, Division of Psychiatry, UCL Institute of Mental Health, University College London, London, UK.
Euitae KimDepartment of Brain and Cognitive Sciences, College of Natural Sciences, Seoul National University, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
Seoul National University · KRMental Health Research UK · GBSeoul National University Bundang Hospital · KRUniversity College Hospital · GB

Funding

Ministry of Science and ICTNational Research Foundation of Korea 2019M3C7A1032472National Research Foundation of Korea 2022R1A2B5B02002400
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveThe Community Assessment of Psychic Experiences has been widely translated and commonly used as a measure for psychotic experiences and psychosis proneness in clinical and research environments worldwide. This study aimed to establish the psychometric properties (reliability and validity) and factor structure of a Korean version of the Community Assessment of Psychic Experiences (K-CAPE) in the general population.

methodsA total of 1,467 healthy participants completed K-CAPE and other psychiatric symptom-related scales (Paranoia scale, Patient Health Questionnaire-9, Dissociative Experiences Scale-II, and Oxford-Liverpool Inventory of Feelings and Experiences) via online survey. K-CAPE's internal reliability was analyzed using Cronbach's alpha coefficient. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was performed to investigate whether the original three-factor model (positive, negative, and depressive) and other hypothesized multidimensional models (including positive and negative subfactors) were suitable for our data. Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was conducted to explore better alternative factor solutions with a follow-up CFA. To assess convergent and discriminant validity, we examined correlations between K-CAPE subscales with other established measures of psychiatric symptoms.

resultsK-CAPE showed good internal consistency in all original three subscales (all greater than α=0.827). The CFA demonstrated that the multidimensional models exhibited relatively better quality than the original three-dimensional model. Although the model fit indices did not reach their respective optimal thresholds, they were within an acceptable range. Results from the EFA indicated 3-5 factor solutions. In 3-factor solution, "negative-avolition" items were founded to be loaded more consistently with depressive items than with the negative dimension. In 4-factor solution, positive items were divided into two subfactors: "positive-bizarre experiences" and "positive-delusional thoughts," while negative symptoms were separated into two distinct subfactors in 5-factor solution: "negative-avolition (expressive)," and "negative-social (experiential)." The correlation coefficients between K-CAPE subscales and corresponding measurements were significant (p<0.001), confirming the convergent and discriminant validity.

conclusionOur study provides evidence to support the reliability and validity of the K-CAPE and its use as a measure of psychotic symptoms in the Korean population. Although alternative factor structures did not improve the model fit, our EFA findings implicate the use of subfactors to investigate more specific domains of positive and negative symptoms. Given the heterogeneous nature of psychotic symptoms, this may be useful in capturing their different underlying mechanisms.

Indexed as

Community assessment of psychic experiencesProdromal symptomsPsychosisReliability and validityValidation study

Identifiers

PMID37434482
PMCPMC10397777
OpenAlexW4383999081

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.