ArticlePsychological medicine2024
Cross-cultural validation of the revised Green et al., paranoid thoughts scale.
Article in Psychological medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Psychometric Validation of the Italian 8-Item Green Paranoid Thoughts Scale (GPTS-8).International journal of methods in psychiatric research · 2026Article
- Validation of the Eight-Item Paranoid Thoughts Scale (GPTS-8) in Tunisian Arab Adults.International journal of methods in psychiatric research · 2025Article
- A psychometric evaluation of the German Revised-Green et al. Paranoid Thoughts Scale (R-GPTS) in clinical and non-clinical groups.BMC psychiatry · 2025Article
- Computerised adaptive testing across the paranoia continuum.BMJ mental health · 2025Article
- Article
- Measuring Paranoid Beliefs in Adolescents: A Comparison of the Revised-Green et al.'s Paranoid Thoughts Scale (R-GPTS) and the Bird Checklist of Adolescent Paranoia (B-CAP).Research on child and adolescent psychopathology · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundWith efforts increasing worldwide to understand and treat paranoia, there is a pressing need for cross-culturally valid assessments of paranoid beliefs. The recently developed Revised Green et al., Paranoid Thoughts Scale (R-GPTS) constitutes an easy to administer self-report assessment of mild ideas of reference and more severe persecutory thoughts. Moreover, it comes with clinical cut-offs for increased usability in research and clinical practice. With multiple translations of the R-GPTS already available and in use, a formal test of its measurement invariance is now needed.
methodsUsing data from a multinational cross-sectional online survey in the UK, USA, Australia, Germany, and Hong Kong (
resultsWe found sufficient fit for the two-factor structure (ideas of reference, persecutory thoughts) of the R-GPTS across cultures. Measurement invariance was found for the persecutory thoughts subscale, indicating that it does measure the same construct across the tested samples in the same way. For ideas of reference, we found no scalar invariance, which was traced back to (mostly higher) item intercepts in the Hong Kong sample.
conclusionWe found sufficient invariance for the persecutory thoughts scale, which is of substantial practical importance, as it is used for the screening of clinical paranoia. A direct comparison of the ideas of reference sum-scores between cultures, however, may lead to an over-estimation of these milder forms of paranoia in some (non-western) cultures.
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.