Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40438330›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in psychiatry2025

Validation of the Hebrew version of the Community Assessment of Psychic Experiences in a sample of Israeli Hebrew speakers.

Laurina Fazioli, Ahmad Abu-Akel, Bat-Sheva Hadad, Amit Yashar

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in psychiatry, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

4 authors.

Laurina FazioliDepartment of Special Education, University of Haifa, Haifa, Israel.
Ahmad Abu-AkelSchool of Psychological Sciences, University of Haifa, Haifa, Israel.
Bat-Sheva HadadDepartment of Special Education, University of Haifa, Haifa, Israel.
Amit YasharDepartment of Special Education, University of Haifa, Haifa, Israel.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: The Community Assessment of Psychic Experiences (CAPE-42) is a reliable tool to assess psychotic experiences (PEs) in clinical and non-clinical populations, in research and clinical settings. Methods: To investigate cultural differences in PEs and control for pathological behavior in non-clinical groups, we developed a Hebrew version of the CAPE-42 using the translation/back-translation method. A total of 359 Hebrew speaking Israelis participated in an online study comprising the CAPE-42, the Autistic Quotient (AQ), the Center for Epidemiological Study - Depression Scale (CES-D), and the Prodromal Questionnaire - Brief Version (PQ-B). We examined the psychometric properties of the Hebrew CAPE-42-including its factor structure, internal consistency, gender invariance, and validity. We also investigated the independent and interaction effects of psychotic and autistic traits on depressive symptoms. Results: Reliability analysis demonstrated very good internal consistency, and confirmatory factor analysis supported the eight-factor model, which included depressive, social withdrawal, affective flattening, avolition, bizarre experiences, perceptual abnormalities, persecutory ideation, and magical thinking. Demonstrating its predictive and convergent validity, we found significant correlations with the CES-D and the PQ-B. The predictive model showed that both psychotic and autistic traits are independent, non-interacting, predictors of depressive symptoms. Conclusions: The Hebrew CAPE-42 offers a valuable instrument for investigating PEs in the Hebrew-speaking population and facilitates cross-cultural studies.

Indexed as

CAPE-42cross-validationHebrewpsychometric propertiespsychosis

Identifiers

PMID40438330
PMCPMC12116564

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.