Trial reportPloS one2025
Are measures of voice hearing distinct from measures of emotional states, recovery and well-being? A factor analysis study.
Trial report in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundConceptually, there may be some overlap between measures of voice hearing experiences and measures assessing broader outcome domains. Despite this possibility, it is unknown whether measures of voice hearing and broader outcomes are assessing similar or separate concepts. This study aimed to examine whether measures of voice hearing are distinct from measures of emotional states, well-being and recovery.
methodsStudy 1 examined whether the Hamilton Program for Schizophrenia Voices Questionnaire is distinct from the Depression Anxiety Stress Scale-21 and the Short Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Well-being Scale using secondary data (n = 401). Study 2 examined whether the Psychotic Symptoms Rating Scale for Auditory Hallucinations is distinct from the Hospital Anxiety Depression Scale and the CHoice of Outcome in Cbt for psychoses short form using baseline data from two randomized controlled trials (n = 187).
resultsIn Study 1, a six-factor model was found to be reasonable and accounted for 54.04% of the total variance (F1: 13%, F2: 11.26%, F3: 8.55%, F4: 4.04%, F5: 7.30%, F6: 9.9%). In Study 2, a five-factor model was identified and accounted for 39.99% of the total variance (F1: 15.52%, F2: 7.47%, F3: 6.53%, F4: 6.70%, F5: 3.78%). Within both studies, the items from the voice hearing measures loaded uniquely onto factors that contained no items from other measures.
conclusionFindings show that measures of voice hearing are distinct from broad outcome measures and therefore are measuring separate concepts. This confirms the psychometric properties of the voice hearing measures and provides some clarity around outcomes and their measurement.
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.