Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41224483›Full record

ArticleBMJ mental health2025

Computerised adaptive testing across the paranoia continuum.

Daniel Freeman, Sinéad Lambe, Felicity Waite, Laina Rosebrock, Anthony Morrison, Kate Chapman, Robert Dudley, Stephanie Common, Julia Jones, Thomas Kabir and 4 more

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ mental health, 2025. 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
–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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Trial
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

14 authors.

Daniel FreemanExperimental Psychology, University of Oxford, Oxford, England, UK daniel.freeman@psy.ox.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0002-2541-2197
Sinéad LambeExperimental Psychology, University of Oxford, Oxford, England, UK.
Felicity WaiteExperimental Psychology, University of Oxford, Oxford, England, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-2749-1386
Laina RosebrockExperimental Psychology, University of Oxford, Oxford, England, UK.
Anthony MorrisonGreater Manchester Mental Health NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, UK.
Kate ChapmanAvon and Wiltshire Mental Health Partnership NHS Trust, Bath, UK.
Robert DudleyCumbria Northumberland Tyne and Wear NHS Foundation Trust, Newcastle upon Tyne, England, UK.
Stephanie CommonTees, Tees Esk and Wear Valleys NHS Foundation Trust, Darlington, England, UK.
Julia JonesExperimental Psychology, University of Oxford, Oxford, England, UK.
Thomas KabirExperimental Psychology, University of Oxford, Oxford, England, UK.
Ariane BeckleyExperimental Psychology, University of Oxford, Oxford, England, UK.
Verity WestgateExperimental Psychology, University of Oxford, Oxford, England, UK.
Natalie RouseExperimental Psychology, University of Oxford, Oxford, England, UK.
Bao Sheng LoeThe Psychometrics Centre, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-6310-1608

Funding

NIHR National Institute of Health Research NIHR202385NIHR National Institute of Health Research NIHR204013NIHR National Institute of Health Research NIHR301483
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTo drive improvement in clinical services, an important innovation will be to regularly assess patients' psychotic experiences in order to guide, monitor and, when needed, alter treatment provision. The great heterogeneity in presentations of psychosis means that a comprehensive assessment battery is impractical. A plausible solution is computerised adaptive testing (CAT), which uses real-time computation to present the most informative questions to an individual. Fewer questions are needed to reach similar precision as a full questionnaire.

objectiveWe tested the potential of a CAT for paranoia to halve the number of items that need to be presented.

methodsWe used the established item response theory psychometric properties of the 10-item Revised Green

findingsOn average, the CAT administered 4.2, 4.0, 4.2 and 4.0 items to each person in the four datasets. The correlations between the CAT score and the full-scale paranoia score were 0.95, 0.94, 0.94 and 0.87. Minimal systematic error in paranoia estimation occurred (mean bias scores=-0.01, -0.06, -0.07 to -0.10). Estimation was the least precise for people at the boundary of normal and elevated levels of paranoia.

conclusionsIn datasets with people across the whole paranoia continuum, accurate estimates of paranoia can be provided by a CAT with fewer than half the items of the full scale. Tailored testing may work well with people with psychosis. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: CAT may be a way to implement informative measurement-based care in psychosis services.

Indexed as

Diagnosis, Computer-AssistedParanoid DisordersPsychiatric Status Rating ScalesPsychotic DisordersAdultFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedPsychometricsYoung AdultParanoid DisordersPsychological TestsPsychotic DisordersSchizophrenia

Identifiers

PMID41224483
PMCPMC12612754

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.