ArticleBMC psychiatry2025
A study on the reliability and validity of CWS in Chinese schizophrenia patients.
Article in BMC psychiatry, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Predicting Social Cognitive Outcomes in Adolescent-Onset Schizophrenia: A Hierarchical Analysis of Pharmacogenetic, Clinical, and Environmental Factors.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Currently, the diagnosis and assessment of schizophrenia remain challenging. This study aimed to examine the reliability and validity of the Crisi Wartegg System (CWS) for assessing schizophrenia within the Chinese cultural context, with the goal of exploring its potential as an auxiliary evaluation tool. A total of 50 individuals diagnosed with schizophrenia and 50 healthy controls were recruited. All participants completed the Wartegg Drawing Test and the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2 (MMPI-2), and Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) scores were collected from patients with schizophrenia. Inter-rater reliability of the CWS was evaluated using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). Structural validity was assessed by comparing CWS indices between the schizophrenia and healthy groups, as well as by examining correlations between CWS indices and MMPI-2 scales. Criterion validity was verified by analyzing the associations between CWS indices and PANSS scores. Results indicated that the CWS demonstrated moderate to high inter-rater reliability. Significant group differences were observed in EC+%, FQ+%, P%, and P+% scores, and several CWS indices were significantly correlated with MMPI-2 scales, including F (Infrequency) and Sc (Schizophrenia), supporting its structural validity. In conclusion, the findings provide evidence for the reliability and validity of the CWS in schizophrenia assessment. CWS indices not only differentiate individuals with schizophrenia from healthy controls but also show significant correlations with selected MMPI-2 scales, further confirming its structural validity. These results establish a foundation for the application of the CWS in cross-cultural clinical practice for schizophrenia.
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.