ArticleBMC psychology2026
Latent profile analysis of delusion-like experiences among emerging adults of Kashmir.
Article in BMC psychology, 2026. 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Delusion-like experiences (DLEs) are understood not as a categorical marker of psychosis but as a dimensional phenomenon distributed across the general population. Contemporary models of psychosis suggest that variations in the frequency and phenomenology of such experiences may reflect meaningful subgroups within nonclinical samples. Against this backdrop, the present study examined the latent profiles of emerging adults DLEs using Peter’s Delusions Inventory (PDI-21).A cross-sectional convenience sample of 498 emerging adults of Kashmir valley completed the PDI-21, and latent profile analysis was conducted on the total score as well as the Distress, Preoccupation, and Conviction dimensions of the scale. Model fit indices supported a 3-profile solution (AIC = 12,736; BIC = 12,921; Entropy = 0.719) comprising weak (29.7%), moderate (45.6%), and strong endorsement profiles (24.7%), with high classification certainty (posterior probabilities = 0.95–0.96). Welch’s ANOVA and Post Hoc analyses confirmed significant differences across all profiles with respect to TPDI and its subscales (all p < .001). Further Chi-square analyses indicated that profiles didn’t differ by gender, education, family type, domicile or SES (all p > .05), suggesting that all profiles were not shaped by socio-demographic variables.Findings of this research indicate that DLEs vary in degree among emerging adults while also revealing a separate subgroup at the upper end of severity. This gradient observed across the profiles provides support for the dimensional view of psychosis, but the marked elevation in distress and conviction dimensions among the strongest endorsement groups aligns with hybrid models proposing a continuous variation with increased psychological impact. These subgroups help clarify when normative experiences may differ in intensity, without implying clinical risk or diagnosis status.
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.