ArticleSchizophrenia bulletin2026
The Readability of Patient-Reported Measures in Early Psychosis.
Article in Schizophrenia bulletin, 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
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundPatient-reported measures are increasingly central to early intervention in psychosis. Many persons with psychosis have lower educational attainment than the general population and cognitive difficulties, making the readability of measures salient for this population. However, the readability of patient-reported measures in psychosis has never been investigated. This study assessed the readability levels of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) and patient-reported experience measures (PREMs) in early intervention in psychosis. STUDY
designPROMs and PREMs were identified from a scoping review of measures used in early intervention services for psychosis (January 2000-January 2024). Of 111 measures identified, 104 (89 PROMs; 15 PREMs) were assessed using mean grade levels derived from 3 established readability formulas (Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level, Simple Measure of Gobbledygook index, FORCAST formula), applied to instructions, items, and total scales. STUDY
resultsOverall, 82.7% of patient-reported measures exceeded the recommended 6th-grade reading level. Instructions were harder to read than items (mean readability: 9.44 vs. 7.95; t(90) = 6.54, P < .001). PREMs demanded higher readability levels than PROMs. Readability scores were different across formulas, with Flesch-Kincaid consistently producing lower scores. Except for one, the strikingly few measures co-developed with patients (n = 14) also exceeded 6th-grade reading level.
conclusionsMost patient-reported measures in early psychosis exceed recommended readability levels, raising concerns about accessibility, validity, and whose experiences are represented in patient-reported data. This creates impetus for integrating readability assessments into measures development. More fundamentally, centering the participation of persons with lived experience can support readable, relevant, and patient-centered assessments reflecting the language, priorities, and realities of people with psychosis, and advance epistemic justice.
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.