ArticleFrontiers in pharmacology2026
Validation and reliability of the Thai version of the glasgow antipsychotic side-effect scale (GASS) in patients with schizophrenia.
Article in Frontiers in pharmacology, 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To examine the validity and reliability of the Thai version of Glasgow Antipsychotic Side-effect Scale (GASS) in patients with schizophrenia. Method: A cross-sectional analytical study was conducted among patients aged 20 years and older who had been receiving continuous antipsychotic treatment for at least 3 months and attended Suan Prung Psychiatric Hospital and Maharaj Nakorn Chiang Mai Hospital, Chiang Mai, Thailand. The GASS was translated into Thai using a forward-backward translation process. Psychometric properties were evaluated, including construct validity assessed by confirmatory factor analysis (CFA, n = 72), concurrent validity examined through correlations between GASS scores and the Thai Perceived Stress Scale-10 (T-PSS-10), EQ-5D-5L, and the Pharmacist Medication Adherence Scale (PMAS), as well as reliability assessed by internal consistency and test-retest reliability (n = 53, with a 7-day interval). Results: The CFA model demonstrated marginal fit to the empirical data (CFI = 0.919, TLI = 0.909, RMSEA = 0.059, SRMR = 0.141). GASS scores were positively correlated with T-PSS-10 (Spearman's rho = 0.41) and negatively correlated with EQ-5D-5L utility scores, EQ-5D-5L visual analogue scale scores, and PMAS (Spearman's rho = -0.64, -0.39, and -0.24, respectively), with statistical significance (p < 0.05). The Thai version of the GASS demonstrated good internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha = 0.83) and good test-retest reliability (ICC = 0.797, p < 0.05). Conclusion: The Thai version of the GASS shows preliminary evidence of acceptable validity and reliability and can be appropriately used to assess antipsychotic side effects in patients with schizophrenia in both clinical practice and research settings.
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.