ArticleInternational journal of methods in psychiatric research2026
Psychometric Validation of the Italian 8-Item Green Paranoid Thoughts Scale (GPTS-8).
Article in International journal of methods in psychiatric research, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundParanoid ideation ranges from mild social-evaluative concerns to persecutory beliefs. The eight-item Green Paranoid Thoughts Scale (GPTS-8) provides a brief assessment of this continuum through reference and persecution items.
aimsTo examine the psychometric properties of the Italian version of the GPTS-8, including its factorial structure, reliability, and convergent validity, in a non-clinical university sample.
methods243 university students completed the Italian GPTS-8 and the Prodromal Questionnaire-Brief (PQ-B). Confirmatory factor analyses compared unidimensional, two-factor, bifactor, and second-order models using maximum likelihood estimation with robust standard errors. Reliability was evaluated using Cronbach's α and McDonald's ω, and item-level contributions to the general factor were examined using bifactor indices (ECV, ωH, IECV).
resultsThe bifactor model showed the best fit, supporting a dominant general paranoia factor alongside specific reference and persecution dimensions. Internal consistency was good for the GPTS-8 total score (α = 0.78) and acceptable for the subscales (respectively, 0.68 and 0.66). Item-level diagnostics indicated that several items primarily reflected the general factor, consistent with a hierarchical organization of paranoid ideation. Item response patterns suggested greater sensitivity at moderate to higher levels of the latent trait. Participants scoring above established PQ-B thresholds showed significantly higher GPTS-8 scores across dimensions, supporting convergent validity.
conclusionsThe Italian GPTS-8 showed satisfactory psychometric properties, providing incremental evidence for its structural validity in an Italian-speaking context. However, given the use of a convenience student sample, findings should be considered preliminary and not directly generalizable to broader or clinical populations.
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.