4.4 Article

Psychosis risk screening in youth: A validation study of three self-report measures of attenuated psychosis symptoms

期刊

SCHIZOPHRENIA RESEARCH
卷 141, 期 1, 页码 72-77

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.schres.2012.07.022

关键词

Attenuated psychosis syndrome; At risk mental state; Prodrome; Schizophrenia; Screening; Psychometrics; Assessment

资金

  1. Research Seed Funding Initiative (RSFI) grant from University of Maryland, Baltimore County
  2. Division of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry within the University of Maryland

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Brief self-report questionnaires that assess attenuated psychosis symptoms have the potential to quickly and effectively screen many people who may benefit from clinical monitoring or early intervention. The current study sought to examine and compare the criterion validities of attenuated symptoms screening tools with diagnoses obtained from the clinician-administered Structured Interview for Psychosis Risk Syndromes (SIPS). Three screening questionnaires (Prime Screen, Prodromal Questionnaire-Brief, and Youth Psychosis At-Risk Questionnaire-Brief) were administered just prior to the SIPS interview in a sample of adolescents and young adults seeking mental health services. Using thresholds recommended by instrument authors as well as empirically derived optimal thresholds, the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and overall accuracy of each self-report measure with regard to SIPS diagnosis were obtained. Screeners correlated highly with the SIPS and demonstrated equivalent overall efficiency in capturing psychosis risk status. All three screeners appear to be useful and valid assessment tools for attenuated symptoms, with each instrument demonstrating relative benefits. The validation of attenuated symptoms screening tools is an important step toward enabling early, wide-reaching identification of individuals on a course toward psychotic illness. (C) 2012 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据