Differential results between self-report and interview-based ratings of risk symptoms of psychosis

Granö, Niklas; Karjalainen, Marjaana; Itkonen, Arja; Anto, Jukka; Edlund, Virve; Heinimaa, Markus; Roine, Mikko

doi:10.1111/j.1751-7893.2011.00266.x

Cited by 20 publications

(24 citation statements)

References 34 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Thereby, COGDIS exhibited a much larger discrepancy between the results of selfreports and interviews for a psychosis-risk status than the 29.9% discrepancy reported for the PROD-screen (Granö et al 2011) which was comparable with the results for COPER.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 71%

“…Contrary to our results, however, acoustic perception disturbances in the PROD-Screen returned a much higher κ (0.964) than visual ones (0.453). However, PRODScreen's acoustic perception disturbances also include hallucinations while its visual perception disturbances remain equivalent to perceptual distortions and are therefore comparable to BS (Granö et al 2011). Consequently, our finding of κ = 0.320 for visual perception disturbances is more comparable to PROD-screen results than the finding of κ = 0.249 for acoustic perception disturbances.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 66%

“…Although BS rely less on interviewer appraisal than attenuated positive symptoms, the FCQ's concurrent validity is only as good as that reported among self-report assessments of attenuated positive symptoms when a cut-off is chosen that optimises both sensitivity and specificity (Kline and Schiffman 2014). Thus, in line with reports on differences between self-report and clinical assessments of BS and attenuated positive symptoms (Granö et al 2011;Maß et al 1997;Ochoa et al 2008;Schultze-Lutter et al 2014;Yung et al 2009), we found a significant overestimation of clinician-rated BS by self-rated BS.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 71%

“…This symptom, however, is one of the few criteria-irrelevant perception disturbances (Klosterkötter et al 2001) and not included in SPI-A/SPI-CY; consequently, it was not analysed in our study. Furthermore, perceptual disturbances have previously shown the highest agreement between self-report and interview versions of the PROD-Screen (Granö et al 2011). Contrary to our results, however, acoustic perception disturbances in the PROD-Screen returned a much higher κ (0.964) than visual ones (0.453).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 95%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Convergent and concurrent validity of the Frankfurt Complaint Questionnaire as a screener for psychosis risk

Michel

Kutschal

Schimmelmann

et al. 2016

Journal of Risk Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

For the broad identification of a risk for a serious mental disorder, valid and reliable screeners are needed to detect those most likely benefitting from a time-consuming and costly in-depth clinical assessment. In the early detection of psychoses, multiple screeners for an ultra-high risk have already been suggested. Yet, no screener explicitly targets an increased risk according to the basic symptom (BS) criteria. We therefore explored the Frankfurt Complaint Questionnaire (FCQ) as a potential screener for BS in comparison to their gold-standard clinical assessment using the Schizophrenia Proneness Instrument (SPI-A/SPI-CY) by examining its convergent (agreement between screener and gold-standard, calculated by the overall percentages of agreement between FCQ and SPI-A/SPI-CY) and concurrent (degree to which a screener can identify individuals with the target condition, examined by diagnostic accuracy measures calculated using thresholds of receiver operating characteristic curves) validity. The sample consisted of 81 patients of a psychosis early detection service (41 with an at-risk mental state or psychosis, and 40 with a nonpsychotic mental disorder). Only two visual perception disturbances reached a beyond chance level of agreement between FCQand SPI-A/SPI-CY. For the BS-criteria 'cognitive perceptive basic symptoms' and 'cognitive disturbances', only insufficient agreement between assessment techniques were detected with Cohen's kappa being 0.228 and 0.130, respectively, with an overestimation by the FCQ. Diagnostic likelihood ratios indicated only a clinically irrelevant increase in the probability of detecting BS criteria, thus, the concurrent validity of both the total of all and of only criteria-relevant FCQ-items was insufficient.Both concurrent and convergent validity of the FCQ were poor, and the FCQ dramatically overestimated clinician-assessed risk. Our results suggest that the FCQ should not be used as a screener for BS-criteria and that the convergent validity is not guaranteed on the basis of face validity alone, but has to be formally assessed.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 71%

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 66%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 71%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 95%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Convergent and concurrent validity of the Frankfurt Complaint Questionnaire as a screener for psychosis risk

Michel

Kutschal

Schimmelmann

et al. 2016

Journal of Risk Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The PRO screen, a 21 item screening instrument, is another instrument; similar to PQ and developed according to SIPS 15 .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Prodromal Questionnaire: translation, adaptation to Portuguese and preliminary results in ultra-high risk individuals and first episode psychosis

Gonçalves

Martins

Gordon

et al. 2012

J. bras. psiquiatr.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: The Prodromal Questionnaire (PQ) is a 92-item self-report screening tool for individuals at ultra-high risk (UHR) to develop psychosis. This study aims to present the translation to Portuguese and preliminary results in UHR and first episode (FE) psychosis in a Portuguese sample. Methods: The PQ was translated from English to Portuguese by two bilingual researchers from the research program on early psychosis of the Instituto de Psiquiatria HCFMUSP, São Paulo, Brazil (ASAS -"Evaluation and Follow up of Adolescents and Young Adults in São Paulo") and back translated by two other researchers. The study participants (n = 11 ) were evaluated through the Portuguese version of the Prodromal Questionnaire (PQ) and SIPS. Results: The individuals at UHR (n = 7) presented a lower score than first episode patients (n = 4). The UHR mean scores and standard deviation on Portuguese version of the PQ were: 13.0 ± 10.0 points on positive symptoms subscale, and FE patients: 33.0 ± 10.0. Conclusion: The UHR and FE patients' of this study presented PQ scores similar to the ones found in the literature; what suggests that it is possible to use the PQ in Brazilian help-seeking individuals as a screening tool. RESUMOObjetivo: O Questionário Prodromal (PQ) é um instrumento de triagem e autorrelato com 92 itens para indivíduos com ultra-alto risco (UHR) para desenvolver psicose. Este estudo tem como objetivo apresentar a tradução desse questionário para português e seus resultados preliminares em uma amostra brasileira de UHR e primeiro episódio (FE) psicótico. Métodos: O PQ foi traduzido do inglês para o português por dois pesquisadores bilíngues do programa de pesquisa sobre psicose precoce do Instituto de Psiquiatria HCFMUSP, São Paulo, Brasil (ASAS "Avaliação e Acompanhamento de Adolescentes e Jovens Adultos em São Paulo") e retrotraduzido por dois outros pesquisadores. Os participantes (n = 11) do estudo foram avaliados por meio da versão em português do Questionário de Prodromal (PQ) e SIPS. Resultados: Os indivíduos com UHR (n = 7) apresentaram menor pontuação do que os pacientes de primeiro episódio (n = 4). Os escores médios e desvio-padrão dos Palavras-chave Ultra-alto risco, primeiro episódio psicótico, instrumento de rastreio.

show abstract

The Psychosis High-Risk State

Fusar‐Poli¹,

Borgwardt²,

Bechdolf³

et al. 2013

JAMA Psychiatry

1,215

492

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Differential results between self-report and interview-based ratings of risk symptoms of psychosis

Abstract: Results suggest that when using screening instruments, risk scores and risk status may vary by the method the information is collected. Checking self-report results by an additional interview is recommended for both clinical and scientific uses.

Cited by 20 publications

References 34 publications

Convergent and concurrent validity of the Frankfurt Complaint Questionnaire as a screener for psychosis risk

Convergent and concurrent validity of the Frankfurt Complaint Questionnaire as a screener for psychosis risk

Prodromal Questionnaire: translation, adaptation to Portuguese and preliminary results in ultra-high risk individuals and first episode psychosis

The Psychosis High-Risk State

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About