Psychometric evaluation of the Psychotic Symptom Rating Scales

Kronmüller, Klaus‐Thomas; Bock, Anique von; Grupe, Stefanie; Büche, Liesa; Gentner, Nana Christina; Rückl, Sarah; Marx, Jens; Joest, Katharina; Kaiser, Stefan; Vedder, Helmut; Mundt, Christoph

doi:10.1016/j.comppsych.2010.04.014

Cited by 28 publications

(31 citation statements)

References 25 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The major difference between the 3- and 4-dimensional solutions was that the 4-dimensional solution placed disruption/control and location/origin onto distinct dimensions (referred to as “control characteristics” and “cognitive interpretation,” respectively), whereas they were merged in the 3-dimensional solution (under “cognitive interpretation”). With respect to the DS, all studies agreed on 2 underlying dimensions although disruption was placed with amount/duration of delusions in some studies 1 , 16 , 17 but with distress in another 18 …”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 89%

“…1,16–18 These studies suggested either a 3-dimensional model, consisting of emotional characteristics, physical characteristics, and cognitive interpretation, 1,16 or a 4-dimensional model consisting of emotional characteristics, physical characteristics, control characteristics, and cognitive interpretation. 17,18 In this study, we evaluated how well these models fit the data, and a third (novel) model was also developed using exploratory PCA. In order to use exploratory PCA to develop a novel model, care must be taken to avoid circular reasoning.…”

Section: Hallucinations Scalementioning

confidence: 99%

“…1,16–18 One model placed Disruption with Amount/Duration, 1,16,17 and the contrasting model placed Disruption with Distress. 18 These 2 models are contrasted here using SEM.…”

Section: Delusions Scalementioning

confidence: 99%

“…For example, the number of dimensions underlying the AHS have been proposed to be 3 (emotional, physical, and cognitive) in some studies (Drake et al 16 , N = 257; Haddock 1 , N = 71) but 4 (emotional, physical, control, and cognitive) in others (Kronmuller et al 17 , N = 200; Steel et al 18 , N = 276). The major difference between the 3- and 4-dimensional solutions was that the 4-dimensional solution placed disruption/control and location/origin onto distinct dimensions (referred to as “control characteristics” and “cognitive interpretation,” respectively), whereas they were merged in the 3-dimensional solution (under “cognitive interpretation”).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Symptom Dimensions of the Psychotic Symptom Rating Scales in Psychosis: A Multisite Study

Woodward

Jung

Hwang

et al. 2014

Schizophrenia Bulletin

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Psychotic Symptom Rating Scales (PSYRATS) is an instrument designed to quantify the severity of delusions and hallucinations and is typically used in research studies and clinical settings focusing on people with psychosis and schizophrenia. It is comprised of the auditory hallucinations (AHS) and delusions subscales (DS), but these subscales do not necessarily reflect the psychological constructs causing intercorrelation between clusters of scale items. Identification of these constructs is important in some clinical and research contexts because item clustering may be caused by underlying etiological processes of interest. Previous attempts to identify these constructs have produced conflicting results. In this study, we compiled PSYRATS data from 12 sites in 7 countries, comprising 711 participants for AHS and 520 for DS. We compared previously proposed and novel models of underlying constructs using structural equation modeling. For the AHS, a novel 4-dimensional model provided the best fit, with latent variables labeled Distress (negative content, distress, and control), Frequency (frequency, duration, and disruption), Attribution (location and origin of voices), and Loudness (loudness item only). For the DS, a 2-dimensional solution was confirmed, with latent variables labeled Distress (amount/intensity) and Frequency (preoccupation, conviction, and disruption). The within-AHS and within-DS dimension intercorrelations were higher than those between subscales, with the exception of the AHS and DS Distress dimensions, which produced a correlation that approached the range of the within-scale correlations. Recommendations are provided for integrating these underlying constructs into research and clinical applications of the PSYRATS.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 89%

Section: Hallucinations Scalementioning

confidence: 99%

“…1,16–18 One model placed Disruption with Amount/Duration, 1,16,17 and the contrasting model placed Disruption with Distress. 18 These 2 models are contrasted here using SEM.…”

Section: Delusions Scalementioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Symptom Dimensions of the Psychotic Symptom Rating Scales in Psychosis: A Multisite Study

Woodward

Jung

Hwang

et al. 2014

Schizophrenia Bulletin

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A limitation of the present study is that only inpatients were assessed [33,34,35]. A broader deficit in adaptive coping in inpatients can be expected compared to community-treated patients [28].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Heidelberg Coping Scales for Delusions: Psychometric Evaluation of an Expert Rating Instrument

Rückl

Büche²,

Gentner³

et al. 2012

Psychopathology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Coping is of substantial relevance in the treatment and course of psychiatric disorders. Standardized instruments to assess coping with psychotic symptoms, particularly delusions, are rare. The aim of this study was to develop and evaluate the psychometric properties of a new instrument to assess coping strategies in the context of delusional experiences: the Heidelberg Coping Scales for Delusions (HCSD). Methods: Two hundred and twelve inpatients with schizophrenia spectrum disorders and affective disorders currently experiencing delusions were interviewed with the HCSD and other coping assessment instruments. Psychometric properties and factor structure were analyzed. Results: The HCSD showed good inter-rater reliability and convergent validity. Factor analysis yielded an interpretable structure with five factors: resource-oriented coping, medical care, distraction, cognitive coping, and depressive coping. Symptomatic behavior, due to its particular characteristics, was considered apart. Conclusion: The HCSD is a reliable and valid instrument for the assessment of coping strategies in patients with delusions. Further research is needed to evaluate coping changes over time and their influence on treatment and clinical outcomes.

show abstract

A comparison between auditory hallucinations, interpretation of voices, and formal thought disorder in dissociative identity disorder and schizophrenia spectrum disorders

Dorahy

Nesbit²,

Palmer³

et al. 2023

J Clin Psychol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives Dissociative identity disorder (DID) and schizophrenia‐spectrum disorders (SSD) share some overlapping phenomenological features making accurate diagnosis more difficult. Childhood abuse and depersonalization have been associated with psychotic symptoms across psychological disorders but their relationship to psychotic phenomenology remains understudied. Method The present study used quantitative measures to examine (1) similarities and differences in phenomenological voice hearing experiences, interpretations of voices, and thought disorder symptoms in individuals with DID (n = 44) or SSD (n = 45), and (2) whether depersonalization and childhood maltreatment influenced the initial pattern of findings. Results DID participants perceived their voices as being more internally located and generated, louder, and uncontrollable than SSD participants. Furthermore, the DID participants endorsed a greater frequency of thought disorder symptoms. Adding the covariates (sex, depersonalization, and child maltreatment) did not change the findings associated with location and origin of voices, and derailment, but there were now no differences in loudness or controllability. However, the schizophrenia sample reported more distress and metaphysical beliefs associated with voices, as well as more thought disorder incoherence and word substitution with the covariates controlled. Conclusion While tentative, metaphysical interpretations of voices, incoherent thoughts and word substitution may reflect more psychotic processes.

show abstract

Psychometric evaluation of the Psychotic Symptom Rating Scales

Cited by 28 publications

References 25 publications

Symptom Dimensions of the Psychotic Symptom Rating Scales in Psychosis: A Multisite Study

Symptom Dimensions of the Psychotic Symptom Rating Scales in Psychosis: A Multisite Study

Heidelberg Coping Scales for Delusions: Psychometric Evaluation of an Expert Rating Instrument

A comparison between auditory hallucinations, interpretation of voices, and formal thought disorder in dissociative identity disorder and schizophrenia spectrum disorders

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About