The construct validity of the Inventory of Psychotic‐Like Anomalous Self‐Experiences (IPASE) as a measure of minimal self‐disturbance: Preliminary data

Abstract

These preliminary data indicate construct validity of the IPASE, demonstrating both convergent and discriminant validity. The IPASE may be suitable as a screener measure for minimal self-disturbance, but should not be used as a replacement to measure the construct of minimal self-disturbance, which requires considerable psychopathological sophistication.

Ontological insecurity I: Psychometric development of a new measure and relationship to subclinical psychotic‐like experiences

“…Laing () made it clear that ontological insecurity cannot be identified with psychosis. Accordingly, we do not believe our findings to be explicable in terms of the problem of shared method variance characteristic of other recent studies employing poorly defined, a theoretical measures of self‐disturbance (e.g., Cicero et al, ; Haug et al, ; Nelson et al, ). While it is true that some of the items on the OIS‐34 relate to unusual experiences, they do not refer to specific symptoms such as delusions or hallucinations.…”

“…Indeed, as was pointed out earlier, the practice of attempting to identify persons at "high risk" for psychosis appears questionable on both conceptual and clinical grounds (van Os & Guloksuz, 2017). PLEs tend to appear in conjunction with myriad "anomalous" self-experiences (Nelson et al, 2019), stress, relationship, and personal problems (Harrop & Trower, 2003;Turley, Drake, Killackey, & Yung, 2019) and are often accompanied by symptoms of anxiety and depression (Turley et al, 2019;van Os & Linscott, 2012). Furthermore, developmental phase of life also appears relevant with onset of schizophrenia commonly occurring in adolescence, a crucial phase of identity formation (Harrop & Trower, 2003 Laing's (1960) concept of ontological insecurity is consonant with the philosophy underpinning the continuum model.…”

“…Within the recent resurgence of interest in phenomenological perspectives on psychosis (Evans, Reid, Preston, Palmier‐Claus, & Sellwood, ; Hamm, Leonhardt, Ridenour, Lysaker, & Lysaker, ; Koren, Lacoua, Rothschild‐Yakar, & Parnas, ; Nelson et al, ; Nelson, Parnas, & Sass, ; Raballo et al, ), ontological insecurity has been reduced to one of several forms of “self‐disturbance” (e.g., Parnas & Sass, ; Raballo, Sæbye, & Parnas, ), thereby, diminishing its conceptual significance (Laing, ; Marlowe, ). The two most widely employed measures, developed within this approach, have tended to be a theoretical, focusing upon the experience of psychosis, including specific symptoms: The Examination of Anomalous Self‐Experience interview (EASE; Parnas et al, ) and its self‐report (IPASE: Inventory of Psychotic‐like Anomalous Self‐Experiences; Cicero, Neis, Klaunig, & Trask, ) format, intercorrelating 0.92 (Nelson et al, ). Indeed, the items on the EASE are drawn from, "… descriptions obtained from patients suffering from schizophrenia spectrum disorders …” (Parnas et al, p. 236) and purport to assess various psychotic symptoms including, “… thought interference … semantically disconnected from the main line of thinking … visual hallucinations … experiences of the entire body becoming thinner, shorter, contracting, enlarging … or not existing … or disappearing …", as well as subthreshold auditory hallucinations and delusional ideas of reference and influence (Parnas et al, , pp.…”

“…249–253). The problem in attempting to relate such measures to psychosis and psychotic‐like symptoms (Haug et al, ; Nelson et al, ) arises insofar as the measurement of self‐disturbance is conflated with the measurement of the very phenomena it seeks to explain.…”

Prevalence, dimensionality and clinical relevance of self‐disturbances and psychotic‐like experiences in Polish young adults: a latent class analysis approach.

“…However, since 2017 there is a new tool available for measuring SD in a self‐report manner – The Inventory of Psychotic‐Like Anomalous Self‐Experiences (IPASE) (Cicero, Neis, Klaunig, & Trask, ). A very recent study has confirmed construct validity of the IPASE with correlation coefficients with the EASE reaching about 0.9 (Nelson et al, ), which suggests the IPASE may be a satisfactory proxy or initial assessment of SD. As a result, it is possible to study large non‐clinical populations and screen for the possible presence of SD as well as its significance and relationship with other psychopathological variables.…”