↓ Skip to main content

Concordance of child self‐reported psychotic experiences with interview‐ and observer‐based psychotic experiences

Overview of attention for article published in Early Intervention in Psychiatry, March 2018
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
23 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
81 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Concordance of child self‐reported psychotic experiences with interview‐ and observer‐based psychotic experiences
Published in
Early Intervention in Psychiatry, March 2018
DOI 10.1111/eip.12547
Pubmed ID
Authors

Steffie V. Gundersen, Robert Goodman, Lars Clemmensen, Martin K. Rimvall, Anja Munkholm, Charlotte Ulrikka Rask, Anne Mette Skovgaard, Jim Van Os, Pia Jeppesen

Abstract

Valid instruments for the early identification of psychotic experiences (PE) and symptoms in youths are urgently needed for large-scale preventive interventions. A new section of The-Development-and-Well-Being Assessment (DAWBA) measuring child self-reported PE has yet to be validated. The current study aimed to investigate the concurrent validity of DAWBA-based self-reported PE (PE-S) with regard to interview-based measures of PE (PE-I). Participants were 1571 (47.8% male) children of age 11 to 12 years from the Copenhagen Child Cohort 2000 (CCC2000) with complete data from both the online PE-section of DAWBA and the following face-to-face interview and assessment of PE. The DAWBA-PE-section asks the child 10 questions covering auditory and visual hallucinations, delusional ideas and subjective thought disturbances ever in life; and attributions to sleep, fever, illness or drug intake. The interview-based assessment of PE was performed by trained professionals using 22 items from The Schedule for Affective Disorders and Schizophrenia for School Aged Children-Present and Lifetime Version (KSADS-PL). The two assessments were completed independently. The prevalence of PE-S was 28.1% (24.3% for PE-S with no frequent attributions), compared with 10.2% for PE-I. The predictive values of PE-S for any PE-I were: sensitivity = 73.8%, specificity = 77.1%, positive predictive value (PPV) = 26.8% and negative predictive value (NPV) = 96.3%. Self-reported visual hallucinations had the best overall predictive values with a sensitivity of 43.1%, specificity of 94.0%, PPV of 44.8% and a NPV of 93.6% for any PE-I. The DAWBA-section proved valuable as a screening tool for PE in the youth general population.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 81 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 81 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 14 17%
Student > Master 12 15%
Researcher 6 7%
Student > Bachelor 4 5%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 4%
Other 9 11%
Unknown 33 41%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 19 23%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 10%
Medicine and Dentistry 5 6%
Social Sciences 4 5%
Neuroscience 3 4%
Other 3 4%
Unknown 39 48%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 15 March 2018.
All research outputs
#18,590,133
of 23,026,672 outputs
Outputs from Early Intervention in Psychiatry
#763
of 907 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#258,492
of 332,633 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Early Intervention in Psychiatry
#17
of 20 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,026,672 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 907 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.0. This one is in the 8th percentile – i.e., 8% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 332,633 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 20 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.