↓ Skip to main content

Symptom assessment in early psychosis: The use of well-established rating scales in clinical high-risk and recent-onset populations

Overview of attention for article published in Psychiatry Research, August 2014
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
16 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
92 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
Symptom assessment in early psychosis: The use of well-established rating scales in clinical high-risk and recent-onset populations
Published in
Psychiatry Research, August 2014
DOI 10.1016/j.psychres.2014.07.047
Pubmed ID
Authors

Daniel Fulford, Rahel Pearson, Barbara K. Stuart, Melissa Fisher, Daniel H. Mathalon, Sophia Vinogradov, Rachel L. Loewy

Abstract

Symptom assessment in early psychosis research typically relies on scales validated in chronic schizophrenia samples. Our goal was to inform investigators who are selecting symptom scales for early psychosis research. We described measure characteristics, baseline scores, and scale inter-relationships in clinical-high-risk (CHR) and recent-onset psychotic disorder (RO) samples using the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale, Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale, Scale for the Assessment of Positive Symptoms, and Scale for the Assessment of Negative Symptoms; for the CHR group only, we included the Scale of Prodromal Symptoms. For investigators selecting symptom measures in intervention or longitudinal studies, we also examined the relationship of symptom scales with psychosocial functioning. In both samples, symptom subscales in the same domain, across measures, were moderately to highly intercorrelated. Within all measures, positive symptoms were not correlated with negative symptoms, but disorganized symptoms overlapped with both positive and negative symptoms. Functioning was significantly related to negative and disorganized, but not positive, symptoms in both samples on most measures. Findings suggest strong overlap in symptom severity ratings among the most common scales. In recent-onset samples, each has strengths and weaknesses. In CHR samples, they appear to add little information above and beyond the SOPS.

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 92 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Canada 2 2%
United States 1 1%
Unknown 89 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 15 16%
Student > Bachelor 15 16%
Researcher 13 14%
Student > Master 11 12%
Student > Postgraduate 6 7%
Other 17 18%
Unknown 15 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 37 40%
Medicine and Dentistry 23 25%
Neuroscience 4 4%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 2%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 2%
Other 4 4%
Unknown 20 22%
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 04 October 2014.
All research outputs
#22,759,452
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Psychiatry Research
#6,732
of 7,587 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#206,173
of 240,206 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Psychiatry Research
#130
of 156 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,587 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.3. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 240,206 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 156 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.