↓ 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, December 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
2 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
8 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
66 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, December 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.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 66 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Canada 2 3%
United States 1 2%
Unknown 63 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 14 21%
Researcher 12 18%
Student > Master 10 15%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 11%
Student > Bachelor 5 8%
Other 13 20%
Unknown 5 8%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 26 39%
Medicine and Dentistry 23 35%
Neuroscience 3 5%
Social Sciences 1 2%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 2%
Other 2 3%
Unknown 10 15%

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 09 October 2014.
All research outputs
#9,238,167
of 12,018,811 outputs
Outputs from Psychiatry Research
#3,037
of 4,486 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#134,219
of 216,947 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Psychiatry Research
#43
of 70 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,018,811 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,486 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.2. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% 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 216,947 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 70 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.