OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to examine the reliability, validity and factor structure of the Community Assessment of Psychic Experiences (CAPE), a 42-item self-report questionnaire. We analyzed the internal consistency of the CAPE to determine whether the 3-factor structure (positive, negative and depressive symptoms) found by the CAPE authors would also be found in our sample. METHOD: A sample of 2275 individuals from the general community in the Montreal area completed the questionnaire in either French or English. RESULTS: The internal consistencies of the original three subscales were good and the confirmatory factor models had a good fit. The exploratory factor analysis suggested a 3-5-factor solution, without improving the alternative factor structures. The 4-factor solution separated positive symptoms into factors we called 'bizarre positive symptoms' and 'social delusions', and the 5-factor solution separated positive symptoms further and included a 'popular psychic beliefs' factor. Results suggest that the scalability might be improved by shortening the original questionnaire to 23 items with the same 3 original scales. CONCLUSION: We support the internal consistency of the CAPE. Although alternative scaling (4 and 5 factors) did not improve the model fit, researchers interested in distinguishing 3 factors of positive symptoms could find utility in these two new scales. Finally, reducing the number of CAPE items could be useful for shorter surveys. Future studies should test the implications of these suggestions.
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to examine the reliability, validity and factor structure of the Community Assessment of Psychic Experiences (CAPE), a 42-item self-report questionnaire. We analyzed the internal consistency of the CAPE to determine whether the 3-factor structure (positive, negative and depressive symptoms) found by the CAPE authors would also be found in our sample. METHOD: A sample of 2275 individuals from the general community in the Montreal area completed the questionnaire in either French or English. RESULTS: The internal consistencies of the original three subscales were good and the confirmatory factor models had a good fit. The exploratory factor analysis suggested a 3-5-factor solution, without improving the alternative factor structures. The 4-factor solution separated positive symptoms into factors we called 'bizarre positive symptoms' and 'social delusions', and the 5-factor solution separated positive symptoms further and included a 'popular psychic beliefs' factor. Results suggest that the scalability might be improved by shortening the original questionnaire to 23 items with the same 3 original scales. CONCLUSION: We support the internal consistency of the CAPE. Although alternative scaling (4 and 5 factors) did not improve the model fit, researchers interested in distinguishing 3 factors of positive symptoms could find utility in these two new scales. Finally, reducing the number of CAPE items could be useful for shorter surveys. Future studies should test the implications of these suggestions.
Authors: Maria Hedelin; Marie Löf; Marita Olsson; Tommy Lewander; Björn Nilsson; Christina M Hultman; Elisabete Weiderpass Journal: BMC Psychiatry Date: 2010-05-26 Impact factor: 3.630
Authors: E Daneluzzo; P Stratta; S Di Tommaso; R Pacifico; I Riccardi; A Rossi Journal: Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol Date: 2009-03-21 Impact factor: 4.328
Authors: Caroline Wüsten; Björn Schlier; Edo S Jaya; Eduardo Fonseca-Pedrero; Emmanuelle Peters; Hélène Verdoux; Todd S Woodward; Tim B Ziermans; Tania M Lincoln Journal: Schizophr Bull Date: 2018-10-17 Impact factor: 9.306
Authors: Marloes Vleeschouwer; Chris D Schubart; Cecile Henquet; Inez Myin-Germeys; Willemijn A van Gastel; Manon H J Hillegers; Jim J van Os; Marco P M Boks; Eske M Derks Journal: PLoS One Date: 2014-01-22 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Izabela Pilecka; Sven Sandin; Abraham Reichenberg; Robert K R Scragg; Anthony David; Elisabete Weiderpass Journal: Front Psychiatry Date: 2017-06-19 Impact factor: 4.157