Akinkunle Owoso1, David M Ndetei2, Anne W Mbwayo3, Victoria N Mutiso3, Lincoln I Khasakhala3, Daniel Mamah4. 1. Department of Psychiatry, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO, USA. Electronic address: owosoa@psychiatry.wustl.edu. 2. Africa Mental Health Foundation, Nairobi, Kenya; Department of Psychiatry, University of Nairobi, Kenya. 3. Africa Mental Health Foundation, Nairobi, Kenya. 4. Department of Psychiatry, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The PRIME screen is a self-administered questionnaire designed to quickly assess individuals at risk for developing a psychotic disorder. It is shorter in both length and administration time compared to the Structured Interview for Psychosis-Risk Syndromes (SIPS)-a standard instrument for psychosis prodromal risk assessment. Validation of the PRIME against the SIPS has not been reported in large non-clinical populations. METHODS: A culturally modified version of the PRIME screen (mPRIME) was administered to Kenyan youth between the ages of 14 and 29. 182 completed both the SIPS and mPRIME. Validation measures (sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value) were calculated and the study sample was then broken down into true positives, false positives, and false negatives for comparison on different quantitative measures. RESULTS: Using previously suggested thresholds for a positive screen, the mPRIME had a sensitivity of 40% and a specificity of 64.8% for our entire sample. Positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV) were 12.3% and 89.7%, respectively. Breaking the sample down by questionnaire outcome showed that true-positive individuals scored higher on average rate and intensity of endorsement of mPRIME items compared to false-positive and false-negatives, while false-negatives on average registered disagreement on all mPRIME questionnaire items. CONCLUSIONS: The mPRIME does not appear to be an effective screener of at-risk individuals for psychosis in our non-clinical sample. Further validation efforts in other general populations are warranted.
BACKGROUND: The PRIME screen is a self-administered questionnaire designed to quickly assess individuals at risk for developing a psychotic disorder. It is shorter in both length and administration time compared to the Structured Interview for Psychosis-Risk Syndromes (SIPS)-a standard instrument for psychosis prodromal risk assessment. Validation of the PRIME against the SIPS has not been reported in large non-clinical populations. METHODS: A culturally modified version of the PRIME screen (mPRIME) was administered to Kenyan youth between the ages of 14 and 29. 182 completed both the SIPS and mPRIME. Validation measures (sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value) were calculated and the study sample was then broken down into true positives, false positives, and false negatives for comparison on different quantitative measures. RESULTS: Using previously suggested thresholds for a positive screen, the mPRIME had a sensitivity of 40% and a specificity of 64.8% for our entire sample. Positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV) were 12.3% and 89.7%, respectively. Breaking the sample down by questionnaire outcome showed that true-positive individuals scored higher on average rate and intensity of endorsement of mPRIME items compared to false-positive and false-negatives, while false-negatives on average registered disagreement on all mPRIME questionnaire items. CONCLUSIONS: The mPRIME does not appear to be an effective screener of at-risk individuals for psychosis in our non-clinical sample. Further validation efforts in other general populations are warranted.
Authors: M Heinimaa; R K R Salokangas; T Ristkari; M Plathin; J Huttunen; T Ilonen; T Suomela; J Korkeila; T H McGlashan Journal: Int J Methods Psychiatr Res Date: 2003 Impact factor: 4.035
Authors: Tandy J Miller; Thomas H McGlashan; Joanna L Rosen; Kristen Cadenhead; Tyrone Cannon; Joseph Ventura; William McFarlane; Diana O Perkins; Godfrey D Pearlson; Scott W Woods Journal: Schizophr Bull Date: 2003 Impact factor: 9.306
Authors: Helga K Ising; Wim Veling; Rachel L Loewy; Marleen W Rietveld; Judith Rietdijk; Sara Dragt; Rianne M C Klaassen; Dorien H Nieman; Lex Wunderink; Don H Linszen; Mark van der Gaag Journal: Schizophr Bull Date: 2012-04-19 Impact factor: 9.306
Authors: Alison R Yung; Lisa J Phillips; Hok Pan Yuen; Shona M Francey; Colleen A McFarlane; Mats Hallgren; Patrick D McGorry Journal: Schizophr Res Date: 2003-03-01 Impact factor: 4.939
Authors: Tyrone D Cannon; Theo G M van Erp; Carrie E Bearden; Rachel Loewy; Paul Thompson; Arthur W Toga; Matti O Huttunen; Matcheri S Keshavan; Larry J Seidman; Ming T Tsuang Journal: Schizophr Bull Date: 2003 Impact factor: 9.306
Authors: W Veling; J K Burns; E M Makhathini; S Mtshemla; S Nene; S Shabalala; N Mbatha; A Tomita; J Baumgartner; I Susser; H W Hoek; E Susser Journal: Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol Date: 2018-11-09 Impact factor: 4.328
Authors: Kim Maijer; Mark Hayward; Charles Fernyhough; Monica E Calkins; Martin Debbané; Renaud Jardri; Ian Kelleher; Andrea Raballo; Aikaterini Rammou; James G Scott; Ann K Shinn; Laura A Steenhuis; Daniel H Wolf; Agna A Bartels-Velthuis Journal: Schizophr Bull Date: 2019-02-01 Impact factor: 9.306
Authors: A Owoso; S Jansen; D M Ndetei; A Musau; V N Mutiso; C Mudenge; A Ngirababyeyi; A Gasovya; D Mamah Journal: Epidemiol Psychiatr Sci Date: 2017-01-26 Impact factor: 6.892