Björn Schlier1, Edo S Jaya2, Steffen Moritz3, Tania M Lincoln2. 1. University of Hamburg, Department of Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy, Von-Melle-Park 5, 20146, Hamburg, Germany. Electronic address: bjoern.schlier@uni-hamburg.de. 2. University of Hamburg, Department of Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy, Von-Melle-Park 5, 20146, Hamburg, Germany. 3. Department of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, University Medical Centre Hamburg-Eppendorf, Martinistraße 52, D-20246, Hamburg, Germany.
Abstract
AIM: This study examined the factorial and criterion validity of the Community Assessment of Psychic Experiences (CAPE). We compared the validity of the original three-dimensional model and a recently proposed multidimensional model, in which positive symptoms are subdivided into the subfactors hallucinations, bizarre experiences, paranoia, grandiosity and magical thinking and negative symptoms are subdivided into social withdrawal, affective flattening and avolition. METHODS: Eleven community (n=934) and three patient samples (n=112) were combined and the proposed models were tested using confirmatory factor analysis. Criterion validity was calculated based on self-report measures for depression and paranoia as well as observer-based ratings for positive and negative symptoms. RESULTS: The multidimensional model showed better relative quality (AIC, BIC) than the original three-dimensional model of the CAPE, but both models showed acceptable absolute model-fit (RMSEA, SRMR). The criterion validity was good for the positive symptom scales and negative symptom subfactors social withdrawal and affective flattening. CONCLUSION: Factorial validity was found for the three-dimensional and multidimensional model for the CAPE. The multidimensional model, however, shows better comparative fit and promising results in regard to criterion validity. Thus, we recommend a hierarchical multidimensional structure of positive and negative symptoms for future use of the CAPE.
AIM: This study examined the factorial and criterion validity of the Community Assessment of Psychic Experiences (CAPE). We compared the validity of the original three-dimensional model and a recently proposed multidimensional model, in which positive symptoms are subdivided into the subfactors hallucinations, bizarre experiences, paranoia, grandiosity and magical thinking and negative symptoms are subdivided into social withdrawal, affective flattening and avolition. METHODS: Eleven community (n=934) and three patient samples (n=112) were combined and the proposed models were tested using confirmatory factor analysis. Criterion validity was calculated based on self-report measures for depression and paranoia as well as observer-based ratings for positive and negative symptoms. RESULTS: The multidimensional model showed better relative quality (AIC, BIC) than the original three-dimensional model of the CAPE, but both models showed acceptable absolute model-fit (RMSEA, SRMR). The criterion validity was good for the positive symptom scales and negative symptom subfactors social withdrawal and affective flattening. CONCLUSION: Factorial validity was found for the three-dimensional and multidimensional model for the CAPE. The multidimensional model, however, shows better comparative fit and promising results in regard to criterion validity. Thus, we recommend a hierarchical multidimensional structure of positive and negative symptoms for future use of the CAPE.
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: Taciana C C Ragazzi; Rosana Shuhama; Jorge Sinval; João Marôco; Fabiana Corsi-Zuelli; Daiane L da Roza; Jim van Os; Paulo R Menezes; Cristina M Del-Ben Journal: Braz J Psychiatry Date: 2020-02-21 Impact factor: 2.697