Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dlnhk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-29T17:42:17.092Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Three measures of schizotypality in a large sample of ultra-high risk patients

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 April 2020

M. Heinimaa
Affiliation:
Department of Psychiatry, University of Turku, Turku, Finland
T. Ilonen
Affiliation:
Department of Psychiatry, University of Turku, Turku, Finland
J. Huttunen
Affiliation:
Department of Psychiatry, University of Turku, Turku, Finland
T. Svirskis
Affiliation:
Department of Psychiatry, University of Turku, Turku, Finland
J. Korkeila
Affiliation:
Department of Psychiatry, University of Turku, Turku, Finland
L. Vaskelainen
Affiliation:
Department of Psychiatry, University of Turku, Turku, Finland
T. Ristkari
Affiliation:
Department of Psychiatry, University of Turku, Turku, Finland
R.K.R. Salokangas
Affiliation:
Department of Psychiatry, University of Turku, Turku, Finland
M. Birchwood
Affiliation:
Department of Psychiatry, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, United Kingdom
D. Lindszen
Affiliation:
Department of Psychiatry, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
J. Klosterkötter
Affiliation:
Department of Psychiatry, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.
Background and Aims

Theoretically, schizotypal features should be prevalent in patients at ultra high risk of psychosis. In connection to the European Prediction of Psychosis Study (EPOS), we could study their prevalence in this group using three different ways of assessing schizotypality.

Methods

EPOS dataset comprises a large sample (n=246) of UHR patients, who were followed up for 18 months. Schizotypal features were assessed in connection to SIPS interview (SIPS-STY, researcher assessment), and with PDQ-R and SPQ scales (self-assessment). Descriptive data and intercorrelations between different measures are described. Concurrent validity of these three measures is assessed by externals validators (genetic risk/ neuropsychology).

Results

The prevalence of schizotypal pdo was 13.4% with SIPS-STY and 34.6% with PDQ-R-STY. These categorial measures were poorly correlated (k=0,11). Of continuous measures PDQ-R-STY and SPQ scores were highly correlated (r=0,78, P<,000), but SIPS-STY score was only weakly correlated with these other measures (r=0.24).

As to external validation, FDRs of psychotics did not differ from other subjects on the level of schizotypal features. PDQ-R-STY but not SIPS-STY was associated with lower verbal IQ (P=0.004). In verbal fluency test, both SIPS-STY and PDQ-R-STY contributed to poor performance, but SPQ did not add to this. Schizotypal status did not associate with results of the Spatial working memory paradigm (SWMT).

Conclusions

Different measures of schizotypality produce somewhat inconsistent results when studied in a high psychosis risk sample. PDQ-R questionnaire seemed to give results most consistent with the current notion of schizotypicality.

Type
S28. Symposium: The Fringes of Psychosis
Copyright
Copyright © European Psychiatric Association 2007
Submit a response

Comments

No Comments have been published for this article.