Measuring Paranoid Beliefs in Adolescents: A Comparison of the Revised-Green et al.'s Paranoid Thoughts Scale (R-GPTS) and the Bird Checklist of Adolescent Paranoia (B-CAP).

Research on paranoid beliefs in adolescents is in its infancy. Valid and reliable assessments are essential to advancing the field, yet there is no current consensus as to which are optimal to use in this population. This study compared the psychometric properties of two measures of paranoia in a general population adolescent sample. A cross-sectional study with quota sampling (gender and age) recruited adolescents (14-17 years) from the UK (n = 262) and USA (n = 200), who completed the Revised Green et al. Paranoid Thoughts Scale (R-GPTS) and the Bird Checklist for Adolescent Paranoia (B-CAP). We assessed factor structures, intercorrelations, overlap of participants identified as at-risk for paranoid thoughts via both scales, convergent validity (scales with one another) and discriminant validity (distress, wellbeing, bullying and discrimination). Both scales performed equally well in terms of factorial validity. Intercorrelations between the subscales and with general distress were high for both measures. However, a substantial percentage of participants were identified as having paranoid beliefs according to the R-GPTS but not the B-CAP. Furthermore, the B-CAP showed a very high correlations (0.69 ≤ r ≤ 0.79) with self-reported bullying experiences, which bordered on multicollinearity. Findings highlight the possibility that B-CAP may risk confounding paranoid beliefs with exposure to bullying more so than R-GPTS, and that B-CAP may miss instances of elevated paranoia that are captured by the R-GPTS. Future research needs to further explore this by validating both scales with an external (e.g., interview-based) criterion for paranoia.

Paranoid Thinking as a Function of Minority Group Status and Intersectionality: An International Examination of the Role of Negative Beliefs.

BACKGROUND: Paranoia is higher in minority group individuals, especially those reporting intersecting aspects of difference. High negative and low positive self and other beliefs, and low social rank, are predictive of paranoia overtime; however, data are typically from majority group participants. This study examined whether social defeat or healthy cultural mistrust best characterizes paranoia in minority groups. STUDY DESIGN: Using cross-sectional, survey design, with a large (n = 2510) international sample, moderation analyses (PROCESS) examined whether self and other beliefs, and perceived social rank, operate similarly or differently in minority vs majority group participants. Specifically, we tested whether beliefs moderated the influence of minority group, and intersecting aspects of difference, on paranoia. STUDY RESULTS: Paranoia was consistently higher in participants from minority vs majority groups and level of paranoid thinking was significantly higher at each level of the intersectionality index. Negative self/other beliefs were associated with elevated paranoia in all participants. However, in support of the notion of healthy cultural mistrust, low social rank, and low positive self/other beliefs were significantly associated with paranoia in majority group participants but unrelated to paranoia in respective minority group members. CONCLUSIONS: Although mixed, our findings signal the need to consider healthy cultural mistrust when examining paranoia in minority groups and bring into question whether "paranoia" accurately describes the experiences of marginalized individuals, at least at low levels of severity. Further research on paranoia in minority groups is crucial to developing culturally appropriate ways of understanding people's experiences in the context of victimization, discrimination, and difference.

The Pandemic Paranoia Scale (PPS): factor structure and measurement invariance across languages.

BACKGROUND: Globally, the corona virus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has created an interpersonally threatening context within which other people have become a source of possible threat. This study reports on the development and validation of a self-report measure of pandemic paranoia; that is, heightened levels of suspicion and mistrust towards others due to the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: An international consortium developed an initial set of 28 items for the Pandemic Paranoia Scale (PPS), which were completed by participants from the UK (n = 512), USA (n = 535), Germany (n = 516), Hong Kong (n = 454) and Australia (n = 502) using stratified quota sampling (for age, sex and educational attainment) through Qualtrics and translated for Germany and Hong Kong. RESULTS: Exploratory factor analysis in the UK sample suggested a 25-item, three-factor solution (persecutory threat; paranoid conspiracy and interpersonal mistrust). Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) on the remaining combined sample showed sufficient model fit in this independent set of data. Measurement invariance analyses suggested configural and metric invariance, but no scalar invariance across cultures/languages. A second-order factor CFA on the whole sample indicated that the three factors showed large loadings on a common second-order pandemic paranoia factor. Analyses also supported the test-retest reliability and internal and convergent validity. CONCLUSION: The PPS offers an internationally validated and reliable method for assessing paranoia in the context of a pandemic. The PPS has the potential to enhance our understanding of the impact of the pandemic, the nature of paranoia and to assist in identifying and supporting people affected by pandemic-specific paranoia.

Validation of the Hamilton Program for Schizophrenia Voices Questionnaire: Associations with emotional distress and wellbeing, and invariance across diagnosis and sex.

BACKGROUND: Voice-hearing is a transdiagnostic experience with evident negative effects on patients. Good quality measurement is needed to further elucidate the nature, impact and treatment of voice-hearing experiences across patient groups. The Hamilton Program for Schizophrenia Voices Questionnaire (HPSVQ) is a brief self-report measure which requires further psychometric evaluation. METHODS: Using data from a transdiagnostic sample of 401 adult UK patients, the fit of a conceptual HPSVQ measurement model, proposing a separation between physical and emotional voice-hearing characteristics, was tested. A structural model was examined to test associations between voice-hearing, general emotional distress (depression, anxiety, stress) and wellbeing. The invariance of model parameters was examined across diagnosis and sex. RESULTS: The final measurement model comprised two factors named 'voice severity' and 'voice-related distress'. The former comprised mainly physical voice characteristics and the latter mainly distress and other negative impacts. Structural model results supported voice-related distress as mediating the associations between voice severity and emotional distress and wellbeing. Model parameters were invariant across psychosis versus non-psychosis diagnosis and partially invariant across sex. Females experienced more severe and distressing voices and a more direct association between voice severity and general anxiety was evident. CONCLUSIONS: The HPSVQ is a useful self-report measure of voice-hearing with some scope for further exploration and refinement. Voice-related distress appears a key mechanism by which voice severity predicts general distress and wellbeing. Whilst our data broadly support interventions targeting voice-related distress for all patients, females may benefit especially from interventions targeting voice severity and strategies for responding.

[The effect of medical and psychotherapeutic treatment models for schizophrenia on stigma and recovery expectations]. / Die Wirkung medizinischer und psychotherapeutischer Behandlungskonzepte für Schizophrenie auf Stigma und Genesungserwartungen.

BACKGROUND: It is common practice to inform patients about causes and treatment models when starting psychiatric treatment or psychotherapy for schizophrenia. However, previous research indicates that focusing on etiological models increases stigmatizing beliefs. This raises the question of whether contemporary, medical or cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT)-based treatment models share this negative side effect. AIM: This experiment tested whether providing information about medical vs. CBT-based vs. combined treatment models affects stigmatizing attitudes towards schizophrenia and the expected efficacy of these treatments. METHODS: Participants received a case vignette of a person with schizophrenia including either: (1) no treatment details, or a description of treatment with (2) medication, (3) CBT, or (4) medication and CBT. Next, stigmatizing attitudes (stereotypes, affective reactions, and desired social distance) were assessed and participants rated the perceived effectiveness of different treatment methods. RESULTS: No treatment model showed an effect on stigmatizing attitudes. Medical and CBT treatment information (alone or in combination) had a positive effect on subjective efficacy ratings for the respective treatment. CONCLUSION: There appear to be no negative side effects of (biogenetic) models when presented in a context emphasizing recovery. Moreover, medication and CBT treatment information showed additive positive effects on the rating of treatment strategies. A combined treatment model integrating various evidence-based methods appears to be most useful in clinical practice.

What is the minimal dose of cognitive behavior therapy for psychosis? An approximation using repeated assessments over 45 sessions.

BACKGROUND: The general efficacy of cognitive behavior therapy for psychosis (CBTp) is well established. Although guidelines recommend that CBTp should be offered over a minimum of 16 sessions, the minimal number of sessions required to achieve significant changes in psychopathology has not been systematically investigated. Empirically informed knowledge of the minimal and optimal dose of CBTp is relevant in terms of dissemination and cost-effectiveness. METHODS: We approached the question of what constitutes an appropriate dose by investigating the dose (duration of CBTp)×response (symptomatic improvement) relationship for positive symptoms, negative symptoms and depression. Patients with psychotic disorders (n=58) were assessed over the course of 45 sessions of CBTp in a clinical practice setting. At baseline and after session 5, 15, 25, and 45, general psychopathology, psychotic symptoms, symptom distress and coping were assessed with self-report questionnaires. Additionally, individually defined target symptoms and coping were assessed after each session. RESULTS: Significant symptom improvement and reduction of symptom distress took place by session 15, and stayed fairly stable thereafter. The frequency of positive and negative symptoms reached a minimum by session 25. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings support recommendations to provide CBTp over a minimum of 16 sessions and indicate that these recommendations are generalizable to clinical practice settings. However, the findings also imply that 25 sessions are the more appropriate dose. This study contributes to an empirically informed discussion on the minimal and optimal dose of CBTp. It also provides a basis for planning randomized trials comparing briefer and longer versions of CBTp.