The reliability and validity of the revised Green et al. paranoid thoughts scale in individuals at clinical high‐risk for psychosis
Williams T, Walker E, Strauss G, Woods S, Powers A, Corlett P, Schiffman J, Waltz J, Gold J, Silverstein S, Ellman L, Zinbarg R, Mittal V. The reliability and validity of the revised Green et al. paranoid thoughts scale in individuals at clinical high‐risk for psychosis. Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica 2023, 147: 623-633. PMID: 36905387, PMCID: PMC10463775, DOI: 10.1111/acps.13545.Peer-Reviewed Original ResearchConceptsCHR individualsClinical controlFull psychosisHealthy controlsGeneral populationPsychosis symptomsCHR participantsPoor social functioningGreen Paranoid Thoughts ScalePsychosisGroup differencesSocial functioningConfirmatory factor analysisParanoid Thoughts ScaleInterview measuresSeverity continuumTwo-factor structureCritical populationSelf-report measuresPresent studyDiscriminant validityPsychometric indicesParanoid thoughtsIndividualsParticipantsComparing a Computerized Digit Symbol Test to a Pen-and-Paper Classic
Pratt D, Luther L, Kinney K, Osborne K, Corlett P, Powers A, Woods S, Gold J, Schiffman J, Ellman L, Strauss G, Walker E, Zinbarg R, Waltz J, Silverstein S, Mittal V. Comparing a Computerized Digit Symbol Test to a Pen-and-Paper Classic. Schizophrenia Bulletin Open 2023, 4: sgad027. PMID: 37868160, PMCID: PMC10590153, DOI: 10.1093/schizbullopen/sgad027.Peer-Reviewed Original ResearchClinical high riskCHR individualsFinger-tapping taskMotor ability measuresDigit symbol testCHR stateHealthy controlsHigh riskClinical InterviewPersistent subgroupSymbol testPersistent groupImpairmentPaper versionMotor abilitiesTask performance differencesComputerized versionSimilar degreeEffect sizeMeasures impairmentPsychosisCoding TestRemote assessmentSubgroupsDigit-symbol task