Mason Oliver J
Department of Clinical, Health, and Educational Psychology, University College London, London, UK
Schizophr Bull. 2015 Mar;41 Suppl 2(Suppl 2):S374-85. doi: 10.1093/schbul/sbu194.
This article reviews several approaches to assessing schizotypal traits using a wide variety of self-report and interview measures. It makes a distinction between clinical approaches largely based on syndrome and symptom definitions, and psychometric approaches to measuring personality traits. The review presents a brief description of the content and psychometric properties of both sets of measures; these cover both the broad rubric of schizotypy often, but not exclusively based on DSM conceptions, as well as measures with a more specific focus. Measurement of schizotypy has taken place within clinical and nonclinical research utilizing a range of designs and methodologies. Several of these are elucidated with respect to the assessment choices open to researchers, and the implications of the measures chosen. These paradigms include the case-control study, "high risk"/"ultra-high risk" groups, a variety of nonclinical groups and other groups of interest, large scale epidemiology and "in vivo" designs. Evidence from a wide variety of designs continues to provide evidence of the validity of both clinical and personality approaches to schizotypal assessment.
本文回顾了使用多种自我报告和访谈测量方法来评估分裂型特质的几种途径。它区分了主要基于综合征和症状定义的临床方法,以及测量人格特质的心理测量方法。该综述简要描述了这两组测量方法的内容和心理测量特性;这些测量方法既涵盖了通常但并非完全基于《精神疾病诊断与统计手册》概念的分裂型特质这一宽泛类别,也包括了更具特定重点的测量方法。分裂型特质的测量已在临床和非临床研究中进行,采用了一系列设计和方法。其中几种方法针对研究人员可选择的评估方式以及所选测量方法的影响进行了阐述。这些范式包括病例对照研究、“高风险”/“超高风险”组、各种非临床组和其他感兴趣的组、大规模流行病学研究和“现场”设计。来自各种设计的证据继续为分裂型评估的临床和人格方法的有效性提供证据。