Department of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, University of Marburg, Germany; Center for Mind, Brain and Behavior, University of Marburg, Germany.
Department of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, University of Marburg, Germany; Center for Mind, Brain and Behavior, University of Marburg, Germany.
Schizophr Res. 2023 Apr;254:208-217. doi: 10.1016/j.schres.2023.03.004. Epub 2023 Mar 16.
Schizotypy has become an increasingly important construct for elaborating psychotic disorders that vary along the schizophrenic spectrum. However, different schizotypy inventories vary in conceptual approach and measurement. In addition, commonly used schizotypy scales have been seen as qualitatively different from screening instruments for prodromal schizophrenia like the Prodromal Questionnaire-16 (PQ-16). Our study investigated the psychometric properties of three schizotypy questionnaires (the Schizotypal Personality Questionnaire-Brief, Oxford-Liverpool Inventory of Feelings and Experiences, and the Multidimensional Schizotypy Scale) as well as the PQ-16 in a cohort of 383 non-clinical subjects. We initially evaluated their factor structure using Principal Component Analysis (PCA) and used Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) to test a newly proposed composition of factors. PCA results support a three-factor structure of schizotypy that accounts for 71 % of the total variance, but also shows cross-loadings of some schizotypy subscales. CFA of the newly composed schizotypy factors (together with an added neuroticism factor) shows good fit. Analyses including the PQ-16 indicate considerable overlap with measures of trait schizotypy, suggesting that the PQ-16 might not be quantitatively or qualitatively different from schizotypy measurements. Taken together, results indicate that there is good support for a three-factor structure of schizotypy but also that different schizotypy measurements grasp facets of schizotypy differently. This points towards the need for an integrative approach for assessing the construct of schizotypy.
特质性精神分裂症倾向已成为阐述精神分裂症谱系中各种精神障碍的重要概念，特质性精神分裂症倾向在概念方法和测量上存在差异。此外，常用的特质性精神分裂症倾向量表被认为在性质上不同于前驱期精神分裂症的筛查工具，如前驱期问卷-16（PQ-16）。我们的研究调查了三个特质性精神分裂症倾向问卷（简短特质性精神分裂症问卷、牛津-利物浦感觉和体验清单、多维特质性精神分裂症量表）以及 PQ-16 在 383 名非临床受试者中的心理测量特性。我们最初使用主成分分析（PCA）评估它们的因子结构，并使用验证性因子分析（CFA）来测试新提出的因子组成。PCA 结果支持特质性精神分裂症的三因素结构，占总方差的 71%，但也显示出一些特质性精神分裂症分量表的交叉负荷。新组成的特质性精神分裂症因素（加上一个神经质因素）的 CFA 显示出良好的拟合度。包括 PQ-16 的分析表明与特质性精神分裂症测量有相当大的重叠，表明 PQ-16 可能在数量或质量上与特质性精神分裂症测量没有区别。总的来说，结果表明特质性精神分裂症的三因素结构得到了很好的支持，但不同的特质性精神分裂症测量方法对特质性精神分裂症的各个方面的把握程度不同。这表明需要采用综合方法来评估特质性精神分裂症的结构。
