| Title |
A Chinese version of the Psychotic Symptom Rating Scales: psychometric properties in recent-onset and chronic psychosis
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Neuropsychiatric Disease and Treatment, March 2017
|
| DOI | 10.2147/ndt.s131174 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Wai-Tong Chien, Isabella Yuet-Ming Lee, Li-Qun Wang |
| Abstract |
The purpose of this study was to test the reliability, validity, and factor structure of a Chinese version of the Psychotic Symptom Rating Scale (PSYRATS) in 198 and 202 adult patients with recent-onset and chronic psychosis, respectively. The PSYRATS has been translated into different language versions and has been validated for clinical and research use mainly in chronic psychotic patients but not in recent-onset psychosis patients or in Chinese populations. The psychometric analysis of the translated Chinese version included assessment of its content validity, semantic equivalence, interrater and test-retest reliability, reproducibility, sensitivity to changes in psychotic symptoms, internal consistency, concurrent validity (compared to a valid psychotic symptom scale), and factor structure. The Chinese version demonstrated very satisfactory content validity as rated by an expert panel, good semantic equivalence with the original version, and high interrater and test-retest (at 2-week interval) reliability. It also indicated very good reproducibility of and sensitivity to changes in psychotic symptoms in line with the symptom severity measured with the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS). The scale consisted of four factors for the hallucination subscale and two factors for the delusion subscale, explaining about 80% of the total variance of the construct, indicating satisfactory correlations between the hallucination and delusion factors themselves, between items, factors, subscales, and overall scale, and between factors and relevant item and subscale scores of the PANSS. The Chinese version of the PSYRATS is a reliable and valid instrument to measure symptom severity in Chinese psychotic patients complementary to other existing measures mainly in English language. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Congo, The Democratic Republic of the | 2 | 50% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 25% |
| Unknown | 1 | 25% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 2 | 50% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 25% |
| Unknown | 1 | 25% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 19 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 19 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Doctoral Student | 3 | 16% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 2 | 11% |
| Student > Master | 2 | 11% |
| Other | 1 | 5% |
| Professor | 1 | 5% |
| Other | 2 | 11% |
| Unknown | 8 | 42% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Nursing and Health Professions | 3 | 16% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 2 | 11% |
| Psychology | 1 | 5% |
| Sports and Recreations | 1 | 5% |
| Neuroscience | 1 | 5% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 11 | 58% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 03 March 2019.
All research outputs
#8,267,700
of 25,584,565 outputs
Outputs from Neuropsychiatric Disease and Treatment
#1,069
of 3,120 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#123,593
of 324,971 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Neuropsychiatric Disease and Treatment
#32
of 87 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,584,565 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 67th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,120 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 65% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 324,971 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 61% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 87 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 64% of its contemporaries.