Cited by 45Child Abuse and TraumaSchizophrenia research and treatmentPsychoanalysis and Psychopathology Research

Childhood maltreatment and psychotic experiences: Exploring the specificity of early maladaptive schemas

Open access
Boyda, David, McFeeters, Danielle, Dhingra, Katie, Rhoden, Laura·2018·Journal of Clinical Psychology

Abstract

Objective: One potential mechanism that has received limited attention in psychosis research is early maladaptive schemas (EMS). Our aim was to examine whether EMS acts as a potential mediating pathway between early trauma and psychotic symptomology. Methods: A quantitative survey was conducted online. N = 302 participants took part. The analysis used a multiple mediation framework. Results: Analysis demonstrated significant specificity effects. Different forms of child maltreatment were significantly associated with psychosis experiences through specific dimensions of maladaptive schemas. Conclusions: Results indicated specificity effects in that specific types of maltreatment are associated with specific maladaptive schemas. From a practitioner’s perspective, these findings offer credence to cognitive theories of psychopathology, and support the validity of EMS identification and modification among clients with psychotic symptomology both as a fundamental component of traditional CBT and within specialized schema‐focused therapy.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/jclp.22690

Cites

64 of 64 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • This recovery was made possible after engagement with approaches that centred empowerment and autonomy including peer support work and work with a psychologist using recovery models and dialogical frameworks, and trauma work.

    “This recovery was made possible after engagement with approaches that centred empowerment and autonomy including peer support work and work with a psychologist using recovery models and dialogical frameworks (i.e., Voice-Hearing approach, Chair Work, Schema Therapy; [86–91]), and trauma work.”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Boyda, D., McFeeters, D., Dhingra, K., & Rhoden, L.
Affiliations
  • University of Wolverhampton (GB)
  • Leeds Beckett University (GB)
Corresponding author
Boyda, David
Venue
Journal of Clinical Psychology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2018-08-13
Volume
74
Issue
12
Pages
2287-2301
ISSN
  • 0021-9762 (ISSN-L)
  • 1097-4679
OpenAlex
W2887356105
Cited by
45
References
64
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 1
FWCI
5.29
Type
journal article
Language
en
Locations
  • Journal of Clinical Psychology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Leeds Beckett Repository (Leeds Beckett University) (submittedVersion)
  • Wolverhampton Intellectual Repository and E-Theses (University of Wolverhampton) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Child Abuse and Trauma
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Schizophrenia research and treatment
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychoanalysis and Psychopathology Research
Keywords
child abuse, psychotic experiences, early maladaptive schemas, early trauma, schema therapy, mediation, schema modification, cognitive behavioral therapy
MeSH terms
Exposure to Violence, Adverse Childhood Experiences, Adaptation, Psychological, Adult, England, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Psychotic Disorders, Self Concept, Adult Survivors of Child Abuse

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review