Cited by 116Schizophrenia research and treatmentPsychological Testing and AssessmentMental Health and Psychiatry

Are self-reports valid for schizophrenia patients with poor insight? Relationship of unawareness of illness to psychological self-report instruments

Bell, Morris, Fiszdon, Joanna, Richardson, Randall, Lysaker, Paul, Bryson, Gary·2007·Psychiatry Research

Abstract

This investigation aimed to determine whether impaired insight influences the validity of self-report test scores in schizophrenia and schizoaffective disorder. 274 outpatients enrolled in work rehabilitation completed the Beck Depression Inventory (BDI), Eysenck Personality Questionnaire (EPQ), Bell Object Relations and Reality Testing Inventory (BORRTI), and NEO-Five Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI). Self-report scores were compared to clinician's ratings on comparable personality and symptom dimensions on the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS), the Work Behavior Inventory (WBI), and the Quality of Life Scale (QLS). The influence of insight was determined using the Scale for Unawareness of Mental Disorder (SUMD). In the first analysis, clinician SUMD ratings of patient insight were associated with self-report accuracy. In a second analysis, patients were categorized into good and poor insight groups based on SUMD ratings and compared on self-report and clinician report variables. Results suggest that poor insight patients accurately report less Neuroticism and Agreeableness, and more Psychoticism than good insight patients, but individuals with poor insight wish to present themselves as more extraverted than they actually are, and they are likely to be more certain of their perceptions than they should be. It appears that self-report measures may be valid for most personality and symptom domains.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.psychres.2006.04.012

Cites

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, 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?

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Bell, M., Fiszdon, J., Richardson, R., Lysaker, P., & Bryson, G.
Affiliations
  • Yale University (US)
  • Richard L. Roudebush VA Medical Center (US)
Corresponding author
Bell, Morris
Venue
Psychiatry Research
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2007-05
Volume
151
Issue
1-2
Pages
37-46
ISSN
0165-1781 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2149642558
Cited by
116
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 12 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 11 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 9 · 2014: 10 · 2013: 5 · 2012: 3
FWCI
4.43
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Psychiatry Research (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Schizophrenia research and treatment
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Psychological Testing and Assessment
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Philosophy › Mental Health and Psychiatry
Keywords
schizophrenia, schizoaffective disorder, insight, self-report validity, personality assessment, neuroticism, agreeableness, psychoticism, extraversion, Beck Depression Inventory, Eysenck Personality Questionnaire, NEO-FFI, PANSS, vocational rehabilitation, quality of life
MeSH terms
Adult, Awareness, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Personality Inventory, Psychotic Disorders, Rehabilitation, Vocational, Schizophrenia, Schizophrenic Psychology, Self-Assessment, Self Disclosure, Sick Role, Veterans

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