Cited by 243Schizophrenia research and treatmentPsychometric Methodologies and TestingPsychological Testing and Assessment

Reliability, validity and ability to detect change of the Personal and Social Performance scale in patients with stable schizophrenia

Nasrallah, Henry, Morosini, PierLuigi, Gagnon, Dennis D.·2008·Psychiatry Research

Abstract

This report describes the measurement properties of the Personal and Social Performance scale (PSP), a clinician-reported measure of severity of personal and social dysfunction, in an outpatient population with stabilized schizophrenia. Pooled data from two similar antipsychotic clinical studies were analyzed (n=411). The PSP showed good test-retest reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient=0.79). The PSP was more highly correlated with the Strauss-Carpenter Level of Function, an instrument measuring a similar construct, than the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale, an instrument measuring a different construct. There was a statistically significant difference between mean PSP scores in subjects grouped by their severity rating on the Clinical Global Impression-Severity (CGI-S) (mild or less versus at least moderate), indicating the ability to discriminate between known groups. Effect sizes for mean change in the PSP based on 1-category improvement (0.72) or worsening (-0.88) versus no change in the CGI-S were moderate to large, demonstrating the ability to detect change. Estimates of between-group minimum important difference suggest that a 7-point improvement in the PSP may be clinically meaningful in a clinical trial setting. Initial reliability and validity assessments suggest the PSP may be a useful measure of social functioning in patients with stable schizophrenia.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.psychres.2007.11.012

Cites

37 of 37 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Nasrallah, H., Morosini, P., & Gagnon, D. D.
Affiliations
  • University of Cincinnati (US)
  • Istituto Superiore di Sanità (IT)
Corresponding author
Nasrallah, Henry
Venue
Psychiatry Research
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2008-11
Volume
161
Issue
2
Pages
213-224
ISSN
0165-1781 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2100441519
Cited by
243
References
37
Citations by year
2026: 17 · 2025: 17 · 2024: 16 · 2023: 18 · 2022: 18 · 2021: 18 · 2020: 20 · 2019: 16 · 2018: 10 · 2017: 16 · 2016: 21 · 2015: 8 · 2014: 12 · 2013: 10 · 2012: 7
FWCI
3.97
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Psychiatry Research (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
Johnson and Johnson
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Schizophrenia research and treatment
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Psychometric Methodologies and Testing
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Psychological Testing and Assessment
Keywords
Personal and Social Performance Scale, schizophrenia, social functioning, personal functioning, functional outcome assessment, test-retest reliability, construct validity, minimal clinically important difference, Clinical Global Impression Scale, antipsychotic drugs
MeSH terms
Adult, Ambulatory Care, Female, Humans, Male, Psychiatric Status Rating Scales, Psychometrics, Quality of Life, Surveys and Questionnaires, Schizophrenia, Schizophrenic Psychology, Social Adjustment, Antipsychotic Agents, Reproducibility of Results, Outcome Assessment, Health Care, Risperidone, Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders

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