Cited by 477Schizophrenia research and treatmentAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive ProcessesPsychometric Methodologies and Testing

The Brief Core Schema Scales (BCSS): psychometric properties and associations with paranoia and grandiosity in non-clinical and psychosis samples

Open access
FOWLER, DAVID, FREEMAN, DANIEL, SMITH, BEN, KUIPERS, ELIZABETH, BEBBINGTON, PAUL, BASHFORTH, HANNAH, COKER, SIAN, HODGEKINS, JOANNE +3 more·2006·Psychological Medicine

Abstract

Background. Traditional instruments that measure self-esteem may not relate directly to the schema construct as outlined in recent cognitive models. The Brief Core Schema Scales (BCSS) aim to provide a theoretically coherent self-report assessment of schemata concerning self and others in psychosis. The scales assess four dimensions of self and other evaluation: negative-self, positive-self, negative-other, positive-other. Method. We analysed the psychometric properties of the BCSS using a sample of 754 students recruited by email and 252 people with psychosis recruited as part of a trial of cognitive therapy. We report the internal consistency, stability and the factor structure of the scale, and the association of the BCSS with measures of self-esteem and with symptoms of paranoia and grandiosity. Results. The BCSS have good psychometric properties and have more independence from mood than the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Schedule. People with chronic psychosis reported extreme negative evaluations of both self and others on these scales, but their levels of self-esteem and positive evaluations of self and others were similar to the student sample. Conclusions. Extreme negative evaluations of self and others appear to be characteristic of the appraisals of people with chronic psychosis, and are associated with symptoms of grandiosity and paranoia in the non-clinical population. The BCSS may provide a more useful measure of schemata about self and others than traditional measures of self-esteem.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1017/s0033291706007355

Cites

33 of 33 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 34 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Dalgleish, T. (1999). Cognitive theories of post-traumatic stress dis- order. In Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder: Concepts and Therapy (ed. W. Yule), pp. 197-212. John Wiley : New York.
  2. Fowler, D. (2000). Psychological formulation of early episodes of psychosis : a cognitive model. In Early Intervention in Psychosis : A Guide to Concepts, Evidence and Interventions (ed. M. Birchwood, D. Fowler and C. Jackson). John Wiley : Chichester.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
FOWLER, D., FREEMAN, D., SMITH, B., KUIPERS, E., BEBBINGTON, P., BASHFORTH, H., COKER, S., HODGEKINS, J., GRACIE, A., DUNN, G., & GARETY, P.
Affiliations
  • University of East Anglia (GB)
  • King's College London (GB)
  • University College London (GB)
  • University of Manchester (GB)
Venue
Psychological Medicine
Published
2006-03-27
Volume
36
Issue
6
Pages
749-759
ISSN
  • 0033-2917 (ISSN-L)
  • 1469-8978
OpenAlex
W2096987981
Cited by
476
References
34
Citations by year
2026: 26 · 2025: 32 · 2024: 31 · 2023: 36 · 2022: 29 · 2021: 40 · 2020: 26 · 2019: 19 · 2018: 25 · 2017: 36 · 2016: 18 · 2015: 17 · 2014: 25 · 2013: 22 · 2012: 18
FWCI
8.73
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Psychological Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
  • Research Portal (King's College London) (submittedVersion)
  • UEA Digital Repository (University of East Anglia) (submittedVersion)
Funders
Wellcome Trust (062452)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Schizophrenia research and treatment
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Psychometric Methodologies and Testing
Keywords
self-esteem, paranoia, grandiosity, psychosis, negative self-evaluation, positive self-evaluation, Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale, cognitive therapy, psychometric properties, factor structure, chronic psychosis
MeSH terms
Adult, Cognition Disorders, Factor Analysis, Statistical, Female, Humans, Male, Paranoid Disorders, Personality Disorders, Psychometrics, Psychotic Disorders, Surveys and Questionnaires, Self Concept, Cognitive Behavioral Therapy

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