Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 2,196

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Mapping the Onset of Psychosis: The Comprehensive Assessment of At-Risk Mental States

Open access
Yung, Alison R., Yung, Alison R., Pan Yuen, Hok, Mcgorry, Patrick D., Phillips, Lisa J., Kelly, Daniel, Dell'olio, Margaret, Francey, Shona M., Cosgrave, Elizabeth M., Killackey, Eoin, Stanford, Carrie, Godfrey, Katherine, Buckby, Joe·2005·Australian & New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry
DOI 10.1080/j.1440-1614.2005.01714.x
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Objective: Recognizing the prodrome of a first psychotic episode prospectively creates the opportunity of intervention, which could delay, ameliorate or even prevent onset. Valid criteria and a reliable methodology for identifying possible prodromes are needed. This paper describes an instrument, the Comprehensive Assessment of At-Risk Mental States (CAARMS), which has been designed for such a purpose. It has two functions: (i) to assess psychopathology thought to indicate imminent development of a first-episode psychotic disorder; and (ii) to determine if an individual meets criteria for being at ultra high risk (UHR) for onset of first psychotic disorder. This paper describes the pilot evaluation of the CAARMS. Method: Several methodologies were used to test the CAARMS. First, CAARMS scores in a group of UHR young people and the association between CAARMS scores and the risk of transition to psychotic disorder, were analysed. Second, CAARMS scores in a UHR group were compared to a control group. To assess concurrent validity, CAARMS-defined UHR criteria were compared to the existing criteria for identifying the UHR cohort. To assess predictive validity, the CAARMS-defined UHR criteria were applied to a sample of 150 non-psychotic help-seekers and rates of onset of psychotic disorder at 6-month follow-up determined for the CAARMS-positive (i.e. met UHR criteria) group and the CAARMS-negative (i.e. did not meet UHR criteria) group. The inter-rater reliability of the CAARMS was assessed by using pairs of raters. Results: High CAARMS score in the UHR group was significantly associated with onset of psychotic disorder. The control group had significantly lower CAARMS scores than the UHR group. The UHR criteria assessed by the CAARMS identified a similar group to the criteria measured by existing methodology. In the sample of non-psychotic help-seekers those who were CAARMS-positive were at significantly increased risk of onset of psychotic disorder compared to those who were CAARMS-negative (relative risk of 12.44 (95% CI=1.5–103.41, p=0.0025)). The CAARMS had good to excellent reliability. Conclusions: In these preliminary investigations, the CAARMS displayed good to excellent concurrent, discriminant and predictive validity and excellent inter-rater reliability. The CAARMS instrument provides a useful platform for monitoring sub threshold psychotic symptoms for worsening into full-threshold psychotic disorder.

Overview

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 · 10.1080/j.1440-1614.2005.01714.x

Cites

5 of 5 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

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

Self-check

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

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

Citations

Cites

Show all 5 references

Research works printed but not linked: 15

  1. McGorry P D, 1995, Handbook of studies on preventive psychiatry, 491
  2. 10.1093/schbul/22.2.283 · DOI · Paper page
  3. 10.1093/schbul/22.2.353 · DOI · Paper page
  4. 10.3109/00048679609062654 · DOI · Paper page
  5. 10.1192/S0007125000297602 · DOI · Paper page
  6. 10.1016/S0920-9964(03)00192-0 · DOI · Paper page
  7. Andreasen N, 1987, The Comprehensive Assessment of Symptoms and History (CASH) interview
  8. American Psychiatric Association, 1994, Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 4th edn
  9. Klosterkotter J, 1992, Neurology, Psychiatry and Brain Research, 1, 30
  10. 10.1111/j.1600-0447.1997.tb09652.x · DOI
  11. First M B, 1997, Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV axis I disorders
  12. 10.1017/S0033291797005369 · DOI
  13. Van Os J, 2002, Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica, 106, 9, 10.1034/j.1600-0447.2002.01454.x · DOI
  14. 10.1093/oxfordjournals.schbul.a007052 · DOI
  15. 10.1176/appi.ajp.159.5.863 · DOI · Paper page

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Yung, A. R., Yung, A. R., Pan Yuen, H., Mcgorry, P. D., Phillips, L. J., Kelly, D., Dell'olio, M., Francey, S. M., Cosgrave, E. M., Killackey, E., Stanford, C., Godfrey, K., & Buckby, J.
Venue
Australian & New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry
Publisher
SAGE Publications
Published
2005-11
Volume
39
Issue
11-12
Pages
964-971
ISSN
  • 0004-8674 (ISSN-L)
  • 1440-1614
DOI
10.1080/j.1440-1614.2005.01714.x
OpenAlex
W2104309828
Cited by
2,196
References
5
FWCI
11.18
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green
Licence
journals.sagepub.com/page/policies/text-and-data-mining-license (tdm)

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

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.