CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 771Schizophrenia research and treatmentMental Health and PsychiatryHallucinations in medical conditions

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 53 of the 53 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Measurement of Delusional Ideation in the Normal Population: Introducing the PDI (Peters et al. Delusions Inventory)

Peters, E. R., Joseph, S. A., Garety, P. A.·1999·Schizophrenia Bulletin
DOI 10.1093/oxfordjournals.schbul.a033401
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

The Peters et al. Delusions Inventory (PDI) was designed to measure delusional ideation in the normal population, using the Present State Examination as a template. The multidimensionality of delusions was incorporated by assessing measures of distress, preoccupation, and conviction. Individual items were endorsed by one in four adults on average. No sex differences were found, and an inverse relationship with age was obtained. Good internal consistency was found, and its concurrent validity was confirmed by the percentages of common variance with three scales measuring schizotypy, magical ideation, and delusions. PDI scores up to 1 year later remained consistent, establishing its test-retest reliability. Psychotic inpatients had significantly higher scores, establishing its criterion validity. The ranges of scores between the normal and deluded groups overlapped considerably, consistent with the continuity view of psychosis. The two samples were differentiated by their ratings on the distress, preoccupation, and conviction scales, confirming the necessity for a multidimensional analysis of delusional thinking. Possible avenues of research using this scale and its clinical utility are highlighted.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/oxfordjournals.schbul.a033401

Cites

53 of 53 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Verification

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?

Citations

Cites

Show all 53 references

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 771

Related

Metadata

Authors
Peters, E. R., Joseph, S. A., & Garety, P. A.
Affiliations
  • University of Warwick (GB)
  • University of London (GB)
ORCID
Venue
Schizophrenia Bulletin
Publisher
Oxford University Press (OUP)
Published
1999-01-01
Volume
25
Issue
3
Pages
553-576
ISSN
  • 0586-7614 (ISSN-L)
  • 1745-1701
DOI
10.1093/oxfordjournals.schbul.a033401
OpenAlex
W2067384877
Cited by
771
References
53
Citations by year
2026: 16 · 2025: 22 · 2024: 21 · 2023: 30 · 2022: 27 · 2021: 29 · 2020: 24 · 2019: 28 · 2018: 30 · 2017: 36 · 2016: 28 · 2015: 45 · 2014: 25 · 2013: 40 · 2012: 36
FWCI
6.91
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Schizophrenia Bulletin (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Schizophrenia research and treatment
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Philosophy › Mental Health and Psychiatry
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Hallucinations in medical conditions
Keywords
delusional ideation
MeSH terms
Adult, Aged, Delusions, England, Factor Analysis, Statistical, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Psychiatric Status Rating Scales, Psychometrics, Psychotic Disorders, Reference Values, Sampling Studies, Schizotypal Personality Disorder, Superstitions, Thinking, Reproducibility of Results, Chi-Square Distribution

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