Cited by 70Schizophrenia research and treatmentMental Health Research TopicsPsychometric Methodologies and Testing

The Psychosis Continuum: Testing a Bifactor Model of Psychosis in a General Population Sample

Open access
Shevlin, Mark, McElroy, Eoin, Bentall, Richard P., Reininghaus, Ulrich, Murphy, Jamie·2017·Schizophrenia Bulletin

Abstract

Although the factor structure of psychosis continues to be debated by taxonomists, recent studies have supported a bifactor model consisting of a general psychosis factor and 5 uncorrelated symptom-specific factors. While this model has received support in clinical samples, it has not been tested at the general population level. Analysis was conducted on Wave 2 of the National Epidemiologic Survey on Alcohol and Related Conditions (N = 34 653). Twenty-two psychotic symptoms were used as observed indicators of psychosis. These items were chosen based on their conceptual similarity to the items used in a similar study based on clinical samples. Confirmatory factor analysis and confirmatory bifactor modeling were used to test a variety of competing models. The best fitting model consisted of a general psychosis factor that was uncorrelated with 5 specific factors: positive, negative, disorganization, mania, and depression. These findings suggest that the bifactor model can be extended to general population samples, supporting the continuity between clinical and subclinical psychotic experiences. Theoretical and practical implications are discussed.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/schbul/sbw067

Cites

4 of 4 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, 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
Shevlin, M., McElroy, E., Bentall, R. P., Reininghaus, U., & Murphy, J.
Affiliations
  • University of Ulster (GB)
  • University of Liverpool (GB)
  • King's College London (GB)
Venue
Schizophrenia Bulletin
Published
2016-05-24
Volume
43
Issue
1
Pages
133-141
ISSN
  • 0586-7614 (ISSN-L)
  • 1745-1701
OpenAlex
W2400170440
Cited by
70
References
4
Citations by year
2025: 6 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 15 · 2017: 12 · 2016: 2
FWCI
9.43
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Schizophrenia Bulletin (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Research Publications (Maastricht University) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • Research Portal (King's College London) (submittedVersion)
  • Lirias (submittedVersion)
  • HighWire Press Open Archive (submittedVersion)
  • Ulster University Research Portal (Ulster University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Research Publications (Maastricht University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Schizophrenia research and treatment
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Mental Health Research Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Psychometric Methodologies and Testing
Keywords
psychosis continuum, bifactor model
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Factor Analysis, Statistical, Female, Humans, Male, Psychiatric Status Rating Scales, Psychotic Disorders, Models, Statistical, Young Adult

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