The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Assessment of insight in psychosis
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: It is frequently reported that patients with psychotic disorders have poor insight into their illness. Previous research has suggested that poor insight may have considerable power in predicting the long-term course of chronic mental disorders and an impact on patients' compliance with treatment plans. The authors, proposing that insight is best viewed as a multidimensional phenomenon, developed the Scale to Assess Unawareness of Mental Disorder, which samples discrete and global aspects of insight across a variety of manifestations of illness. This article reports on a reliability and validity study of the scale. METHOD: The study subjects were 43 patients with schizophrenia and schizoaffective disorder. Various aspects of insight into illness were evaluated with the scale. In addition, ratings of psychopathology, course of illness, and compliance with treatment were made. RESULTS: Item variability was high and normally distributed, supporting the authors' contention that insight can be rated on a continuous rather than dichotomous scale. Results of the analyses examining the relations between the various dimensions of insight assessed and the psychopathology, course, and compliance variables were generally as hypothesized. Convergent validity with other global measures of insight was found, and aspects of poor insight were correlated with poorer compliance and course of illness. Examination of the interrelations among the four insight subscales revealed that these subscales sample independent phenomena. CONCLUSIONS: The Scale to Assess Unawareness of Mental Disorder has good reliability and validity and has certain advantages over previous measures of insight, suggesting the usefulness of a multidimensional view of this complex concept.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
Hamilton, M. (1960) · Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery & Psychiatry · doi:10.1136/jnnp.23.1.56 · Cited by 32,817
Intraclass correlations: Uses in assessing rater reliability.
Shrout, P. E., & Fleiss, J. L. (1979) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.86.2.420 · Cited by 24,532
The Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale.
Overall, J. E., & Gorham, D. R. (1962) · Psychological Reports · doi:10.2466/pr0.1962.10.3.799 · Cited by 11,090
Cited by
Lacro, J. P., Dunn, L. B., Dolder, C. R., Leckband, S. G., & Jeste, D. V. (2002) · The Journal of Clinical Psychiatry · doi:10.4088/jcp.v63n1007 · Cited by 1,383
The auditory hallucination: a phenomenological survey
Nayani, T. H., & David, A. S. (1996) · Psychological Medicine · doi:10.1017/s003329170003381x · Cited by 710
The Brown assessment of beliefs scale: Reliability and validity
Eisen, J. L., Phillips, K. A., Baer, L., Beer, D. A., Atala, K. D., & Rasmussen, S. A. (1998) · American Journal of Psychiatry · doi:10.1176/ajp.155.1.102 · Cited by 705
Grisso, T., & Appelbaum, P. S. (1995) · Law and Human Behavior · doi:10.1007/bf01499323 · Cited by 595
Insight in schizophrenia: a meta-analysis
Mintz, A. R., Dobson, K. S., & Romney, D. M. (2003) · Schizophrenia Research · doi:10.1016/s0920-9964(02)00316-x · Cited by 563
Metadata
- Venue
- American Journal of Psychiatry
- Published
- 1993-06-01
- Volume
- 150
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 873-879
- ISSN
- 0002-953X (ISSN-L)
- 1535-7228
- OpenAlex
- W1815619780
- Cited by
- 1,095
- References
- 3
- FWCI
- 12.33
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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.