Abstract and Poster

1. Kline, E., Wilson, C., Ereshefsky, S., Denenny, D., Thompson, E., Pitts, S. C., & ... Schiffman, J., 2012. Psychosis risk screening in youth: A validation study of three self-report measures of attenuated psychosis symptoms. Schizophrenia Research, 14172-77. doi:10.1016/j.schres.2012.07.022

2. Kelleher, I., Connor, D., Clarke, M. C., Devlin, N., Harley, M., & Cannon, M., 2012. Prevalence of psychotic symptoms in childhood and adolescence: A systematic review and meta-analysis of population-based studies. Psychological Medicine, 42(9), 1857-1863. doi:10.1017/S0033291711002960

3. Miller, T. J., McGlashan, T. H., Rosen, J. L., Cadenhead, K., Ventura, J., McFarlane, W., … Woods, S. W., 2003. Prodromal assessment with the Structured Interview for Prodromal Syndromes and the Scale of Prodromal Symptoms: Predictive validity, interrater reliability and training to reliability. Schizophrenia Bull, 29(4), 703-715. doi:10.1093/oxfordjournals.schbul.a007040

4. Miller, T.J., Cicchetti, D., Markovich, P.J., McGlashan, T.H., Woods, S.W., 2004. The SIPS screen: a brief self-report screen to detect the schizophrenia prodrome. Schizophr. Res. 70 (suppl 1) 78

• Overall mismatch response frequencies for all three items ranged from 18.6-29.2%

• Younger aged participants were more likely to inconsistently report experiences of “hearing their own thoughts being spoken out loud” (Q11; t(117)=2.11, p=.037)

• Possible reasons for mismatches: • Participants might misunderstand questions on the screener that

are clarified when asked by the interviewer • This may reflect a developmental-based process for item 11, as

those who matched tended to be older than those who did not • Not addressed in the current study, participants might feel more

comfortable acknowledging potentially stigmatizing symptoms on the screener than in the interview, or vice-versa

• The main limitation for this study was the small sample size • Further investigation of the mechanisms that lead to discrepancies

between screener and interview measures will be important for improving such measures with the purpose of promoting early intervention efforts

• Future studies could: • Review additional screeners beyond the Prime Screen • Qualitatively interview participants about mismatches to gain

better insight into reasons for discrepant responses • Review additional variables for relation to mismatch such as

gender and no-risk versus at-risk for psychosis

• 117 adolescents and young adults receiving mental health treatment • Recruited from local outpatient clinics, a local university, and a school

mental health program • Ages 12-23 years (mean=15.95, SD=2.89)

This investigation was sponsored by the Maryland Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, Behavioral Health Administration through the Center for Excellence on Early Intervention for Serious Mental Illness (OPASS# 14-13717G/M00B4400241)

Analysis of Psychosis-Risk Screener and Interview Response Mismatch Katlyn Easter,1 Caroline Demro,1 Camille Wilson,1 Elizabeth Thompson,1 Eryn Bentley,1 Pamela Rakhshan,1

Kristin Bussell,2 Caitlin Rush,2 Gloria Reeves,2 & Jason Schiffman1 1Department of Psychology, University of Maryland, Baltimore County 2University of Maryland School of Medicine

• Participants were interviewed and screened via: • Structured Interview for Psychosis Risk Syndromes (SIPS)3

• PRIME Screen4

• We examined similar items across the PRIME Screen and the SIPS interview and then compared whether participants were more likely to report mismatched or conflicting information based on age

Analysis • 2 x 2 tables illustrate match between interview and screener • T-tests were calculated to assess whether age varied significantly by

match status

REFERENCES

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

PARTICIPANTS

• Psychosis is defined by symptoms such as delusions, hallucinations, and disorganized thinking, speech, or behavior

• Psychosis-risk screeners and interviews assess risk symptoms to identify individuals who may develop psychosis

• Previous research suggests that participant responses on self-report screeners correlate highly, but not perfectly, with clinician- administered interview1

• It is important that screeners are as effective as possible to facilitate early intervention, which is associated with better treatment response

• Although screeners are useful and valid tools for assessing psychosis- risk, studies show that they can be hampered by false-positive responses

• ‘Mismatches,’ when an individual’s response on a questionnaire differs from clinical interview, could provide important clues towards understanding false-positive responses

• Psychosis-risk symptoms occur in the general population, but are reported at a higher frequency in younger ages, making age a potentially relevant contributor to mismatch2

• This study examined mismatches in three overlapping questions between the commonly used screener (PRIME Screen) and the gold standard clinician administered risk interview (Structured Interview for Psychosis Risk Syndromes, “SIPS”)

• In an attempt to identify potential mechanisms for mismatches, we examined the role of age in predicting mismatches for these three questions

INTRODUCTION METHODS

Figure 3. Mean Age of Mismatch for Q11

RESULTS

Note: The three diagnostic groups did not significantly differ on any demographic variables

Table 1. Participant Demographics Diagnostic Groups Mean Age (SD) No-risk 65 (55.6%) 16.40 (3.08) At-risk 40 (34.2%) 15.50 (2.48) Psychosis 10 (8.5%) 15.31 (2.84) Not reported 2 (1.7%) 14.00 (1.41) Gender Female 72 (61.5%) Male 45 (38.5%) Race Black/African American 50 (42.7%) White 43 (36.8%) Multi-racial 17 (14.5%) Other 3 (2.6%) Not reported 4 (3.4%) Total Household Income <$20,000 31 (26.5%) $20,000-$39,000 26 (22.2%) $40,000-$59,000 13 (11.1%) $60,000-$79,000 9 (7.7%) $80,000-$99,000 8 (6.8%) ≥$100,000 18 (15.4%) Not reported 12 (10.3%)

t(117)=2.11, p = .037

Figure 2. Mean Age of Mismatch for Q10

Figure 1. Mean Age of Mismatch for Q9

t(111)= -.34, p = .733

t(116)=.67, p = .502

Table 2. Participant Response and Percent Mismatch Q9

χ2(1, n = 113) = 16.13 p < .01

PRIME Screen

I think I might feel like my mind is “playing tricks” on me

SIPS Yes No % Mismatch

Yes 26 17 40%

No 16 54 23%

% Mismatch 38% 24%D o

yo u

ev er

fe el

th at

y ou

r m

in d

is p

la yi

ng tr

ic ks

o n

yo u?

Table 3. Participant Response and Percent Mismatch Q10

χ2(1, n = 118) = 40.93 p < .01

PRIME Screen

I have had the experience of hearing faint or clear sounds of people or a person mumbling or talking when there is no one near me

SIPS Yes No % Mismatch

Yes 29 8 22%

No 14 67 17%

% Mismatch 33% 11%D o

yo u

ev er

h ea

r a v

oi ce

th

at o

th er

’s d

on ’t

se em

to

or c

an ’t

he ar

?

Table 4. Participant Response and Percent Mismatch Q11

χ2(1, n = 119) = 17.08 p < .01

PRIME Screen

I think that I may hear my own thoughts being said out loud

SIPS Yes No % Mismatch

Yes 16 9 36%

No 20 74 21%

% Mismatch 56% 11%D o

yo u

ev er

h ea

r y ou

r o w

n th

ou gh

ts a

s i f t

he y

ar e

be in

g sp

ok en

o ut

si de

y ou

r h ea

d?

DISCUSSION

__MACOSX/Poster/._Poster example 2.pdf