5 results
Cross-cultural validation of the revised Green et al., paranoid thoughts scale
- Björn Schlier, Tania M. Lincoln, Jessica L. Kingston, Suzanne H. So, Brandon A. Gaudiano, Eric M. J. Morris, Lyn Ellett
-
- Journal:
- Psychological Medicine , First View
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 05 February 2024, pp. 1-7
-
- Article
-
- You have access Access
- Open access
- HTML
- Export citation
-
Background
With efforts increasing worldwide to understand and treat paranoia, there is a pressing need for cross-culturally valid assessments of paranoid beliefs. The recently developed Revised Green et al., Paranoid Thoughts Scale (R-GPTS) constitutes an easy to administer self-report assessment of mild ideas of reference and more severe persecutory thoughts. Moreover, it comes with clinical cut-offs for increased usability in research and clinical practice. With multiple translations of the R-GPTS already available and in use, a formal test of its measurement invariance is now needed.
MethodsUsing data from a multinational cross-sectional online survey in the UK, USA, Australia, Germany, and Hong Kong (N = 2510), we performed confirmatory factory analyses on the R-GPTS and tested for measurement invariance across sites.
ResultsWe found sufficient fit for the two-factor structure (ideas of reference, persecutory thoughts) of the R-GPTS across cultures. Measurement invariance was found for the persecutory thoughts subscale, indicating that it does measure the same construct across the tested samples in the same way. For ideas of reference, we found no scalar invariance, which was traced back to (mostly higher) item intercepts in the Hong Kong sample.
ConclusionWe found sufficient invariance for the persecutory thoughts scale, which is of substantial practical importance, as it is used for the screening of clinical paranoia. A direct comparison of the ideas of reference sum-scores between cultures, however, may lead to an over-estimation of these milder forms of paranoia in some (non-western) cultures.
Pandemic paranoia in the general population: international prevalence and sociodemographic profile
- Lyn Ellett, Björn Schlier, Jessica L. Kingston, Chen Zhu, Suzanne Ho-wai So, Tania M. Lincoln, Eric M. J. Morris, Brandon A. Gaudiano
-
- Journal:
- Psychological Medicine / Volume 53 / Issue 12 / September 2023
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 06 September 2022, pp. 5748-5755
-
- Article
-
- You have access Access
- Open access
- HTML
- Export citation
-
Background
The term ‘pandemic paranoia’ has been coined to refer to heightened levels of mistrust and suspicion towards other people specifically due to the COVID-19 pandemic. In this study, we examine the international prevalence of pandemic paranoia in the general population and its associated sociodemographic profile.
MethodsA representative international sample of general population adults (N = 2510) from five sites (USA N = 535, Germany N = 516, UK N = 512, Australia N = 502 and Hong Kong N = 445) were recruited using stratified quota sampling (for age, sex, educational attainment) and completed the Pandemic Paranoia Scale (PPS).
ResultsThe overall prevalence rate of pandemic paranoia was 19%, and was highest in Australia and lowest in Germany. On the subscales of the PPS, prevalence was 11% for persecutory threat, 29% for paranoid conspiracy and 37% for interpersonal mistrust. Site and general paranoia significantly predicted pandemic paranoia. Sociodemographic variables (lower age, higher population size and income, being male, employed and no migrant status) explained additional variance and significantly improved prediction of pandemic paranoia.
ConclusionsPandemic paranoia was relatively common in a representative sample of the general population across five international sites. Sociodemographic variables explained a small but significant amount of the variance in pandemic paranoia.
Contributors
-
- By Ghazi Al-Rawas, Vazken Andréassian, Tianqi Ao, Stacey A. Archfield, Berit Arheimer, András Bárdossy, Trent Biggs, Günter Blöschl, Theresa Blume, Marco Borga, Helge Bormann, Gianluca Botter, Tom Brown, Donald H. Burn, Sean K. Carey, Attilio Castellarin, Francis Chiew, François Colin, Paulin Coulibaly, Armand Crabit, Barry Croke, Siegfried Demuth, Qingyun Duan, Giuliano Di Baldassarre, Thomas Dunne, Ying Fan, Xing Fang, Boris Gartsman, Alexander Gelfan, Mikhail Georgievski, Nick van de Giesen, David C. Goodrich, Hoshin V. Gupta, Khaled Haddad, David M. Hannah, H. A. P. Hapuarachchi, Hege Hisdal, Kamila Hlavčová, Markus Hrachowitz, Denis A. Hughes, Günter Humer, Ruud Hurkmans, Vito Iacobellis, Elena Ilyichyova, Hiroshi Ishidaira, Graham Jewitt, Shaofeng Jia, Jeffrey R. Kennedy, Anthony S. Kiem, Robert Kirnbauer, Thomas R. Kjeldsen, Jürgen Komma, Leonid M. Korytny, Charles N. Kroll, George Kuczera, Gregor Laaha, Henny A. J. van Lanen, Hjalmar Laudon, Jens Liebe, Shijun Lin, Göran Lindström, Suxia Liu, Jun Magome, Danny G. Marks, Dominic Mazvimavi, Jeffrey J. McDonnell, Brian L. McGlynn, Kevin J. McGuire, Neil McIntyre, Thomas A. McMahon, Ralf Merz, Robert A. Metcalfe, Alberto Montanari, David Morris, Roger Moussa, Lakshman Nandagiri, Thomas Nester, Taha B. M. J. Ouarda, Ludovic Oudin, Juraj Parajka, Charles S. Pearson, Murray C. Peel, Charles Perrin, John W. Pomeroy, David A. Post, Ataur Rahman, Liliang Ren, Magdalena Rogger, Dan Rosbjerg, José Luis Salinas, Jos Samuel, Eric Sauquet, Hubert H. G. Savenije, Takahiro Sayama, John C. Schaake, Kevin Shook, Murugesu Sivapalan, Jon Olav Skøien, Chris Soulsby, Christopher Spence, R. ‘Sri’ Srikanthan, Tammo S. Steenhuis, Jan Szolgay, Yasuto Tachikawa, Kuniyoshi Takeuchi, Lena M. Tallaksen, Dörthe Tetzlaff, Sally E. Thompson, Elena Toth, Peter A. Troch, Remko Uijlenhoet, Carl L. Unkrich, Alberto Viglione, Neil R. Viney, Richard M. Vogel, Thorsten Wagener, M. Todd Walter, Guoqiang Wang, Markus Weiler, Rolf Weingartner, Erwin Weinmann, Hessel Winsemius, Ross A. Woods, Dawen Yang, Chihiro Yoshimura, Andy Young, Gordon Young, Erwin Zehe, Yongqiang Zhang, Maichun C. Zhou
- Edited by Günter Blöschl, Technische Universität Wien, Austria, Murugesu Sivapalan, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, Thorsten Wagener, University of Bristol, Alberto Viglione, Technische Universität Wien, Austria, Hubert Savenije, Technische Universiteit Delft, The Netherlands
-
- Book:
- Runoff Prediction in Ungauged Basins
- Published online:
- 05 April 2013
- Print publication:
- 18 April 2013, pp ix-xiv
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
Contributors
-
- By Dag Aarsland, Adrià Arboix, Carlos Bazán, James T. Becker, Sylvie Belleville, Kevin M. Biglan, Sandra E. Black, Mariana Blanco, Rémi W. Bouchard, Bruce J. Brew, David J. Burn, Leonardo Caixeta, Richard Camicioli, Paulo Caramelli, Neil Cashman, Nicholas W. S. Davies, Yan Deschaintre, Rachel S. Doody, Bruno Dubois, Uwe Ehrt, Stephane Epelbaum, Ryan V. V. Evans, Joseph M. Ferrara, Bruno Franchi, Morris Freedman, Anders Gade, Serge Gauthier, Marta Grau-Olivares, Matthew E. Growdon, Will Guest, Marie Christie Guiot, Shahul Hameed, Mirna Lie Hosogi-Senaha, Ging-Yuek Robin Hsiung, Masamichi Ikawa, Rajive Jassal, Vesna Jelic, Peter Johannsen, Edward S. Johnson, Mary M. Kenan, Bert-Jan Kerklaan, Benjamin Lam, Gabriel C. Léger, Gabriel Leonard, Emilie Lepage, Irene Litvan, Oscar L. Lopez, Ian R. A. Mackenzie, Mario Masellis, Fodi Massoud, Paige Moorhouse, John C. Morris, Taim Muayqil, Yannick Nadeau, Inger Nennesmo, Jørgen E. Nielsen, Ricardo Nitrini, Sven-Eric Pålhagen, Robert Perry, Gerald Pfeffer, Machiel Pleizier, Steffen Plickert, Gil D. Rabinovici, Philippe H. Robert, Lothar Resch, Gustavo C. Román, Maxime Ros, Pedro Rosa-Neto, Aiman Sanosi, Philip Scheltens, Christian Schmidt, Eric Schmidt, Jean-Paul Soucy, Jette Stokholm, David Summers, Rawan Tarawneh, Louis Verret, Huali Wang, Bengt Winblad, Makoto Yoneda, Xin Yu, Inga Zerr
- Edited by Serge Gauthier, McGill University, Montréal, Pedro Rosa-Neto, McGill University, Montréal
-
- Book:
- Case Studies in Dementia
- Published online:
- 16 May 2011
- Print publication:
- 21 April 2011, pp viii-xiv
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
8 - HYSTEROSCOPY
- Camran Nezhat, Stanford University School of Medicine, California, Farr Nezhat, Mount Sinai School of Medicine, New York, Ceana Nezhat
-
- Book:
- Nezhat's Operative Gynecologic Laparoscopy and Hysteroscopy
- Published online:
- 23 December 2009
- Print publication:
- 07 July 2008, pp 134-178
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
-
Summary
Uterine anomalies are a relatively common congenital abnormality, with uterine septum being the most common (Table 8.1.1). This is even truer in patients with recurrent pregnancy loss, in whom rates of uterine abnormalities may approach 15% to 27%. Historically, the uterine septum has been approached via laparotomy through either a Tompkins or Jones procedure. These successful but highly morbid procedures required laparotomy, significant hospital stays, and subsequent cesarean delivery and had a high risk of adhesion formation. More recently, this surgery has been supplanted by hysteroscopic or other minimally invasive methodologies for treatment. This section focuses on the embryologic development of the genital tract that may lead to mullerian abnormalities, discusses the work-up of patients before treatment, evaluates the appropriate candidates for surgical procedures, and discusses the technical aspects of the procedure itself, postoperative recommendations, and results of various modalities of treatment. In addition, complications specific to these procedures are reviewed.
EMBRYOLOGY
It is unclear what the exact rate of mullerian abnormalities is in the general population as there have been no good cross-sectional studies of normal patients. It is believed that the incidence is in the range of 1% to 6%, and there are numerous variations. The American Fertility Society (now the American Society for Reproductive Medicine) has published a classification system to standardize the nomenclature among surgeons (Tables 8.1.1, 8.1.2).