The specificity of schizotypal scales and some implications for clinical high-risk research

Do you like cliff-hangers? Objective versus subjective need for closure in the schizophrenia spectrum

Need for closure (NFC) is a cognitive bias that has been implicated in the pathogenesis of delusions. A general population sample (N = 1465) was dichotomized into high versus low schizotypal participants and matched based on core social demographic characteristics (each n = 98). For the first time, we aimed at capturing NFC subjectively (with the NFC Scale) and objectively with a new experimental paradigm, the Ambiguous Movie Scene Task. In this task, participants viewed video scenes with either open or closed endings (i.e., high or low ambiguity) and rated their (emotional) reactions to the clips. Open endings were expected to lead to more frustration (i.e., due to increased need for closure) and to induce greater eagerness to learn about the possible resolution among those high on positive schizotypy. High schizotypal individuals displayed higher scores on the NFC Scale than low schizotypal individuals. Contrary to our expectations, high schizotypal participants did not recognize video scenes with open endings as ambiguous and were less eager to learn about a possible resolution than low schizotypal individuals. In the Ambiguous Movie Scene Task, high schizotypal individuals showed evidence of a jumping to conclusions bias rather than frustration over unresolved storylines. We found an overall stronger emotional response in schizotypal participants and overconfidence in their judgments. The NFC Scale and selected scores of the new task correlated moderately. The study corroborates earlier evidence for a dissociation between objective and subjective biases in the psychosis spectrum.

Anomalous self-experiences (ASE) in relation to clinical high risk for psychosis (CHRP), childhood trauma and general psychopathology among adolescent and young adult help seekers

BACKGROUND

Anomalous self-experiences (ASE) are suggested as a phenotypic core feature of schizophrenia spectrum disorders and present in at risk samples as well. In our study, we investigated the relation between ASE and clinical high risk state for psychosis (CHRP) against the background of further influencing factors like childhood trauma and general psychopathology.

METHODS

126 help-seeking adolescents were included. CHR-P patients were identified using the Structured Interview for Psychosis-Risk Syndromes (SIPS). ASE were assessed with the Inventory of Psychotic-like Anomalous Self-Experiences (IPASE). Childhood trauma, depression and anxiety were assessed with well-established questionnaires (CTQ; PHQ-9; GAD-7).

RESULTS

CHR-P subgroup (n = 50, 39.7%) show significantly higher scores in IPASE total (t (81.07) = -5.150, p = .000) and CTQ total (t (85.95) = -2.75, p = .007) in comparison with the non CHR-P subgroup. Logistic regression analysis confirmed that IPASE total could predict CHR-P status (OR 1.03, 95% CI 1.01-1.04, p = .000). Furthermore, CTQ total and IPASE total show moderate to strong positive correlation (r = 0.44, p < .001) as well as CTQ total with both IPASE subdomains Cognition (r = 0.404, p < .001) and Self- Awareness (r = 0.443, p < .001).

CONCLUSION

The CHR-P subgroup shows significantly more ASE than the non CHR-P subgroup. Further, ASE predicted CHR-P status. Our results indicated that ASE could play a considerable role in the identification of high risk for developing schizophrenia spectrum disorder and could complement CHR-P testing. Importantly, it seems that ASE may be related to exposure to childhood trauma.

Four reasons why early detection centers for psychosis should be renamed and their treatment targets reconsidered: we should not catastrophize a future we can neither reliably predict nor change

Since the 1990s, facilities for individuals at putative risk for psychosis have mushroomed and within a very short time have become part of the standard psychiatric infrastructure in many countries. The idea of preventing a severe mental disorder before its exacerbation is laudable, and early data indeed strongly suggested that the sooner the intervention, the better the outcome. In this paper, the authors provide four reasons why they think that early detection or prodromal facilities should be renamed and their treatment targets reconsidered. First, the association between the duration of untreated psychosis and outcome is empirically established but has become increasingly weak over the years. Moreover, its applicability to those who are considered at risk remains elusive. Second, instruments designed to identify future psychosis are prone to many biases that are not yet sufficiently controlled. None of these instruments allows an even remotely precise prognosis. Third, the rate of transition to psychosis in at-risk patients is likely lower than initially thought, and evidence for the success of early intervention in preventing future psychosis is promising but still equivocal. Perhaps most importantly, the treatment is not hope-oriented. Patients are more or less told that schizophrenia is looming over them, which may stigmatize individuals who will never, in fact, develop psychosis. In addition self-stigma has been associated with suicidality and depression. The authors recommend that treatment of help-seeking individuals with mental problems but no established diagnosis should be need-based, and the risk of psychosis should be de-emphasized as it is only one of many possible outcomes, including full remission. Prodromal clinics should not be abolished but should be renamed and restructured. Such clinics exist, but the transformation process needs to be facilitated.