SA56. New Approaches to Evaluate Dimensions on the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale

SA56. New Approaches to Evaluate Dimensions on the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale

Background: The Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) is widely used as an instrument to assess symptoms. The 5-factor model is the most replicated model in studies analyzing the subjacent structure underlying symptoms profiles. However, there is no confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) study wi...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Schizophrenia bulletin 2017-03, Vol.43 (suppl_1), p.S133-S133
Hauptverfasser: Higuchi, Cinthia, Cogo-Moreira, Hugo, Ortiz, Bruno, Noto, Cristiano, Cordeiro, Quirino, Freitas, Rosana, Elkis, Hélio, Bressan, Rodrigo, Gadelha, Ary
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Abstracts
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page S133
container_issue suppl_1
container_start_page S133
container_title Schizophrenia bulletin
container_volume 43
creator Higuchi, Cinthia
Cogo-Moreira, Hugo
Ortiz, Bruno
Noto, Cristiano
Cordeiro, Quirino
Freitas, Rosana
Elkis, Hélio
Bressan, Rodrigo
Gadelha, Ary
description Background: The Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) is widely used as an instrument to assess symptoms. The 5-factor model is the most replicated model in studies analyzing the subjacent structure underlying symptoms profiles. However, there is no confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) study with good fit indexes. The CFA hypothesizes that an item loads on only 1 factor (no items have cross-loadings). More flexible approaches are necessary to fit the true nature of the scale. The bifactor CFA and Bayesian CFA are more flexible because they allow direct and/or indirect correlation between factors or items. The aim of this study is to perform a bifactor CFA and a Bayesian CFA as alternatives to CFA to evaluate the dimensions’ symptoms of PANSS in patients with schizophrenia. Methods: We assessed 700 patients with schizophrenia of 4 different centers with PANSS. A Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA), bifactor CFA (bi-CFA), and Bayesian CFA were performed. The fit of the bi-CFA and CFA models were assessed by considering: Comparative Fit Index (CFI) and Non-Normed Fit Index (NNFI) > 0.95, the Root Mean Square Errors of Approximation (RMSEA) < 0.06 and Weighted Root Mean Square Residual (WRMR) < 1.0. The Bayesian CFA use the estimator bayes and has only 1 fit index, which is the Posterior Predictive P value (PPP) and its confidence interval (CI) of 95%. PPP values near 0.5 and a CI centered on zero suggests a good fit index. Results: The mean (SD) age was 34.9 (10.3) years, and 64.3% were male. Age of onset and duration of illness means were 21.7 (7.5) and 13.2 (9.6), respectively. The CFA model had a poor fit index as follow: RMSEA = 0.102 (90% CI: 0.097–0.107; Cfit was
doi_str_mv 10.1093/schbul/sbx023.055
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>pubmedcentral_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_5475950</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_5475950</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c1405-8030a7b7b11177705b4096a4035d740e827a7222227eb98e9923d15130712ca33</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNpVkF1LwzAUhoMoOKc_wLv8gW7nNEnT3Ahjzg8YKkzxMqRttlbapjTtdP_ezorguTnn5fA-Fw8h1wgzBMXmPs2Tvpz75AtCNgMhTsgEJRcBSsBTMgERR4GMkJ-TC-8_AJCrKJyQ981CRDP6ZD_pomlaZ9Lceto5utqbsjedpbdFZWtfuNpTV9Mut_TF-aIr9paaOhuaO_MTNoc6a101HKkp7SU525rS26vfPSVvd6vX5UOwfr5_XC7WQYocRBADAyMTmSCilBJEwkFFhgMTmeRg41AaGR5H2kTFVqmQZSiQgcQwNYxNyc3Ibfqksllq6641pW7aojLtQTtT6P-fusj1zu214FIoAQMAR0DaOu9bu_3rIuijWj2q1aNaPahl3wIFbpU</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Access Repository</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype></control><display><type>article</type><title>SA56. New Approaches to Evaluate Dimensions on the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale</title><source>Oxford University Press Journals All Titles (1996-Current)</source><source>Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals</source><source>PubMed Central</source><source>Alma/SFX Local Collection</source><creator>Higuchi, Cinthia ; Cogo-Moreira, Hugo ; Ortiz, Bruno ; Noto, Cristiano ; Cordeiro, Quirino ; Freitas, Rosana ; Elkis, Hélio ; Bressan, Rodrigo ; Gadelha, Ary</creator><creatorcontrib>Higuchi, Cinthia ; Cogo-Moreira, Hugo ; Ortiz, Bruno ; Noto, Cristiano ; Cordeiro, Quirino ; Freitas, Rosana ; Elkis, Hélio ; Bressan, Rodrigo ; Gadelha, Ary</creatorcontrib><description>Background: The Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) is widely used as an instrument to assess symptoms. The 5-factor model is the most replicated model in studies analyzing the subjacent structure underlying symptoms profiles. However, there is no confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) study with good fit indexes. The CFA hypothesizes that an item loads on only 1 factor (no items have cross-loadings). More flexible approaches are necessary to fit the true nature of the scale. The bifactor CFA and Bayesian CFA are more flexible because they allow direct and/or indirect correlation between factors or items. The aim of this study is to perform a bifactor CFA and a Bayesian CFA as alternatives to CFA to evaluate the dimensions’ symptoms of PANSS in patients with schizophrenia. Methods: We assessed 700 patients with schizophrenia of 4 different centers with PANSS. A Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA), bifactor CFA (bi-CFA), and Bayesian CFA were performed. The fit of the bi-CFA and CFA models were assessed by considering: Comparative Fit Index (CFI) and Non-Normed Fit Index (NNFI) &gt; 0.95, the Root Mean Square Errors of Approximation (RMSEA) &lt; 0.06 and Weighted Root Mean Square Residual (WRMR) &lt; 1.0. The Bayesian CFA use the estimator bayes and has only 1 fit index, which is the Posterior Predictive P value (PPP) and its confidence interval (CI) of 95%. PPP values near 0.5 and a CI centered on zero suggests a good fit index. Results: The mean (SD) age was 34.9 (10.3) years, and 64.3% were male. Age of onset and duration of illness means were 21.7 (7.5) and 13.2 (9.6), respectively. The CFA model had a poor fit index as follow: RMSEA = 0.102 (90% CI: 0.097–0.107; Cfit was &lt;0.001), CFI = 0.921 and NNFI = 0.906, and WRMR = 1.952. The bi-CFA had fit indexes worse than the CFA: RMSEA = 0.120 (90% CI: 0.115–0.125; CFit 0.05 was &lt;0.001), CFI = 0.898, NNFI=0.871, and WRMR=2.301. The Bayesian CFA was the last approach and presented a PPP value of &lt;.001 and CI 57.878–203.999, which indicates a poor fit index. Conclusion: All the approaches have failed. This suggests that a methodological issue is not the biggest problem, since even the most flexible approach (Bayesian CFA) had a poor fit. Considering the heterogeneity of the different centers, additional analysis may be necessary to evaluate the influence of clinical staging in the factor structure of PANSS.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0586-7614</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1745-1701</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1093/schbul/sbx023.055</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>US: Oxford University Press</publisher><subject>Abstracts</subject><ispartof>Schizophrenia bulletin, 2017-03, Vol.43 (suppl_1), p.S133-S133</ispartof><rights>The Author 2017. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Maryland Psychiatric Research Center. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com 2017</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5475950/pdf/$$EPDF$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5475950/$$EHTML$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,723,776,780,881,27901,27902,53766,53768</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Higuchi, Cinthia</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Cogo-Moreira, Hugo</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ortiz, Bruno</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Noto, Cristiano</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Cordeiro, Quirino</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Freitas, Rosana</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Elkis, Hélio</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bressan, Rodrigo</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gadelha, Ary</creatorcontrib><title>SA56. New Approaches to Evaluate Dimensions on the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale</title><title>Schizophrenia bulletin</title><description>Background: The Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) is widely used as an instrument to assess symptoms. The 5-factor model is the most replicated model in studies analyzing the subjacent structure underlying symptoms profiles. However, there is no confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) study with good fit indexes. The CFA hypothesizes that an item loads on only 1 factor (no items have cross-loadings). More flexible approaches are necessary to fit the true nature of the scale. The bifactor CFA and Bayesian CFA are more flexible because they allow direct and/or indirect correlation between factors or items. The aim of this study is to perform a bifactor CFA and a Bayesian CFA as alternatives to CFA to evaluate the dimensions’ symptoms of PANSS in patients with schizophrenia. Methods: We assessed 700 patients with schizophrenia of 4 different centers with PANSS. A Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA), bifactor CFA (bi-CFA), and Bayesian CFA were performed. The fit of the bi-CFA and CFA models were assessed by considering: Comparative Fit Index (CFI) and Non-Normed Fit Index (NNFI) &gt; 0.95, the Root Mean Square Errors of Approximation (RMSEA) &lt; 0.06 and Weighted Root Mean Square Residual (WRMR) &lt; 1.0. The Bayesian CFA use the estimator bayes and has only 1 fit index, which is the Posterior Predictive P value (PPP) and its confidence interval (CI) of 95%. PPP values near 0.5 and a CI centered on zero suggests a good fit index. Results: The mean (SD) age was 34.9 (10.3) years, and 64.3% were male. Age of onset and duration of illness means were 21.7 (7.5) and 13.2 (9.6), respectively. The CFA model had a poor fit index as follow: RMSEA = 0.102 (90% CI: 0.097–0.107; Cfit was &lt;0.001), CFI = 0.921 and NNFI = 0.906, and WRMR = 1.952. The bi-CFA had fit indexes worse than the CFA: RMSEA = 0.120 (90% CI: 0.115–0.125; CFit 0.05 was &lt;0.001), CFI = 0.898, NNFI=0.871, and WRMR=2.301. The Bayesian CFA was the last approach and presented a PPP value of &lt;.001 and CI 57.878–203.999, which indicates a poor fit index. Conclusion: All the approaches have failed. This suggests that a methodological issue is not the biggest problem, since even the most flexible approach (Bayesian CFA) had a poor fit. Considering the heterogeneity of the different centers, additional analysis may be necessary to evaluate the influence of clinical staging in the factor structure of PANSS.</description><subject>Abstracts</subject><issn>0586-7614</issn><issn>1745-1701</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2017</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNpVkF1LwzAUhoMoOKc_wLv8gW7nNEnT3Ahjzg8YKkzxMqRttlbapjTtdP_ezorguTnn5fA-Fw8h1wgzBMXmPs2Tvpz75AtCNgMhTsgEJRcBSsBTMgERR4GMkJ-TC-8_AJCrKJyQ981CRDP6ZD_pomlaZ9Lceto5utqbsjedpbdFZWtfuNpTV9Mut_TF-aIr9paaOhuaO_MTNoc6a101HKkp7SU525rS26vfPSVvd6vX5UOwfr5_XC7WQYocRBADAyMTmSCilBJEwkFFhgMTmeRg41AaGR5H2kTFVqmQZSiQgcQwNYxNyc3Ibfqksllq6641pW7aojLtQTtT6P-fusj1zu214FIoAQMAR0DaOu9bu_3rIuijWj2q1aNaPahl3wIFbpU</recordid><startdate>20170301</startdate><enddate>20170301</enddate><creator>Higuchi, Cinthia</creator><creator>Cogo-Moreira, Hugo</creator><creator>Ortiz, Bruno</creator><creator>Noto, Cristiano</creator><creator>Cordeiro, Quirino</creator><creator>Freitas, Rosana</creator><creator>Elkis, Hélio</creator><creator>Bressan, Rodrigo</creator><creator>Gadelha, Ary</creator><general>Oxford University Press</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>5PM</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20170301</creationdate><title>SA56. New Approaches to Evaluate Dimensions on the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale</title><author>Higuchi, Cinthia ; Cogo-Moreira, Hugo ; Ortiz, Bruno ; Noto, Cristiano ; Cordeiro, Quirino ; Freitas, Rosana ; Elkis, Hélio ; Bressan, Rodrigo ; Gadelha, Ary</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c1405-8030a7b7b11177705b4096a4035d740e827a7222227eb98e9923d15130712ca33</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2017</creationdate><topic>Abstracts</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Higuchi, Cinthia</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Cogo-Moreira, Hugo</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ortiz, Bruno</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Noto, Cristiano</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Cordeiro, Quirino</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Freitas, Rosana</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Elkis, Hélio</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bressan, Rodrigo</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gadelha, Ary</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><jtitle>Schizophrenia bulletin</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Higuchi, Cinthia</au><au>Cogo-Moreira, Hugo</au><au>Ortiz, Bruno</au><au>Noto, Cristiano</au><au>Cordeiro, Quirino</au><au>Freitas, Rosana</au><au>Elkis, Hélio</au><au>Bressan, Rodrigo</au><au>Gadelha, Ary</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>SA56. New Approaches to Evaluate Dimensions on the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale</atitle><jtitle>Schizophrenia bulletin</jtitle><date>2017-03-01</date><risdate>2017</risdate><volume>43</volume><issue>suppl_1</issue><spage>S133</spage><epage>S133</epage><pages>S133-S133</pages><issn>0586-7614</issn><eissn>1745-1701</eissn><abstract>Background: The Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) is widely used as an instrument to assess symptoms. The 5-factor model is the most replicated model in studies analyzing the subjacent structure underlying symptoms profiles. However, there is no confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) study with good fit indexes. The CFA hypothesizes that an item loads on only 1 factor (no items have cross-loadings). More flexible approaches are necessary to fit the true nature of the scale. The bifactor CFA and Bayesian CFA are more flexible because they allow direct and/or indirect correlation between factors or items. The aim of this study is to perform a bifactor CFA and a Bayesian CFA as alternatives to CFA to evaluate the dimensions’ symptoms of PANSS in patients with schizophrenia. Methods: We assessed 700 patients with schizophrenia of 4 different centers with PANSS. A Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA), bifactor CFA (bi-CFA), and Bayesian CFA were performed. The fit of the bi-CFA and CFA models were assessed by considering: Comparative Fit Index (CFI) and Non-Normed Fit Index (NNFI) &gt; 0.95, the Root Mean Square Errors of Approximation (RMSEA) &lt; 0.06 and Weighted Root Mean Square Residual (WRMR) &lt; 1.0. The Bayesian CFA use the estimator bayes and has only 1 fit index, which is the Posterior Predictive P value (PPP) and its confidence interval (CI) of 95%. PPP values near 0.5 and a CI centered on zero suggests a good fit index. Results: The mean (SD) age was 34.9 (10.3) years, and 64.3% were male. Age of onset and duration of illness means were 21.7 (7.5) and 13.2 (9.6), respectively. The CFA model had a poor fit index as follow: RMSEA = 0.102 (90% CI: 0.097–0.107; Cfit was &lt;0.001), CFI = 0.921 and NNFI = 0.906, and WRMR = 1.952. The bi-CFA had fit indexes worse than the CFA: RMSEA = 0.120 (90% CI: 0.115–0.125; CFit 0.05 was &lt;0.001), CFI = 0.898, NNFI=0.871, and WRMR=2.301. The Bayesian CFA was the last approach and presented a PPP value of &lt;.001 and CI 57.878–203.999, which indicates a poor fit index. Conclusion: All the approaches have failed. This suggests that a methodological issue is not the biggest problem, since even the most flexible approach (Bayesian CFA) had a poor fit. Considering the heterogeneity of the different centers, additional analysis may be necessary to evaluate the influence of clinical staging in the factor structure of PANSS.</abstract><cop>US</cop><pub>Oxford University Press</pub><doi>10.1093/schbul/sbx023.055</doi><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0586-7614
ispartof Schizophrenia bulletin, 2017-03, Vol.43 (suppl_1), p.S133-S133
issn 0586-7614
1745-1701
language eng
recordid cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_5475950
source Oxford University Press Journals All Titles (1996-Current); Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals; PubMed Central; Alma/SFX Local Collection
subjects Abstracts
title SA56. New Approaches to Evaluate Dimensions on the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-02T20%3A59%3A03IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-pubmedcentral_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=SA56.%20New%20Approaches%20to%20Evaluate%20Dimensions%20on%20the%20Positive%20and%20Negative%20Syndrome%20Scale&rft.jtitle=Schizophrenia%20bulletin&rft.au=Higuchi,%20Cinthia&rft.date=2017-03-01&rft.volume=43&rft.issue=suppl_1&rft.spage=S133&rft.epage=S133&rft.pages=S133-S133&rft.issn=0586-7614&rft.eissn=1745-1701&rft_id=info:doi/10.1093/schbul/sbx023.055&rft_dat=%3Cpubmedcentral_cross%3Epubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_5475950%3C/pubmedcentral_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true