The Community Assessment of Psychic Experiences: Optimal cut-off scores for detecting individuals with a psychotic disorder
Publication date
2021-12
Editors
Advisors
Supervisors
Document Type
Article
Metadata
Show full item recordCollections
License
cc_by_nc
Abstract
Objectives: The need for a brief screening tool for psychosis is widely recognized. The Community Assessment of Psychic Experiences (CAPE) is a popular self-report measure of psychosis, but a cut-off score that can detect those most likely to fulfill diagnostic criteria for psychotic disorder is not established. Methods: A case–control sample from the Genetic Risk and Outcome of Psychosis Project study (N = 1375, healthy individuals, n = 507, and individuals with a psychotic disorder, n = 868), was used to examine cut-off scores of the CAPE with receiver operating curve analyses. We examined 27 possible cut-off scores computed from a combination of scores from the frequency and distress scales of the various factors of the CAPE. Results: The weighted severity positive symptom dimension was most optimal in detecting individuals with a psychotic disorder (>1.75 cut-off; area under the curve = 0.88; sensitivity, 75%; specificity, 88%), which correctly identified 80% of the sample as cases or controls with a diagnostic odds ratio of 22.69. Conclusions: The CAPE can be used as a first screening tool to detect individuals who are likely to fulfill criteria for a psychotic disorder. The >1.75 cut-off of the weighted severity positive symptom dimension provides a better prediction than all alternatives tested so far.
Keywords
early detection, psychotic experiences, psychotic symptoms, ROC, schizophrenia, Psychiatry and Mental health
Citation
Jaya, E S, van Amelsvoort, T, Bartels-Velthuis, A A, Bruggeman, R, Cahn, W, de Haan, L, Kahn, R S, van Os, J, Schirmbeck, F, Simons, C J P & Lincoln, T M 2021, 'The Community Assessment of Psychic Experiences : Optimal cut-off scores for detecting individuals with a psychotic disorder', International Journal of Methods in Psychiatric Research, vol. 30, no. 4, e1893, pp. 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1002/mpr.1893