4.2 Article

Measurement invariance of the Spanish Launay-Slade Hallucinations Scale-Extended version between putatively healthy controls and people diagnosed with a mental disorder

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/mpr.1741

关键词

factor analysis; hallucinatory proneness; Launay-Slade Hallucination Scale; measurement invariance; sensitivity and specificity analyses

资金

  1. Parc Sanitari Sant Joan de Deu [AR201404]
  2. Master and Back program [PRRMAB-A2011-19251]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives The current study aimed at evaluating the reliability, convergent and divergent validity, and factor structure of the Spanish Launay-Slade Hallucinations Scale-Extended version (LSHS-E) in people with mental disorders and healthy controls. Methods Results Four hundred and twenty-two individuals completed the Spanish LSHS-E and the Spanish Community Assessment of Psychic Experiences. The convergent and divergent validity of the LSHS-E was assessed with the three dimensions of the Community Assessment of Psychic Experiences (positive, negative, and depressive dimensions) in healthy controls and people with a mental disorder. Factor structure of the LSHS-E was assessed using confirmatory factor analysis and measurement invariance. The LSHS-E had a good reliability in healthy controls and people with a mental disorder (Cronbach's = 0.83 and 0.91, respectively). The LSHS-E was more strongly associated with positive psychotic-like experiences than with depressive and negative symptoms. Four factors were found: (a) intrusive thoughts; (b) vivid daydreams; (c) multisensory hallucination-like experiences; and (d) auditory-visual hallucination-like experiences that were invariant between the group of healthy controls and people with a mental disorder. Conclusion APPENDIX The Spanish version of the LSHS-E possesses adequate psychometric properties, and the confirmatory factor analysis findings provide further support for the multidimensionality of proneness to hallucination in clinical and nonclinical samples.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据