4.6 Article

Two subdomains of negative symptoms in psychotic disorders: Established and confirmed in two large cohorts

期刊

JOURNAL OF PSYCHIATRIC RESEARCH
卷 47, 期 6, 页码 718-725

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jpsychires.2013.01.024

关键词

Factor analysis; Negative symptoms; Psychotic disorder; Schizophrenia

资金

  1. Netherlands Organization for Health Research and Development (ZonMw) [769]
  2. ZonMw within the Mental Health program [10.000.1001]
  3. European Science Foundation EURYI award (N.W.O.) [044035001]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Negative symptoms of schizophrenia are normally grouped into a single category. However, the diversity of such symptoms suggests that they are actually made up of more than one dimension. The DSM-V proposes two negative symptom domains, namely expressive deficits and avolition/asociality. We investigated whether the negative symptoms do indeed have two dimensions. An exploratory factor analysis was carried out based on interviews with the PANSS (664 patients). We restricted our analysis to items that had been described as negative symptoms in previous factor analyses. The symptom structure was then tested for stability by performing a confirmatory factor analysis on PANSS interviews from a separate cohort (2172 patients). Exploratory factor analysis yielded a two-factor structure of negative symptoms. The first factor consisted of PANSS items Flat affect, Poor rapport, Lack of spontaneity, Mannerisms and posturing, Motor retardation, and Avolition. The second factor consisted of Emotional withdrawal, Passive/apathetic social withdrawal, and Active social avoidance. The first factor could be related to expressive deficits, reflecting a loss of initiative, and the second factor to social amotivation, related to community interaction. This factor structure supports the DSM-V classification and may be relevant for pathophysiology and treatment of schizophrenia and other psychotic disorders. (C) 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

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

4.6
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