1 / 9

Psychosis Symptom Rating Scale: Potential Collaborators Meeting

Psychosis Symptom Rating Scale: Potential Collaborators Meeting. Robert Pollard, PhD Deaf Wellness Center URMC Department of Psychiatry. Structure. Modeled after Psychopathy Check List – R 20 “factors” deemed relevant to psychopathy Clinicians rate evidence of factors (0-1-2 scale)

aradia
Download Presentation

Psychosis Symptom Rating Scale: Potential Collaborators Meeting

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Psychosis Symptom Rating Scale: Potential Collaborators Meeting Robert Pollard, PhD Deaf Wellness Center URMC Department of Psychiatry

  2. Structure • Modeled after Psychopathy Check List – R • 20 “factors” deemed relevant to psychopathy • Clinicians rate evidence of factors (0-1-2 scale) • Total score, cutoff score structure (various norms) • Stimulated many clinical, research studies • Avoids complexities of testing patient directly • Data taken from records and interview • Longer term evidence; not a “snapshot”

  3. Main Research Questions • Can it reliably differentiate psychotic from non-psychotic patients in “blind” samples (where psychosis is currently diagnosed by clinicians who are in agreement)? • Can it avoid mislabeling non-psychotic deaf individuals with limited or atypical sign language abilities? • Calculate norms and inter-rater reliability

  4. Current Status • Psychosis-Deaf list serve established • psychosis-deaf-subscribe@yahoogroups.com • Literature review conducted • First draft in development • National conference proposed (new funder being pursued) • Results needed by June, 2008

  5. Next Steps • Complete draft one • Get Psychosis-deaf feedback • Revise to yield first prototype • Test prototype at DWC • Revise prototype • Administer prototype with collaborators • Feedback and revision again • Administer with new collaborator group

  6. Collaboration Issues • Populations you access • Psychotic and/non-psychotic? • Active psychosis vs. currently controlled sx? • Minimal language skilled non-psychotic? • Inpatient and outpatient mix desired • Age? • IRB or its equivalent? • Financial considerations? • Visits from DWC researchers (or others?)

  7. Instrument or Methodology Questions or Ideas? • PCL-R (Hare) as model • Sensitivity to acute vs. chronic psychosis? • “Blind” sample validation approach • Training of raters; DWC vs. others? • Other ideas or issues?

  8. Future Research • Useful with undiagnosed patients? • Predictive or reflective of treatment responses? • Useful with populations of various sign language fluency? Oral deaf? H-O-H? • Various normative groups’ performance? • Other…?

  9. Robert_Pollard@urmc.rochester.eduwww.urmc.rochester.edu/dwc

More Related