The Role of Personal Identity in Psychotic Symptoms: a Study With the Repertory Grid Technique
|The safety and scientific validity of this study is the responsibility of the study sponsor and investigators. Listing a study does not mean it has been evaluated by the U.S. Federal Government. Read our disclaimer for details.|
|ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03820362|
Recruitment Status : Completed
First Posted : January 29, 2019
Last Update Posted : January 29, 2019
|Condition or disease|
|Schizophrenia Psychotic Disorders Self|
Over recent years, the importance of the sense of self and personal identity in psychopathology and its treatment has been highlighted. Several studies inspired in the Personal Construct Psychology framework have found a variety of identity characteristics in clinical conditions such as depression or eating disorders, but the evidence in schizophrenia and other psychotic related disorders is scarce.
In addition, current psychological models of positive and negative symptoms highlight the influence of neurocognition, social cognition and self-concepts in the development and maintenance of psychotic experiences. Despite the recognized need of person-centered approaches to understand psychopathology processes in psychosis, psychological models for explaining psychotic symptoms have not explored sufficiently the role of this kind of person-centered measures.
1. To examine the influence of the structure of personal identity and other relevant cognitive factors in positive and negative symptoms
- Positive symptoms will be influenced by dichotomous thinking style and construction of self as measured with the RGT.
- Negative symptoms will be affected by the richness of the construct system as measured with the RGT.
|Study Type :||Observational|
|Actual Enrollment :||85 participants|
|Official Title:||Personal Identity, Cognitive Factors and Psychotic Symptoms in Schizophrenia and Related Disorders: A Cross-sectional Study With the Repertory Grid Technique|
|Actual Study Start Date :||February 2016|
|Actual Primary Completion Date :||November 2018|
|Actual Study Completion Date :||November 2018|
- Self-ideal discrepancy, RGT [ Time Frame: 2 hours ]Self-esteem. Possible range: 0-0,60. Higher values represent a worse outcome
- Self-others discrepancy, RGT [ Time Frame: 2 hours ]Perceived social isolation. Possible range: 0-0,60. Higher values represent a worse outcome
- Interpersonal construct differentiation, RGT [ Time Frame: 2 hours ]Percentage of Variance Accounted for the First Factor. Possible range: 0-100. Higher values represent a worse outcome
- Polarization, RGT [ Time Frame: 2 hours ]Dichotomous thinking style in the interpersonal context. Possible range: 0-100. Higher values represent a worse outcome
- Number of elicited constructs, RGT [ Time Frame: 2 hours ]Quantity of constructs that the person is able to express to describe self and others. Possible range: 10-50. Higher values represent a better outcome
- Psychotic symptoms (PANSS, Kay et al. 1987; Peralta & Cuesta, 1994). [ Time Frame: 40 minutes ]Positive and negative symptoms of psychosis. Range: 7-112. Higher values represent a worse outcome.
- Metacognition: BCIS (Beck et al. 2004; Gutiérrez-Zotes et al. 2012); Garety et al, 1991; Dudley et al, 1997) [ Time Frame: 15 minutes ]Cognitive insight. Range: 0-45. Higher values represent a better outcome
- Theory of mind: the Hinting Task (Corcoran et al., 1995; Gil-Sanz et al., 2012) [ Time Frame: 5 minutes ]Possible range: 0-12. Higher values represent a better outcome
- General intellectual functioning (WAIS) [ Time Frame: 20 minutes ]vocabulary subscale. Range: 70-140. Higher values represent a better outcome
- Executive functioning: WSCT (Bergs et al., 1948) [ Time Frame: 15 minutes ]Wisconsin Card Sorting Test. Categories completed and perseverative errors. Higher values represent a better outcome
- Sociodemographical data [ Time Frame: 10 minutes ]Gender, chronicity, antipsychotic dosage, diagnosis, age, marital status, education level, employment situation
- Depressive symptoms [ Time Frame: 10 minutes ]Beck Depression Inventory (Beck et al. 1996; Sanz, Perdigón & Vázquez, 2003). Range_ 0-63. High values represent a worse outcome.
- General functioning [ Time Frame: 5 minutes ]Global Assessment of Functioning (Endicot et al., 1976). Range: 0-100. Higher values represent a better outcome.
- Self-esteem [ Time Frame: 5 minutes ]Rosenberg self-esteem scale (Martín Albó et al., 2007). Range: 0-40. Higher values represent a better outcome
- Social functioning [ Time Frame: 20 minutes ]Social Functioning Scale (Birchwood et al., 1990; Torres & Olivares, 2000). Range: Range: 45-195
- Psychological distress [ Time Frame: 10 minutes ]CORE-OM (Evans et al., 2002; Trujillo et al., 2016). Range: 0-4. Higher values represent a worse outcome
- Jumping to Conclusions [ Time Frame: 15 minutes ]The beads task (Garety et al., 1991; Dudley et al, 1997). Dichotomous: yes/no. A "yes" represents a worse outcome
To learn more about this study, you or your doctor may contact the study research staff using the contact information provided by the sponsor.
Please refer to this study by its ClinicalTrials.gov identifier (NCT number): NCT03820362
|Parc Sanitary Sant Joan de Déu|
|Sant Boi De Llobregat, Barcelona, Spain|
|Principal Investigator:||Helena García-Mieres, MsC||Universitat de Barcelona & Parc Sanitari Sant Joan de Déu|
|Study Director:||Susana Ochoa, PhD||Parc Sanitari Sant Joan de Déu|
|Study Director:||Guillem Feixas, PhD||University of Barcelona|