File Download

There are no files associated with this item.

  Links for fulltext
     (May Require Subscription)
Supplementary

Article: Validation of the Chinese version of the Multidimensional Schizotypy Scale (MSS): Convergent evidence from exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses

TitleValidation of the Chinese version of the Multidimensional Schizotypy Scale (MSS): Convergent evidence from exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses
Authors
KeywordsSchizotypy
Validation
Factor analysis
Schizophrenia-spectrum disorders
Issue Date2020
Citation
Asian Journal of Psychiatry, 2020, v. 51, article no. 102057 How to Cite?
Abstract© 2020 Elsevier B.V. Background: Schizotypy has been shown to be a time-stable construct that exists across the schizophrenia spectrum. The Multidimensional Schizotypy Scale (MSS) was developed to capture the three factors underlying schizotypy: positive, disorganized and negative schizotypy. However, a recent validation study reported a four-factor construct with an additional negative social anhedonia factor. The factor structure of the Chinese version of the MSS remains unknown. This study aimed to identify and validate the factor structure of the Chinese version of the MSS. Methods: We recruited 641 Chinese speakers via on-line advertisement. We administered the Chinese version of the MSS, which was a self-report instrument. The scale consists of 77 items with true or false response options. We identified and removed 43 outliers. Finally, a total of 294 participants were randomly selected as the derivative sample for exploratory factor analysis (EFA). The remaining 304 participants were retained as the validation sample for confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). Results: EFA identified four factors: the positive factor, the disorganization factor, the negative affective and motivational anhedonia factor, and the negative social anhedonia factor. The EFA-identified four-factor model was compared with the unidimensional, three-factor bifactorial and theoretical three-factor models using CFAs. The three-factor bifactorial model fitted the data better than the EFA-identified four-factor model. Conclusion: Our finding suggests that the Chinese version of the MSS is a valid tool for assessing schizotypy in the Chinese setting.
Persistent Identifierhttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/292153
ISSN
2021 Impact Factor: 13.890
2020 SCImago Journal Rankings: 0.793
ISI Accession Number ID

 

DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorZou, Ying Min-
dc.contributor.authorYang, Han Xue-
dc.contributor.authorZhang, Rui Ting-
dc.contributor.authorLui, Simon S.Y.-
dc.contributor.authorCheung, Eric F.C.-
dc.contributor.authorChan, Raymond C.K.-
dc.date.accessioned2020-11-17T14:55:52Z-
dc.date.available2020-11-17T14:55:52Z-
dc.date.issued2020-
dc.identifier.citationAsian Journal of Psychiatry, 2020, v. 51, article no. 102057-
dc.identifier.issn1876-2018-
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/292153-
dc.description.abstract© 2020 Elsevier B.V. Background: Schizotypy has been shown to be a time-stable construct that exists across the schizophrenia spectrum. The Multidimensional Schizotypy Scale (MSS) was developed to capture the three factors underlying schizotypy: positive, disorganized and negative schizotypy. However, a recent validation study reported a four-factor construct with an additional negative social anhedonia factor. The factor structure of the Chinese version of the MSS remains unknown. This study aimed to identify and validate the factor structure of the Chinese version of the MSS. Methods: We recruited 641 Chinese speakers via on-line advertisement. We administered the Chinese version of the MSS, which was a self-report instrument. The scale consists of 77 items with true or false response options. We identified and removed 43 outliers. Finally, a total of 294 participants were randomly selected as the derivative sample for exploratory factor analysis (EFA). The remaining 304 participants were retained as the validation sample for confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). Results: EFA identified four factors: the positive factor, the disorganization factor, the negative affective and motivational anhedonia factor, and the negative social anhedonia factor. The EFA-identified four-factor model was compared with the unidimensional, three-factor bifactorial and theoretical three-factor models using CFAs. The three-factor bifactorial model fitted the data better than the EFA-identified four-factor model. Conclusion: Our finding suggests that the Chinese version of the MSS is a valid tool for assessing schizotypy in the Chinese setting.-
dc.languageeng-
dc.relation.ispartofAsian Journal of Psychiatry-
dc.subjectSchizotypy-
dc.subjectValidation-
dc.subjectFactor analysis-
dc.subjectSchizophrenia-spectrum disorders-
dc.titleValidation of the Chinese version of the Multidimensional Schizotypy Scale (MSS): Convergent evidence from exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses-
dc.typeArticle-
dc.description.naturelink_to_subscribed_fulltext-
dc.identifier.doi10.1016/j.ajp.2020.102057-
dc.identifier.pmid32305866-
dc.identifier.scopuseid_2-s2.0-85083102397-
dc.identifier.hkuros319906-
dc.identifier.volume51-
dc.identifier.spagearticle no. 102057-
dc.identifier.epagearticle no. 102057-
dc.identifier.eissn1876-2026-
dc.identifier.isiWOS:000560051500039-
dc.identifier.issnl1876-2018-

Export via OAI-PMH Interface in XML Formats


OR


Export to Other Non-XML Formats