Personal identity is being recently recognized as a core element for mental health disorders, with relevant clinical implications. However, scarcity of data exists on its role in schizophrenia and related disorders. The repertory grid (RGT), a technique derived from personal construct theory, has been used in different clinical and non-clinical contexts for the study of the construction perception of self and others, to appreciate aspects of interpersonal construing such as polarization and differentiation (unidimensional thinking) or self-construction.and Our study aims to explore the potential influence of the structure of personal identity and of other relevant cognitive factors (social cognition, metacognition, neurocognition) in positive and negative symptoms in people suffering schizophrenia and related disorders.
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. Aim 1\. To examine the influence of the structure of personal identity and other relevant cognitive factors in positive and negative symptoms Hypotheses 1. Positive symptoms will be influenced by dichotomous thinking style and construction of self as measured with the RGT. 2. Negative symptoms will be affected by the richness of the construct system as measured with the RGT.
Study Type
OBSERVATIONAL
Enrollment
85
Parc Sanitary Sant Joan de Déu
Sant Boi de Llobregat, Barcelona, Spain
Self-ideal discrepancy, RGT
Self-esteem. Possible range: 0-0,60. Higher values represent a worse outcome
Time frame: 2 hours
Self-others discrepancy, RGT
Perceived social isolation. Possible range: 0-0,60. Higher values represent a worse outcome
Time frame: 2 hours
Interpersonal construct differentiation, RGT
Percentage of Variance Accounted for the First Factor. Possible range: 0-100. Higher values represent a worse outcome
Time frame: 2 hours
Polarization, RGT
Dichotomous thinking style in the interpersonal context. Possible range: 0-100. Higher values represent a worse outcome
Time frame: 2 hours
Number of elicited constructs, RGT
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
Time frame: 2 hours
Psychotic symptoms (PANSS, Kay et al. 1987; Peralta & Cuesta, 1994).
Positive and negative symptoms of psychosis. Range: 7-112. Higher values represent a worse outcome.
Time frame: 40 minutes
Metacognition: BCIS (Beck et al. 2004; Gutiérrez-Zotes et al. 2012); Garety et al, 1991; Dudley et al, 1997)
Cognitive insight. Range: 0-45. Higher values represent a better outcome
Time frame: 15 minutes
Theory of mind: the Hinting Task (Corcoran et al., 1995; Gil-Sanz et al., 2012)
Possible range: 0-12. Higher values represent a better outcome
Time frame: 5 minutes
General intellectual functioning (WAIS)
vocabulary subscale. Range: 70-140. Higher values represent a better outcome
Time frame: 20 minutes
Executive functioning: WSCT (Bergs et al., 1948)
Wisconsin Card Sorting Test. Categories completed and perseverative errors. Higher values represent a better outcome
Time frame: 15 minutes
Sociodemographical data
Gender, chronicity, antipsychotic dosage, diagnosis, age, marital status, education level, employment situation
Time frame: 10 minutes
Depressive symptoms
Beck Depression Inventory (Beck et al. 1996; Sanz, Perdigón \& Vázquez, 2003). Range\_ 0-63. High values represent a worse outcome.
Time frame: 10 minutes
General functioning
Global Assessment of Functioning (Endicot et al., 1976). Range: 0-100. Higher values represent a better outcome.
Time frame: 5 minutes
Self-esteem
Rosenberg self-esteem scale (Martín Albó et al., 2007). Range: 0-40. Higher values represent a better outcome
Time frame: 5 minutes
Social functioning
Social Functioning Scale (Birchwood et al., 1990; Torres \& Olivares, 2000). Range: Range: 45-195
Time frame: 20 minutes
Psychological distress
CORE-OM (Evans et al., 2002; Trujillo et al., 2016). Range: 0-4. Higher values represent a worse outcome
Time frame: 10 minutes
Jumping to Conclusions
The beads task (Garety et al., 1991; Dudley et al, 1997). Dichotomous: yes/no. A "yes" represents a worse outcome
Time frame: 15 minutes
This platform is for informational purposes only and does not constitute medical advice. Always consult a qualified healthcare professional.