ArticleBrain and behavior2023
Validity and reliability of a Chinese version of the self-evaluation of negative symptoms.
Article in Brain and behavior, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Systematic Review of Self-Assessment Scales for Negative Symptoms in Schizophrenia.Brain sciences · 2025Review
- Validity and reliability of a Chinese version of the self-evaluation of negative symptoms.Brain and behavior · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The negative symptoms of schizophrenia can be present at any clinical stage, but evaluating the negative symptoms always remains challenging. To screen the negative symptoms effectively, self-evaluation should be introduced. To date, professional psychiatrists used almost all of the scales available to screen the negative symptoms but could not obtain an accurate outcome. At the same time, an advanced self-assessment scale is needed to accompany the patients' self-feeling-based treatment strategies to understand their feelings about their symptoms. Hence, Chinese self-evaluation of negative symptoms (SNS) should be introduced in China. This study aims to examine the validity and reliability of the Chinese version of SNS. Two hundred patients with schizophrenia were included in this study and were evaluated entirely with the self-assessed negative symptoms by the Chinese version. The correlation analysis was performed between SNS and the Scale for Assessment of Negative Symptoms (SANS) to assess the criterion validity of SNS for screening negative symptoms. Exploratory factor analysis was used to determine the constructive validity of the SNS. Two senior professional psychiatrists were involved in this assessment based on their clinical experience and capability to define the severity of the negative symptoms. Receiver operating characteristic curve (ROC) analysis was performed to assess the cutoff point of SNS. Cronbach's alpha coefficient and intraclass correlation (ICC) coefficient were used to determine the reliability of SNS. We have the following findings: The Chinese version of SNS demonstrated a significant correlation with the SANS (r = .774, p < .05). Exploratory factor analysis demonstrated that the factor loading varies from .442 to .788. ROC analysis demonstrated that at SNS ≥ 8, the patients demonstrated a mild severity of negative symptoms, and at SNS ≥ 15, the patients demonstrated a severe severity of negative symptoms. Subsequently, 9 < SNS < 14 was defined as a moderate severity of negative symptoms. The Cronbach's alpha and ICC coefficients of the Chinese version SNS were .877 and .774, respectively. Our results showed that the acceptable validity and reliability of the Chinese version of SNS confirmed that SNS is an ideal tool for self-assessment of the negative symptoms in patients with schizophrenia.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.