ArticleInternational journal of methods in psychiatric research2025
Validation of the Eight-Item Paranoid Thoughts Scale (GPTS-8) in Tunisian Arab Adults.
Article in International journal of methods in psychiatric research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Psychometric Validation of the Italian 8-Item Green Paranoid Thoughts Scale (GPTS-8).International journal of methods in psychiatric research · 2026Article
- Associations of Childhood Trauma with Paranoia and Conspiracy Thinking Among Young Adults: Exploring the Indirect Role of Attachment Styles.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Validation of the Eight-Item Paranoid Thoughts Scale (GPTS-8) in Tunisian Arab Adults.International journal of methods in psychiatric research · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundGrowing research indicated that it is highly valuable and clinically beneficial to quantitatively measure and detect the potential presence of paranoid thinking. Among the various existing self-report instruments to measure paranoia, the Green et al. Paranoid Thoughts Scale (GPTS) was recommended as having the most well-defined, clearly articulated construct underlying its items, and the strongest psychometric qualities in general and clinical population samples. Yet, the psychometric performance of the GPTS remains unknown in the Arab language and culture. To address this gap, our study aimed to explore the psychometric properties of an Arabic translation of the shortest version of the scale (i.e., the GPTS-8).
methodsA cross-sectional study was conducted. Data were collected during the period September 1st 2024 to January 31th 2025. A total of 552 Arabic-speaking general population adults from Tunisia aged 25.81 ± 4.86 years participated.
resultsAnalyses provided support for a bidimensional model, with a first dimension referring to ideas of persecution and a second one corresponding to ideas of reference. The internal consistency reliability coefficients were high, with both Cronbach's alpha and McDonald's ω reported to be 0.83 for ideas of persecution and 0.83 for ideas of reference. Measurement invariance was established for both subscales, implying that the Arabic GPTS-8 measures the same underlying construct of paranoia in the same way across male and female respondents. Finally, paranoia scores correlated positively with psychotic experiences scores, indicating convergent validity, as well as with depression, anxiety and insomnia scores, supporting the concurrent validity of the scale.
conclusionBy translating and validating GPTS-8 for the first time in Arabic, this study contributes to rendering the tool available to a broader array of clinicians and researchers who work with Arabic-speaking people. We believe the new Arabic version of the GPTS-8 will provide further encouragement to research and development in this yet-unexplored field among Arabic-speakers.
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.