IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/jriskr/v20y2017i11p1480-1496.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Convergent and concurrent validity of the Frankfurt Complaint Questionnaire as a screener for psychosis risk

Author

Listed:
  • Chantal Michel
  • Christine Kutschal
  • Benno G. Schimmelmann
  • Frauke Schultze-Lutter

Abstract

For the broad identification of a risk for a serious mental disorder, valid and reliable screeners are needed to detect those most likely benefitting from a time-consuming and costly in-depth clinical assessment. In the early detection of psychoses, multiple screeners for an ultra-high-risk have already been suggested. Yet, no screener explicitly targets an increased risk according to the basic symptoms (BS) criteria. We therefore explored the Frankfurt Complaint Questionnaire (FCQ) as a potential screener for BS in comparison with their gold standard clinical assessment using the Schizophrenia Proneness Instrument (SPI-A/SPI-CY) by examining its convergent (agreement between screener and gold standard, calculated by the overall percentages of agreement between FCQ and SPI-A/SPI-CY) and concurrent (degree to which a screener can identify individuals with the target condition, examined by diagnostic accuracy measures calculated using thresholds of receiver operating characteristic curves) validity. The sample consisted of 81 patients of a psychosis early detection service (41 with an at-risk mental state or psychosis, and 40 with a nonpsychotic mental disorder). Only two visual perception disturbances reached a beyond-chance level of agreement between FCQ and SPI-A/SPI-CY. For the BS criteria ‘cognitive perceptive basic symptoms’ and ‘cognitive disturbances’, only insufficient agreement between assessment techniques was detected with Cohen’s kappa being 0.228 and 0.130, respectively, with an overestimation by the FCQ. Diagnostic likelihood ratios indicated only a clinically irrelevant increase in the probability of detecting BS criteria; thus, the concurrent validity of both the total of all and of only criteria-relevant FCQ items was insufficient. Both concurrent and convergent validity of the FCQ were poor, and the FCQ dramatically overestimated clinician-assessed risk. Our results suggest that the FCQ should not be used as a screener for BS criteria and that the convergent validity is not guaranteed on the basis of face validity alone, but has to be formally assessed.

Suggested Citation

  • Chantal Michel & Christine Kutschal & Benno G. Schimmelmann & Frauke Schultze-Lutter, 2017. "Convergent and concurrent validity of the Frankfurt Complaint Questionnaire as a screener for psychosis risk," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 20(11), pages 1480-1496, November.
  • Handle: RePEc:taf:jriskr:v:20:y:2017:i:11:p:1480-1496
    DOI: 10.1080/13669877.2016.1179209
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/13669877.2016.1179209
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/13669877.2016.1179209?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:taf:jriskr:v:20:y:2017:i:11:p:1480-1496. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/RJRR20 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.