Psychosis Symptom Rating Scale: Potential Collaborators Meeting

1
Psychosis Symptom Rating Scale Potential
Collaborators Meeting

• Robert Pollard, PhD
• Deaf Wellness Center
• URMC Department of Psychiatry

2
Structure

• Modeled after Psychopathy Check List R
• 20 factors deemed relevant to psychopathy
• Clinicians rate evidence of factors (0-1-2 scale)
• Total score, cutoff score structure (various
  norms)
• Stimulated many clinical, research studies
• Avoids complexities of testing patient directly
• Data taken from records and interview
• Longer term evidence not a snapshot

3
Main Research Questions

• Can it reliably differentiate psychotic from
  non-psychotic patients in blind samples (where
  psychosis is currently diagnosed by clinicians
  who are in agreement)?
• Can it avoid mislabeling non-psychotic deaf
  individuals with limited or atypical sign
  language abilities?
• Calculate norms and inter-rater reliability

4
Current Status

• Psychosis-Deaf list serve established
• psychosis-deaf-subscribe_at_yahoogroups.com
• Literature review conducted
• First draft in development
• National conference proposed (new
  funder being pursued)
• Results needed by June, 2008

5
Next Steps

• Complete draft one
• Get Psychosis-deaf feedback
• Revise to yield first prototype
• Test prototype at DWC
• Revise prototype
• Administer prototype with collaborators
• Feedback and revision again
• Administer with new collaborator group

6
Collaboration Issues

• Populations you access
• Psychotic and/non-psychotic?
• Active psychosis vs. currently controlled sx?
• Minimal language skilled non-psychotic?
• Inpatient and outpatient mix desired
• Age?
• IRB or its equivalent?
• Financial considerations?
• Visits from DWC researchers (or others?)

7
Instrument or Methodology Questions or Ideas?

• PCL-R (Hare) as model
• Sensitivity to acute vs. chronic psychosis?
• Blind sample validation approach
• Training of raters DWC vs. others?
• Other ideas or issues?

8
Future Research

• Useful with undiagnosed patients?
• Predictive or reflective of treatment responses?
• Useful with populations of various sign language
  fluency? Oral deaf? H-O-H?
• Various normative groups performance?
• Other?

9
Robert_Pollard_at_urmc.rochester.eduwww.urmc.roches
ter.edu/dwc