Psychotic phenomena are multifaceted constructs that can be encountered in a diverse range of primary diagnoses. Additionally, over many decades low-grade or ‘softer signs’ of core psychotic phenomenology have been observed in non-patients, leading to the development of several dimensional models of psychosis, such as the schizotaxia-schizotypy-schizophrenia model, the psychosis proneness-persistence-impairment model, and the psychosis super-spectrum of the recently developed Hierarchical Taxonomy of Psychopathology (HiTOP). Likewise, individual differences in problems with reality testing have been integrated in various personality models, such as the alternative model for personality disorders and several psychoanalytic models of personality structure.
Next to clinical judgment, different instruments are utilized to assess the varying signs and symptoms of psychotic phenomena. Instruments include self-report and informant-report questionnaires, clinical interviews, observational rating scales, and performance-based measures. Some instruments that assess psychotic phenomena are used solely for research purposes and others are used for both scientific study and clinical care. Although, ideally, clinicians are informed in their clinical assessment by the findings of scientific research and researchers investigate the issues which are relevant to the diagnostic questions that clinicians face, there is a gap between research and clinical practice. Research on assessment instruments may show promising predictive patterns, but that is only a first step towards clinically useful application. For example, it also has to be shown that assessment is sufficiently discriminating to allow for clinically relevant decision-making. Furthermore, the possible benefits of assessment-based decisions need to be evaluated against alternative procedures for decision-making (e.g. clinician-based judgment, clinical flowcharts, patient preference, random allocation). Conversely, not all assessment procedures that are commonly used in clinical practice have been thoroughly evaluated in research and hence their evaluation depends primarily on clinical expertise, which is important but prone to error.
Common diagnostic questions in clinical practice include the differentiation between psychotic disorders and other clinical disorders or more benign presentations, the prediction of future course or risk, and the selection of optimal treatment. What are novel research findings in these areas that can be incorporated directly into clinical care or that represent potential contributions in need of further research? In medicine, the ongoing development of clinical expertise in practical settings often precedes hard scientific evidence for best practices. What practice-based ideas and hypotheses are being developed that may present possibilities for future research? Finally, clinical wisdom dictates that multi-method and multi-informant assessment are of added clinical utility of assessment. Is there empirical evidence for this? Overall, the goal of this Research Topic is to strengthen bi-directional connections between research and clinical practice in the assessment of psychotic phenomena.
We invite articles (meta-analyses and systematic reviews, clinical trials, cohort studies, qualitative research, commentaries and case-control studies) on:
• the translation of clinical expertise into research on the assessment of psychosis
• steps towards implementation of assessment instruments in clinical practice
• the evaluation of the clinical utility of psychosis assessment both in psychosis care and in non-psychotic clinical settings
• assessment predictive of treatment selection for individuals with psychotic phenomena
• assessment predictive of the clinical course of psychosis, such as onset of a psychotic disorder, relapse or remission, or another relevant clinical outcome, e.g. suicidality or violence, which was or can be implemented in clinical care
• studies on the value of multi-method and multi-informant assessment to clinically relevant outcomes in individuals with psychotic phenomena
• differential patterns in assessment findings between psychotic phenomena and non-psychotic phenomena, e.g. fantasy proneness, normal developmental features in children, dissociation, or malingering
• differential patterns in assessment findings between psychotic disorders and psychotic phenomena as features in other clinical disorders, personality traits, or personality organization.
Psychotic phenomena are multifaceted constructs that can be encountered in a diverse range of primary diagnoses. Additionally, over many decades low-grade or ‘softer signs’ of core psychotic phenomenology have been observed in non-patients, leading to the development of several dimensional models of psychosis, such as the schizotaxia-schizotypy-schizophrenia model, the psychosis proneness-persistence-impairment model, and the psychosis super-spectrum of the recently developed Hierarchical Taxonomy of Psychopathology (HiTOP). Likewise, individual differences in problems with reality testing have been integrated in various personality models, such as the alternative model for personality disorders and several psychoanalytic models of personality structure.
Next to clinical judgment, different instruments are utilized to assess the varying signs and symptoms of psychotic phenomena. Instruments include self-report and informant-report questionnaires, clinical interviews, observational rating scales, and performance-based measures. Some instruments that assess psychotic phenomena are used solely for research purposes and others are used for both scientific study and clinical care. Although, ideally, clinicians are informed in their clinical assessment by the findings of scientific research and researchers investigate the issues which are relevant to the diagnostic questions that clinicians face, there is a gap between research and clinical practice. Research on assessment instruments may show promising predictive patterns, but that is only a first step towards clinically useful application. For example, it also has to be shown that assessment is sufficiently discriminating to allow for clinically relevant decision-making. Furthermore, the possible benefits of assessment-based decisions need to be evaluated against alternative procedures for decision-making (e.g. clinician-based judgment, clinical flowcharts, patient preference, random allocation). Conversely, not all assessment procedures that are commonly used in clinical practice have been thoroughly evaluated in research and hence their evaluation depends primarily on clinical expertise, which is important but prone to error.
Common diagnostic questions in clinical practice include the differentiation between psychotic disorders and other clinical disorders or more benign presentations, the prediction of future course or risk, and the selection of optimal treatment. What are novel research findings in these areas that can be incorporated directly into clinical care or that represent potential contributions in need of further research? In medicine, the ongoing development of clinical expertise in practical settings often precedes hard scientific evidence for best practices. What practice-based ideas and hypotheses are being developed that may present possibilities for future research? Finally, clinical wisdom dictates that multi-method and multi-informant assessment are of added clinical utility of assessment. Is there empirical evidence for this? Overall, the goal of this Research Topic is to strengthen bi-directional connections between research and clinical practice in the assessment of psychotic phenomena.
We invite articles (meta-analyses and systematic reviews, clinical trials, cohort studies, qualitative research, commentaries and case-control studies) on:
• the translation of clinical expertise into research on the assessment of psychosis
• steps towards implementation of assessment instruments in clinical practice
• the evaluation of the clinical utility of psychosis assessment both in psychosis care and in non-psychotic clinical settings
• assessment predictive of treatment selection for individuals with psychotic phenomena
• assessment predictive of the clinical course of psychosis, such as onset of a psychotic disorder, relapse or remission, or another relevant clinical outcome, e.g. suicidality or violence, which was or can be implemented in clinical care
• studies on the value of multi-method and multi-informant assessment to clinically relevant outcomes in individuals with psychotic phenomena
• differential patterns in assessment findings between psychotic phenomena and non-psychotic phenomena, e.g. fantasy proneness, normal developmental features in children, dissociation, or malingering
• differential patterns in assessment findings between psychotic disorders and psychotic phenomena as features in other clinical disorders, personality traits, or personality organization.
