UC Irvine

Despite the common use of either psychometric or clinical methods for identifying individuals at risk for psychosis, previous research has not examined the correspondence and extent of convergence of these 2 approaches. Undergraduates (n = 160), selected from a larger pool, completed 3 self-report schizotypy scales: the Magical Ideation Scale, the Perceptual Aberration Scale, and the Revised Social Anhedonia Scale. They were administered the Structured Interview for Prodromal Syndromes. First, high correlations were observed for self-report and interview-rated psychotic-like experiences (rs between .48 and .61, p < .001). Second, 77% of individuals who identified as having a risk for psychosis with the self-report measures reported at least 1 clinically meaningful psychotic-like experience on the Structured Interview for Prodromal Syndromes. Third, receiver operating characteristic curve analyses showed that the self-report scales can be used to identify which participants report clinically meaningful positive symptoms. These results suggest that mostly White undergraduate participants who identify as at risk with the psychometric schizotypy approach report clinically meaningful psychotic-like experiences in an interview format and that the schizotypy scales are moderately to strongly correlated with interview-rated psychotic-like experiences. The results of the current research provide a baseline for comparing research between these 2 approaches.