Reliability and discriminant validity of the Slovak version of the 16-item Prodromal Questionnaire (PQ-16) in a student sample

ABSTRACT

Background

The Prodromal Questionnaire (PQ) is a widely used measure for psychosis risk assessment. The primary aim of this study is to examine the reliability and discriminant validity of the Slovak version of the 16-item Prodromal Questionnaire (PQ-16) in a sample of university students.

Methods

A sample of 1276 (75% female) university students completed a cross-sectional online survey consisting of a large battery of scales measuring psychopathology, social functioning, and well-being. The mean age was M = 22.59 and SD = 3.94.

Results

On a bivariate level, the prodromal symptoms severity measured by the PQ-16 was associated with depression, anxiety, lower well-being, and more severe problems in social functioning. The PQ-16 explained a significant variability of social functioning above and beyond the effect of depression and anxiety. Results revealed sufficient internal reliability (α = 0.774 and ω = 0.761) of the scale.

Discussion

The Slovak version of the PQ-16 has sound reliability and shows an adequate pattern of association with depression, anxiety, and social functioning. These promising findings need to be replicated on an independent sample of help-seeking individuals or a high-risk population.

KEYWORDS:

• Anxiety
• depression
• prodromal symptoms
• PQ-16
• social functioning

An ethical issue

The study conforms to ethical standard as laid down in the 1964 Declaration of Helsinki and its later amendments and the baseline project was approved by the Ethical Review Board of University Hospital Bratislava and the Faculty of Medicine at Comenius University. All participants gave their informed consent prior to their participation.

Authors’ contribution

JJ: Conceptualization (lead); Formal analysis (lead); Writing – Original Draft (lead); Writing – Review & Editing (equal). AS: Formal analysis (supporting); Writing – Original Draft (supporting); Writing – Review & Editing (equal); MT, BV, LF, AH, JP: Investigation (equal); Methodology (equal); Writing – Review & Editing (equal). MH: Investigation (lead); Conceptualisation (supporting); Methodology (lead); Writing – Review & Editing (equal). Supervision (lead); Project administration (lead); Funding Acquisition (lead)

Data availability statement

The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

Disclosure statement

MT, BV, LF, and MH report personal fees and non-financial support from Lundbeck, and Angelini, MT reports personal fees from Sanofi Aventis, BV reports personal fees and non-financial support from, Janssen and personal fees from Gedeon Richter, LF reports personal fees from Gedeon Richter, and Eli Lilly, and JP reports personal fees from Lundbeck, Egis, Abb Vie, and Janssen, outside the submitted work. The authors do not have any conflict of interest regarding the design, data collection, and interpretation of the results.

Additional information

Funding

This work was supported by the VEGA under Grant 1/0184/19. It is a result of the following project implementation: Comenius University Science Park, supported by the Research and Development Operational Programme funded by the ERDF. Grant number: ITMS 26240220086.