Factor mixture analysis of paranoia in young people
Paranoid thoughts are relatively common in the general population and can increase the risk of developing mental health conditions. In this study, we investigate the latent structure of paranoia in a sample of young people.
Cross-sectional survey; 243 undergraduate students (males: 44.9%) aged 24.3 years (SD 3.5). The participants completed the Green et al. Paranoid Thought Scales GPTS, a 32-item scale assessing ideas of social reference and persecution; the 12-item General Health Questionnaire (GHQ-12), and the 74-item Schizotypal Personality Questionnaire (SPQ). Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was used to confirm the two-factor structure of the GPTS. Factor mixture modeling analysis (FMMA) was applied to map the best combination of factors and latent classes of paranoia.
The GPTS showed excellent internal reliability and test–retest stability. Convergent validity was good, with stronger links with measures of ideas of reference and of suspiciousness than with other measures of psychosis–proneness. CFA showed excellent fit for the two-factor solution. FMMA retrieved a three-class solution with 176 subjects (72.5%) assigned to a baseline class, 54 (22.2%) to a “suspicious and mistrustful” class, and 13 (5.3%) to a “paranoid thinking” class. Compared to the baseline class, the other two classes had a higher risk of psychological distress and psychosis–proneness.
The latent structure of paranoid thinking in young people appears dimensional. Although caution is advised when generalizing from studies on college students, screening for paranoid ideation in young people who complain about psychological distress might prove useful to prevent the development of severe and potentially debilitating conditions.
KeywordsParanoid thinking Paranoia Psychosis Screening Schizotypy Youth
Research funded by Università di Cagliari (2012 CAR—Contributo d’ateneo per la ricerca, on the share attributed to Dr. Petretto). The funding body had no involvement in the design of the study, the collection, analysis and interpretation of data, the writing of the report, and the decision to submit the article for publication.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
Authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
The institutional review board approved the study protocol in accordance with the guidelines of the 1995 Declaration of Helsinki and their revisions.
All participants provided informed consent. Participation was voluntary and with no compensation.
- 1.Akaike H (1987) Factor analysis and AIC. Psychometrika 52:317–332Google Scholar
- 2.American Psychiatric Association (1987) Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (3rd edn Revised). Washington, DC: American Psychiatric AssociationGoogle Scholar
- 3.American Psychiatric Association (2013) Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders, 5th edn. American Psychiatric Association, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
- 5.Bekker PA, Merckens A, Wansbeek TJ (1994) Identification, equivalent models, and computer algebra. Academic Press, San DiegoGoogle Scholar
- 10.Browne MW, Cudeck R (1993) Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In: Bollen KA, Long JS (eds) Testing structural equation models. Sage, Newbury Park, pp 136–161Google Scholar
- 11.Burnham KP, Anderson DR (2002) Model selection and multimodel inference: a practical information-theoretic approach. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
- 15.Ellett L, Lopes B, Chadwick P (2003) Paranoia in a nonclinical population of college students. J Nerv Mental Dis 191:425–430Google Scholar
- 19.Fossati A, Raine A, Carretta I, Leonardi B, Maffei C (2003) The three-factor model of schizotypal personality: Invariance across age and gender. Personality Individ Differ 35:1007–1019Google Scholar
- 23.Freeman D, Garety PA (2004) Paranoia: the psychology of persecutory delusions. Psychology Press, HoveGoogle Scholar
- 27.Galobardes B, Shaw M, Lawlor DA, Lynch JW, Smith GD (2006) Indicators of socioeconomic position (part 1). J Epidemiol Commun Health 60:7–12Google Scholar
- 29.Goldberg DP (1972) The detection of psychiatric illness by questionnaire. Oxford University Press, LondonGoogle Scholar
- 35.Hu L, Bentler PM (1999) Cutoff criteria for fit indices in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Struct Equ Model 6:1–55Google Scholar
- 38.Jack A, Egan V (2017) Trouble at school: a systematic review to explore the association between childhood bullying and paranoid thinking. Psychosis 9:260–270Google Scholar
- 44.Lenzenweger ME (2010) Schizotypy and schizophrenia: the view from experimental psychopathology. Guilford Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
- 49.Mardia KV (1970) Measures of multivariate skewness and kurtosis with applications. Biometrika 57:519–530Google Scholar
- 50.Massidda D (2015) fmaTools: Tools to Integrate the Package FactMixtAnalysis. R package version 0.0-3. https://github.com/DavideMassidda/fmaTools
- 51.McDonald RP (1978) Generalizability in factorable domains: domain validity and generalizability: 1. Educ Psychol Meas 38(1):75–79Google Scholar
- 52.McFadden D (1974) Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behavior. In: Zarembka P (ed) Frontiers in econometrics. Academic Press, New York, pp 104–142Google Scholar
- 54.Nunnally JC, Bernstein IH (1994) Psychometric theory, 3rd edn. McGraw-Hill, Inc., New YorkGoogle Scholar
- 60.R Core Team (2017) R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna. http://www.Rproject.org/
- 64.Rocchi MBL, Sisti D, Manca S, Siddi S, Mura T, Preti A (2008) Latent class analysis of delusion-proneness: exploring the latent structure of the Peters et al. Delusions Invent J Nerv Mental Dis 196:620–629Google Scholar
- 65.Rosseel Y (2012) Lavaan: an R package for structural equation modeling. J Stat Softw 48:1–36Google Scholar
- 66.Satorra A (2000) Scaled and adjusted restricted tests in multi-sample analysis of moment structures. In: Heijmans DDH, Pollock DSG, Satorra A (eds) Innovations in multivariate statistical analysis: a Festschrift for Heinz Neudecker. Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht, pp 233–247Google Scholar
- 67.Schermelleh-Engel K, Moosbrugger H, Muller H (2003) Evaluating the fit of structural equation models: tests of significance and descriptive goodness-of-fit measures. Methods Psychol Res Online 8(2):23–74Google Scholar
- 69.Schwarz G (1978) Estimating the dimension of a model. Ann Stat 6(2):461–464Google Scholar
- 71.Snijders T (1992) Estimation on the basis of snowball samples: how to weight. Bull Soc Methodol 36:59–70Google Scholar
- 77.World Medical Association (2013) Declaration of Helsinki: ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects. J Am Med Assoc 310:2191–2194Google Scholar