MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2794888302 · doi:10.1093/schbul/sby017.631

F100. FACTOR STRUCTURE OF THE CANNABIS EXPERIENCES QUESTIONNAIRE IN A FIRST-EPISODE PSYCHOSIS SAMPLE

2018· article· en· W2794888302 on OpenAlexaff
Michael L. Birnbaum, Luca Pauselli, Sean D. Cleary, Claire Ramsey Wan, Michael T. Compton

Bibliographic record

VenueSchizophrenia Bulletin · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCannabis and Cannabinoid Research
Canadian institutionsColumbia College
Fundersnot available
KeywordsParanoiaPsychologyEuphoriantConfirmatory factor analysisPsychosisExploratory factor analysisCannabisClinical psychologyPsychiatryPsychometricsAnxietyStructural equation modeling

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Cannabis Experiences Questionnaire (CEQ) was developed to measure the subjective experiences of cannabis use both during and after intoxication. Despite the need to better understand the nature of the complex and significant relationship between cannabis use and early psychosis, this questionnaire has rarely been used in individuals with first-episode psychosis. We conducted a set of factor analyses using CEQ data from 194 first-episode psychosis patients who used cannabis, in order to uncover the underlying factor structure of the questionnaire and thus the overarching types of psychological experiences during/after using cannabis in young people with psychotic disorders. Confirmatory factor analyses were performed on the 2 full-scale CEQ factor structures identified in the literature and neither model fit the data within acceptable levels. Using all 56 CEQ items, an exploratory factor analysis (EFA) model was fit with an oblique rotation. Models with 3, 4, and 5 factors were further explored to identify underlying factors. The final 4-factor EFA model provided the best fit. It included 47 items (3 items had multiple loadings and 6 items did not load on any factor), with names given, based on item composition, as follows: Factor 1 (Distortions of Reality and Self-Perception) included 18 items (α = 0.89), Factor 2 (Euphoria Effects) included 16 items (α = 0.89), Factor 3 (Slowing and Amotivational Effects) included 7 items (α = 0.81), and Factor 4 (Anxiety and Paranoia Effects) included 6 items (α = 0.79). Our derived factor structure differed from those stemming from previous EFAs using different samples (eg, healthy individuals with varying degrees of schizotypy). The inconsistency might be best explained by the different populations sampled, ranging from healthy individuals who have smoked cannabis at least once to individuals with schizophrenia who smoked it regularly. Specifically, differences could be related to variations in how cannabis affects healthy individuals as well as those with schizotypy, as opposed to those with emerging or frank psychosis. Elucidating the underlying factor structure of the CEQ in first-episode psychosis samples could help researchers move towards a deeper understanding of the types of experiences associated with cannabis intoxication among young adults with first-episode psychosis and could inform the development of programs designed to reduce use, improve the course of illness, and possibly delay or prevent the onset of psychotic symptoms in those at risk.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.016
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.024

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.016
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.010
GPT teacher head0.273
Teacher spread0.263 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSchizophrenia BulletinSame topicCannabis and Cannabinoid ResearchFrench-language works237,207