Developing Clinical Tools to Communicate Genetic Risk for Individuals Who Are Clinical High Risk for Psychosis

Asks participants to rate the likelihood that engaging in treatment and adaptive behaviors will reduce the risk for developing psychosis, if they were told they had a genetic risk for psychosis. Items are measured on a 4-point scale (1=very unlikely, 2=somewhat unlikely, 3=somewhat likely, 4=very likely), with higher scores indicating greater perceived efficacy. Measure is divided into four sub-scales: a) avoiding unhealthy behaviors (4 items range 4-16), b) engaging in healthy behaviors (5 items range 5-20), c) utilizing specialized CHR services (3 items range 3-12), and d) help-seeking behaviors (6 items range 6-24). Changes in scores from pre- to post-intervention are reported.

Asks participants to rate the likelihood of engaging in treatment and adaptive behaviors, if they were told they had a genetic risk for psychosis. Items are measured on a 4-point scale (1=very unlikely, 2=somewhat unlikely, 3=somewhat likely, 4=very likely), with higher scores indicating greater intention. The measure was divided into four sub-scales: a) avoiding unhealthy behaviors (4 items range 4-16), b) engaging in healthy behaviors (5 items range 5-20), c) utilizing specialized CHR services (2 items range 2-8), and d) help-seeking behaviors (6 items range 6-24). Changes were measured pre- and post-intervention.

Assess participants self-stigma if they were told they had a genetic risk for psychosis. 7 items are included: I believe I would be fundamentally different from most people (range 1-4), I would be more likely to do something violent towards other people (range 1-4), I would be more likely to do something violent towards myself (range 1-4), I would be more likely to be unpredictable (range 1-4), I would feel ashamed of myself (range 1-4), I would feel embarrassed about myself (range 1-4), I would think of myself as less competent (range 1-4). each measured on a 4-point scale (1=strongly disagree, 2=somewhat disagree, 3=somewhat agree, 4=strongly agree), with higher scores indicating greater stigma. Change in scores from pre- to post-intervention are reported.

Assess participants anticipated discrimination if they were told they had a genetic risk for psychosis. 18 items (each with a range of 1-4) are measured on a 4-point scale (1=very unlikely, 2=somewhat unlikely, 3=somewhat likely, 4=very likely), with higher scores indicating greater anticipated stigma. Because this is an exploratory R21 trial, the investigators are also testing and validating new measures for this specific group and purpose however, this is based off a published discrimination scale (Wahl, 1999). Change in scores from pre- to post-intervention for each item are reported.

Assess participants anticipated rejection if they were told they had a genetic risk for psychosis. 3 items (each with a range of 1-4) measured on a 4-point scale (1=very unconcerned, 2=somewhat unconcerned, 3=somewhat concerned, 4=very concerned), with higher scores indicating greater anticipated rejection. Because this is an exploratory R21 trial, the investigators are also testing and validating new measures for this specific group and purpose; however, these items are based off of a published rejection sensitivity scale (Link, Wells, Phelan, Yang, 2015). Change in scores from pre- to post- intervention for each item are reported.