1. Psychosis Symptom Rating Scale: Potential Collaborators Meeting Robert Pollard, PhD Deaf Wellness Center URMC Department of Psychiatry

2. Structure Modeled after Psychopathy Check List – R Modeled after Psychopathy Check List – R –20 “factors” deemed relevant to psychopathy –Clinicians rate evidence of factors (0-1-2 scale) –Total score, cutoff score structure (various norms) –Stimulated many clinical, research studies Avoids complexities of testing patient directly Avoids complexities of testing patient directly Data taken from records and interview Data taken from records and interview Longer term evidence; not a “snapshot” Longer term evidence; not a “snapshot”

3. Main Research Questions Can it reliably differentiate psychotic from non-psychotic patients in “blind” samples (where psychosis is currently diagnosed by clinicians who are in agreement)? Can it reliably differentiate psychotic from non-psychotic patients in “blind” samples (where psychosis is currently diagnosed by clinicians who are in agreement)? Can it avoid mislabeling non-psychotic deaf individuals with limited or atypical sign language abilities? Can it avoid mislabeling non-psychotic deaf individuals with limited or atypical sign language abilities? Calculate norms and inter-rater reliability Calculate norms and inter-rater reliability

4. Current Status Psychosis-Deaf list serve established Psychosis-Deaf list serve established –psychosis-deaf-subscribe@yahoogroups.com Literature review conducted Literature review conducted First draft in development First draft in development National conference proposed (new funder being pursued) National conference proposed (new funder being pursued) Results needed by June, 2008 Results needed by June, 2008

5. Next Steps Complete draft one Complete draft one Get Psychosis-deaf feedback Get Psychosis-deaf feedback Revise to yield first prototype Revise to yield first prototype Test prototype at DWC Test prototype at DWC Revise prototype Revise prototype Administer prototype with collaborators Administer prototype with collaborators Feedback and revision again Feedback and revision again Administer with new collaborator group Administer with new collaborator group

6. Collaboration Issues Populations you access Populations you access –Psychotic and/non-psychotic? –Active psychosis vs. currently controlled sx? –Minimal language skilled non-psychotic? –Inpatient and outpatient mix desired –Age? IRB or its equivalent? IRB or its equivalent? Financial considerations? Financial considerations? Visits from DWC researchers (or others?) Visits from DWC researchers (or others?)

7. Instrument or Methodology Questions or Ideas? PCL-R (Hare) as model PCL-R (Hare) as model Sensitivity to acute vs. chronic psychosis? Sensitivity to acute vs. chronic psychosis? “Blind” sample validation approach “Blind” sample validation approach Training of raters; DWC vs. others? Training of raters; DWC vs. others? Other ideas or issues? Other ideas or issues?

8. Future Research Useful with undiagnosed patients? Useful with undiagnosed patients? Predictive or reflective of treatment responses? Predictive or reflective of treatment responses? Useful with populations of various sign language fluency? Oral deaf? H-O-H? Useful with populations of various sign language fluency? Oral deaf? H-O-H? Various normative groups’ performance? Various normative groups’ performance? Other…? Other…?

9. Robert_Pollard@urmc.rochester.edu www.urmc.rochester.edu/dwc