Validity of Self-Rating Questionnaires Used for Assessing Self-Disorders? A Systematic Review
(2025) In Psychopathology 58(4). p.247-259- Abstract
Introduction: Self-disorders designate a group of nonpsychotic, trait-like, anomalous self-experiences. The “gold standard” for assessing self-disorders is largely considered to be the Examination of Anomalous Self-Experience (EASE). The EASE must be conducted as a semistructured interview, and it requires substantial knowledge of psychopathology and excellent interviewing skills. To bypass these demands, self-rating questionnaires are regularly used to assess self-disorders in research. However, it is not clear if these self-rating questionnaires are valid measures of self-disorders. The purpose of this systematic review was to assess the validity of self-rating questionnaires used for assessing self-disorders. Methods: Following the... (More)
Introduction: Self-disorders designate a group of nonpsychotic, trait-like, anomalous self-experiences. The “gold standard” for assessing self-disorders is largely considered to be the Examination of Anomalous Self-Experience (EASE). The EASE must be conducted as a semistructured interview, and it requires substantial knowledge of psychopathology and excellent interviewing skills. To bypass these demands, self-rating questionnaires are regularly used to assess self-disorders in research. However, it is not clear if these self-rating questionnaires are valid measures of self-disorders. The purpose of this systematic review was to assess the validity of self-rating questionnaires used for assessing self-disorders. Methods: Following the PRISMA guidelines, we searched PubMed, Embase, and PsycInfo for studies that had used or developed self-rating questionnaires for assessing self-disorders. Results: Twenty-nine studies had used or developed self-rating questionnaires to assess self-disorders, involving a total of 8 different self-rating questionnaires. None of these self-rating questionnaires have been properly validated to measure self-disorders in relation to EASE. Conclusion: Despite being frequently used in research, only 1 (IPASE: The Inventory of Psychotic-Like Anomalous Self-Experiences) of the 8 self-rating questionnaires has been attempted validated in relation to the EASE. Though a strong correlation was found between IPASE and EASE, the result cannot be considered valid because of profound methodological issues. We recommend that efforts to validate self-rating questionnaires are prioritized if they are to be used in research, and that results from studies using self-rating questionnaires are separated from those of EASE-based research as long as the self-rating questionnaires have not been properly validated in relation to the EASE.
(Less)
- author
- Cobanovic, Helena ; Nordgaard, Julie ; Berge, Jonas LU and Henriksen, Mads Gram
- organization
- publishing date
- 2025-08
- type
- Contribution to journal
- publication status
- published
- subject
- keywords
- Construct validity, Examination of Anomalous Self-Experience, Inventory of Psychotic-Like Anomalous Self-Experiences, Methodology, Self-Experience Lifetime Frequency Scale
- in
- Psychopathology
- volume
- 58
- issue
- 4
- pages
- 13 pages
- publisher
- Karger
- external identifiers
-
- scopus:105008831046
- pmid:40245844
- ISSN
- 0254-4962
- DOI
- 10.1159/000545364
- language
- English
- LU publication?
- yes
- id
- 291bf354-24bf-4a69-9f95-785de9c99b2f
- date added to LUP
- 2025-11-05 09:49:16
- date last changed
- 2025-12-03 12:14:09
@article{291bf354-24bf-4a69-9f95-785de9c99b2f,
abstract = {{<p>Introduction: Self-disorders designate a group of nonpsychotic, trait-like, anomalous self-experiences. The “gold standard” for assessing self-disorders is largely considered to be the Examination of Anomalous Self-Experience (EASE). The EASE must be conducted as a semistructured interview, and it requires substantial knowledge of psychopathology and excellent interviewing skills. To bypass these demands, self-rating questionnaires are regularly used to assess self-disorders in research. However, it is not clear if these self-rating questionnaires are valid measures of self-disorders. The purpose of this systematic review was to assess the validity of self-rating questionnaires used for assessing self-disorders. Methods: Following the PRISMA guidelines, we searched PubMed, Embase, and PsycInfo for studies that had used or developed self-rating questionnaires for assessing self-disorders. Results: Twenty-nine studies had used or developed self-rating questionnaires to assess self-disorders, involving a total of 8 different self-rating questionnaires. None of these self-rating questionnaires have been properly validated to measure self-disorders in relation to EASE. Conclusion: Despite being frequently used in research, only 1 (IPASE: The Inventory of Psychotic-Like Anomalous Self-Experiences) of the 8 self-rating questionnaires has been attempted validated in relation to the EASE. Though a strong correlation was found between IPASE and EASE, the result cannot be considered valid because of profound methodological issues. We recommend that efforts to validate self-rating questionnaires are prioritized if they are to be used in research, and that results from studies using self-rating questionnaires are separated from those of EASE-based research as long as the self-rating questionnaires have not been properly validated in relation to the EASE.</p>}},
author = {{Cobanovic, Helena and Nordgaard, Julie and Berge, Jonas and Henriksen, Mads Gram}},
issn = {{0254-4962}},
keywords = {{Construct validity; Examination of Anomalous Self-Experience; Inventory of Psychotic-Like Anomalous Self-Experiences; Methodology; Self-Experience Lifetime Frequency Scale}},
language = {{eng}},
number = {{4}},
pages = {{247--259}},
publisher = {{Karger}},
series = {{Psychopathology}},
title = {{Validity of Self-Rating Questionnaires Used for Assessing Self-Disorders? A Systematic Review}},
url = {{http://dx.doi.org/10.1159/000545364}},
doi = {{10.1159/000545364}},
volume = {{58}},
year = {{2025}},
}