Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

The factor structure of schizotypy and its relationship to social functioning Zhang, Lisa Chiyun 2014

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
24-ubc_2014_september_zhang_lisa.pdf [ 321.05kB ]
Metadata
JSON: 24-1.0165973.json
JSON-LD: 24-1.0165973-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 24-1.0165973-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 24-1.0165973-rdf.json
Turtle: 24-1.0165973-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 24-1.0165973-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 24-1.0165973-source.json
Full Text
24-1.0165973-fulltext.txt
Citation
24-1.0165973.ris

Full Text

    	           THE FACTOR STRUCTURE OF SCHIZOTYPY AND ITS RELATIONSHIP TO SOCIAL FUNCTIONING   by   LISA CHIYUN ZHANG   B.Sc., McGill University, 2012         A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE DEGREE OF   MASTER OF ARTS  in  THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE AND POSTDOCTORAL STUDIES  (Psychology)  THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA  (Vancouver)  August 2014     © Lisa Chiyun Zhang, 2014  ii  Abstract A three-factor model of schizotypy is the prevailing theoretical model in the literature. However, item-level factor analyses of schizotypy measures suggest that a four- or five-factor model may provide the best fit for this construct. Few item-level factor analyses of these measures have been conducted, and these analyses have generally used smaller samples with relatively few males. To address these issues and to further explore the factor structure of schizotypy, we conducted an exploratory item-level factor analysis of the Schizotypal Personality Questionnaire (SPQ) on a sample of 1850 undergraduate students (562 males). We found evidence supporting a five-factor model consisting of: Mistrust, Social Anhedonia, Unusual Beliefs and Experiences, Social Anxiety, and Oddity/Eccentricity factors. This model emerged in both males and females. Although the factor structure appeared gender invariant, there were some gender differences in scores on these factors. Males scored higher than females on the Mistrust, Social Anhedonia, and Oddity/Eccentricity factors, while females scored higher than males on the Social Anxiety factor. We also investigated the functional correlates of these schizotypy factors. A series of correlational analyses revealed that four out of five of our derived factors were significantly correlated with overall social functioning (with the exception of the Unusual Beliefs and Experiences factor). The magnitude of the correlation between the negative symptom factor that emerged from factor analysis, Social Anhedonia, and social functioning was greater than the magnitude of the correlation between any of the other factors and social functioning.      iii Preface This thesis is original intellectual product of the author Lisa Zhang. The author is responsible for all study development, data analysis, and writing, with guidance from her supervisor Colleen Brenner. Members of the University of British Columbia Clinical and Cognitive Neuroscience Lab assisted with data collection. This study was conducted with the approval of the University of British Columbia Clinical Research Ethics Board, under approval certificate H13-01599. None of the text of this thesis is taken directly from previously published articles.                   iv Table of Contents  Abstract……………………………………………………………………………...………ii Preface……………………………………………………………………………...….........iii Table of Contents……………………………………………………………………....…...iv List of Tables……………………………………………………………………....………..v List of Figures…………………………………………………………………………...….vi Introduction…………………………………………………………………….………...…1  Background on Schizotypy………………………………………………..…………1  Assessment of Schizotypy and Schizotypy Factors………………………..…...……2  Schizophrenia-spectrum Disorders and Social Functioning………………..………..7  Schizophrenia Symptom Dimensions and Social Functioning………………..……..9 Schizotypy Symptom Dimensions and Social Functioning……………………....…10  Description of the Current Study…………………………………………..……..…13 Method……………………………………………………………………………………....16 Results…………………………………………………………………………...…..….…...17 Discussion.………………………………………………………………………………...…25  Conclusions……………………………………………………………………...…...25   Factor Structure of Schizotypy…………………………………………....….25   Gender Differences in Factor scores……………………………………….…28   Relationship to Social Functioning………………………………………..….30  Limitations……………………………………………………………………….…...32 References………………………………………………...……….………...…………...…..35   v  List of Tables Table 1. Descriptive Statistics for the SPQ Subscales……………………………...………18  Table 2. Descriptive Statistics for the SAS-SR........................................................................19  Table 3. Summary of Factor Extractions …………………………...……………...………21  Table 4. Intercorrelations of the Five Item-Level Factors……………………….....………22  Table 5. Mean Factor Scores for Males (n=562) and Females (n=1288)…….……….…...23  Table 6. Correlations Between Derived Five Factors and Social Functioning (n=1850) and Raine’s Three Factors and Social Functioning (n=1850)………………….…….……25                  vi  List of Figures Figure 1. Scree plots for males and females……………………………...…………….……20  1 Introduction Schizotypy, a collection of traits that are related to schizophrenia-spectrum disorders, is theorized to be composed of three dimensions: positive, negative, and disorganized symptoms. These dimensions are thought to parallel the positive, negative, and disorganized symptoms of schizophrenia. Although the three-factor model of schizotypy is the prevailing model in the literature, evidence from item-level factor analyses of schizotypy measures suggest that a four- or five-factor model may be the best fitting model of schizotypy. However, this work remains very preliminary, and these results need to be replicated in a larger sample with a greater number of male participants. Furthermore, the functional correlates of different schizotypy symptom dimensions remain unclear. While schizophrenia research has established a clear relationship between negative symptoms and impaired social functioning both in terms of premorbid functioning and in terms of predicting future functioning, results are mixed in studies of schizotypy. Therefore, further research is necessary to investigate (1) the precise factor structure of schizotypy as determined by more sophisticated analytical methods and (2) whether the dimensions underlying schizotypy and schizophrenia are similar in their functional correlates. The current study examined the factor structure of schizotypy using an exploratory item-level factor analysis of a commonly used schizotypy measure and examined the relationship between the dimensions that emerge from that factor analysis and concurrent social functioning.  Background on Schizotypy Schizotypy is generally discussed in one of two ways. Schizotypy sometimes refers to a categorical disorder, where it is thought of as a discrete schizophrenia-spectrum disorder (i.e. schizotypal personality disorder). Schizotypy is also discussed in a more continuous manner, where schizotypy refers to a range of psychosis-related personality traits that exist in both non- 2 clinical and clinical populations. This paper will primarily discuss the latter type of schizotypy, also known as psychometric schizotypy (i.e. a set of behavioural traits and cognitions which are thought to represent the subclinical manifestation of schizophrenia-spectrum disorders in the general population).   Psychometric schizotypy refers to an enduring set of personality and cognitive traits that are related to symptoms of schizophrenia. Psychosis is now generally regarded as existing on a continuum, where schizotypal traits may predict the development of a psychosis-spectrum disorder, such as schizophrenia, schizoaffective disorder, and delusional disorder, in non-clinically disordered individuals. (Ahmed et al., 2013; Barrantes-Vidal et al., 2013; Blanchard, Collins, Aghevli, Leung, & Cohen, 2011; Claridge, 1994; Claridge, McCreery, Mason, Bentall, & Boyle, 1996; Johns & van Os, 2001; Gooding, Tallent, & Matts, 2005). The growing interest in studying schizotypy in the literature, may provide an opportunity to examine some of the processes that are related to and may eventually lead to schizophrenia-spectrum disorders.  Assessment of Schizotypy and Schizotypy Factors The two most commonly used measures of schizotypy are the Schizotypy Personality Questionnaire (SPQ) (Raine, 1991) and the Wisconsin Schizotypy Scales (WSS) – otherwise known as the Chapman Psychosis Proneness scales (Chapman, Chapman, & Raulin, 1978; Eckblad & Chapman, 1983, Chapman, Chapman, & Raulin, 1976; Eckblad, Chapman, Chapman & Mishlove, 1982). These two sets of measures conceptualize schizotypy differently, and it is important to understand the differences between these measures when examining the schizotypy literature. The Chapman scales are based on the premise that different symptom features may indicate vulnerability for different types of psychoses, based on Meehl’s (1962) conceptualization of schizotypy. The most commonly used Chapman scales are composed of  3 Magical Ideation (Mag), Perceptual Aberration (Per), Social Anhedonia (Soc), and Physical Anhedonia (Phys) scales. The SPQ on the other hand contains 9 subscales, which correspond directly to the nine traits associated with schizotypal personality disorder (SPD) in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (3rd ed., rev. [DSM-III-R]): social anxiety, no close friends, constricted affect, paranoia, ideas of reference, magical thinking, unusual perceptual experiences, odd speech, and odd behaviour. The SPQ has been widely used in large university and community samples.  A number of factor analyses have found support for a three-factor structure of schizotypy as assessed by the SPQ (e.g. Fossati, Raine, Carretta, Leonardi, & Maffei, 2003; Raine et al., 1994; Reynolds, Raine, Mellingen, Venables, & Mednick, 2000; Vollema & Hoijtink, 2000; Wuthrich & Bates, 2006). Raine and colleagues, who created the SPQ, used confirmatory factor analysis to assess five competing models of schizotypal personality in the general population: the null model, a one-factor model, a simple two-factor model, the Kendler two-factor model, and a three factor model. They found support for a three-factor model with cognitive-perceptual, interpersonal, and disorganization dimensions (Raine et al., 1994; Raine, 2006). The same factor structure and dimensions have also been obtained by other studies (Debbané, Badoud, Balanzin, & Eliez, 2013; Fossati et al., 2003; Mata, Mataix-Cols, & Peralta, 2005; Raine et al., 1994; Reynolds et al., 2000; Rossi & Daneluzzo, 2002). In another factor analysis, Vollema and Hoijtink derived a somewhat different three-factor model of schizotypy based on the SPQ, which includes positive, negative, and disorganized dimensions. Vollema and Hoijtink’s model of schizotypy overlaps with Raine et al.’s in many ways. Raine et al.’s cognitive-perceptual dimension is composed of the ideas of reference, magical thinking, unusual perceptual experiences, and paranoid ideation subscales of the SPQ, whereas Vollema and Hoijtink’s  4 positive dimension is composed of the ideas of reference, unusual perceptual experiences, odd beliefs, and suspiciousness subscales. Raine et al.’s interpersonal dimension is made up of the social anxiety, no close friends, constricted affect, and paranoid ideation subscales, whereas Vollema and Hoijtink’s negative dimension is made up of the excessive social anxiety, no close friends, constricted affect, ideas of reference, and suspiciousness subscales. Both Raine et al.’s and Vollema and Hoijtink disorganized dimensions are composed of the odd speech and odd/eccentric behaviour subscales. As a whole, these two popular models of psychometric schizotypy based on the SPQ both present a three-factor model with dimensions roughly equivalent to positive/cognitive/perceptual, negative/interpersonal, and disorganized symptoms.  Much of the existing factor analytic literature of the SPQ uses confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), comparing the fit of a number of competing models. Many of the studies discussed so far (though not all) have only assessed the fit of one-, two-, or three-factor models, which, of course, does not rule out models containing four or more factors. Furthermore, some researchers have recently made the argument that much of the data that is discussed in support of three-factor models were not subjected to sufficiently high fit standards (Chmielewski & Watson, 2008; Wuthrich & Bates, 2006). Although the three-factor model appears superior to earlier models of schizotypy (e.g. compared to one-factor models and two-factor models such as Kendler et al.’s 1991 models), it may be premature to accept Raine et al.’s (1994) three-factor model as the basic factor structure of schizotypy.  Some recent analyses addressing these issues have found support for four- or five-factor models being superior to three-factor models in fitting SPQ data. Stefanis and colleagues (2004) examined the latent structure of schizotypal dimensions using confirmatory factor analysis in a sample of 1355 young male conscripts in the Greek Air Force. Their analyses supported a four- 5 factor model with cognitive/perceptual, negative, disorganization, and paranoid dimensions when compared to competing one-, two-, three-, four-, and five- factor models. Another group using confirmatory factor analysis found that a four-factor model fit the SPQ better than other models, though the authors found that a modified three-factor model displayed a better fit than an unmodified four-factor model (Wuthrich & Bates, 2006).  Another major shortcoming of the factor analytic SPQ literature is that the vast majority of analyses occur at the subscale level, rather than at the item level (Chmielewski & Watson, 2008). Factor analyses have traditionally been conducted using the nine existing SPQ subscales, which severely limits the ability of analyses to detect more than three or four factors, given that at least two or three markers are necessary to define a factor in structural analyses. Chmielewski and Watson proposed a way to avoid these problems by conducting item-level factor analyses of the SPQ (i.e. analyses incorporating all 74 items on the SPQ). Furthermore, there is evidence suggesting that the nine subscales that make up the SPQ may not represent coherent, relatively independent factors (Chiemelewski & Watson, 2008). Given possible problems with the nine subscale format of the SPQ, researchers further limit their ability to derive meaningful information with subscale-level factor analyses. Chiemelewski and Watson’s 2008 study failed to find support for Raine’s three-factor model, and instead found five replicable dimensions that are only weakly correlated with each other corresponding to social anhedonia, unusual beliefs and experiences, social anxiety, mistrust, and eccentricity/oddity. Since then, two research groups have used item-level factor analyses of the SPQ, yielding multifactorial models yielding four or more factors. Bove and Epifani’s 2012 item-level CFA yielded four factors which were weakly correlated to each other and were similar to four out of five of Chiemelewski and Watson’s factors (unusual beliefs and experiences, mistrust, social anhedonia, and eccentric/odd  6 behaviour). Another study examining schizotypy as a possible correlate of paranormal beliefs in undergraduates found support for a five-factor model of schizotypy using an exploratory item-level factor analysis of the SPQ (Kelley, 2011). Although this item-level approach is promising, the work in this area is very preliminary; this approach requires follow-up and replication in order better characterize the latent factors underlying schizotypy.  Thus far, item-level factor analyses of the SPQ have employed samples of ranging in size from 400 to 668 individuals, with the vast majority of the individuals in each study being female. It is unknown whether the same structure would emerge in a larger sample with a larger number of male respondents, especially given evidence that males and females score differently on different subscales of the SPQ. In particular, gender differences on the SPQ and the Wisconsin Schizotypy Scales have been reported. Several studies have found support for males scoring higher than females on negative symptoms (Dickey et al., 2005; Mata, Mataix-Cols, Paralta, 2005; Miller & Burns, 1995), and there is particularly strong evidence in support of males scoring higher than females on the No Close Friends and Constricted Affect subscales on the SPQ (Badcock & DragovÍc, 2006; Bora & Arabaci, 2009; Dickey et al., 2005; Fossati et al., 2003; Guo, Collinson, Subramaniam, & Chong, 2011). A meta-analysis of the Wisconsin Schizotypy Scales by Miettunen & Jääskeläinen in 2010 also suggests that males score higher than females on measures of negative schizotypy (i.e. the Physical Anhedonia and Social Anhedonia scales). There is some evidence suggesting that females score higher than males on other aspects of schizotypy, though the evidence is more equivocal. Some researchers propose that females score higher than males on measures of positive schizotypy (e.g. Mata, Mataix-Cols & Paralta, 2005, Roth & Baribeau, 1997). However, others have reported no gender differences in positive schizotypy (Miettunen & Jääskeläinen, 2010; Miller & Burns, 1995), or have found  7 that males scored higher on positive schizotypy (Fonseca-Pedrero, Paino, Lemos-Giráldez, Sierra-Baigrie, & Muñiz, 2011). The SPQ Social Anxiety Scale may be a subscale in which females score consistently higher than males (Badcock & DragovÍc, 2006; Bora & Arabaci, 2009; Fossati et al., 2003). In summary, there is clear evidence in support of gender differences on subscales scores of schizotypy. Some research has also addressed possible gender differences in the factor structure of schizotypy. Subscale-level confirmatory factor analyses support an invariant factor structure across genders (Badcock & DragovÍc, 2006; Fonseca-Pedrero et al., 2011; Fossati et al., 2003; Reynolds, Raine, Mellingen, Venables & Mednick, 2000); however, gender invariance of factor structure has not been examined from item-level analyses. Separate item-level factor analyses on large male samples should be conducted in order (1) to examine the whether the same exploratory factor structure emerges for both genders and (2) to evaluate whether males and females differ on the factor scores that emerge from item-level analysis.  Schizophrenia-spectrum Disorders and Social Functioning Schizophrenia, by definition, is associated with significant impairments in functioning. The DSM requires significant social/occupational dysfunction be present in order for a diagnosis of schizophrenia to be conferred. Schizotypy is also associated with impairments in occupational and social functioning (functioning that exists in a social realm). Specifically, schizotypy was correlated with social functioning in a large group of nonclinical adolescents, where those who score higher on the SPQ also tended to have poorer social functioning (Fonseca-Pedrero, Lemos-Giráldez, Paíno-Piñerio, Villazón-García, & Muñiz, 2010). This is a well replicated finding, where greater levels of schizotypy are associated with worse social functioning (Aguirre, Sergi, & Levy, 2008; Barrantes-Vidal, Lewandowsky, & Kwapil, 2010; Fonseca-Pedrero et al., 2010; Gross, Silvia, Barrantes-Vidal, & Kwapil, 2012; Henry, Bailey & Bendell, 2008; Jashan & Sergi,  8 2007; Kwapil, Barrantes-Vidal, & Silvia, 2008; McCleery et al., 2012; Melley, Oltmanns, & Turkheimer, 2002; Wang et al., 2013a; Wang et al., 2013b). Similarly, the presence of clinical schizotypal personality disorder is associated with worse scores on measures of social functioning (Skodol et al., 2002; Skodol et al., 2005). The Social Adjustment Scale Self-Report (SAS-SR) is a widely used self-report instrument measuring social functioning in six different role domains (Weissman & Bothwell, 1976, Weissman, Prusoff, Thompson, Harding, & Myers, 1978; Weissman, 1999; Weissman, Olfson, Gameroff, Feder, & Fuentes, 2001). Typically, in studies using undergraduate participants, researchers elect to use the three role domains most common to students: student, social/leisure, and family. Most studies investigating schizotypy and social functioning using this measure find that schizotypy is associated with poorer social functioning in all three of these social functioning domains (Aguirre et al., 2008; Jashan & Sergi, 2007; McCleery et al., 2012; Melley et al., 2002; Skodol et al., 2002; Skodol et al., 2005).  The studies cited above are composed only of studies that explicitly address social functioning. Other researchers have found that the presence of schizotypal personal disorder is associated with poorer social relationships and skills (Dickey et al., 2005) as well as impaired vocational functioning, even after controlling for symptoms and cognitive functioning (McGurk et al., 2013). In a twenty-year prospective community study, persistently high levels of schizotypal signs were associated with significant deficiencies including problems at work and interpersonal problems (Rössler et al., 2007). People with schizotypal personality disorder were also less likely to be employed or living independently and scored worse on functional capacity, as measured by a performance-based skills assessment (McClure, Harvey, Bowie, Iacoviello, & Siever, 2013). Furthermore people scoring high in schizotypy performed worse compared to a control group in facial emotion recognition, theory of mind, emotion management (Morrison,  9 Brown, & Cohen, 2013), and interpersonal sensitivity (Miller & Lezenweger, 2012), skills that are likely relevant to social functioning.  Schizophrenia Symptom Dimensions and Social Functioning As in schizotypy, the three-factor model is the prevailing model of schizophrenia (e.g. Andreasen, Arndt, Alliger, Miller, & Flaum, 1995; Bilder, Mukherjee, Rieder, & Pandurangi, 1985; Liddle, 1987; Malla, Norman, Williamson, Cortese, & Diaz, 1993; Thompson & Meltzer, 1993). Schizophrenia is often described in terms of positive and negative symptoms, with positive symptoms referring to those that healthy individuals do not normally experience (i.e. hallucinations and delusions), and negative symptoms refer to those that constitute deficits of normal emotional experience or of other thought processes. Negative symptoms include flat affect, alogia, anhedonia, and avolition (Earnst & Kring, 1997). Disorganized symptoms refer to disturbances of thought and speech. Many researchers have noted the parallels between the factor analytically derived elements of schizotypy and the dimensions of positive, negative, and disorganization symptoms reported in schizophrenia. Raine and colleagues, for example, propose that the cognitive-perceptual symptom dimension maps onto positive symptoms and that the interpersonal symptom dimension maps onto negative symptoms (Raine et al., 1994). The similar factor structures found in schizotypy and schizophrenia supports the idea that schizotypal signs and schizophrenic symptoms may both be part of a common psychosis spectrum (Johns & van Os, 2001). Furthermore, if the positive, negative, and disorganization symptom dimensions found in schizotypy and schizophrenia represent the manifestation of similar underlying etiological factors, these dimensions can be studied to better understand both schizotypy and schizophrenia.   10 Another area of inquiry involves the functional correlates of these symptom dimensions. Many studies have found a relationship between functioning and negative symptoms in individuals diagnosed with schizophrenia. Negative symptoms are correlated with poorer premorbid social, occupational, and sexual functioning (Earnst & Kring, 1997). The relationship between poorer premorbid functioning and greater levels of symptoms seems to be specific to the negative symptom dimension. A number of studies have found that negative but not positive or disorganized symptoms are related to poorer premorbid functioning (Addington & Addington, 1993; Gupta, Rajaprabhakharan, Arndt, Flaum, & Andreasen, 1995; Levitt, Shenton, McCarley, Faux, & Ludwig, 1994; Pogue-Geile & Harrow, 1984 – see McGlashan & Fenton, 1992 for a brief review). Furthermore, negative symptoms may predict worse social functioning at follow-up assessment in patients diagnosed with schizophrenia, based on findings from several longitudinal studies (Dickerson, Boronow, Ringel, & Parente, 1999; Pogue-Geile & Harrow, 1984). Negative symptoms have also been found to specifically predict worse global psychosocial functioning, more impairment in relationships, and worse work performance (Milev, Ho, Arndt, & Andreasen, 2005). The literature suggests that the negative symptoms dimension of schizophrenia is uniquely related to worse social functioning, both in terms of premorbid functioning as well as future functioning.  Schizotypy Symptom Dimensions and Social Functioning Despite the established relationship between the negative dimension of schizophrenia and social functioning, it is unclear whether a similar relationship exists for schizotypy. Answering this question would help address whether symptom dimensions (and in particular, the negative symptom dimension) of schizotypy and schizophrenia are related to the same latent behaviors and cognitions, which might be expected given the empirical support for a dimensional view of  11 schizophrenia-spectrum disorders (Johns & van Os, 2001. Furthermore, investigating the relationship between schizotypy dimensions and social functioning may be informative regarding the etiology of schizophrenia-spectrum disorders.  Emerging evidence suggests that the negative dimension of schizotypy, as well as schizophrenia, may be uniquely related to poorer concurrent social functioning. Henry, Bailey, and Bendell (2008) examined correlations between SPQ scores and overall social functioning as measured by the Social Functioning Scale in a sample of 223 non-clinical community volunteers, and reported that only negative symptoms were associated with worse social functioning (r =  -.31); there were no significant correlations between the scores on the positive or disorganized symptom dimensions and social functioning. Another study also reported correlations between the SPQ dimensions and a social functioning measure, the newly developed First Episode Social Functioning Scale (FESFS) in a large sample of college students (Wang et al., 2013a). In this case, all of cognitive-perceptual, interpersonal, and disorganized symptom dimensions were significantly correlated with at least one social functioning domain. However, only the interpersonal dimension (which is thought to correspond to negative symptoms) correlated to all 6 social functioning domains measured by the FESFS (interpersonal, family and friends, school, living skills, intimacy, and balance). In another study, the same research group investigated whether empathy mediates the relationship between schizotypy traits and social functioning in college students (Wang et al., 2013b). They used the Chapman Psychosis Proneness Scales in a large sample of college students, where positive schizotypy scores were obtained based on the Magical Ideation Scale and the Perceptual Aberration Scale from the Chapman Psychosis Proneness Scales, and negative schizotypy scores were obtained based on the Physical Anhedonia and Revised Social Anhedonia Scale from the Chapman Psychosis Proneness Scales.  12 Out of positive and negative schizotypy traits, only negative schizotypy traits were significantly correlated with social functioning as measured by the FESFS (r = -.37). These studies indicate that negative schizotypy symptoms may have a unique relationship to social functioning.  However, the evidence as a whole is somewhat equivocal when it comes to the relationship between negative schizotypy and social functioning. For example, in a study by Gross et al. (2012), researchers correlated scores on the Chapman Psychosis-Proneness Scales with the SAS-SR and found that scores on all scales (Magical Ideation, Perceptual Abberation, Physical Ahedonia, and Social Anhedonia) were significantly associated with worse social functioning. However, when examining the data more closely, only the correlation between the social ahedonia measure, a construct related to negative schizotypy (Earnst & Kring 1997), and the social functioning domain was of a relatively large magnitude. The correlation between the social/leisure domain on the SAS and the social anhedonia scale was .34.  Other studies have found that both positive and negative symptom dimensions are related to poorer social functioning. Another correlational study using the Chapman Psychosis Proneness Scales and the Social Adjustment Scale (SAS-SR) found that both positive and negative schizotypy were associated with poorer overall and social functioning in a large sample of college students (Kwapil, Barrantes-Vidal, & Silvia, 2008). However, negative schizotypy was associated with a decreased likelihood of intimate relationships (Kwapil et al., 2008). Examination of the student-relevant role domains that comprise the SAS-SR (student, social/leisure, family) revealed a significant association between positive schizotypy and all three role domains. For negative symptoms, there was only a significant relationship between negative symptoms and the social/leisure and family domain. Although it is unclear whether this difference is significant, it appears that the relationship between negative schizotypy and the  13 social/leisure domain was of a greater magnitude than the relationship between positive schizotypy and the social/leisure domain.  Since correlational analyses do not take individuals who are elevated on more than one schizotypy dimension simultaneously into account, Barrantes-Vidal, Lewandowsky, and Kwapil (2010) used cluster analysis to examine the relationship between schizotypy and social functioning. Using the Chapman Psychosis Proneness Scales and the Social Adjustment Scales (SAS-SR) they classified 780 college students into four clusters: low, high positive, high negative, and mixed (high positive and negative) schizotypy. Their data indicated that the mixed group had lower levels of self-reported social functioning compared to all other groups in overall social functioning, and in the social/leisure and family social functioning domains. In their study, both positive and negative schizotypy clusters reported impaired overall social functioning compared to the low schizotypy cluster. Negative schizotypy was associated with worse functioning in the social/leisure and family domains (but not the student domain) compared to the low schizotypy group. On the other hand, positive schizotypy was associated with worse functioning in all three domains (student, social/leisure, and family) compared to the low schizotypy group. The negative schizotypy cluster did worse than the positive schizotypy cluster on the social/leisure domain.  Description of the Current Study Factor structure of the SPQ. Using a large undergraduate sample, we examined the factor structure of the SPQ using item-level factor analysis. Given the disparate findings in the literature on the number of factors that best represent the SPQ, and that most factor analytic work has been conducted on predetermined subscales, item-level factor analysis on a large sample addresses an important gap in the literature. In addition, the few item-level factor analyses that  14 have been conducted so far have employed samples of several hundred participants that are predominantly female.  Given research suggesting possible gender differences in subscale scores, we addressed a gap in the literature by conducting item-level factor analyses on a large sample of male participants.  This allowed us to evaluate whether the same factor structure underlies schizotypy in both males and females. Although some evidence suggests factor structure invariance, there is no evidence thus far in support of factor structure invariance based on item-level factor analysis. We also assessed whether females and males scored differently on the factors that emerged from item-level analysis. We predicted that males would score higher than females on negative symptom factors based on previous research. This study is novel in that we conducted factor analyses in a sample of over a thousand participants with a large number of male participants. Based on previous findings in the literature, we predicted the emergence of a four- or five-factor structure of schizotypy in both genders. We examined the internal consistency of the factors that emerged using Cronbach’s α.   Relationship between schizotypy symptom dimensions and social functioning. The second phase of the study investigated the relationship between the dimensions of schizotypy and social functioning.  The schizophrenia literature supports the existence of a unique relationship between the negative symptom domain and poorer functioning. However, the evidence in the schizotypy literature is more equivocal. In order to clarify this relationship, we used the results of our item-level factor analysis and examined the correlations between our derived factors and social functioning. We also calculated the correlations between Raine et al.’s (1994) commonly used cognitive-perceptual/positive, interpersonal/negative, and disorganized schizotypal symptom dimensions and social functioning. We hypothesized that our item-level  15 factors predominantly characterized by negative symptoms would be related to worse social functioning. We also hypothesized that the correlations between our negative symptom item-level factors and social functioning would be stronger than those between Raine et al.’s negative symptom dimension and social functioning, because we expected our item-level analysis to produce factors that are more representative of the latent factors found in the SPQ. Investigating this relationship with a more rigorously derived factor structure may clarify the so-far equivocal relationship between schizotypy dimensions and social functioning.  Next, we examined the correlations between schizotypy dimensions and specific domains of social functioning. Although these analyses were more exploratory, the literature suggests that the positive dimension, but not the negative dimension of schizotypy may be related to student functioning, whereas the negative dimension of schizotypy may be especially related to social/leisure functioning. Therefore, we tested these hypotheses using our item-level factors and examined whether other significant correlations emerged between our item-level factors and social functioning in particular domains. We also analyzed whether the magnitudes of the relationships between the different schizotypy dimensions and overall social functioning differed significantly. In doing so, we contributed to the literature by explicitly examining the relative magnitude of the relationship between the different schizotypy dimensions and overall functioning, as well as social functioning in student, social/leisure, and family domains. Although other researchers have reported the magnitude of the relationship between schizotypy symptom dimensions and social functioning, few have explicitly compared the magnitudes of these relationships       16  Method  Research Design This study examined the relationships between schizotypy dimensions and social functioning. We conducted an item-level exploratory factor analyses and examined correlational data based on large online data set. The independent variable is schizotypy symptom dimension scores, and the dependent variables are overall, school, social/leisure, and family functioning.  Participants This study included a total of 2298 participants who completed an online questionnaire. The participants were recruited from the University of British Columbia student community through the UBC Psychology human subject participant pool. Students were compensated with course credit for their participation. In order to control the quality of the data, we included questions to evaluate whether participants were paying attention to the questionnaire. After excluding participants that failed at least one of the two attentions items in the questionnaire (e.g. “If you are paying attention please select “pretty good”), the final dataset contained data from 1850 participants (1288 females, 562 males, ranging from 18-59, mean age = 20.85, SD = 3.05). Measures Demographic Information. The dataset includes demographic information including information on age, gender, handedness, ethnicity, highest level of education, parents’ highest level of education, diagnosed psychological disorders, and medication.  Schizotypy. The Schizotypal Personality Questionnaire (SPQ) is a commonly used self-report scale modeled on the DSM criteria for schizotypal personality disorder (Raine, 1991), consisting of 74 dichotomous (true/false) items. The SPQ contains 9 subscales for the 9 schizotypal traits found in the DSM: ideas of reference, social anxiety, odd beliefs/magical  17 thinking, unusual perceptual experiences, eccentric/odd behavior and appearance, no close friends, odd speech, constricted affect, and suspiciousness/paranoid ideation. The SPQ has been found to have high internal reliability (.91), test-retest reliability (.82), convergent validity (.59 to .81), discriminant validity (.63), and criterion validity (.68) (Raine, 1991).  Social Functioning. The Social Adjustment Scale Self-Report (SAS-SR) is a self-report scale containing 54 questions that measure role performance over the previous 2 weeks (Weissman & Bothwell, 1976, Weissman et al., 1978; Weissman, 1999; Weissman et al., 2001). Six major areas of functioning are covered: work or student, social and leisure activities, family relationships, role as a marital partner, parental role, and role within the family unit. Each question is rated on a 5-point scale, with higher scores indicating more impairment. The SAS-SR has been found to be psychometrically sound with well-established norms, with good internal consistency (.71 to .85) and test-retest reliability (.78) (Weissman, 1999). There is also evidence supporting the validity of the SAS-SR based on a wide variety of research and clinical contexts (see Weissman, 1999).  Results  Descriptive Statistics  Overall scores across subscales were comparable to results from others studies examining the SPQ in undergraduate samples (e.g. see Chimelewski & Watson, 2008; Raine, 1991). A series of one-way ANOVAs were conducted to examine gender differences on the SPQ subscales. Levene’s test of homogeneity of variances with indicated heterogeneity of variance for Odd Beliefs and Magical Thinking (F(1, 1848) = 12.34, p<.001), Odd or Eccentric Behavior (F(1,1848) = 16.56, p < .001), No Close Friends (F(1, 1848) = 6.91, p=.009, and Constricted Affect (F(1,1848)= 11. 98, p =.001) subscales. After Bonferonni correction and using Welch’s  18 method where the assumption of homogeneity of variance was violated, these analyses revealed that females scored higher than males on Social Anxiety (F(1, 1848) = 22.81, p<.001) and Odd Beliefs and Magical Thinking (F(1, 1848) = 10.65, p=.001). Males scored higher than females on Odd or Eccentric Behavior (F(1, 1848) =  40.80, p<.001), No Close Friends (F(1, 1848) = 12.53, p<.001), Constricted Affect (F(1, 1848) = 35.01, p<.001), Suspiciousness (F(1, 1848) = 11.40, p=.001). Males also scored higher than females on total SPQ scores, F(1, 1848) = 8.70, p=.003). See table 1 for a summary of male, female, and overall scores on the SPQ subscales. Potential gender differences in overall, school, social/leisure, and family functioning were also examined. A series of one-way ANOVAs revealed no significant gender differences. See table 2 for a summary of male, female, and overall scores on the SAS-SR.  Table 1 Descriptive Statistics for the SPQ Subscales  Female (n = 1288) Male (n=562) All (n=1850) SPQ Subscale Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD 1. Ideas of Reference 2.81 2.38 3.00 2.46 2.86 2.41 2. Social Anxiety* 3.59 2.46 3.00 2.36 3.41 2.44 3. Odd Beliefs or Magical Thinking* .95 1.36 .73 1.12 .88 1.30 4. Unusual Perceptual Experiences 1.57 1.74 1.77 1.85 1.63 1.78 5. Odd or Eccentric Behavior* 1.48 1.88 2.13 2.07 1.68 1.96 6. No Close Friends* 1.96 2.03 2.34 2.17 2.07 2.08 7. Odd Speech 2.88 2.32 3.17 2.39 2.96 2.34 8. Constricted Affect* 1.47 1.63 2.01 1.86 1.63 1.72 9. Suspiciousness* 2.06 2.05 2.41 2.14 2.16 2.08 10. Total* 18.75 11.97 20.56 12.41 19.30 12.13 Note. Scores are equivalent to the number of items endorsed  *Indicates significant gender differences after Bonferonni correction (p<.005)          19 Table 2 Descriptive Statistics for the SAS-SR  Female (n = 1288) Male (n=562) All (n=1850) Role Domain Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Overall 1.90 .37 1.89 .38 1.90 .37 School 1.78 .49 1.75 .51 1.77 .54 Social/Leisure 2.05 .47 2.07 .47 2.05 .47 Family 1.78 .52 1.75 .38 1.77 .50 Note. Scores are equivalent to the number of items endorsed   Factor analysis To investigate the structure underlying the SPQ we conducted an item-level factor analysis using the minimum residual extraction method with a Promax rotation. Given the dichotomous nature of the SPQ items, we conducted the above analyses using the fa.poly function in R which inputs the data as a polychoric correlation matrix for exploratory factor analysis. Separate analyses were conducted in males and females in order to investigate possible gender differences in the structure of the SPQ. To decide how many factors to extract, we initially examined the scree plot (see figure 1). The scree plot supported the existence of five factors in both males and females. In order to further evaluate how many factors should be retained, we examined the four-, five-, and six- factor solutions in more detail. We evaluated these solutions based on factor interpretability and the number of valid marker items. All variables that had primary loadings of at least .35 were considered to be markers of a factor, with the exception of items with cross-loadings of at least .30 on at least one other factor. See table 3 for a summary of these factor extractions.   20 	  Figure 1. Scree plots for males and females We decided to retain five factors for both females and males on the basis of these criteria. Although the female four-factor solution was interpretable, we rejected in on the basis of a relatively high number of cross loadings compared to the four- and five-factor solutions. In addition, one of the factors consisted of items related to interpersonal functioning, but the factor did not make a distinction between deficit traits (such as constricted affect and lack of interest in friendships) and non-deficit traits (such as social anxiety). We rejected the male four-factor solution because of poor factor loadings, with only three valid marker items for one of the extracted factors. Both the five- and six- factor solutions for males and females were interpretable and had a similar number of marker items. In the end, we chose the five- factor solution because of its greater parsimony, and because of previous theoretical support for a five-factor model. The six-factor models were extremely similar to the five-factor models. The major difference was that the five-factor models contained an oddity/eccentricity factor composed of Scree	  plot	  -­‐	  females0246810121416182022241 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12Component	  numberEigenvaluesScree	  plot	  -­‐	  males02468101214161820221 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12Component	  numberEigenvalues 21 items from the SPQ Odd or Eccentric Behavior and Odd Speech items, while the six-factor models contained separate odd speech and odd/eccentric behavior factors.  Table 3 Summary of Factor Extractions Gender No. of factors Total variance explained (%) No. of cross loadings No. of marker items Female 4 50 21 52 Male 4 47 16 56 Female 5 53 16 57 Male 5 50 20 48 Female 6 56 14 59 Male 6 53 19 49  Note. Marker items were defined as those loading ≥ .35 on a factor.  Cross loadings were defined as secondary loadings ≥ .30.    A close examination of the male and female five-factor solutions revealed very similar results, and we concluded that the item-level factor structure of the SPQ is likely gender invariant. Therefore, the male and female samples were pooled for further examination. The final factor solution consisted of five factors Mistrust, Social Anhedonia, Oddity/Eccentricity, Unusual Beliefs and Experiences, and Social Anxiety. The model accounted for 53% of the total variance in the sample, with a total of 53 marker items. We examined the internal consistency of each factor using Cronbach’s α. The Mistrust factor consisted of 14 items mostly from the Ideas of Reference and the Suspiciousness SPQ subscales (Cronbach’s α=.84). The Social Anhedonia factor consisted of 14 items from the Constricted Affect and No Close Friends subscales (Cronbach’s α=.80). The Oddity/Eccentricity factor consisted of 11 items from the Odd or Eccentric Behavior and Odd Speech susbcales (Cronbach’s α=.83), the Unusual Beliefs and Experiences factors consisted of 7 items from the Magical Thinking and Unusual Perceptual Experiences subscales (Cronbach’s α=.66). The Social Anxiety factor consisted of 7 items from the Social Anxiety subscale (Cronbach’s α=.82). Out of these factors, the Social Anhedonia  22 factor emerged as the only factor characterized by negative symptoms. See table 4 for a summary of intercorrelations between these factors.  Table 4 Intercorrelations of the Five Item-Level Factors  Factor 1 2 3 4 5 1. Mistrust      2. Social Anhedonia .35     3. Oddity/Eccentricity .57 .45    4. Unusual Beliefs and Experiences .56 .21 .43   5. Social Anxiety .33 .43 .30 .05    Although the factor structure appeared invariant between males and females, there were some gender differences on how participants scored on the factors. Factor scores were calculated by adding together participants’ scores on all the items that were considered markers for each factor. A series of one-way ANOVAs were conducted to examine gender differences on factor scores. Levene’s test of homogeneity of variances indicated heterogeneity of variance for the Social Anhedonia (F(1, 1848) = 16.08, p < .001), Oddity/Eccentricity (F(1, 1848) = 9.02, p = .003), and Unusual Beliefs and Experiences factors (F(1, 1848) = 4.95, p = .026, but not for the Mistrust (F(1, 1848) = .64, p = .42) or Social Anxiety factors (F(1, 1848) = .98, p = .32). After Bonferonni correction and using Welch’s method where the assumption of homogeneity of variance was violated, these analyses revealed significant a significant main effect of gender on Mistrust scores (F(1, 1849) = 9.14, p = .003), Social Anhedonia scores (F(1, 1849) =  34.27, p < .001), Oddity/Eccentricity scores (F(1, 1849) = 37.41, p < .001), and Social Anxiety scores (F(1, 1849) = 22.81, p < .001). There were no gender differences on the Unusual Beliefs and Experiences factor, F(1, 1849) = 4.00, p = .046. Males scored higher than females on Mistrust, Social Anhedonia, and Oddity/Eccentricity, while females scored higher than males on Social Anxiety. See table 5 for a summary of mean factor scores by gender.   23 Table 5 Mean Factor Scores for Males (n=562) and Females (n=1288)   Female Male Factor Mean SD Mean SD 1. Mistrust* 4.26 3.76 4.84 3.88 2. Social Anhedonia* 2.41 2.62 3.21 2.94 3. Oddity/Eccentricity* 2.77 2.86 3.67 3.05 4. Unusual Beliefs and Experiences 0.94 1.34 0.81 1.23 5. Social Anxiety* 3.59 2.46 3.00 2.36 Note. *Indicates significant gender differences after Bonferonni correction (p<.01)  Correlations In order to examine the relationship between our derived factors and social functioning, we ran a series of correlations between factor scores and overall, school, social/leisure, and family social functioning as measured by the SAS-SR. Note that a higher score on the SAS-SR indicates worse social functioning. Because of gender differences in factor scores, we ran correlational analyses separately in men and women. We conducted a series of analyses using Fisher r-to-z transformations for comparing correlations from independent samples to see if there were significant differences in these two groups for correlations between factor scores and overall, school, social/leisure, and family social functioning. These analyses revealed no significant gender differences after Bonferroni correction; therefore, we proceeded with correlational analyses in the overall sample.  In the overall sample, there was a significant correlation between Mistrust, Social Anhedonia, Oddity/Eccentricity, and Social Anxiety and all social functioning measures after Bonferonni corrections for multiple comparisons. There was no significant correlation between the Unusual Beliefs and Experiences factor and any of the social functioning domains. See table 6 for a summary of these correlations.   We also evaluated the relative magnitude of the Factor-Overall functioning correlations, using Steiger’s Z method for comparing dependent correlations (Hoerger, 2013; Steiger, 1980).  24 With Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons, these analyses revealed significant differences between the correlation between Social Anhedonia and overall social functioning and the correlation between all other factors and overall social functioning (vs. Mistrust (Z(1847)=4.42, p<.001, vs. Oddity Eccentricity (Z(1847)=6.43, p<.001, vs. Unusual Beliefs and Experiences (Z(1847)=13.09, p<.001, and vs. Social Anxiety (Z(1847)=4.77, p<.001) , where the magnitude of the correlation between Social Anhedonia and overall social functioning was greater than the magnitude between any other factor and overall social functioning. These analyses also revealed significant differences between the correlation between The Unusual Beliefs and Experiences factor and overall social functioning and the correlations between all other factors and overall social functioning (vs. Mistrust (Z(1847)=11.21, p<.001, vs. Social Anhedonia (Z(1847)=13.09, p<.001, vs. Oddity/Eccentricity (Z(1847)=8.69, p<.001), vs. Social Anxiety (Z(1847)=9.12, p<.001), where the correlation between the Unusual Beliefs and Experiences factor and overall social functioning was less than the magnitude between any other factor and overall social functioning.   Next, we compared the magnitude of the correlations between our derived five factors and overall social functioning with the magnitude of the correlations between Raine’s three factors and overall social functioning. In order to compare the relationship between our derived factors and Raine’s three factors, we examined the correlations between Raine’s factors and our social functioning measures. We found that Raine’s three factors were each significantly correlated with all social functioning measures after Bonferonni correction. See table 5 for a summary. Using Steiger’s Z method for comparing dependent correlations, we found that the magnitude of the correlation between the Interpersonal factor and overall social functioning was greater that the magnitude of the correlations between either the Cognitive-Perceptual factor  25 (Z(1847)=8.89, p<.001) or the Disorganized factor (Z(1847)=7.92, p<.001) and overall social functioning.  Table 6 Correlations Between Derived Five Factors and Social Functioning (n=1850) and Raine’s Three Factors and Social Functioning (n=1850)   Derived Factors Overall School Social Family 1. Mistrust  .34*  .26*  .20*  .27* 2. Social Anhedonia  .44*  .20*  .44*  .28* 3. Oddity/Eccentricity  .30*  .20*  .21*  .22* 4. Unusual Beliefs and Experiences .06        .05 .00 .06 5. Social Anxiety  .34*  .15*  .36*  .20*  Note.    Raine’s Factors     1. Cognitive-Perceptual .32* .23* .25* .25* 2. Interpersonal .49* .25* .31* .31* 3. Disorganized .32* .22* .24* .24*  Note. *indicates significance after Bonferonni correction (p<.004)   Finally, we conducted a final Steiger’s Z-test in order to evaluate whether the negative symptom factor from our item-level analyses, Social Anhedonia, was differentially correlated to overall social functioning compared to the negative symptom factor from Raine’s model, the Interpersonal factor. This analysis revealed that the magnitude of the correlation between the Interpersonal factor and overall social functioning was greater than the magnitude of the correlation between the Social Anhedonia factor and overall social functioning (Z(1847)=3.72, p<.001).  Discussion Conclusions Factor Structure of Schizotypy. This study provides novel insight into the gender invariance of the factor structure of schizotypy as well as of the factor scores themselves. Although there were minor differences in the strength of factor loadings, the factors and item  26 loadings were very similar across gender, which leads to the conclusion that the factor structure of schizotypy is indeed gender invariant. This is consistent with previous subscale-level factor analyses that have yielded gender invariant factor structure (Badcock & DragovÍc, 2006; Fonseca-Pedrero et al., 2011; Fossati et al., 2003; Reynolds, Raine, Mellingen, Venables & Mednick, 2000). To the authors’ knowledge, this is the first study of its kind that has used item-level factor analysis to analyze the factor structure of schizotypy and furthermore employed a sufficiently large male sample in order to investigate gender differences in schizotypy. Based on the very similar factor structures that emerged from the female and male data in the current study, we determined the final factor structure by pooling male and female data. We replicated the results of previous item-level factor analyses yielding a five-factor structure. This may indicate that schizotypy is a more heterogeneous construct than is currently presented in the majority of the literature. Like Chiemelewski and Watson’s 2008 item-level factor analysis, we found four factors composed primarily of pairs of SPQ subscales. The Idea of Reference and Suspiciousness subscales combined to make up the Mistrust factor. The Constricted Affect and No Close Friends subscales paired together to make up the Social Anhedonia factor – the only factor most clearly characterized by negative symptoms. The Odd or Eccentric Behavior and Odd Speech subscales made up the Oddity/Eccentricity factor, a factor that can be considered roughly analogous to a disorganized symptoms dimension. The Unusual Beliefs and Experiences factor was composed of the Magical Thinking and Unusual Perceptual Experiences subscales. Finally, Social Anxiety emerged as an independent factor, and was made up of, predictably, of items from the Social Anxiety subscale of the SPQ. These factors all displayed good internal consistency with Cronbach’s alphas equal to or greater to .80 with the exception of the Unusual Beliefs and Experiences factor.   27 These results were similar to those found in previous item-level factor analyses. However, there were some differences of note. First, the factor structure in the current study accounted for a larger proportion of the variance than Chiemlewski & Watson’s 2008 study as well as Kelly’s 2011 study. Where Chiemelewki and Waston’s solution accounted for approximately a little more than a third of the variation in responding and Kelley’s solution accounted for approximately 40%, the factor structure in the current study accounted for over half of the variation in responding (53%). Second, Chiemelweki and Watson’s study yielded lower factor loadings, as well as fewer cross loadings. These differences in variance explained and factor loadings are likely due to our use of polychoric/tetrachoric correlation matrices in our factor analysis, which leads to higher item loadings for dichotomous or categorical data. Bove and Epifani’s 2012 study used tetrachoric correlation matrices; however they did not report the proportion of variance explained by their factor structure or the strength of their factor loadings. Compared to these previous item-level analyses, there were also some differences in intercorrelations between factors. In the current study, factor intercorrelations ranged from .05 to .57, with a mean intercorrelation of .325, which is higher than previously reported mean factor intercorrelations of around .25 (Chiemelewki & Watson, 2008; Kelley, 2008).  Overall, item-level analyses, as compared to subscale-level analyses, seem to support the existence of more than three factors. In fact, our analyses as well as other item-level analyses, suggest the existence of at least four and possibly up to six distinct factors underlying the SPQ. The current study focuses on a five-factor solution because it performed best on the basis of our criteria of interpretability and number of valid marker items; however, the six-factor solution also emerged as a viable solution. In the six-factor solution, the Oddity/Eccentricity factor further divided into an Odd or Eccentric Behaviour factor and an Odd Speech factor – factors  28 analogous to the SPQ subscales of those names. These results bring into question the dominance of the three-factor structure of schizotypy, as well as the common parallel drawn between the three factors of schizophrenia and the three factors of schizotypy. However, these results also afford researchers the ability to examine the structure of schizotypy in a finer-grained way, which can perhaps shed light on schizotypy and its correlates. A more precise factor structure may reveal relationships between schizotypy dimensions and various measures, including social functioning, that were previously obscured. This may allow us to clarify ambiguity in the literature schizotypy symptom dimensions and their correlates.  Gender differences in factor scores. Like previous research on the SPQ and other schizotypy-measures, we found gender differences on different schizotypy facets. We found that males scored higher than females on Mistrust and Oddity/Eccentricity as well as on Social Anhedonia, while females scored higher than males on Social Anxiety. There were no gender differences in Unusual Beliefs and Experiences. Our finding that males score higher than females on Social Anhedonia is consistent with previous research where males	  scored	  higher	  than	  females	  on	  negative	  symptoms	  associated	  with	  schizotypal	  traits	  (Mata, Mataix-Cols, Paralta, 2005; Miettunen & Jääskeläinen, 2010; Miller & Burns, 1995). Furthermore, previous research has supported higher scores for males than females on the SPQ No Close Friend and Constricted Affect subscales – the two of which make up the Social Anhedonia factor (Badcock & DragovÍc, 2006; Bora & Arabaci, 2009; Dickey et al., 2005; Fossati et al., 2003; Guo, Collinson, Subramaniam, & Chong, 2011), as well as higher scores for males than females on an “Interpersonal Deficit” factor based on item-level analysis of the SPQ (Kelley, 2011). Our results also indicated that females scored higher than males on the Social Anxiety factor, which is in  29 line with research demonstrating higher females scores on the SPQ Social Anxiety subscale (Badcock & DragovÍc, 2006; Bora & Arabaci, 2009; Fossati et al., 2003).  Despite previous proposals that females tend to score higher than males on measures of positive schizotypy symptoms (Mata, Mataix-Cols & Paralta, 2005, Roth & Baribeau, 1997), this was not the case in the current study. In fact, males scored higher than females on the Mistrust factor, and mistrust/paranoia symptoms have traditionally been considered to be part of the positive symptom dimension (e.g. Vollema & Hoijtink, 2000). This is consistent with evidence obtained by Miettunen & Jääskeläinen, 2010 amongst others. However, there were no gender in the Unusual Beliefs and Experiences factor, which arguably most clearly falls into the positive symptom category. This suggests that males do not strictly score higher than females on positive symptom dimensions. It should also be noted that mistrust/paranoia like symptoms have been attributed to the negative symptom dimension as well as the positive symptom dimension (e.g. Raine et al., 1994; Vollema & Hoijtink, 2000). Therefore, that males scored higher than females on the Mistrust factor may provide further support for males scoring higher on negative symptoms than support for higher male scores on positive symptoms. We should also note that the lack of gender differences in Unusual Beliefs and Experiences may be an artifact of low endorsement of the items that made up this factor, rather than being due to a true non-difference. It should be noted that the mean number of items endorsed for the different SPQ subscales in the current study are similar to those found in other undergraduate samples (e.g. Chiemelewski & Watson, 2008; Raine, 1991). Therefore, further research using non-undergraduate samples that have a higher rate of endorsement for Unusual Beliefs and Experiences may be warranted.  We should also note that there is some evidence that the degree of gender difference in positive symptoms may be related to age. Miettunen’s and Jääskeläinen’s 2010 meta-analysis  30 found that sex differences between males and females in the Perceptual Aberration Scale of the Wisconsin Schizotypy scales, where females scored higher than males, increased with increasing age of sample. Therefore, the lack of gender difference in positive symptoms in the current study may be to the younger age of our sample. However, some of the studies that found support for a greater level of positive symptoms in females compared to males also employed undergraduate samples (Mata, Mataix-Cols & Paralta, 2005, Roth & Baribeau, 1997). Overall, the current study does not clearly suggest that females score higher than males on positive symptoms associated with schizotypy, although this is a possibility that deserves further exploration.  Relationship to Social Functioning. This study sought to clarify the relationship between schizotypy symptom dimensions and social functioning. Based on the literature, we were interested in the role of negative symptoms of schizotypy, and whether the negative symptom dimension had a unique or greater relationship to social functioning compared to other symptom dimensions. Four out of five (Mistrust, Social Anhedonia, Oddity/Eccentricity, and Social Anxiety) of our schizotypy factors were significantly related to overall social functioning as well as the different role domains of social functioning on the SAS-SR (student, social/leisure, and family functioning). The Unusual Beliefs and Experiences factor was not related to overall social functioning, nor was it related to any of the domains of social functioning on the SAS-SR. This may mark the Unusual Beliefs and Experiences factor as unique amongst schizotypy factors in its lack of relationship to social functioning. However, this result may also be explained by low endorsement of the items associated with the Unusual Beliefs and Experiences factor. There did not appear to be different patterns of correlations between schizotypy dimensions and specific role domains of social functioning.   31  The results of the current study do not support the assertion that negative symptoms of schizotypy are uniquely related to poorer social functioning, as is the case in the schizophrenia literature (Addington & Addington, 1993; Gupta et al., 1995; Levitt et al., 1994; Milev et al., 2005; Pogue-Geile & Harrow, 1984). Social Anhedonia, the only clearly negative symptom factor that emerged from the present factor analysis, was indeed related to poorer overall social functioning as well as poorer social functioning across the different domains of the SAS-SR; however, Mistrust, Oddity/Eccentricity, and Social Anxiety were also significantly related to poorer social functioning (both overall and the different domains of social functioning).   Finally, we compared the magnitude of the correlations between our Social Anhedonia factor and overall social functioning and Raine’s Interpersonal factor and overall social functioning in order to evaluate the clarity of the relationship between negative symptoms and social functioning in these two models. Contrary to our expectations, Raine’s Interpersonal factor was significantly more highly correlated with overall social functioning compared to the current study’s Social Anhedonia factor. This suggests that the elements that make up Raine’s Interpersonal factor (the SPQ Suspiciousness, Social Anxiety, No Close Friends, and Constricted Affect subscales) may be more closely related to social functioning than Social Anhedonia (which is made up of the SPQ No Close Friends and Constricted Affect subscales) alone. According to the traditional definition, negative symptoms are symptoms characterized by deficits in normal emotional expression or cognition. Social Anhedonia clearly falls under this definition, while it is less clear whether Raine’s Interpersonal factor meets this definition. Therefore, it may be that some construct wider than the traditional definition of negative symptoms is most closely related to poorer social functioning.   32  Overall, these results suggest some difference between negative symptoms in schizophrenia and schizotypy and their relationship to social functioning. Whether this is due to a difference in the underlying substrates of schizophrenia and schizotypy, due to differential correlates of the symptom dimensions of schizophrenia and schizotypy, or different conceptualizations of the symptom dimensions is unclear. Future research should further investigate these different options. Limitations  There are several limitations to this study. First, the self-report nature of this data may limit the conclusions that can be drawn from this study. Replication with the inclusion of other kinds of data, such as interview and reports from peers or family in item-level factor analyses would strengthen these findings. Second, the use of an undergraduate sample, although advantageous in its convenience, also comes with a number of disadvantages. The use of undergraduates limits the generalizability of these results to the general population, which is especially problematic given the prevalence of their use. Much of the existing data on the factor structure of schizotypy, including studies using both subscale-level and item-level factor analyses, is based on undergraduate data. All item-level factor analysis studies discussed in this paper are based on undergraduate samples. It should be noted that the sample used in the current study appears quite similar to other undergraduate samples in the literature in terms of mean SPQ subscale scores. It is important to replicate results on the factor structure of schizotypy in community samples, which can be expected to more closely match the variation found in the overall population. For instance, the lack of gender differences on our Unusual Beliefs and Experiences factor may be a result of low endorsement of these items, which may be due to relatively low levels of unusual beliefs and perceptual disturbances in highly functioning  33 undergraduates as compared to the general population. This may also account for the nonsignificant correlation between the Unusual Beliefs and Experiences factor and social functioning, and the relatively low internal consistency of the Unusual Beliefs and Experiences factor. Further research in a more diverse sample is warranted to investigate this.   Furthermore, undergraduate samples, at least from undergraduate psychology classes, tend to be heavily biased towards a greater number of females than males. Although our male sample numbered over 500, the female to male ratio was over 3 to 1. Because the factor structure was gender invariant, we pooled males and females in the determination of the final factor structure. Because of the uneven gender ratio, females were given a larger weight in all subsequent analyses. In order to address this, we conducted separate correlations in males and females, and found no significant differences in the magnitude of correlations between males and females. However, there is a possibility of the uneven gender ratio may have concealed some results that may have emerged in a more gender-balanced sample. Therefore, further research using a more balanced sample is warranted.   Undergraduate samples are also limited in terms of the range of ages of their participants. Previous findings that sex differences in schizotypy symptoms may change with increasing age have been attributed to the fact that women in general tend to meet criteria for schizophrenia-spectrum at a later age than males (Miettunen & Jääskeläinen, 2010). Consequentially, it is important to investigate schizotypy symptoms and their correlates in older samples, where women may experience relatively greater levels of symptoms. Gender differences in symptom levels may impact the structure that emerges from exploratory factor analysis, although this is not necessarily the case.   34  Finally, it should be noted that there was generally fairly low endorsement of both SPQ and SAS items. There are relatively low levels of schizotypal traits in the general population, and only a small subset of the population can be expected to have high scores. Similarly, there are few people in the general population that can be expected to display very poor social functioning, with most people displaying good or fair social functioning. Therefore, the study of schizotypy and social functioning in the general population can be expected to tend to yield scores at the floor of the possible range of scores, with relatively little variability, which may lead to attenuated correlations (Glass & Hopkins, 1996). It should be noted that the correlations obtained in the current study were relatively large in magnitude; however, given possible attenuation due to range restriction, these correlations may be underestimates of the true correlation between schizotypy symptoms and social functioning. In particular, as previously discussed, the lack of significant correlation between the Unusual Beliefs and Experiences factor and social functioning may be a result of low levels of endorsement of the associated items on the SPQ.                  35 References Addington, J., & Addington, D. (1993). Premorbid functioning, cognitive functioning, symptoms  and outcome in schizophrenia. Journal of Psychiatry and Neuroscience, 18(1), 18-23. Aguirre, F., Sergi, M. J., & Levy, C. A. (2008). Emotional intelligence and social functioning in  persons with schizotypy. Schizophrenia research, 104(1), 255-264. Ahmed, A. O., Green, B. A., Goodrum, N. M., Doane, N. J., Birgenheir, D., & Buckley, P. F.  (2013). Does a latent class underlie schizotypal personality disorder? Implications for schizophrenia. Journal of abnormal psychology, 122(2), 475-491. Andreasen, N. C., Arndt, S., Alliger, R., Miller, D., & Flaum, M. (1995). Symptoms of  schizophrenia: methods, meanings, and mechanisms. Archives of general psychiatry, 52(5), 341. Badcock, J. C., & Dragović, M. (2006). Schizotypal personality in mature adults. Personality  and Individual Differences, 40(1), 77-85. Barrantes-Vidal, N., Lewandowski, K. E., & Kwapil, T. R. (2010). Psychopathology, social  adjustment and personality correlates of schizotypy clusters in a large nonclinical sample. Schizophrenia research, 122(1), 219-225. Barrantes-Vidal, N., Gross, G. M., Sheinbaum, T., Mitjavila, M., Ballespí, S., & Kwapil, T. R.  (2013). Positive and negative schizotypy are associated with prodromal and schizophrenia-spectrum symptoms. Schizophrenia research, 145, 50-55.  Bilder, R. M., Mukherjee, S., Rieder, R. O., & Pandurangi, A. K. (1985). Symptomatic and  neuropsychological components of defect states. Schizophrenia Bulletin, 11(3), 409-419.    36 Blanchard, J. J., Collins, L. M., Aghevli, M., Leung, W. W., & Cohen, A. S. (2011). Social  anhedonia and schizotypy in a community sample: The Maryland Longitudinal Study of Schizotypy. Schizophrenia bulletin, 37(3), 587-602. Bora, E., & Baysan Arabaci, L. (2009). Effect of age and gender on schizotypal personality traits  in the normal population. Psychiatry and clinical neurosciences, 63(5), 663-669. Bove, E. A., & Epifani, A. (2012). From Schizotypal Personality to Schizotypal Dimensions: A  Two-step Taxometric Study. Clinical Neuropsychiatry, 9(3), 111-122.  Chapman, L. J., Chapman, J. P., & Raulin, M. L. (1976). Scales for physical and social  anhedonia. Journal of abnormal psychology, 85(4), 374-382. Chapman, L. J., Chapman, J. P., & Raulin, M. L. (1978). Body-image aberration in  Schizophrenia. Journal of abnormal psychology, 87(4), 399-407. Chmielewski, M., & Watson, D. (2008). The heterogeneous structure of schizotypal personality  disorder: Item-level factors of the schizotypal personality questionnaire and their associations with obsessive-compulsive disorder symptoms, dissociative tendencies, and normal personality. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 117(2), 364-376. Claridge, G. (1994). Single indicator of risk for schizophrenia: probable fact or likely myth?.  Schizophrenia Bulletin, 20(1), 151-168. Claridge, G., McCreery, C., Mason, O., Bentall, R., Boyle, G., Slade, P., & Popplewell, D.  (1996). The factor structure of ‘schizotypal ‘traits: A large replication study. British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 35(1), 103-115. Cooper, A. M., & Michels, R. (1988). Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders,  revised (DSM-III-R). American Journal of Psychiatry, 145(10), 1300-1301.   37 Debbané, M., Badoud, D., Balanzin, D., & Eliez, S. (2013). Broadly defined risk mental states  during adolescence: Disorganization mediates positive schizotypal expression. Schizophrenia research, 147, 153-156.  Dickerson, F., Boronow, J. J., Ringel, N., & Parente, F. (1999). Social functioning and  neurocognitive deficits in outpatients with schizophrenia: a 2-year follow-up. Schizophrenia research, 37(1), 13-20. Dickey, C. C., McCarley, R. W., Niznikiewicz, M. A., Voglmaier, M. M., Seidman, L. J., Kim,  S., & Shenton, M. E. (2005). Clinical, cognitive, and social characteristics of a sample of neuroleptic-naive persons with schizotypal personality disorder. Schizophrenia research, 78(2), 297-308. Earnst, K. S., & Kring, A. M. (1997). Construct validity of negative symptoms: an empirical and  conceptual review. Clinical psychology review, 17(2), 167-189. Eckblad, M., & Chapman, L. J. (1983). Magical ideation as an indicator of schizotypy. Journal  of consulting and clinical psychology, 51(2), 215-225. Eckblad, M., Chapman, L. J., Chapman, J. P., & Mishlove, M. (1982). The revised social  anhedonia scale. Unpublished test. Fonseca-Pedrero, E., Lemos-Giráldez, S., Paíno-Piñeiro, M., Villazón-García, U., & Muñiz, J.  (2010). Schizotypal traits, obsessive-compulsive symptoms, and social functioning in adolescents. Comprehensive Psychiatry, 51(1), 71-77. Fonseca-Pedrero, E., Paino, M., Lemos-Giráldez, S., Sierra-Baigrie, S., & Muñiz, J. (2011).  Measurement invariance of the Schizotypal Personality Questionnaire-Brief across gender and age. Psychiatry research, 190(2), 309-315.   38 Fossati, A., Raine, A., Carretta, I., Leonardi, B., & Maffei, C. (2003). The three-factor model of  schizotypal personality: invariance across age and gender. Personality and Individual Differences, 35(5), 1007-1019. Glass, G. V., & Hopkins, K. D. (1996). Statistical methods in education and psychology (3rd ed.).  Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.  Gooding, D. C., Tallent, K. A., & Matts, C. W. (2005). Clinical status of at-risk individuals 5  years later: further validation of the psychometric high-risk strategy. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 114(1), 170-175. Gross, G. M., Silvia, P. J., Barrantes-Vidal, N., & Kwapil, T. R. (2012). Psychometric properties  and validity of short forms of the Wisconsin Schizotypy Scales in two large samples. Schizophrenia research, 134(2), 267-272. Guo, M. E., Collinson, S. L., Subramaniam, M., & Chong, S. A. (2011). Gender differences in  schizotypal personality in a Chinese population. Personality and Individual Differences, 50(3), 404-408. Gupta, S., Rajaprabhakaran, R., Arndt, S., Flaum, M., & Andreasen, N. C. (1995). Premorbid  adjustment as a predictor of phenomenological and neurobiological indices in schizophrenia. Schizophrenia research, 16(3), 189-197. Henry, J. D., Bailey, P. E., & Rendell, P. G. (2008). Empathy, social functioning and schizotypy.  Psychiatry research, 160(1), 15-22. Hoerger, M. (2013). ZH: An updated version of Steiger's Z and web-based calculator for testing  the statistical significance of the difference between dependent correlations. Retrieved from http://www.psychmike.com/dependent_correlations.php   39 Jahshan, C. S., & Sergi, M. J. (2007). Theory of mind, neurocognition, and functional status in  schizotypy. Schizophrenia research, 89(1), 278-286. Johns, L. C., & van Os, J. (2001). The continuity of psychotic experiences in the general  population. Clinical psychology review, 21(8), 1125-1141. Kelley, M. P. (2011). Correlates of Paranormal Beliefs, I: Schizotypy. Journal of  Parapsychology, 75(2), 301-325. Kendler, K. S., Ochs, A. L., Gorman, A. M., Hewitt, J. K., Ross, D. E., & Mirsky, A. F. (1991).  The structure of schizotypy: a pilot multitrait twin study. Psychiatry research, 36(1), 19-36. Kwapil, T. R., Barrantes-Vidal, N., & Silvia, P. J. (2008). The dimensional structure of the  Wisconsin schizotypy scales: Factor identification and construct validity. Schizophrenia Bulletin, 34(3), 444-457. Levitt, J. J., Shenton, M. E., McCarley, R. W., Faux, S. F., & Ludwig, A. S. (1994). Premorbid  adjustment in schizophrenia: iImplications for psychosocial and ventricular pathology. Schizophrenia research, 12(2), 159-168. Liddle, P. F. (1987). The symptoms of chronic schizophrenia. A re-examination of the positive- negative dichotomy. The British Journal of Psychiatry, 151(2), 145-151. Malla, A. K., Norman, R. M., Williamson, P., Cortese, L., & Diaz, F. (1993). Three syndrome  concept of schizophrenia: a factor analytic study. Schizophrenia Research, 10(2), 143-150. Mata, I., Mataix-Cols, D., & Peralta, V. (2005). Schizotypal Personality Questionnaire-Brief:  factor structure and influence of sex and age in a nonclinical population. Personality and Individual Differences, 38(5), 1183-1192.   40 McCleery, A., Divilbiss, M., St-Hilaire, A., Aakre, J. M., Seghers, J. P., Bell, E. K., & Docherty,  N. M. (2012). Predicting Social Functioning in Schizotypy: An Investigation of the Relative Contributions of Theory of Mind and Mood. The Journal of nervous and mental disease, 200(2), 147-152. McClure, M. M., Harvey, P. D., Bowie, C. R., Iacoviello, B., & Siever, L. J. (2013). Functional  outcomes, functional capacity, and cognitive impairment in schizotypal personality disorder. Schizophrenia research, 144, 146-150.  McGlashan, T. H., & Fenton, W. S. (1992). The positive-negative distinction in schizophrenia:  review of natural history validators. Archives of General Psychiatry, 49(1), 63. McGurk, S. R., Mueser, K. T., Mischel, R., Adams, R., Harvey, P. D., McClure, M. M., ... &  Siever, L. J. (2013). Vocational functioning in schizotypal and paranoid personality disorders. Psychiatry research, 210(2), 498-504. Meehl, P. E. (1962). Schizotaxia, schizotypy, schizophrenia. American psychologist, 17(12), 827. Melley, A. H., Oltmanns, T. F., & Turkheimer, E. (2002). The Schedule for Nonadaptive and  Adaptive Personality (SNAP) Temporal stability and predictive validity of the diagnostic scales. Assessment, 9(2), 181-187. Miettunen, J., & Jääskeläinen, E. (2010). Sex differences in Wisconsin schizotypy scales—a  meta-analysis. Schizophrenia bulletin, 36(2), 347-358. Milev, P., Ho, B. C., Arndt, S., & Andreasen, N. C. (2005). Predictive values of neurocognition  and negative symptoms on functional outcome in schizophrenia: a longitudinal first-episode study with 7-year follow-up. American Journal of Psychiatry, 162(3), 495-506. Miller, A. B., & Lenzenweger, M. F. (2012). Schizotypy, social cognition, and interpersonal  sensitivity. Personality Disorders: Theory, Research, and Treatment, 3(4), 379.  41 Miller, L. S., & Burns, S. A. (1995). Gender differences in schizotypic features in a large sample  of young adults. The Journal of nervous and mental disease, 183(10), 657-661. Morrison, S. C., Brown, L. A., & Cohen, A. S. (2013). A multidimensional assessment of social  cognition in psychometrically defined schizotypy. Psychiatry research, 210(3), 1014-1019. Pogue-Geile, M. F., & Harrow, M. (1984). Negative and positive symptoms in schizophrenia and  depression. Schizophrenia Bulletin, 10(3), 371-387. Raine, A. (1991). The SPQ: a scale for the assessment of schizotypal personality based on DSM- III-R criteria. Schizophrenia Bulletin, 17(4), 555-564. Raine, A., Reynolds, C., Lencz, T., Scerbo, A., Triphon, N., & Kim, D. (1994). Cognitive- perceptual, interpersonal, and disorganized features of schizotypal personality. Schizophrenia Bulletin, 20(1), 191. Raine, A. (2006). Schizotypal personality: neurodevelopmental and psychosocial trajectories.  Annu. Rev. Clin. Psychol., 2, 291-326. Reynolds, C. A., Raine, A., Mellingen, K., Venables, P. H., & Mednick, S. A. (2000). Three- factor model of schizotypal personality. Schizophrenia Bulletin, 26(3), 603-618. Rossi, A., & Daneluzzo, E. (2002). Schizotypal dimensions in normals and schizophrenic  patients: a comparison with other clinical samples. Schizophrenia Research, 54(1), 67-75. Rössler, W., Riecher-Rössler, A., Angst, J., Murray, R., Gamma, A., Eich, D., ... & Gross, V. A.  (2007). Psychotic experiences in the general population: a twenty-year prospective community study. Schizophrenia research, 92(1), 1-14. Roth, R. M., & Baribeau, J. (1997). Gender and schizotypal personality features. Personality and  Individual differences, 22(3), 411-416.  42 Skodol, A. E., Gunderson, J. G., McGlashan, T. H., Dyck, I. R., Stout, R. L., Bender, D. S., ... &  Oldham, J. M. (2002). Functional impairment in patients with Schizotypal, Borderline, Avoidant, and Obsessive-Compulsive Personality Disorder. American Journal of Psychiatry, 159(2), 276-283. Skodol, A. E., Oldham, J. M., Bender, D. S., Dyck, I. R., Stout, R. L., Morey, L. C., ... &  Gunderson, J. G. (2005). Dimensional representations of DSM-IV personality disorders: relationships to functional impairment. American Journal of Psychiatry, 162(10), 1919-1925. Stefanis, N. C., Smyrnis, N., Avramopoulos, D., & Stefanis, C. N. (2004). Factorial Composition  of Self-Rated Schizotypal Traits Among Young Males Undergoing Military Training. Schizophrenia Bulletin, 30(2), 335-350. Steiger, J. H. (1980). Tests for comparing elements of a correlation matrix. Psychological  Bulletin, 87, 245-251. Thompson, P. A., & Meltzer, H. Y. (1993). Positive, negative, and disorganisation factors from  the Schedule for Affective Disorders and Schizophrenia and the Present State Examination. A three-factor solution. The British Journal of Psychiatry, 163(3), 344-351. Vollema, M. G., & Hoijtink, H. (2000). The multidimensionality of self-report schizotypy in a  psychiatric population: An analysis using multidimensional Rasch models. Schizophrenia Bulletin, 26(3), 565-575. Wang, Y., Yeh, Y. H., Tsang, S. M., Liu, W. H., Shi, H. S., Li, Z., ... & Chan, R. C. (2013a).  Social Functioning in Chinese College Students with and without Schizotypal Personality Traits: An Exploratory Study of the Chinese Version of the First Episode Social Functioning Scale. PloS one, 8(5), e61115.  43 Wang, Y., Neumann, D. L., Shum, D. H., Liu, W. H., Shi, H. S., Yan, C., ... & Chan, R. C.  (2013b). Cognitive empathy partially mediates the association between negative schizotypy traits and social functioning. Psychiatry research, 210, 62-68.  Weissman, M. M., & Bothwell, S. (1976). Assessment of social adjustment by patient self- report. Archives of general psychiatry, 33(9), 1111-1115. Weissman, M. M., Prusoff, B. A., Thompson, W. D., Harding, P. S., & Myers, J. K. (1978).  Social adjustment by self-report in a community sample and in psychiatric outpatients. The Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 166(5), 317-326. Weissman, M. M. (1999). Social Adjustment Scale-self Report (SAS-SR): User's Manual/. Multi- Health Systems. Weissman, M. M., Olfson, M., Gameroff, M. J., Feder, A., & Fuentes, M. (2001). A comparison  of three scales for assessing social functioning in primary care. American Journal of Psychiatry, 158(3), 460-466. Wuthrich, V. M., & Bates, T. C. (2006). Confirmatory factor analysis of the three-factor  structure of the schizotypal personality questionnaire and Chapman schizotypy scales. Journal of Personality Assessment, 87(3), 292-304.  

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.24.1-0165973/manifest

Comment

Related Items