DSM-5 self-rated level 1 cross-cutting symptom measure (CCSM1): Proposal for a three-factors model and implications for the assessment of at-risk situations

Serge Combaluzier; Brice Gouvernet; Chloé Launay; Philip Murphy

doi:10.1016/j.encep.2023.11.004

DSM-5 self-rated level 1 cross-cutting symptom measure (CCSM1): Proposal for a three-factors model and implications for the assessment of at-risk situations

Encephale. 2023 Dec 22:S0013-7006(23)00211-7. doi: 10.1016/j.encep.2023.11.004. Online ahead of print.

Authors

Serge Combaluzier¹, Brice Gouvernet², Chloé Launay³, Philip Murphy⁴

Affiliations

¹ CRFDP (UF 7475), université de Rouen Normandie, 1, rue Lavoisier, 76821 Mont-Saint-Aignan cedex, France. Electronic address: serge.combaluzier@univ-rouen.fr.
² CRFDP (UF 7475), université de Rouen Normandie, 1, rue Lavoisier, 76821 Mont-Saint-Aignan cedex, France.
³ Centre hospitalier spécialisé du Rouvray, 4, rue Paul-Eluard, 76300 Sotteville-lès-Rouen, France.
⁴ Edge Hill University, St Helens Rd, Ormskirk L39 4QP, United Kingdom.

PMID: 38142153
DOI: 10.1016/j.encep.2023.11.004

Abstract

Objective: The aim of this paper is to study the measurement of the DSM5 self-rated transversal symptoms level 1 (CCSM1) from a dimensional perspective in line with current models of psychopathology in three factors: internalization, thought disorders, externalization.

Method: Based on the 670 non-clinical protocols we collected, we verified that the VSS is composed of three factors. We studied the 3-factor composition with half of the sample and confirmed this composition with the other half. To show that these three factors were more relevant than the original 13 dimensions, we compared the results to three clinical groups and, after a cluster analysis, we investigated the intensity and frequency of people at risk across the original dimensions.

Results: While the 13 initial dimensions of the CCSM1 do not completely differentiate this sample from the clinical groups, the three high-order dimensions are discriminating. Clustering confirms these results when comparing the least and most affected subjects and allows us to see that these three HODs have significant impacts on the observation of cases at risk of clinical disorders in this non-clinical sample.

Discussion: To be further validated, these three HODs should be studied in relation to tools that assess internalization, thought disorders or externalization.

Keywords: Analyse en cluster; Analyse factorielle; Auto-évaluation symptomatique transversale de niveau 1; Cluster analysis; DSM 5 self-rated level 1 cross-cutting symptoms measure; Dimensional paradigm; Factor analysis; Non-clinical sample; Odds ratio; Paradigme dimensionnel; Population non clinique.