{"title":"Validation of the Romanian version of the brief negative symptom scale in a heterogeneous schizophrenia inpatient sample.","authors":"Cosmin Ioan Moga, Denisa Gliția, Octavia Oana Căpățînă, Cătălina Angela Crișan, Mihaela Fadygas-Stănculete, Ioana Valentina Micluția","doi":"10.1017/gmh.2025.10037","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Negative symptoms in schizophrenia are critical to functional outcomes but remain difficult to assess reliably. The Brief Negative Symptom Scale (BNSS) was developed to address these challenges, though no validation exists in Romanian-speaking populations. To validate the BNSS in a Romanian clinical sample, explore its psychometric properties and compare BNSS-based and PANSS-based classifications of severe negative symptoms. Forty-seven inpatients with schizophrenia were assessed using Romanian versions of the BNSS, PANSS, CDSS and AIMS. Psychometric analyses included internal consistency, inter-rater reliability, factor analysis and correlation-based validity. Two classification schemes, moderate-severe negative symptoms, measured by BNSS (BNSS-MS), and predominant negative symptoms, measured by PANSS (PANSS-PNS), were compared. The BNSS showed excellent internal consistency (<i>α</i> = .94) and inter-rater reliability (ICC = .98). A five-factor structure was confirmed. BNSS total scores correlated strongly with PANSS negative (<i>ρ</i> = .90), but not with positive, depressive, or motor symptoms. Blunted affect emerged as the most prominent subscale. The BNSS-MS group captured more severe cases than PANSS-PNS and showed greater symptom burden and higher distress scores. The Romanian BNSS is valid and sensitive for detecting negative symptoms, outperforming PANSS in identifying clinically significant subgroups.</p>","PeriodicalId":48579,"journal":{"name":"Global Mental Health","volume":"12 ","pages":"e85"},"PeriodicalIF":2.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12345065/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Global Mental Health","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/gmh.2025.10037","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PSYCHIATRY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Negative symptoms in schizophrenia are critical to functional outcomes but remain difficult to assess reliably. The Brief Negative Symptom Scale (BNSS) was developed to address these challenges, though no validation exists in Romanian-speaking populations. To validate the BNSS in a Romanian clinical sample, explore its psychometric properties and compare BNSS-based and PANSS-based classifications of severe negative symptoms. Forty-seven inpatients with schizophrenia were assessed using Romanian versions of the BNSS, PANSS, CDSS and AIMS. Psychometric analyses included internal consistency, inter-rater reliability, factor analysis and correlation-based validity. Two classification schemes, moderate-severe negative symptoms, measured by BNSS (BNSS-MS), and predominant negative symptoms, measured by PANSS (PANSS-PNS), were compared. The BNSS showed excellent internal consistency (α = .94) and inter-rater reliability (ICC = .98). A five-factor structure was confirmed. BNSS total scores correlated strongly with PANSS negative (ρ = .90), but not with positive, depressive, or motor symptoms. Blunted affect emerged as the most prominent subscale. The BNSS-MS group captured more severe cases than PANSS-PNS and showed greater symptom burden and higher distress scores. The Romanian BNSS is valid and sensitive for detecting negative symptoms, outperforming PANSS in identifying clinically significant subgroups.
期刊介绍:
lobal Mental Health (GMH) is an Open Access journal that publishes papers that have a broad application of ‘the global point of view’ of mental health issues. The field of ‘global mental health’ is still emerging, reflecting a movement of advocacy and associated research driven by an agenda to remedy longstanding treatment gaps and disparities in care, access, and capacity. But these efforts and goals are also driving a potential reframing of knowledge in powerful ways, and positioning a new disciplinary approach to mental health. GMH seeks to cultivate and grow this emerging distinct discipline of ‘global mental health’, and the new knowledge and paradigms that should come from it.