Negative Symptom Inventory-Psychosis Risk

Abstract

The Negative Symptom Inventory-Psychosis Risk (NSI-PR) is a specialized clinician-administered semi-structured interview engineered specifically to quantify negative symptoms in adolescents and young adults identified as being at clinical high risk (CHR) or ultra-high risk (UHR) for developing psychotic spectrum disorders. Historically, early detection paradigms relied extensively on psychometric instruments initially calibrated for chronic or multi-episode schizophrenia—such as the Scale for the Assessment of Negative Symptoms (SANS)—or broad attenuated symptom interviews like the Structured Interview for Psychosis-risk Syndromes (SIPS) and the Comprehensive Assessment of At-Risk Mental States (CAARMS). These legacy instruments frequently yielded pronounced floor effects, restricted variance, and compromised discriminant validity when applied to emerging, sub-threshold prodromal deficits. Designed in direct alignment with the operational definitions promulgated by the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) Consensus Development Conference on Negative Symptoms, the NSI-PR captures five distinct, empirically established symptom domains: anhedonia, avolition, asociality, alogia, and blunted affect.

The initial validation version of the NSI-PR comprises 16 items evaluated on a 7-point ordinal continuum ranging from 0 (absent) to 6 (extremely severe). The instrument incorporates modern developmental considerations essential for adolescent and transition-age cohorts, including distinctions between internal affective desire and observable functional engagement, granular evaluations of anticipatory versus consummatory hedonic experience, and explicit integration of digital communication channels (such as text messaging, instant messaging, and social media platforms) within social interaction metrics. Psychometric validation utilizing confirmatory multidimensional item response theory (MIRT) with Samejima’s graded response model confirmed a robust five-factor architecture mirroring the consensus domains, establishing superiority over unidimensional and traditional two-factor structures. The NSI-PR exhibits exceptional internal consistency, high inter-rater concordance across multi-site networks, strong convergent associations with established negative symptom constructs and real-world functional impairment (Global Functioning Scales for Social and Role functioning), and sound discriminant separation from attenuated positive symptoms, disorganization, and depressive distress. By resolving foundational measurement artifacts, the NSI-PR provides a psychometrically rigorous framework for longitudinal staging, risk stratification, and targeted preventive clinical trials.

Keywords

Negative Symptom Inventory-Psychosis Risk, clinical high risk, psychosis risk, prodrome, negative symptoms, anhedonia, avolition, psychometrics, item response theory, early intervention

Authors

The development and empirical validation of the Negative Symptom Inventory-Psychosis Risk (NSI-PR) represents an extensive multi-site academic collaboration spanning premier psychiatric and psychological research laboratories in the United States:

• Gregory P. Strauss, Ph.D. (Corresponding Author: [email protected]) — Department of Psychology, University of Georgia, Athens, GA, USA.
• Elaine F. Walker, Ph.D. — Department of Psychology, Emory University, Atlanta, GA, USA.
• Andrea Pelletier-Baldelli, Ph.D. — Department of Psychiatry, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA.
• Nathan T. Carter, Ph.D. — Department of Psychology, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI, USA.
• Lauren M. Ellman, Ph.D. — Department of Psychology and Neuroscience, Temple University, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
• Jason Schiffman, Ph.D. — Department of Psychological Science, University of California, Irvine, Irvine, CA, USA.
• Lauren Luther, Ph.D. — Department of Psychology, University of Georgia, Athens, GA, USA.
• Sydney H. James, M.S. — Department of Psychology, University of Georgia, Athens, GA, USA.
• Alysia M. Berglund, B.S. — Department of Psychology, University of Georgia, Athens, GA, USA.
• Tina Gupta, Ph.D. — Department of Psychology, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL, USA.
• Ivanka Ristanovic, M.S. — Department of Psychology, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL, USA.
• Vijay A. Mittal, Ph.D. — Department of Psychology, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL, USA.

Purpose

The primary clinical and psychometric impetus for creating the Negative Symptom Inventory-Psychosis Risk (NSI-PR) resides in the long-standing diagnostic challenge of identifying, measuring, and tracking negative symptoms during the putatively prodromal phase of schizophrenia-spectrum disorders. Historically, early intervention psychiatry has focused disproportionately on attenuated positive psychotic symptoms—such as unusual thought content, suspiciousness, perceptual abnormalities, and conceptual disorganization—because these manifestations traditionally constitute the threshold criteria for conversion to full-blown syndromic psychosis. However, longitudinal epidemiological investigations have systematically demonstrated that negative symptoms are often the earliest clinical markers to emerge, frequently predating positive symptom onset by years. Furthermore, negative symptoms are the single strongest prospective predictor of chronic functional disability, unemployment, social isolation, and compromised quality of life, operating relatively independently of positive symptom severity.

Prior to the introduction of the NSI-PR, clinical researchers attempting to evaluate prodromal negative symptoms faced severe methodological limitations. Investigators routinely repurposed instruments engineered for chronic, institutionalized, or multi-episode adult populations with established schizophrenia, such as the Scale for the Assessment of Negative Symptoms (SANS) or newer consensus batteries like the Brief Negative Symptom Scale (BNSS) and the Clinical Assessment Interview for Negative Symptoms (CAINS). While the BNSS and CAINS successfully resolved many conceptual artifacts present in first-generation scales, their behavioral severity anchors were primarily normed on older adults who exhibit prominent, chronic deficits. When administered to adolescents and transition-age youth seeking help for sub-syndromal attenuated psychosis syndromes, these adult-oriented severity anchors produced substantial floor effects, truncated score distributions, and diminished sensitivity to early, nuanced variations in clinical presentation.

Concurrently, while prodromal diagnostic interviews like the Structured Interview for Psychosis-risk Syndromes (SIPS) contain a dedicated negative symptom subscale (the Scale of Prodromal Symptoms, SOPS-N), the structural conceptualization of these items reflects early-2000s paradigms. In particular, existing prodromal interviews conflate internal motivational drive with overt behavioral output, merge heterogeneous cognitive and affective constructs, and fail to account for the contemporary psychosocial ecosystem of 21st-century youth, where social connection is heavily mediated via digital environments. The NSI-PR was purposefully constructed to remediate these limitations by providing:

• Developmentally Calibrated Severity Anchors: Scoring rubrics specifically calibrated to capture the subtle inflection points between typical adolescent developmental variations (e.g., identity renegotiation, common teenage moodiness, normative introversion) and clinically meaningful, prodromal negative symptom pathology.
• Rigorous Construct Alignment: Complete adherence to the five consensus-defined domains of the 2005 NIMH Consensus Development Conference on Negative Symptoms, operationalizing anhedonia, avolition, asociality, alogia, and blunted affect with modern affective science paradigms.
• Contextual and Technological Modernization: Explicit evaluation of digitally mediated interpersonal contact—such as texting, messaging platforms, social media, and online gaming—ensuring that modern adolescent socialization styles are not pathologized as asociality, while accurately detecting digital withdrawal.
• Precision Staging and Trial Sensitivity: An advanced psychometric baseline designed through modern item response theory (IRT) to eliminate ceiling and floor distortions, thereby maximizing measurement sensitivity for tracking prospective clinical trajectories, calculating risk of psychotic conversion, and detecting therapeutic response in experimental therapeutics.

Psychological Construct

The construct measured by the NSI-PR is negative symptomatology in youth at clinical high risk for psychosis, defined fundamentally as the reduction, attenuation, or total absence of normal emotional, motivational, social, and communicative behaviors that should typically be present in healthy individuals of comparable developmental stages. Rather than treating negative symptoms as an undifferentiated, unitary syndrome, the NSI-PR is grounded in a multidimensional psychopathological architecture consisting of five distinct sub-domains, each possessing discrete phenomenological features and underlying neurobiological correlates.

1. Anhedonia

Anhedonia denotes a diminished capacity to experience or anticipate pleasure across a wide spectrum of life activities. Reflecting advances in cognitive and affective neuroscience, the NSI-PR decouples hedonic processing into two fundamental chronological components:

• Consummatory Pleasure: The in-the-moment hedonic response elicited during the immediate execution of a rewarding physical, sensory, or relational activity (the subjective experience of “liking”).
• Anticipatory Pleasure: The mental representation, prospection, and subjective excitement experienced when looking forward to future potentially rewarding events (the mental forecast of future “liking”).

In CHR youth, research demonstrates that consummatory capacity is often relatively preserved, whereas anticipatory pleasure is markedly compromised. The NSI-PR systematically evaluates hedonic capacity across four primary life spheres: recreational activities (hobbies, entertainment, gaming), physical sensations (eating preferred foods, physical comforts), role-related achievements (academic, vocational, or personal skill milestones), and interpersonal relationships.

2. Avolition

Avolition encompasses severe reductions in initiate-and-sustain goal-directed activity, reflecting profound impairments in volition, internal drive, and motivational persistence. Crucially, the NSI-PR bifurcates avolition into its internal subjective experience versus its outward behavioral manifestation:

• Internal Experience of Motivation: The cognitive representation of goals, the subjective desire to accomplish self-directed tasks, and the intrinsic valuation of personal effort.
• Overt Behavioral Execution: The observable investment of energy and physical effort toward completing necessary developmental tasks, such as attending classes, maintaining scholastic progress, performing vocational duties, and sustaining personal hygiene.

This distinction prevents clinicians from conflating functional impairment caused by environmental barriers, neuromuscular fatigue, or external schedules with true avolitional psychopathology, while capturing cases where patients maintain an abstract desire to engage but suffer a disruption in translation into active behavior.

3. Asociality

Asociality refers to an intrinsically diminished interest in forming and maintaining social attachments, friendships, romantic relationships, and close personal connections. Similar to avolition, the NSI-PR rigorously separates subjective social drive from overt social behavior:

• Internal Desire for Affiliation: The subjective craving, longing, or valuation of interpersonal warmth, peer companionship, and mutual emotional exchange.
• Actual Behavioral Engagement: The frequency and depth of initiated interpersonal encounters, both in physical environments and via contemporary digital platforms.

This critical separation allows the rater to differentiate true primary asociality from secondary social withdrawal induced by paranoid suspiciousness, social anxiety, depression, or peer victimization, where the internal desire for social connection remains active despite behavioral isolation. Furthermore, the explicit inclusion of digital socialization anchors prevents false-positive scoring of introverted youth who routinely socialize via digital networks.

4. Alogia

Alogia reflects poverty of speech, manifested as a significant restriction in the quantity and structural elaboration of spontaneous verbal output. During the clinical interview, alogia is observed through brief, laconic, unelaborated, and telegraphic responses that rarely offer spontaneous detail beyond the absolute minimum required to answer direct questions. The interviewer must persistently utilize open-ended probes; when alogia is present, the participant fails to elaborate, conveying an impression of diminished fluency and depleted cognitive-linguistic formulation, without the presence of active thought blocking or severe depressive psychomotor retardation.

5. Blunted Affect

Blunted affect characterizes a profound attenuation in outward expressive non-verbal and para-verbal communication across emotional domains. Rather than reflecting an internal inability to feel emotion, blunting involves a disruption in the motoric expressive readout of affect. The NSI-PR evaluates blunted affect across several observable expressive channels:

• Facial Expressiveness: Reductions in dynamic facial mobility, communicative smiles, eyebrow movements, and spontaneous affective responsiveness.
• Vocal Acoustics and Prosody: Diminished intonation, pitch variation, vocal inflections, and volume adjustments, resulting in monotone speech patterns.
• Gestural Expression: A paucity of spontaneous communicative hand, head, and body gestures that typically accentuate spoken narrative.
• Eye Contact: Reductions in communicative eye engagement, affective reciprocity, and visual tracking of the interviewer.

Theoretical Framework

The structural and conceptual development of the NSI-PR is situated within modern computational, cognitive, and affective neuroscience theories of psychosis risk, integrated with developmental psychopathology frameworks. Historically, clinical psychiatry treated negative symptoms as a uniform, undifferentiated deficit syndrome emerging primarily as a consequence of chronic brain injury or long-term neuroleptic treatment. The contemporary paradigm, catalyzed by the 2005 NIMH Consensus Conference (Kirkpatrick et al., 2006), invalidated this homogenous view by showing that negative symptoms segregate into distinct behavioral dimensions with unique underlying neural substrates.

The 2-Factor vs. 5-Factor Paradigm

Over the past two decades, structural modeling of negative symptom instruments in chronic populations routinely demonstrated a higher-order two-factor architecture:

1. The Motivation and Pleasure (MAP) Dimension: Comprising anhedonia, avolition, and asociality, reflecting deficits in reward valuation, effort-based decision making, and hedonic prospection.
2. The Expressive Deficit (EXP) Dimension: Comprising blunted affect and alogia, reflecting impairments in motoric execution, acoustic prosody, and linguistic-affective output.

However, cutting-edge psychometric modeling in adolescent and early psychosis populations (Chang et al., 2021; Strauss et al., 2018; Haguiara et al., 2021) has provided compelling mathematical and biological support for a fine-grained five-factor model, wherein anhedonia, avolition, asociality, alogia, and blunted affect operate as distinct, interconnected symptom domains. The theoretical framework of the NSI-PR operationalizes this five-factor consensus, positing that in the early prodromal window, these five symptom clusters exhibit distinct neurodevelopmental mechanisms that require independent measurement.

Reward Neurocircuitry and Value-Based Decision Making

The MAP sub-domains measured by the NSI-PR are theoretically grounded in contemporary computational models of reward processing and effort-cost computation. In individuals at clinical high risk, disruptions within the mesolimbic and mesocortical dopamine circuits—specifically spanning the ventral striatum, anterior cingulate cortex (ACC), and orbitofrontal cortex (OFC)—impair the individual’s ability to compute the expected value of future actions against the physical or cognitive effort required to attain them (effort-cost discounting). Patients do not experience a primary failure of sensory enjoyment during hedonic consumption (“in-the-moment liking”); rather, they suffer from impaired mental representation of reward states (“anticipatory wanting”), working memory degradation of past hedonic values, and anomalous prediction errors. Consequently, the NSI-PR was theoretically built to evaluate mental prospection and the subjective evaluation of effort, isolating computational reward impairments from passive environmental inactivity.

Developmental Psychopathology and Social Modernity

A central theoretical premise of the NSI-PR is that psychopathology must be understood in the context of normative developmental transitions. Adolescence and emerging adulthood represent a critical neurodevelopmental phase characterized by synaptic pruning, prefrontal myelination, shifting attachment from parental figures to peer groups, and the emergence of independent vocational/academic goals. Applying adult diagnostic criteria to this cohort introduces substantial measurement error. Adolescents may exhibit periods of normative withdrawal, self-consciousness, or variable motivation that mimic mild psychopathology. Conversely, modern adolescents maintain rich, complex interpersonal ecologies mediated by smartphones, online forums, and digital communication platforms. The NSI-PR incorporates this socio-developmental theory by specifically calibrating probes to modern communication modalities, ensuring that clinicians evaluate true socio-affective detachment rather than non-traditional social engagement patterns.

Validity

The psychometric evaluation of the NSI-PR was conducted within a comprehensive multi-site validation cohort comprising 218 young individuals meeting formal diagnostic criteria for Clinical High Risk for psychosis across five university-based research centers in the United States (Strauss et al., 2023). Validation protocols involved thorough testing of convergent, discriminant, and construct validity against established gold-standard clinical instruments.

Convergent Validity

Convergent validity was rigorously evaluated by correlating the NSI-PR total score and individual consensus subscales with well-established prodromal interview metrics and functional disability scales. The NSI-PR demonstrated strong, statistically significant convergent correlations with the negative symptom dimension of the Structured Interview for Psychosis-risk Syndromes (SIPS SOPS-N subscale), confirming that the instrument successfully indexes the target prodromal negative symptom construct while offering superior granular differentiation.

Crucially, because negative symptoms are theoretically conceptualized as primary drivers of functional impairment, convergent validity was established against real-world functioning indicators:

• Global Functioning: Social Scale (GFS:S): Robust negative correlations were observed between NSI-PR MAP domains (particularly asociality and avolition) and GFS:S ratings, demonstrating that elevated NSI-PR negative scores directly track deficits in peer relationships, romantic connections, and familial affiliation.
• Global Functioning: Role Scale (GFS:R): The NSI-PR exhibited significant inverse associations with GFS:R scores, confirming that avolitional and anhedonic pathology measured by the tool mirrors functional collapse in academic performance, school attendance, and employment stability.
• Global Assessment of Functioning (GAF): Broad overall psychiatric impairment on the GAF scale correlated inversely with NSI-PR composite scores, supporting its external validity as an index of overall disability.

Discriminant Validity

Establishing discriminant validity is paramount in clinical high-risk psychometrics because attenuated positive symptoms, formal thought disorder, and secondary affective disturbances (major depressive disorder, social anxiety) can introduce substantial diagnostic noise. The NSI-PR demonstrated exceptional discriminant validity across multiple comparative parameters:

• Positive Symptoms: Correlations between NSI-PR scores and the SIPS positive symptom subscale (SOPS-P; unusual thought content, suspiciousness, grandiose ideas, perceptual abnormalities) were non-significant to negligible, confirming that the NSI-PR does not measure general psychosis intensity.
• Disorganized and General Symptoms: The NSI-PR subscales demonstrated minimal, non-overlapping variance when correlated against SIPS disorganized symptoms (SOPS-D) and general symptom ratings (SOPS-G).
• Depression Separation: By isolating the internal desire for social contact and separating anticipatory anhedonia from pervasive depressed mood and generalized negative affectivity, the NSI-PR effectively differentiates primary negative symptoms from dysphoric secondary withdrawal.

Reliability

Given that the NSI-PR is a clinician-rated semi-structured clinical interview, its utility rests heavily on both its internal psychometric coherence and its rater-independent stability across clinical and research settings.

Internal Consistency

Internal consistency analyses across the 16 items of the initial scale demonstrated high scale reliability. Classical internal consistency coefficients (Cronbach’s alpha) for the global scale typically exceeded α = 0.88 to 0.92, confirming that the diverse operational probes cohere into a unified construct of negative symptomatology. When computed across individual consensus subscales, internal consistency remained strong to excellent:

• Anhedonia: α ranging from 0.82 to 0.87
• Avolition: α ranging from 0.81 to 0.86
• Asociality: α ranging from 0.80 to 0.85
• Alogia: α ranging from 0.78 to 0.84
• Blunted Affect: α ranging from 0.85 to 0.91

Inter-Rater Reliability

To establish inter-rater concordance, the multi-site research consortium conducted extensive calibration exercises across five independent academic clinical centers. Research clinicians and raters evaluated video-recorded semi-structured interviews and independently assigned scores across all items. Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC, two-way random effects, absolute agreement) demonstrated outstanding inter-rater reliability, with global ICC values consistently exceeding ICC = 0.85, and subscale ICCs ranging from 0.80 to 0.93. These findings confirm that the operationalized interview prompts and behaviorally anchored rating descriptions minimize subjective rater variance.

Test-Retest Stability and Longitudinal Tracking

Temporal stability was evaluated across prospective follow-up intervals, including 6-month and 1-year longitudinal reassessments. In clinically stable CHR youth who demonstrated no categorical conversion to syndromic psychosis, the NSI-PR exhibited moderate-to-high prospective stability, documenting that the scale reliably indexes trait-like negative symptom trajectories while remaining sensitive to true clinical fluctuations, functional decay, or treatment-mediated symptom improvements over time.

Factor Analysis

To elucidate the latent architecture of the 16-item initial NSI-PR instrument, the investigators utilized advanced modern psychometric modeling rather than relying solely on traditional classical test theory. Specifically, confirmatory multidimensional item response theory (MIRT) was implemented utilizing Samejima’s graded response model (GRM) (Samejima, 1969), an approach exceptionally suited for multi-category polytomous ordinal rating data.

Structural Model Comparison

The investigators tested three competing theoretical structural models to determine the optimal latent representation of prodromal negative symptoms:

1. Unidimensional Model: Positing that all items load onto a single, overarching general negative symptom factor.
2. Two-Factor Model: Mapping items onto the traditional bipartite structure of Motivation/Pleasure (MAP) and Diminished Expression (EXP).
3. Five-Factor Model: Allocating items directly to the five independent consensus domains (Anhedonia, Avolition, Asociality, Alogia, and Blunted Affect).

Confirmatory goodness-of-fit statistics—including the Comparative Fit Index (CFI), the Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI), the Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA), and information criteria (Akaike Information Criterion [AIC] and Bayesian Information Criterion [BIC])—demonstrated that the five-factor model yielded decisively superior fit compared to the unidimensional and two-factor alternatives. The five-factor model achieved excellent fit indices (CFI > 0.95, TLI > 0.95, RMSEA ≤ 0.05), providing robust mathematical confirmation that negative symptoms in prodromal cohorts are best conceptualized along five distinct dimensional pathways.

Item Response Theory (IRT) Diagnostics and Scale Refinement

Beyond structural validation, the graded response model provided item-level diagnostics via Item Information Curves (IICs) and Option Characteristic Curves (OCCs). These IRT analyses revealed critical empirical insights:

• Item Discrimination Parameters (a): Items within the five dimensions exhibited high discrimination parameters (a > 1.5), confirming that individual items effectively distinguish between varying latent severity levels (θ) of prodromal pathology.
• Threshold Parameters (b): The difficulty/threshold parameters spanned a wide range of the latent trait spectrum, demonstrating that the scale eliminates the floor effects endemic to adult-oriented instruments.
• Category Redundancy and Refinement: Analysis of the original 7-point response continuum (ratings 0 to 6) identified category overlap across certain adjacent severity levels. Furthermore, specific over-inclusive items contributed minimal marginal information to their respective latent factors. This data-driven IRT process established the empirical justification for streamlining the initial 16-item research version into a highly optimized, high-information 11-item clinical tool with condensed response anchors.

Instrument / Measurement Tool

The operational features and structural parameters of the Negative Symptom Inventory-Psychosis Risk (NSI-PR) are summarized below:

• Test Type: Clinician-administered, semi-structured clinical interview.
• Administration Format: Direct interactive clinical examination conducted by a trained mental health professional, evaluating patient narrative responses alongside direct behavioral observations.
• Item Count: 16 items in the comprehensive initial validation version (refined via IRT into an 11-item streamlined instrument).
• Response Scale: 7-point ordinal rating scale calibrated for each item:
• 0 = Absent (Normal / normative developmental functioning)
• 1 = Questionable / Minimally Present
• 2 = Mild
• 3 = Moderate
• 4 = Moderately Severe
• 5 = Severe
• 6 = Extremely Severe
• Scoring Rules: Following the completion of mandatory and follow-up clinical interview probes, the interviewer assigns a single integer rating (0 through 6) for each item based on objective behavioral indicators and subjective phenomenology. Domain subscores are derived by summing the items within each consensus domain (Anhedonia, Avolition, Asociality, Alogia, Blunted Affect). A Global NSI-PR Total Score is calculated by summing all individual item scores, with higher scores reflecting greater negative symptom severity.
• Language: English (original development).
• Target Population: Adolescents and young adults (clinical high risk [CHR], ultra-high risk [UHR], or attenuated psychosis syndrome [APS] cohorts).
• Administration Time: Approximately 30 to 45 minutes for full semi-structured administration and scoring.

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The Negative Symptom Inventory-Psychosis Risk (NSI-PR) was formally published in 2023 by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Maryland Psychiatric Research Center (MPRC) in Schizophrenia Bulletin (Strauss et al., 2023). The instrument and its intellectual property are protected under international copyright laws (Copyright © 2023 Oxford University Press / Maryland Psychiatric Research Center).

The scale was developed for widespread empirical use within the scientific community to facilitate early psychosis research, clinical trials, and clinical assessment. While academic and non-commercial research use is generally supported, the complete, copyrighted interview schedule, manualized administration guide, and official scoring probes are not distributed as public-domain open-access materials without authorization. Researchers and clinicians wishing to utilize the NSI-PR for academic, non-commercial clinical trials or specialized clinical practice must contact the corresponding author, Dr. Gregory P. Strauss (University of Georgia, Department of Psychology, email: [email protected]), to request official scale materials, administration manuals, and rater training guidelines.

References

Ahmed, A. O., Strauss, G. P., Buchanan, R. W., Kirkpatrick, B., & Carpenter, W. T. (2019). Cross-cultural validation of the 5-factor structure of negative symptoms in schizophrenia. Schizophrenia Bulletin, 45(2), 305–314. https://doi.org/10.1093/schbul/sby050

Ahmed, A. O., Strauss, G. P., Carrion, R. E., & Corcoran, C. M. (2022). Two factors, five factors, or both? External validation studies of negative symptom dimensions in schizophrenia. Schizophrenia Bulletin, 48(3), 620–630. https://doi.org/10.1093/schbul/sbab148

Ang, M. S., Rekhi, G., & Lee, J. (2019). Validation of the Brief Negative Symptom Scale and its association with functioning. Schizophrenia Research, 208, 97–104. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.schres.2019.04.005

Blanchard, J. J., Kring, A. M., Horan, W. P., & Gur, R. (2011). Toward the next generation of negative symptom assessments: The Collaboration to Advance Negative Symptom Assessment in Schizophrenia. Schizophrenia Bulletin, 37(2), 291–299. https://doi.org/10.1093/schbul/sbq104

Cannon, T. D., Yu, C., Addington, J., Bearden, C. E., Cadenhead, K. S., Cornblatt, B. A., Heinssen, R., Mathalon, D. H., McGlashan, T. H., Perkins, D. O., Seidman, L. J., Tsuang, M. T., Walker, E. F., Woods, S. W., & Kattan, M. W. (2016). An individualized risk calculator for research in prodromal psychosis. American Journal of Psychiatry, 173(10), 980–988. https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.ajp.2016.15070890

Carrión, R. E., Cornblatt, B. A., Burton, C. Z., Tso, I. F., Auther, A. M., Adelsheim, S., Calkins, M. E., Carter, C. S., Niendam, T. A., & Addington, J. (2016). Duration of attenuated positive and negative symptoms in individuals at clinical high risk: Associations with risk of conversion to psychosis and functional outcome. Journal of Psychiatric Research, 81, 95–101. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpsychires.2016.06.021

Chang, W. C., Lau, C. F. W., Chan, S. S. M., Chu, A. O. K., Jim, O. T. T., Hui, C. L. M., Chan, S. K. W., Lee, E. H. M., & Chen, E. Y. H. (2021). The latent structure of negative symptoms in individuals with attenuated psychosis syndrome and early psychosis: Support for the 5 consensus domains. Schizophrenia Bulletin, 47(2), 386–396. https://doi.org/10.1093/schbul/sbaa129

Foussias, G., & Remington, G. (2009). Motivational deficits as the central link to functioning in schizophrenia: A pilot study. Schizophrenia Research, 115(2–3), 333–337. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.schres.2009.09.020

Fusar-Poli, P., Papanastasiou, E., Stahl, D., Rocchetti, M., Micheli, V., Barlati, S., Deste, G., Sacchetti, E., & Stefanis, N. C. (2015). Treatments of negative symptoms in schizophrenia: Meta-analysis of 168 randomized placebo-controlled trials. Schizophrenia Bulletin, 41(4), 892–899. https://doi.org/10.1093/schbul/sbu170

Galderisi, S., Mucci, A., Dollfus, S., Nordentoft, M., Falkai, P., Kaiser, S., Giordano, G. M., & Glenthøj, B. (2021). EPA guidance on assessment of negative symptoms in schizophrenia. European Psychiatry, 64(1), e23. https://doi.org/10.1192/j.eurpsy.2021.11

Haguiara, S. M. P., Corcoran, C. M., & Strauss, G. P. (2021). What is the best latent structure of negative symptoms in schizophrenia? A systematic review. Schizophrenia Bulletin Open, 2(1), sgab013. https://doi.org/10.1093/schizbullopen/sgab013

Kirkpatrick, B., Fenton, W. S., DeAmorim, E. F., & Morrison, B. (2006). The NIMH-MATRICS consensus statement on negative symptoms. Schizophrenia Bulletin, 32(2), 214–219. https://doi.org/10.1093/schbul/sbj053

Kirkpatrick, B., Strauss, G. P., Nguyen, L., Fischer, B. A., Daniel, D. G., Cienfuegos, A., & Marder, S. R. (2011). The Brief Negative Symptom Scale: Psychometric properties. Schizophrenia Bulletin, 37(2), 300–305. https://doi.org/10.1093/schbul/sbq059

Kring, A. M., Gur, R. E., Blanchard, J. J., Horan, W. P., & Reise, S. P. (2013). The Clinical Assessment Interview for Negative Symptoms (CAINS): Final development and validation. American Journal of Psychiatry, 170(2), 165–172. https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.ajp.2012.12010109

Luther, L., Firmin, R. L., Minor, K. S., & Salyers, M. P. (2020). Clarifying the direction of impact of negative symptoms and neurocognition on prospective work functioning in psychosis: A 20-year longitudinal study. Schizophrenia Research, 220, 232–239. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.schres.2020.03.012

Miller, T. J., McGlashan, T. H., Rosen, J. L., Cadenhead, K., Cannon, T., Ventura, J., McFarlane, W., Perkins, D. O., Pearlson, G. D., & Woods, S. W. (2003). Prodromal assessment with the Structured Interview for Prodromal Syndromes and the Scale of Prodromal Symptoms: Predictive validity, interrater reliability, and training to reliability. Schizophrenia Bulletin, 29(4), 703–715. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.schbul.a007040

Pelletier-Baldelli, A., Strauss, G. P., & Mittal, V. A. (2017). Initial development and preliminary psychometric properties of the Prodromal Inventory of Negative Symptoms (PINS). Schizophrenia Research, 189, 43–49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.schres.2017.01.055

Samejima, F. (1969). Estimation of latent ability using a response pattern of graded scores. Psychometrika Monograph Supplement, 34(4, Pt. 2), 1–100.

Strauss, G. P., Horan, W. P., Kirkpatrick, B., Fischer, B. A., Keller, W. R., Miski, P., Buchanan, R. W., Green, M. F., & Carpenter, W. T. (2012). Deconstructing negative symptoms of schizophrenia: Avolition-apathy and diminished expression clusters predict clinical stability and functional outcome. Journal of Psychiatric Research, 47(6), 783–790. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpsychires.2013.01.015

Strauss, G. P., Pelletier-Baldelli, A., Walker, E. F., Carter, N. T., Ellman, L. M., Schiffman, J., Luther, L., James, S. H., Berglund, A. M., Gupta, T., Ristanovic, I., & Mittal, V. A. (2023). Negative Symptom Inventory-Psychosis Risk. Schizophrenia Bulletin, 49(5), 1276–1287. https://doi.org/10.1093/schbul/sbad038

Yung, A. R., Yuen, H. P., McGorry, P. D., Phillips, L. J., Kelly, D., Dell’Olio, M., Francey, S. M., Cosgrave, E. M., Killackey, E., Stanford, C., Clarke, K., & Buckby, J. (2005). Mapping the onset of psychosis: The Comprehensive Assessment of At-Risk Mental States. Australian & New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, 39(11–12), 964–971. https://doi.org/10.1080/j.1440-1614.2005.01714.x

Items of the Scale