Schizotypy: The Way Ahead

and time consuming, but relevant to recollect information about environment, allowing us to understand underlying mechanisms
the developmental trajectories pathways, relationship between and improving the ecological validity, amongst others (Oorschot
schizotypy dimensions, and etiological (environmental and et al., 2009; van Os et al., 2013; van Os, Reininghaus, & Meyer-
genetic) mechanisms underlying psychosis (and other mental Lindenberg, 2017). These technologies may provide vital
disorders) outcomes (Debbané et al., 2013; Venables & Raine, information in gaining insight into schizotypy and its links with
2015; Wang et al., 2018). Previous findings suggest that there relevant variables like genetic liability, psychopathology, childhood
may be distinct developmental trajectories for schizotypy (Wang trauma, etc. (Hasmi et al., 2017).
et al., 2018) or that disorganization schizotypal features mediate
the relationships between the negative and positive dimensions Crossing the borders: cultural issues
of schizotypy (Debbané et al., 2013). These kind of longitudinal
studies allow us to consider the schizotypy potential in the study Rates of clinical and subclinical psychosis vary across cultures,
of gene-person-environment interactions (Barrantes-Vidal et al., countries, and ethnic groups (Jongsma et al., 2018; McGrath et
2015). Furthermore, longitudinal studies have started charting the al., 2015). Similar differences across countries are evident on
association between brain development and early manifestations schizotypy dimensions and schizotypal traits (e.g., Fonseca-
of schizotypy (Derome, Tonini et al., 2020; Derome, Zöller et al., Pedrero, Chan et al., 2018; Kwapil et al., 2012; Ortuño-Sierra et
2020). Further inquiry into the neuroscience of schizotypy may al., 2013).
provide key insights into its developmental mechanisms. Until 2017, little research has examined the epidemiologic
The four issues mentioned are related to the measuring landscape of schizotypal traits at a cross-national level. There
instruments section commented above and new psychometric have been many investigations of the associations of gender, age,
developments. nationality, and ethnicity with schizotypal traits. In most studies,
comparisons have been restricted to Western countries or a small
Psychometric and assessment developments number of countries. In fact, we must not forget that most of the
subsamples used in schizotypy research are WEIRD (Western,
Psychometric and assessment advances are also crucial in Educated, Industrialized, Rich, and Democratic) individuals and
the progression of our understanding of schizotypy and related are most likely unrepresentative of the world’s population (Henrich
phenomena. It would be relevant to include new psychometric et al., 2010). That is, to date, cultural factors on schizotypy arena
techniques, procedures, and software in further research. However, have been studied unsystematically. Given these limitations,
in order to use these procedures, we require strong psychometric the International Consortium for Schizotypy Research (ICSR)
skills, as well as theoretical coherence and background. Mixture (https://srconsortium.org/), a collaborative multinational effort for
modelling (latent class analysis-dichotomous outcome- or schizotypy research (Debbané & Mohr, 2015), aimed to compare
the latent profile analysis -continuous outcome-), exploratory a broad array of schizotypal traits assessed with the SPQ from
structural equation modelling, IRT, bifactor model, differential participants recruited from 12 Western and non-Western countries
item functioning (DIF), computerized adaptive testing (CAT), (N = 27,001 participants) (Fonseca-Pedrero, Chan et al., 2018). We
taxometric methods, or advances in reliability estimation (e.g., sought to better understand international variation in the self-report
ordinal alpha, omega), are some good examples. These procedures of schizotypal traits. Furthermore, and despite the globalization
are being used progressively in schizotypy field such as CAT of psychosis research, no previous study had analyzed the
(Fonseca-Pedrero et al., 2013; Moore et al., 2018), DIF (Cicero, psychometric quality of SPQ in multinational samples.
Martin et al., 2019), IRT (Fonseca-Pedrero et al., 2013; Kwapil et This cross-national study was a clear milestone in the schizotypy
al., 2017) and bifactor model (Moussa-Tooks et al., 2020). field and extended psychosis phenotype. In this research, we did
These psychometric procedures depend on the main goal of not have a priori hypotheses on how schizotypy would differ
the research, as well as the underlying theoretical models. For across participating countries. Briefly, schizotypal traits varied
instance, if the idea of the researcher is identifying classes of according to gender, age, and country. Females scored higher than
individuals (e.g., Meehl’s model), mixture modelling would be one males in the positive dimension, whereas males scored higher
of the appropriate techniques to choose. There must be a clear link in the disorganization dimension. By age, a significant decrease
between the theoretical schizotypy model, main goals, psychometric in the positive schizotypal traits was observed. Epidemiological
methodology and data analysis, results, and conclusions. expression of schizotypal traits varied by country. Moreover,
As we said, the incorporation of new technologies is another several interactions by gender, age, and country were found. The
relevant issue. Information technologies, like digital phenotyping, findings reveal that this kind of studies are rather complex. Table
have a clear impact in the field of psychotic spectrum phenomena 1 shows a clear example of the impact of language on schizotypy
and mental health (Insel, 2017). Artificial intelligence (e.g., assessment across countries. We assume that differences across
learning machine) (Brodey et al., 2018), virtual reality (Veling countries would reflect a range of factors:
et al., 2016), latent semantic analyses (Marggraf et al., 2018),
ambulatory assessment (Trull & Ebner-Priemer, 2009), or a) Methodological variability. The use of different strategies for
ecological momentary interventions (Reininghaus et al., 2016), are ascertaining and recruiting participants, sampling strategies,
just some good examples. testing practices, tests adaptations and validations, etc.
For example, the incorporation of ambulatory assessment b) Measuring instrument. The SPQ was used to measure
(methods of experience sampling, ecological momentary self-reported schizotypal traits. It must be added that the
assessment) allows us to avoid some of the limitations of self- exclusive use of the SPQ, while advantageous in that,
reports, analyzing the individual in their real life in a personalized providing consistency across the compiled datasets with
way, with micro-longitudinal studies, and in interaction with the regard to the domains surveyed, may also have functioned

21