Psychotic experiences (PEs) frequently occur and are associated with a range of negative health outcomes. Prospective studies on PEs are scarce, and to date no study investigated PE prevalence, incidence, persistence, their risk indicators, and psychiatric comorbidity, in one dataset. Furthermore, most studies are based on self-report, and it is unclear how this compares to clinical interviews.

Data are used from the Netherlands Mental Health Survey and Incidence Study-2 (NEMESIS-2), a psychiatric cohort study among a representative sample of adults (baseline characteristics: N = 6646; 49.6% female; 18–64 years). Results are presented for self-reported and clinically validated PEs. Associations are assessed for mental disorders, socio-demographic, vulnerability, physical health, and substance use factors.

Based on self-report, at baseline 16.5% of respondents had at least one PE in their lifetime, of those, 30.1% also reported a PE at 3-year follow-up. 4.8% had a first PE at 3-year follow up. The 3-year prevalence of PE was associated with almost all studied risk indicators. Generally, the strongest associations were found for mental health disorders. Prevalence and incidence rates were two to three times higher in self-report than in clinical interview but results on associated factors were similar.

Validated prevalence and incidence estimates of PE are substantially lower than self-reported figures but results on associated factors were similar. Therefore, future studies on associations of PEs can rely on relatively inexpensive self-reports of PEs. The associations between PE and mental disorders underline the importance of assessment of PE in general practice.

There is good evidence that psychotic symptoms segregate into symptom dimensions. However, it is still unclear how these dimensions are associated with risk indicators and other clinical variables, and whether they have advantages over categorical diagnosis in clinical practice. We investigated symptom dimensions in a first-onset psychosis sample and examined their associations with risk indicators and clinical variables. We then examined the relationship of categorical diagnoses to the same variables.

We recruited 536 patients as part of a population-based, incidence study of psychosis. Psychopathology was assessed using the Schedules for Clinical Assessment in Neuropsychiatry (SCAN). A principal axis factor analysis was performed on symptom scores. The relationship of dimension scores with risk indicators and with clinical variables was then examined employing regression analyses. Finally, regression models were compared to assess the contribution of dimensions versus diagnosis in explaining these variables.

Factor analysis gave rise to a five-factor solution of manic, reality distortion, negative, depressive and disorganization symptom dimensions. The scores of identified dimensions were differentially associated with specific variables. The manic dimension had the highest number of significant associations; strong correlations were observed with shorter duration of untreated psychosis, acute mode of onset and compulsory admission. Adding dimensional scores to diagnostic categories significantly increased the amount of variability explained in predicting these variables; the reverse was also true but to a lesser extent.

Categorical and dimensional representations of psychosis are complementary. Using both appears to be a promising strategy in conceptualising psychotic illnesses.