4.2 Article

The Role of Low Cognitive Effort and Negative Symptoms in Neuropsychological Impairment in Schizophrenia

Journal

NEUROPSYCHOLOGY
Volume 29, Issue 2, Pages 282-291

Publisher

AMER PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSOC
DOI: 10.1037/neu0000113

Keywords

effort; cognition; anhedonia; psychosis; schizophrenia

Funding

  1. National Institutes of Mental Health [R01MH080066]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective: Two experiments were conducted to examine whether insufficient effort, negative symptoms (e.g., avolition, anhedonia), and psychological variables (e.g., anhedonia and perception of low cognitive resources) predict generalized neurocognitive impairment in individuals with schizophrenia (SZ). Method: In Experiment 1, participants included 97 individuals with SZ and 63 healthy controls (CN) who completed the Victoria Symptom Validity Test (VSVT), the MATRICS Consensus Cognitive Battery (MCCB), and self-report anhedonia questionnaires. In Experiment 2, participants included 46 individuals with SZ and 33 CN who completed Green's Word Memory Test (WMT), the MCCB, and self-reports of anhedonia, defeatist performance beliefs, and negative expectancy appraisals. Results: Results indicated that a low proportion of individuals with SZ failed effort testing (1.0% Experiment 1; 15.2% Experiment 2); however, global neurocognitive impairment was significantly predicted by low effort and negative symptoms. Conclusions: Findings indicate that low effort does not threaten the validity of neuropsychological test results in the majority of individuals with schizophrenia; however, effort testing may be useful in SZ patients with severe negative symptoms who may be more likely to put forth insufficient effort due to motivational problems. Although the base rate of failure is relatively low, it may be beneficial to screen for insufficient effort in SZ and exclude individuals who fail effort testing from pharmacological or cognitive remediation trials.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available