4.4 Article

Neurocognitive diagnosis and cut-off scores of the Screen for Cognitive Impairment in Psychiatry (SCIP-S)

Journal

SCHIZOPHRENIA RESEARCH
Volume 116, Issue 2-3, Pages 243-251

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.schres.2009.08.005

Keywords

SCIP; Cut-off scores; Cognitive impairment; Screening; Schizophrenia; Bipolar disorder

Categories

Funding

  1. Pfizer Spain
  2. Departament d'Universitats, Recerca i Societat de la Informacio de la Generalitat de Catalunya [2007FIC00736, 2005SGR00365]
  3. Ministerio de Educacion y Ciencia de Espana [SEJ2005-09144-C02-02/PSIC]
  4. Spanish Ministry of Health, Instituto de Salud Carlos III [RETICS RD06/0011]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objectives: To demonstrate the ability of the Screen for Cognitive Impairment in Psychiatry (SCIP-S) to discriminate between cognitively-impaired individuals and those with adequate functioning in a sample of schizophrenic and bipolar patients, as well as in a control group. Methods: The SCIP-S, together with a full neuropsychological battery, was administered to three groups: patients with schizophrenia, patients diagnosed with bipolar disorder 1, and controls. The battery scores were used to perform a standardization with respect to the control group and this served to determine the comparison groups (cognitively impaired versus unimpaired) for each of the subtests of the SCIP-S. A full analysis of decision validity was conducted on the basis of receiver operating characteristic curves (sensitivity and specificity, + LR and - LR, PPV and NPV). Results: All the subtests yielded adequate values for sensitivity and specificity with the proposed cut-off points, while the total score of the SCIP (<70) was associated with a sensitivity of 87.9 and specificity of 80.6. Conclusions: The SCIP-S shows adequate decision validity as a screening tool for cognitive deficit in patients diagnosed with schizophrenia or bipolar disorder. (C) 2009 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available