4.4 Article

Unitary construct of generalized cognitive ability underlying BACS performance across psychotic disorders and in their first-degree relatives

Journal

SCHIZOPHRENIA RESEARCH
Volume 170, Issue 1, Pages 156-161

Publisher

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.schres.2015.11.022

Keywords

Psychosis; Brief Assessment of Cognition in Schizophrenia; First-degree relatives; Factor analysis

Categories

Funding

  1. NIMH [MH078113, MH077945, MH077852, MH077851, MH077862, MH072767, MH083888]
  2. NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF MENTAL HEALTH [R01MH077945, R01MH077851, R01MH078113, K08MH083888, K23MH072767, R01MH077852, R01MH077862] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Despite robust evidence of neurocognitive dysfunction in psychotic patients, the degree of similarity in cognitive architecture across psychotic disorders and among their respective first-degree relatives is not well delineated. The present study examined the latent factor structure of the Brief Assessment of Cognition in Schizophrenia (BACS) neuropsychological battery. Analyses were conducted on 783 psychosis spectrum probands (schizophrenia, schizoaffective, psychotic bipolar), 887 of their first-degree relatives, and 396 non-psychiatric controls from the Bipolar-Schizophrenia Network on Intermediate Phenotypes (B-SNIP) consortium. Exploratory factor analysis of BACS subtest scores indicated a single-factor solution that was similar across all groups and provided the best overall data fit in confirmatory analyses. Correlations between the standard BACS composite score and the sum of subscale scores weighted by their loadings on this unitary factor were very high in all groups (r >=.99). Thus, the BACS assesses a similar unitary cognitive construct in probands with different psychotic disorders, in their first-degree relatives, and in healthy controls, and this factor is well measured by the test's standard composite score. (C) 2015 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