4.4 Article

Neurocognitive performance and functional disability in the psychosis prodrome

Journal

SCHIZOPHRENIA RESEARCH
Volume 84, Issue 1, Pages 100-111

Publisher

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.schres.2006.02.005

Keywords

prodrome; schizophrenia; psychosis; cognition; outcome; clinical symptoms

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective: This study evaluates the pattern of neuropsychological deficits and their association with clinical symptomatology and social functioning in individuals identified as ultra-high-risk (UHR) for psychosis. Methods: A sample of 45 UHR individuals was identified using the Structured Interview for Prodromal Syndromes (SIPS) from consecutive referrals to the Staglin Music Festival Center for the Assessment and Prevention of Prodromal States (CAPPS) at UCLA. Participants were administered a neurocognitive test battery, as well as measures of global (Strauss-Carpenter Outcome Scale) and social functioning (UCLA Social Attainment Survey). Results: Participants showed significant deficits in speed of processing, verbal learning and memory, and motor speed. Poorer verbal learning and memory performance was significantly associated with poorer social functioning, and there was a trend for poorer performance on reasoning and problem solving to be associated with poorer global functioning. Verbal memory independently predicted social functioning over and above severity of negative symptoms. Cognitive deficits were not associated with severity of clinical symptomatology. Conclusions: Despite the absence of fully psychotic symptoms, UHR individuals experience significant cognitive deficits, particularly on tasks requiring speeded information-processing and efficient recall from memory, and these deficits appear to be associated with functional disability in a manner parallel to that observed in patients with established psychotic illness. (c) 2006 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