4.5 Article

Cognitive patterns in subtypes of schizophrenia

Journal

EUROPEAN PSYCHIATRY
Volume 17, Issue 3, Pages 155-162

Publisher

CAMBRIDGE UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1016/S0924-9338(02)00648-X

Keywords

executive/attentional cognitive functions; episodic memory; schizophrenic subtypes; disorganized, positive and deficit syndromes neuropsychology; neuropsychological tests

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Aim. Because of the heterogeneity of schizophrenia, this study researched different cognitive patterns in distinct subtypes of schizophrenic patients. Methods. Thirty-five Diagnostic and Statistical Manual IV (DSM IV) schizophrenic patients and 35 healthy controls were included. Patients were categorized into deficit, disorganized and positive subtypes with the schedule for the deficit syndrome (SDS) and the positive and negative syndrome scale (PANSS). Executive/attentional functions were assessed with the modified card sorting test (MCST), a test of verbal fluency, the trail making test (TMT) and the Stroop color-word test (Strooptest). Episodic memory was explored through the California verbal learning test (CVLT). Results. The positive subtype had some executive/attentional (fluency and Stroop tests) and mnesic performances in the normal range, suggesting the preservation of good cognitive skills. In contrast, the deficit and disorganized subtypes had major mnesic and executive/attentional dysfunctions compared to healthy subjects. The deficit subtype compared to the control group performed predominantly worse on the MCST and fluency, whereas the disorganized subtype had the lowest scores on the TMT and the Stroop test. Conclusion. This study showed distinct cognitive patterns in deficit, disorganized and positive patients in comparison with the controls, suggesting a heterogeneous cognitive dysfunction in schizophrenia. (C) 2002 Editions scientifiques et medicales Elsevier SAS.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available