4.6 Article

IQ Trajectory, Cognitive Reserve, and Clinical Outcome Following a First Episode of Psychosis: A 3-Year Longitudinal Study

期刊

SCHIZOPHRENIA BULLETIN
卷 37, 期 4, 页码 768-777

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/schbul/sbp143

关键词

schizophrenia; cognition; trajectory; premorbid IQ; WAIS; WTAR

资金

  1. Wellcome Trust [064607]
  2. Raymond Way Fund

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Comparison of current and estimated premorbid IQ in schizophrenia suggests that there are subgroups with low IQ, deteriorated IQ (DIQ), or preserved IQ and that this is established by psychosis onset. There are no controlled studies examining the trajectory of these IQ subgroups longitudinally or their relationship with clinical and social outcomes. Of 129 individuals with first-episode schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder, 25% showed stable low IQ, 31% showed stable IQ in the average/high range, and 44% demonstrated intellectual deterioration by 10 points or more. Patients in the low and deteriorated groups were equally impaired on tests of memory and executive function compared with the preserved average/high-IQ group and controls and showed more negative and disorganization symptoms than the preserved average/high-IQ group. Sixty patients and 27 controls were assessed again 1 and 3 years later. There was no evidence that those with IQ deterioration at baseline continued on a declining cognitive trajectory or that those with preserved average/high IQ experienced subsequent IQ decline. The low IQ group showed no change in IQ, whereas both the DIQ and the preserved IQ groups improved. However, the rate of improvement of these 2 subgroups was no greater than that of the healthy controls, suggesting that this reflected practice effects. Both the low and the deteriorated groups had longer index admissions, more core negative symptoms, and worse occupational outcomes at 3 years. These data suggest that following psychosis onset, IQ is stable and that it is IQ at psychosis onset rather than premorbid IQ predicts a more severe illness.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据