A McCleery1, M F Green1, G S Hellemann1, L E Baade2, J M Gold3, R S E Keefe4, R S Kern1, R I Mesholam-Gately5, L J Seidman5, K L Subotnik1, J Ventura1, K H Nuechterlein1. 1. Department of Psychiatry and Biobehavioral Sciences,David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA,Los Angeles,CA,USA. 2. University of Kansas School of Medicine at Wichita,Wichita,KS,USA. 3. Department of Psychiatry,Maryland Psychiatric Research Center,University of Maryland Baltimore,School of Medicine,Baltimore,MD,USA. 4. Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences,Duke University,Durham,NC,USA. 5. Public Psychiatry Division of the Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center,Department of Psychiatry,Massachusetts Mental Health Center,Harvard Medical School,Boston,MA,USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The number of separable cognitive dimensions in schizophrenia has been debated. Guided by the extant factor analytic literature, the NIMH Measurement and Treatment Research to Improve Cognition in Schizophrenia (MATRICS) initiative selected seven cognitive domains relevant to treatment studies in schizophrenia: speed of processing, attention/vigilance, working memory, verbal learning, visual learning, reasoning and problem solving, and social cognition. These domains are assessed in the MATRICS Consensus Cognitive Battery (MCCB). The aim of this study was to conduct a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) of the beta battery of the MCCB to compare the fit of the MATRICS consensus seven-domain model to other models in the current literature on cognition in schizophrenia. METHOD: Using data from 281 schizophrenia outpatients, we compared the seven correlated factors model with alternative models. Specifically, we compared the 7-factor model to (a) a single-factor model, (b) a three correlated factors model including speed of processing, working memory, and general cognition, and (c) a hierarchical model in which seven first-order factors loaded onto a second-order general cognitive factor. RESULTS: Multiple fit indices indicated the seven correlated factors model was the best fit for the data and provided significant improvement in model fit beyond the comparison models. CONCLUSIONS: These results support the assessment of these seven cognitive dimensions in clinical trials of interventions to improve cognition in schizophrenia. Because these cognitive factors are separable to some degree, it is plausible that specific interventions may have differential effects on the domains.
BACKGROUND: The number of separable cognitive dimensions in schizophrenia has been debated. Guided by the extant factor analytic literature, the NIMH Measurement and Treatment Research to Improve Cognition in Schizophrenia (MATRICS) initiative selected seven cognitive domains relevant to treatment studies in schizophrenia: speed of processing, attention/vigilance, working memory, verbal learning, visual learning, reasoning and problem solving, and social cognition. These domains are assessed in the MATRICS Consensus Cognitive Battery (MCCB). The aim of this study was to conduct a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) of the beta battery of the MCCB to compare the fit of the MATRICS consensus seven-domain model to other models in the current literature on cognition in schizophrenia. METHOD: Using data from 281 schizophrenia outpatients, we compared the seven correlated factors model with alternative models. Specifically, we compared the 7-factor model to (a) a single-factor model, (b) a three correlated factors model including speed of processing, working memory, and general cognition, and (c) a hierarchical model in which seven first-order factors loaded onto a second-order general cognitive factor. RESULTS: Multiple fit indices indicated the seven correlated factors model was the best fit for the data and provided significant improvement in model fit beyond the comparison models. CONCLUSIONS: These results support the assessment of these seven cognitive dimensions in clinical trials of interventions to improve cognition in schizophrenia. Because these cognitive factors are separable to some degree, it is plausible that specific interventions may have differential effects on the domains.
Authors: Keith H Nuechterlein; Michael F Green; Robert S Kern; Lyle E Baade; Deanna M Barch; Jonathan D Cohen; Susan Essock; Wayne S Fenton; Frederick J Frese; James M Gold; Terry Goldberg; Robert K Heaton; Richard S E Keefe; Helena Kraemer; Raquelle Mesholam-Gately; Larry J Seidman; Ellen Stover; Daniel R Weinberger; Alexander S Young; Steven Zalcman; Stephen R Marder Journal: Am J Psychiatry Date: 2008-01-02 Impact factor: 18.112
Authors: Richard S E Keefe; Robert M Bilder; Philip D Harvey; Sonia M Davis; Barton W Palmer; James M Gold; Herbert Y Meltzer; Michael F Green; Del D Miller; Jose M Canive; Lawrence W Adler; Theo C Manschreck; Marvin Swartz; Robert Rosenheck; Diana O Perkins; Trina M Walker; T Scott Stroup; Joseph P McEvoy; Jeffrey A Lieberman Journal: Neuropsychopharmacology Date: 2006-04-19 Impact factor: 7.853
Authors: Mark J Sergi; Yuri Rassovsky; Clifford Widmark; Christopher Reist; Stephen Erhart; David L Braff; Stephen R Marder; Michael F Green Journal: Schizophr Res Date: 2006-12-01 Impact factor: 4.939
Authors: Margo R Genderson; Dwight Dickinson; Catherine M Diaz-Asper; Michael F Egan; Daniel R Weinberger; Terry E Goldberg Journal: Schizophr Res Date: 2007-06-13 Impact factor: 4.939
Authors: S van Hooren; D Versmissen; I Janssen; I Myin-Germeys; J à Campo; R Mengelers; J van Os; L Krabbendam Journal: Schizophr Res Date: 2008-04-22 Impact factor: 4.939
Authors: Leanne M Williams; Thomas J Whitford; Gary Flynn; Wilson Wong; Belinda J Liddell; Steven Silverstein; Cherrie Galletly; Anthony W F Harris; Evian Gordon Journal: Schizophr Res Date: 2007-11-28 Impact factor: 4.939
Authors: William S Stone; Raquelle I Mesholam-Gately; Anthony J Giuliano; Kristen A Woodberry; Jean Addington; Carrie E Bearden; Kristin S Cadenhead; Tyrone D Cannon; Barbara A Cornblatt; Daniel H Mathalon; Thomas H McGlashan; Diana O Perkins; Ming T Tsuang; Elaine F Walker; Scott W Woods; Robert W McCarley; Robert Heinssen; Michael F Green; Keith Nuechterlein; Larry J Seidman Journal: Schizophr Res Date: 2016-02-16 Impact factor: 4.939
Authors: Pejman Sehatpour; Daniel C Javitt; Heloise M De Baun; Marlene Carlson; Anna Beloborodova; David H Margolin; Mark B L Carlton; Nicola L Brice; Joshua T Kantrowitz Journal: Neuropsychopharmacology Date: 2021-10-20 Impact factor: 8.294
Authors: Philip D Harvey; William P Horan; Alexandra S Atkins; Heather Stevens; Matthew Welch; Joshua Yuan; Thomas L Patterson; Meera Narasimhan; Richard S E Keefe Journal: Schizophr Res Date: 2020-09-11 Impact factor: 4.939
Authors: W C Hochberger; S K Hill; C L M Nelson; J L Reilly; R S E Keefe; G D Pearlson; M S Keshavan; C A Tamminga; B A Clementz; J A Sweeney Journal: Schizophr Res Date: 2015-11-30 Impact factor: 4.939
Authors: Larry J Seidman; Daniel I Shapiro; William S Stone; Kristen A Woodberry; Ashley Ronzio; Barbara A Cornblatt; Jean Addington; Carrie E Bearden; Kristin S Cadenhead; Tyrone D Cannon; Daniel H Mathalon; Thomas H McGlashan; Diana O Perkins; Ming T Tsuang; Elaine F Walker; Scott W Woods Journal: JAMA Psychiatry Date: 2016-12-01 Impact factor: 21.596
Authors: J S Gomes; A P Trevizol; D V Ducos; A Gadelha; B B Ortiz; A O Fonseca; H T Akiba; C C Azevedo; L S P Guimaraes; P Shiozawa; Q Cordeiro; A Lacerda; A M Dias Journal: Schizophr Res Cogn Date: 2018-02-20