Raeanne C Moore1, Alexandrea L Harmell2, Philip D Harvey3, Christopher R Bowie4, Colin A Depp5, Ann E Pulver6, John A McGrath7, Thomas L Patterson8, Veronica Cardenas9, Paula Wolyniec10, Mary H Thornquist11, James R Luke12, Barton W Palmer13, Dilip V Jeste14, Brent T Mausbach15. 1. Department of Psychiatry, University of California, San Diego, United States; Sam and Rose Stein Institute for Research on Aging, University of California, San Diego, CA, United States. Electronic address: r6moore@ucsd.edu. 2. Department of Psychiatry, University of California, San Diego, United States; San Diego State University/University of California, San Diego Joint Doctoral Program in Clinical Psychology, San Diego, CA, United States. Electronic address: aharmell@ucsd.edu. 3. University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, United States. Electronic address: pharvey@med.miami.edu. 4. Department of Psychology, Queen's University, Ontario, Canada. Electronic address: bowiec@queensu.ca. 5. Department of Psychiatry, University of California, San Diego, United States; Sam and Rose Stein Institute for Research on Aging, University of California, San Diego, CA, United States; VA San Diego Healthcare System, San Diego, CA, United States. Electronic address: cdepp@ucsd.edu. 6. Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, United States. Electronic address: aepulver@jhmi.edu. 7. Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, United States. Electronic address: jmcgrath@jhmi.edu. 8. Department of Psychiatry, University of California, San Diego, United States. Electronic address: tpatterson@ucsd.edu. 9. Department of Psychiatry, University of California, San Diego, United States; Sam and Rose Stein Institute for Research on Aging, University of California, San Diego, CA, United States. Electronic address: vcardenas@ucsd.edu. 10. Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, United States. Electronic address: wolyniec@jhmi.edu. 11. Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, United States. Electronic address: thornquist@jhmi.edu. 12. Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, United States. Electronic address: jrluke@jhmi.edu. 13. Department of Psychiatry, University of California, San Diego, United States; Sam and Rose Stein Institute for Research on Aging, University of California, San Diego, CA, United States. Electronic address: bpalmer@ucsd.edu. 14. Department of Psychiatry, University of California, San Diego, United States; Sam and Rose Stein Institute for Research on Aging, University of California, San Diego, CA, United States. Electronic address: djeste@ucsd.edu. 15. Department of Psychiatry, University of California, San Diego, United States; Sam and Rose Stein Institute for Research on Aging, University of California, San Diego, CA, United States. Electronic address: bmausbach@ucsd.edu.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Deficits in cognitive functioning are related to functional disability in people with serious mental illness. Measures of functional capacity are commonly used as a proxy for functional disabilities for cognitive remediation programs, and robust linear relationships between functional capacity and cognitive deficits are frequently observed. This study aimed to determine whether a curvilinear relationship better approximates the association between cognitive functioning and functional capacity. METHOD: Two independent samples were studied. Study 1: participants with schizophrenia (n=435) and bipolar disorder (n=390) aged 18-83 completed a neuropsychological battery and a performance-based measure of functional capacity. Study 2: 205 participants with schizophrenia (age range=39-72) completed a brief neuropsychological screening battery and a performance-based measure of functional capacity. For both studies, linear and quadratic curve estimations were conducted with cognitive performance predicting functional capacity scores. RESULTS: Significant linear and quadratic trends were observed for both studies. Study 1: in both the schizophrenia and bipolar participants, when cognitive composite z-scores were >0 (indicating normal to above normal performance), cognition was not related to functional capacity. Study 2: when neuropsychological screening battery z-scores were >-1 (indicating low average to average performance), cognition was not related to functional capacity. CONCLUSIONS: These results illustrate that in cognitively normal adults with serious mental illness, the relationship between cognitive function and functional capacity is relatively weak. These findings may aid clinicians and researchers determine who may optimally benefit from cognitive remediation programs, with greater benefits possibly being achieved for individuals with cognitive deficits relative to individuals with normal cognition. Published by Elsevier B.V.
OBJECTIVE: Deficits in cognitive functioning are related to functional disability in people with serious mental illness. Measures of functional capacity are commonly used as a proxy for functional disabilities for cognitive remediation programs, and robust linear relationships between functional capacity and cognitive deficits are frequently observed. This study aimed to determine whether a curvilinear relationship better approximates the association between cognitive functioning and functional capacity. METHOD: Two independent samples were studied. Study 1: participants with schizophrenia (n=435) and bipolar disorder (n=390) aged 18-83 completed a neuropsychological battery and a performance-based measure of functional capacity. Study 2: 205 participants with schizophrenia (age range=39-72) completed a brief neuropsychological screening battery and a performance-based measure of functional capacity. For both studies, linear and quadratic curve estimations were conducted with cognitive performance predicting functional capacity scores. RESULTS: Significant linear and quadratic trends were observed for both studies. Study 1: in both the schizophrenia and bipolar participants, when cognitive composite z-scores were >0 (indicating normal to above normal performance), cognition was not related to functional capacity. Study 2: when neuropsychological screening battery z-scores were >-1 (indicating low average to average performance), cognition was not related to functional capacity. CONCLUSIONS: These results illustrate that in cognitively normal adults with serious mental illness, the relationship between cognitive function and functional capacity is relatively weak. These findings may aid clinicians and researchers determine who may optimally benefit from cognitive remediation programs, with greater benefits possibly being achieved for individuals with cognitive deficits relative to individuals with normal cognition. Published by Elsevier B.V.
Authors: M Daniele Fallin; Virginia K Lasseter; Paula S Wolyniec; John A McGrath; Gerald Nestadt; David Valle; Kung-Yee Liang; Ann E Pulver Journal: Am J Hum Genet Date: 2003-08-15 Impact factor: 11.025
Authors: Dawn I Velligan; Megan Fredrick; Jim Mintz; Xueying Li; Maureen Rubin; Sanjay Dube; Smita N Deshpande; Jitendra K Trivedi; Shiv Gautam; Ajit Avasthi; Robert S Kern; Stephen R Marder Journal: Schizophr Bull Date: 2013-11-09 Impact factor: 9.306
Authors: M Daniele Fallin; Virginia K Lasseter; Paula S Wolyniec; John A McGrath; Gerald Nestadt; David Valle; Kung-Yee Liang; Ann E Pulver Journal: Am J Hum Genet Date: 2004-06-18 Impact factor: 11.025
Authors: Raeanne C Moore; Emily W Paolillo; Anne Heaton; Pariya L Fazeli; Dilip V Jeste; David J Moore Journal: PLoS One Date: 2017-08-24 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Shelagh Szabo; Elizabeth Merikle; Greta Lozano-Ortega; Lauren Powell; Thomas Macek; Stephanie Cline Journal: Schizophr Res Treatment Date: 2018-12-27