| Literature DB >> 32093801 |
Charlotte A Chun1, Shanna Cooper2,3, Lauren M Ellman1.
Abstract
This study examined the association of spatial working memory and attenuated psychotic-like experiences and related symptoms with social and role functioning. Findings from this study suggest that symptom dimensions and working memory impairment were associated with diminished functioning across a variety of domains. Specifically, negative symptoms and working memory impairment were inversely associated with both social and role functioning, whereas positive and disorganized symptoms showed inverse associations with social functioning only. Symptom dimensions did not moderate cognitive and functional variables, although working memory and attenuated clinical symptoms had an additive effect on functioning. Post-hoc analyses examining symptom dimensions simultaneously showed negative symptoms to be the variable most strongly predictive of overall functioning. These findings suggest that even in a non-clinical sample, sub-threshold psychosis symptoms and cognition may influence people's social and role functioning.Entities:
Keywords: clinical high risk; cognition; psychosis; role functioning; social functioning; working memory
Mesh:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32093801 PMCID: PMC7315866 DOI: 10.1192/j.eurpsy.2020.21
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Eur Psychiatry ISSN: 0924-9338 Impact factor: 5.361
Descriptive characteristics of the final sample
|
| Range | Mean (SD) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Age | 458 | 18–36 | 20.5 (2.8) |
| Gender | 466 | ||
| Male | 28.3% | ||
| Female | 71.7% | ||
| Race | 466 | ||
| White | 62.2% | ||
| Asian/Pacific islander | 14.4% | ||
| Black or African American | 12.2% | ||
| More than one race | 4.1% | ||
| Unknown | 7.1% | ||
| Ethnicity | 466 | ||
| Hispanic/Latino | 4.3% | ||
| Not Hispanic/Latino | 95.7% | ||
| Maternal education | 466 | ||
| Less than high school degree | 5.4% | ||
| High school degree or equivalent | 34.1% | ||
| Associates degree/two-year college completed | 17.5% | ||
| Four-year college attended, not completed | 4.3% | ||
| Bachelor degree | 25.8% | ||
| Graduate degree | 13.1% | ||
| Paternal education | 466 | ||
| Less than high school degree | 5.6% | ||
| High school degree or equivalent | 35.2% | ||
| Associates degree/two-year college completed | 14.2% | ||
| Four-year college attended, not completed | 3.0% | ||
| Bachelor degree | 26.4% | ||
| Graduate degree | 15.7% | ||
| Positive symptoms | 466 | 0–32 | 6.5 (5.8) |
| Disorganized symptoms | 466 | 0–6 | 2.6 (1.8) |
| Negative symptoms | 466 | 36–108 | 86.0 (11.2) |
| 0-back RT (correct trials) | 466 | 394.0–951.5 | 531.5 (96.3) |
| 1-back RT (correct trials) | 466 | 191.4–1194.2 | 401.6 (158.0) |
| 2-back RT (correct trials) | 466 | 149.7–1088.9 | 384.2 (153.6) |
| 0-back | 466 | −0.06 to 4.91 | 2.7 (1.0) |
| 1-back | 466 | −0.70 to 4.91 | 3.3 (1.3) |
| 2-back | 466 | −0.87 to 4.91 | 2.3 (1.5) |
| SFS total | 463 | 91–214 | 141.2 (19.2) |
| SFS social engagement | 464 | 3–15 | 11.0 (2.2) |
| SFS interpersonal communication | 465 | 3–9 | 8.3 (1.0) |
| SFS independence-performance | 465 | 17–39 | 31.7 (5.1) |
| SFS recreation | 464 | 5–45 | 18.5 (6.2) |
| SFS prosocial | 464 | 3–66 | 25.3 (10.1) |
| SFS independence-competence | 464 | 0–39 | 36.9 (3.2) |
| SFS occupation | 464 | 9–10 | 9.5 (.5) |
Abbreviations: RT, reaction times; SFS, Social Functioning Scale; SD, standard deviation.
Spearman’s rank-order correlations between N-back variables, subclinical symptoms, and SFS outcomes (N = 466)
| Soc Engag | Interp Comm | Indep-Perf | Recr | Prosoc | Indep-Comp | Occup | PLEs | Dis Sx | Neg Sx | WM | WM RT | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SFS Total | 0.38 | 0.31 | 0.67 | 0.74 | 0.84 | 0.41 | 0.20 | −0.06 | −0.04 | −0.19 | −0.11 | 0.05 |
| Soc Engag | 0.42 | 0.14 | 0.14 | 0.29 | 0.18 | 0.15 | −0.12 | −0.12 | −0.13 | −0.04 | 0.008 | |
| Interp-Comm | 0.20 | 0.03 | 0.22 | 0.25 | 0.08 | −0.13 | −0.17 | −0.10 | 0.02 | 0.03 | ||
| Indep-Perf | 0.42 | 0.32 | 0.44 | 0.19 | −0.07 | −0.08 | −0.18 | −0.11 | 0.007 | |||
| Recr | 0.51 | 0.19 | 0.07 | 0.03 | 0.04 | −0.16 | −0.10 | 0.04 | ||||
| Prosoc | 0.14 | 0.14 | −0.04 | −0.01 | −0.12 | −0.08 | 0.04 | |||||
| Indep-Comp | 0.24 | −0.13 | −0.14 | −0.07 | −0.01 | 0.002 | ||||||
| Occup | 0.001 | −0.06 | 0.07 | 0.02 | −0.003 | |||||||
| PLEs | 0.71 | 0.11 | −0.03 | 0.004 | ||||||||
| Dis Sx | 0.12 | −0.03 | −0.02 | |||||||||
| Neg Sx | −0.06 | 0.02 | ||||||||||
| WM | −0.26 |
Abbreviations: Dis, disorganized; Indep-Comp, independence-competence; Indep-Perf, independence-performance; Interp Comm, interpersonal communication; Neg, negative; Occup, occupation; PLEs, psychotic-like experiences; Prosoc, prosocial; Recr, recreation; SFS, Social Functioning Scale; Soc Engag, social engagement; Sx, symptoms; WM d′ = working memory sensitivity. WM RT, working memory reaction time.
N = 464.
N = 465.
N = 463.
Gender as covariate.
p < .05
p < .01.
Hierarchical linear regression models of symptom dimensions and working memory as independent variables predicting total social and role functioning (N = 463)
| Step 1 ( | Step 2 ( | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Symptom dimension | WM | Step 1 total (additive model) | Symptom dimension × WM d′ (moderation model) | ||||||||||
|
| 95% CI ( |
|
| 95% CI ( |
|
|
|
| 95% CI ( |
|
|
| |
| (1) PLEs | −0.13 | (−1.88, 1.62) | −0.007 | −2.37 | (−4.11, −0.62) | −0.12 | 0.015 | .03 | 0.05 | (−1.71, 1.81) | 0.003 | 0.000 | .95 |
| (2) Dis | −1.09 | (−2.84, 0.65) | −0.06 | −2.38 | (−4.12, −0.64) | −0.12 | 0.019 | .01 | −1.09 | (−2.83, 0.66) | 0.01 | 0.000 | .87 |
| (3) Neg | 4.79 | (3.09, 6.49) | −0.25 | −2.67 | (−4.36, −0.98) | −0.14 | 0.083 | <.0001 | 0.23 | (−1.43, 1.88) | 0.09 | 0.000 | .79 |
Values of f 2 and p for Step 2 reflect effect size and significance for the change in variance explained for Step 2 over and above Step 1. Three separate hierarchical regressions were conducted: (1) the additive model of PLEs and working memory as independent variables predicting SFS Total scores at Step 1, and the interaction of PLEs and working memory predicting SFS Total scores at Step 2 (testing whether the interaction term explains additional variance over and above the additive model); (2) the additive model of disorganized symptoms and working memory as independent variables predicting SFS Total scores at Step 1 and the interaction of disorganized symptoms and working memory predicting SFS total scores at Step 2; and (3) the additive model of negative symptoms and working memory as independent variables predicting SFS total scores at Step 1 and the interaction of negative symptoms and working memory predicting SFS total scores at Step 2.
Abbreviations: B, unstandardized coefficient. β, standardized coefficient; CI, confidence intervals; Dis, disorganized symptoms; Neg, negative symptoms; PLEs, psychotic-like experiences; WM, working memory.
Post-hoc analyses: Spearman’s rank-order correlations using TEPS subscales (N = 466)
| Anticipatory anhedonia | Consummatory anhedonia | |
|---|---|---|
| SFS social engagement | −0.14 | −0.10 |
| SFS interpersonal communication | −0.13 | −0.06 |
| SFS independence-performance | −0.18 | −0.15 |
| SFS recreation | −0.12 | −0.16 |
| SFS prosocial | −0.15 | −0.07 |
| SFS independence-competence | −0.08 | −0.06 |
| SFS occupation | −0.07 | −0.05 |
| SFS total score | −0.20 | −0.16 |
| WM | −0.03 | −0.08 |
| WM reaction time | 0.001 | 0.03 |
Higher TEPS anticipatory and consummatory anhedonia scores indicate more severe negative symptoms. Higher SFS scores indicate better functioning. Higher WM d′ and lower (quicker) WM reaction times indicate better working memory performance.
Abbreviations: SFS, Social Functioning Scale; WM, working memory.
N = 464.
N = 462.
Gender included as covariate.
N = 463.
N = 465.
p < .05.
p < .01.
Post-hoc analyses: linear regression of symptom dimensions as independent variables simultaneously predicting social and role functioning (N = 463)
|
| 95% CI (B) | SE ( |
|
| Total | Total | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| PLEs | 0.23 | (−0.17, 0.64) | 0.21 | 0.07 | 0.003 | 0.06 | 9.95 |
| Disorganized symptoms | −0.82 | (−2.13, 0.49) | 0.67 | −0.08 | 0.003 | ||
| Negative symptoms | −0.41 | (0.25, 0.56) | 0.08 | −0.24 | 0.06 |
A regression was conducted of the three symptom clusters as independent variables jointly predicting SFS total scores.
Abbreviations: CI, confidence intervals; PLEs, psychotic-like experiences; SE, standard error.
p < .01.