Yanyan Hou1, Shuqiao Yao2, Shaohua Hu3, Qi Zhou4, Han Han4, Xin Yu4, Roger S McIntyre5, Chuan Shi6. 1. Peking University Sixth Hospital, Beijing, 100191, China; Peking University Institute of Mental Health, Beijing, 100191, China; NHC Key Laboratory of Mental Health, Ministry of Health (Peking University), Beijing, 100191, China; The National Clinical Research Center for Mental Health Disorders (Peking University Sixth Hospital), Beijing, 100191, China; Qingdao Mental Health Center, Qingdao University, Shandong, 266034, China. 2. Medical Psychological Center, The Second Xiangya Hospital Central South University, Changsha, 410011, China. 3. Department of Psychiatry, First Affiliated Hospital, Zhejiang University School of Medicine, Hangzhou 310003, China; The Key Laboratory of Mental Disorder's Management of Zhejiang Province, Hangzhou 310003, China. 4. Peking University Sixth Hospital, Beijing, 100191, China; Peking University Institute of Mental Health, Beijing, 100191, China; NHC Key Laboratory of Mental Health, Ministry of Health (Peking University), Beijing, 100191, China; The National Clinical Research Center for Mental Health Disorders (Peking University Sixth Hospital), Beijing, 100191, China. 5. Professor of Psychiatry and Pharmacology, University of Toronto, Canada; Head, Mood Disorders Psychopharmacology Unit Chairman and Executive Director, Brain and Cognition Discovery Foundation (BCDF), Toronto, Canada; Director, Depression and Bipolar Support Alliance (DBSA), Chicago, Illinois, USA; Professor and Nanshan Scholar, Guangzhou Medical University, Guangzhou, China; Adjunct Professor College of Medicine, Korea University, Seoul, Republic of Korea; Clinical Professor Department of Psychiatry and Neurosciences University of California School of Medicine, Riverside, California, USA. Electronic address: roger.mcintyre@uhn.ca. 6. Peking University Sixth Hospital, Beijing, 100191, China; Peking University Institute of Mental Health, Beijing, 100191, China; NHC Key Laboratory of Mental Health, Ministry of Health (Peking University), Beijing, 100191, China; The National Clinical Research Center for Mental Health Disorders (Peking University Sixth Hospital), Beijing, 100191, China. Electronic address: shichuan@bjmu.edu.cn.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: To validate the reliability and validity of the Chinese version of the THINC-it tool in adults with major depressive disorder (MDD). METHODS: Subjects aged 18 to 65 years (n=117) with MDD were evaluated and compared to age- and sex-matched healthy controls (n=124). Subjects completed the THINC-it, four criteria-related objective cognitive subtests, and the paper version of Perceived Deficits Questionnaire for Depression-5-item (PDQ-5-D). RESULTS: There were significant differences in Spotter [Mean difference (MD) Standard errors (SE)=-0.40 (0.17), P=0.018; 95% Confidence intervals (CI) (-0.73 to -0.07)]; Codebreaker [MD (SE)=-0.39 (0.14), P=0.006; 95% CI(-0.67 to -0.11)]; and the overall performance of four objective tests (including variants of IDN, OBK, DSST, and TMT-B) [MD (SE)=-0.30 (0.12), P=0.013; 95% CI (-0.53 to -0.06]) between the two groups. In the HC group, PDQ-5-D retest reliability was good (ICC = 0.841), and the test-retest reliability of the objective cognitive test was relatively low (ICC ranging from 0.123 to 0.545). In the MDD group: Cronbach's α of PDQ-5-D=0.704; all the THINC-it subtests had good concurrent validity (r ranging from 0.343 to 0.835, all P<0.01). LIMITATION: The test-retest sample size was relatively small, the educational level and IQ of the control and MDD groups were not completely matched. CONCLUSION: The Chinese version of the THINC-it tool exhibits good reliability and validity in adults with MDD. There is a need to incorporate cognitive assessment of adults with MDD broadly. The THINC-it tool is the first tool validated to assess cognition of MDD in a Chinese population.
BACKGROUND: To validate the reliability and validity of the Chinese version of the THINC-it tool in adults with major depressive disorder (MDD). METHODS: Subjects aged 18 to 65 years (n=117) with MDD were evaluated and compared to age- and sex-matched healthy controls (n=124). Subjects completed the THINC-it, four criteria-related objective cognitive subtests, and the paper version of Perceived Deficits Questionnaire for Depression-5-item (PDQ-5-D). RESULTS: There were significant differences in Spotter [Mean difference (MD) Standard errors (SE)=-0.40 (0.17), P=0.018; 95% Confidence intervals (CI) (-0.73 to -0.07)]; Codebreaker [MD (SE)=-0.39 (0.14), P=0.006; 95% CI(-0.67 to -0.11)]; and the overall performance of four objective tests (including variants of IDN, OBK, DSST, and TMT-B) [MD (SE)=-0.30 (0.12), P=0.013; 95% CI (-0.53 to -0.06]) between the two groups. In the HC group, PDQ-5-D retest reliability was good (ICC = 0.841), and the test-retest reliability of the objective cognitive test was relatively low (ICC ranging from 0.123 to 0.545). In the MDD group: Cronbach's α of PDQ-5-D=0.704; all the THINC-it subtests had good concurrent validity (r ranging from 0.343 to 0.835, all P<0.01). LIMITATION: The test-retest sample size was relatively small, the educational level and IQ of the control and MDD groups were not completely matched. CONCLUSION: The Chinese version of the THINC-it tool exhibits good reliability and validity in adults with MDD. There is a need to incorporate cognitive assessment of adults with MDD broadly. The THINC-it tool is the first tool validated to assess cognition of MDD in a Chinese population.