by
Charlotte Wray;
Alysse J. Kowalski;
Feziwe Mpondo;
Laura Ochaeta;
Delia Belleza;
Ann DiGirolamo;
Rachel Waford Hall;
Linda Richter;
Nanette Lee;
Gaia Scerif;
Alan Stein;
Aryeh D Stein
Executive functions (EF) can be measured by tests assessing accuracy, reaction times and by computing scores which combine these two components. Interpretation issues can arise from the use of different scoring methods across studies. Given that EF measures and their scoring methods are predominantly developed and validated in high income countries, little is known about the generalisability of such methods cross- culturally. The current paper compares two different established scoring approaches for measures of inhibition and cognitive flexibility: difference scores (which utilise reaction time only) and computed scores (combining accuracy and reaction time). We utilised data collected in adulthood from three low- and middle-income birth cohorts (Guatemala, Philippines, South Africa). Non-normal distributions were observed for both scoring methods in all three samples; however, this was more pronounced for the difference score method. Differing distribution patterns were observed across the three cohorts, which was especially evident in the Guatemala cohort, highlighting potential issues with using these methods across diverse populations. The data suggest that the computed scores may be a reliable measure of EF. However, the different ways of scoring and interpreting EF instruments need to be considered carefully for each population before use.
by
Rachel Waford;
Alison MacDonald;
Katrina Goines;
Derek M. Novacek;
Hanan Trotman;
Elaine Walker;
Jean Addington;
Carrie E. Bearden;
Kristin S. Cadenhead;
Tyrone D. Cannon;
Barbara A. Cornblatt;
Robert Heinssen;
Daniel H. Mathalon;
Ming T. Tsuang;
Diana O. Perkins;
Larry J. Seidman;
Scott W. Woods;
Thomas H. McGlashan
It is now well established that the utilization of standardized clinical criteria can enhance prediction of psychosis. These criteria are primarily concerned with the presence and severity of attenuated positive symptoms. Because these symptom criteria are used to derive algorithms for designating clinical high risk (CHR) status and for maximizing prediction of psychosis risk, it is important to know whether the symptom ratings vary as a function of demographic factors that have previously been linked with symptoms in diagnosed psychotic patients. Using a sample of 356 CHR individuals from the NAPLS-II multi-site study, we examined the relation of three sex, age, and educational level, with the severity of attenuated positive symptom scores from the Scale of Prodromal Symptoms (SOPS). Demographic factors accounted for little of the variance in symptom ratings (5-6%). Older CHR individuals manifested more severe suspiciousness, and female CHR participants reported more unusual perceptual experiences than male participants. Contrary to prediction, higher educational level was associated with more severe ratings of unusual thought content, but less severe perceptual abnormalities. Overall, sex, age and education were modestly related to unusual thought content and perceptual abnormalities, only, suggesting minimal implication for designating CHR status and predicting psychosis-risk.