Impaired test performance yet spared neurocognitive functioning in individuals with obsessive-compulsive disorder: the role of performance mediators.

IF 1.5 4区 医学 Q3 PSYCHIATRY
Cognitive Neuropsychiatry Pub Date : 2021-11-01 Epub Date: 2021-08-25 DOI:10.1080/13546805.2021.1967733
Steffen Moritz, Jingyuan Xie, Despina Lion, Danielle Penney, Lena Jelinek
{"title":"Impaired test performance yet spared neurocognitive functioning in individuals with obsessive-compulsive disorder: the role of performance mediators.","authors":"Steffen Moritz,&nbsp;Jingyuan Xie,&nbsp;Despina Lion,&nbsp;Danielle Penney,&nbsp;Lena Jelinek","doi":"10.1080/13546805.2021.1967733","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Although most studies report neurocognitive deficits in patients with obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD), important exceptions exist, highlighting the possible role of mediators (e.g., poor motivation). This study investigated neurocognitive functioning and potential influences affecting performance in OCD.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Forty-three participants (13 OCD patients, 30 healthy controls) were assessed using a battery of neurocognitive tests. During the assessment, the examiner completed the Impact on Performance Scale (IPS) which measures variables that may impact neurocognitive performance.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Pooled neurocognitive performance was lower in OCD patients versus healthy controls at a moderate effect size. Patients performed more poorly on the IPS, particularly the <i>Well-Being During Assessment</i> subscale. Performance differences across the two groups were attenuated to a non-significant small-to-medium effect when the IPS was entered as a covariate. A total of 34% of patients showed scores greater than one standard deviation below the mean compared to 9.63% in healthy individuals. Yet, when a conservative impairment criterion (≥2 standard deviations below the mean) was applied, less than 10% of patients displayed deficits.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Neurocognitive impairment in OCD is likely exaggerated. In addition to considering important mediators researchers should report the percentage of participants displaying performance deficits rather than mean group differences alone; the latter obscures the high percentage of patients without impairment and thus may unduly foster stigma in this population.</p>","PeriodicalId":51277,"journal":{"name":"Cognitive Neuropsychiatry","volume":"26 6","pages":"394-407"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2021-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cognitive Neuropsychiatry","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13546805.2021.1967733","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2021/8/25 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PSYCHIATRY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: Although most studies report neurocognitive deficits in patients with obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD), important exceptions exist, highlighting the possible role of mediators (e.g., poor motivation). This study investigated neurocognitive functioning and potential influences affecting performance in OCD.

Methods: Forty-three participants (13 OCD patients, 30 healthy controls) were assessed using a battery of neurocognitive tests. During the assessment, the examiner completed the Impact on Performance Scale (IPS) which measures variables that may impact neurocognitive performance.

Results: Pooled neurocognitive performance was lower in OCD patients versus healthy controls at a moderate effect size. Patients performed more poorly on the IPS, particularly the Well-Being During Assessment subscale. Performance differences across the two groups were attenuated to a non-significant small-to-medium effect when the IPS was entered as a covariate. A total of 34% of patients showed scores greater than one standard deviation below the mean compared to 9.63% in healthy individuals. Yet, when a conservative impairment criterion (≥2 standard deviations below the mean) was applied, less than 10% of patients displayed deficits.

Conclusions: Neurocognitive impairment in OCD is likely exaggerated. In addition to considering important mediators researchers should report the percentage of participants displaying performance deficits rather than mean group differences alone; the latter obscures the high percentage of patients without impairment and thus may unduly foster stigma in this population.

测试成绩受损,但保留神经认知功能的个体强迫症:表现中介的作用。
虽然大多数研究都报道了强迫症(OCD)患者的神经认知缺陷,但也存在重要的例外,突出了介质的可能作用(例如,动机不良)。本研究探讨了强迫症患者的神经认知功能及其潜在影响。方法:采用一系列神经认知测试对43名参与者(13名强迫症患者,30名健康对照)进行评估。在评估过程中,考官完成了影响表现量表(IPS),该量表测量可能影响神经认知表现的变量。结果:与健康对照相比,强迫症患者的综合神经认知表现在中等效应量下较低。患者在IPS上的表现更差,尤其是在评估期间的幸福感量表上。当IPS作为协变量输入时,两组之间的表现差异减弱为不显著的中小型效应。共有34%的患者得分低于平均值一个标准差,而健康个体的这一比例为9.63%。然而,当采用保守的损伤标准(低于平均值≥2个标准差)时,只有不到10%的患者表现出缺陷。结论:强迫症患者的神经认知障碍可能被夸大了。除了考虑重要的中介因素外,研究人员还应该报告表现出表现缺陷的参与者的百分比,而不仅仅是平均组差异;后者掩盖了无损伤患者的高比例,因此可能在这一人群中过度培养耻辱。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.20
自引率
11.80%
发文量
18
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Cognitive Neuropsychiatry (CNP) publishes high quality empirical and theoretical papers in the multi-disciplinary field of cognitive neuropsychiatry. Specifically the journal promotes the study of cognitive processes underlying psychological and behavioural abnormalities, including psychotic symptoms, with and without organic brain disease. Since 1996, CNP has published original papers, short reports, case studies and theoretical and empirical reviews in fields of clinical and cognitive neuropsychiatry, which have a bearing on the understanding of normal cognitive processes. Relevant research from cognitive neuroscience, cognitive neuropsychology and clinical populations will also be considered. There are no page charges and we are able to offer free color printing where color is necessary.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信