B.C. van Aken , R. Rietveld , A.I. Wierdsma , Y. Voskes , G.H.M. Pijnenborg , J. van Weeghel , C.L. Mulder
{"title":"Self-report versus performance based executive functioning in people with psychotic disorders","authors":"B.C. van Aken , R. Rietveld , A.I. Wierdsma , Y. Voskes , G.H.M. Pijnenborg , J. van Weeghel , C.L. Mulder","doi":"10.1016/j.scog.2023.100293","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>Although executive functioning is often measured using performance-based measures, these measures have their limits, and self-report measures may provide added value. Especially since these two types of measures often do not correlate with one another. It thus has been proposed they might measure different aspects of the same construct. To explore the differences between a performance-based measure of executive functioning and a self-report measure, we examined their associations in patients with a psychotic disorder with the following: other neurocognitive measures; psychotic symptoms; anxiety and depression symptoms, and daily-life outcome measures.</p></div><div><h3>Method</h3><p>This cross-sectional study consisted of baseline measures collected as part of a cohort study of people with a psychotic disorder (the UP'S study; <em>n</em> = 301). The Behavioral Rating Inventory of Executive Functioning Adult version (BRIEF-A) was used to assess self-rated executive functioning, and the Tower of London (TOL) to assess performance-based executive functioning. Generalized linear models (GLM) were used with the appropriate distribution and link function to study the associations between TOL and BRIEF-A, and the other variables, including the Brief Assessment of Cognition in Schizophrenia (BACS), the Positive and Negative Symptoms Scale-Remission (PANSS-R), the General Anxiety Disorder – 7 (GAD-7), the Patient Health Questionnaire – 9 (PHQ-9) and the WHO Disability Assessment Schedule 2.0 (WHODAS 2.0). Model selection was based on the Wald test.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>The TOL was associated with other neurocognitive measures, such as verbal list learning (β = 0.24), digit sequencing (β = 0.35); token motor task (β = 0.20); verbal fluency (β = 0.24); symbol coding (β = 0.43); and a screener for intelligence (β = 2.02). It was not associated with PANNS-R or WHO-DAS scores. In contrast, the BRIEF-A was associated not with other neurocognitive measures, but with the PANSS-R (β = 0.32); PHQ-9 (β = 0.52); and GAD-7 (β = 0.55); and with all the WHODAS domains: cognition domain (β = 0.54), mobility domain (β = 0.30) and selfcare domain (β = 0.22).</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>Performance-based and self-report measures of executive functioning measure different aspects of executive functioning. Both have different associations with neurocognition, symptomatology and daily functioning measures. The difference between the two instruments is probably due to differences in the underlying construct assessed.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":38119,"journal":{"name":"Schizophrenia Research-Cognition","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Schizophrenia Research-Cognition","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2215001323000161","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PSYCHIATRY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background
Although executive functioning is often measured using performance-based measures, these measures have their limits, and self-report measures may provide added value. Especially since these two types of measures often do not correlate with one another. It thus has been proposed they might measure different aspects of the same construct. To explore the differences between a performance-based measure of executive functioning and a self-report measure, we examined their associations in patients with a psychotic disorder with the following: other neurocognitive measures; psychotic symptoms; anxiety and depression symptoms, and daily-life outcome measures.
Method
This cross-sectional study consisted of baseline measures collected as part of a cohort study of people with a psychotic disorder (the UP'S study; n = 301). The Behavioral Rating Inventory of Executive Functioning Adult version (BRIEF-A) was used to assess self-rated executive functioning, and the Tower of London (TOL) to assess performance-based executive functioning. Generalized linear models (GLM) were used with the appropriate distribution and link function to study the associations between TOL and BRIEF-A, and the other variables, including the Brief Assessment of Cognition in Schizophrenia (BACS), the Positive and Negative Symptoms Scale-Remission (PANSS-R), the General Anxiety Disorder – 7 (GAD-7), the Patient Health Questionnaire – 9 (PHQ-9) and the WHO Disability Assessment Schedule 2.0 (WHODAS 2.0). Model selection was based on the Wald test.
Results
The TOL was associated with other neurocognitive measures, such as verbal list learning (β = 0.24), digit sequencing (β = 0.35); token motor task (β = 0.20); verbal fluency (β = 0.24); symbol coding (β = 0.43); and a screener for intelligence (β = 2.02). It was not associated with PANNS-R or WHO-DAS scores. In contrast, the BRIEF-A was associated not with other neurocognitive measures, but with the PANSS-R (β = 0.32); PHQ-9 (β = 0.52); and GAD-7 (β = 0.55); and with all the WHODAS domains: cognition domain (β = 0.54), mobility domain (β = 0.30) and selfcare domain (β = 0.22).
Conclusion
Performance-based and self-report measures of executive functioning measure different aspects of executive functioning. Both have different associations with neurocognition, symptomatology and daily functioning measures. The difference between the two instruments is probably due to differences in the underlying construct assessed.