Cognitive neuropsychiatry · 2021
Impaired test performance yet spared neurocognitive functioning in individuals with obsessive-compulsive disorder: the role of performance mediators.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Moritz Steffen, Xie Jingyuan, Lion Despina, Penney Danielle, Jelinek Lena
Аннотация
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.
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.