European archives of psychiatry and clinical neuroscience · 2026
Preliminary comparison of four factor structures of facial emotion recognition in individuals with schizophrenia.
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.
Lee Shih-Chieh, Wang Yi-Ching, Ko Wei-Ting, Chen Kuan-Wei, Wang San-Ping, Hsieh Ching-Lin
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Individuals with schizophrenia tend to have moderate-to-severe deficits in facial emotion recognition. To characterize the deficits and inform future interventions, measures with robust structural validity are needed. Four structures have been proposed: the 7-domain structure (happiness, sadness, anger, disgust, fear, surprise, and neutral), the 1-domain structure (an overall ability), the 2-domain structure (threatening and non-threatening faces, with surprise excluded), and the 4-domain structure (positive, negative, unexpected, and neutral). This study compared the four candidate structures of facial emotion recognition in individuals with schizophrenia.
METHODS: Data from 351 Asian adults with schizophrenia were obtained from projects validating social cognition measures. Confirmatory factor analysis was used to examine the four candidate structures using odd-even and first-and-second-half item parceling approaches. Robust maximum likelihood estimation was additionally used as a sensitivity analysis.
RESULTS: Under maximum likelihood estimation, only the 7-domain structure achieved satisfactory model fit across parceling approaches (χ²/df = 1.8 and 1.2; comparative fit index = 0.977 and 0.995; root-mean-square error of approximation = 0.049 and 0.023; standardized root-mean-square residual = 0.032 and 0.028). The preference for emotion-specific scoring remained unchanged under robust maximum likelihood estimation and in additional comparisons restricted to the six facial emotion recognition categories common to all candidate structures.
CONCLUSIONS: Separate domain scores for each emotion may be preferable. Facial emotion recognition measures could include six basic emotions and neutral faces to support comprehensive emotion-specific score interpretation. However, these preliminary, population-dependent findings require validation in non-Asian populations.
METHODS: Data from 351 Asian adults with schizophrenia were obtained from projects validating social cognition measures. Confirmatory factor analysis was used to examine the four candidate structures using odd-even and first-and-second-half item parceling approaches. Robust maximum likelihood estimation was additionally used as a sensitivity analysis.
RESULTS: Under maximum likelihood estimation, only the 7-domain structure achieved satisfactory model fit across parceling approaches (χ²/df = 1.8 and 1.2; comparative fit index = 0.977 and 0.995; root-mean-square error of approximation = 0.049 and 0.023; standardized root-mean-square residual = 0.032 and 0.028). The preference for emotion-specific scoring remained unchanged under robust maximum likelihood estimation and in additional comparisons restricted to the six facial emotion recognition categories common to all candidate structures.
CONCLUSIONS: Separate domain scores for each emotion may be preferable. Facial emotion recognition measures could include six basic emotions and neutral faces to support comprehensive emotion-specific score interpretation. However, these preliminary, population-dependent findings require validation in non-Asian populations.