Recent studies suggest that people with schizophrenia (PSZ) have difficulty distributing their attention broadly. Other research suggests that PSZ have reduced working memory (WM) capacity. This study tested whether these findings reflect a common underlying deficit. We measured the ability to distribute attention by means of the Useful Field of View (UFOV) task, in which participants must distribute attention so that they can discriminate a foveal target and simultaneously localize a peripheral target. Participants included 50 PSZ and 52 healthy control subjects. We found that PSZ exhibited severe impairments in UFOV performance, that UFOV performance was highly correlated with WM capacity in PSZ (r = −.61), and that UFOV impairments could not be explained by either impaired low-level processing or a generalized deficit. These results suggest that a common mechanism explains deficits in the ability to distribute attention broadly, reduced WM capacity, and other aspects of impaired cognition in schizophrenia. We hypothesize that this mechanism may involve abnormal local circuit dynamics that cause a hyperfocusing of resources onto a small number of internal representations.

Objective Clinicians often need to evaluate the treatment response of an individual person, and to know that observed change is true improvement or worsening beyond usual week to week changes. This paper gives clinicians tools to evaluate individual changes on the MATRICS Consensus Cognitive Battery (MCCB). We compare three different approaches: a descriptive analysis of MCCB test-retest performance with no intervention, a reliable change index (RCI) approach controlling for average practice effects, and a regression approach. Method Data were gathered as part of the MATRICS PASS study (Nuechterlein et al., 2008). A total of 159 people with schizophrenia completed the MCCB at baseline and four weeks later. Data were analyzed using an RCI and a regression formula establishing confidence intervals. Results The RCI and regression approaches agree within one point when baseline values are close to the sample mean. However, the regression approach offers more accurate limits for expected change at the tails of the distribution of baseline scores. Conclusions Though both approaches have their merits, the regression approach provides the most accurate measure of significant change across the full range of scores. As the RCI does not account for regression to the mean and has confidence limits which remain constant across baseline scores, the RCI approach effectively gives narrower confidence limits around an inaccurately predicted average change value. Further, despite the high test-retest reliability of the MCCB, a change in an individual’s score must be relatively large to be confident that it is beyond normal month to month variation.

Patients with schizophrenia demonstrate a generalized deficit across multiple cognitive domains. However, it is unknown whether this deficit is largely due to lower intelligence, or if there is an impact of schizophrenia which cannot be accounted for by measures of general intellectual ability (GIA). We created four IQ-matched strata of equal width between 89 healthy volunteers (HC) and 77 patients with schizophrenia (SZ) who had very similar IQ and reading scores within each stratum, then compared each stratum's performance on the MATRICS Consensus Cognitive Battery (MCCB). We hypothesized that any patient impairment on the MCCB after matching on IQ would be evidence that GIA does not fully explain the general deficit seen in schizophrenia. We found that patients showed evidence of greater neuropsychological impairment than what would be expected based solely on their IQ and reading ability scores. Further, this deficit was stronger in some cognitive domains than others, namely, processing speed and social cognition. These results suggest the presence of a distinction between GIA and generalized neuropsychological impairment that was consistent in magnitude across all patients, regardless of IQ.

Validation of the instrument permits researchers and clinicians to measure OCD presentation in Mandarin-speaking samples.

Drawing on examples from published research, the authors offer a perspective on the side effects that are associated with organizational interventions. This perspective is framed in the context of the many hard-won positive influences that industrial and organizational (I-O) psychologists have had on individuals, groups, organizations, and social institutions over the last century. With a few exceptions, we argue that side effects tend to receive less attention from I-O psychology researchers and practitioners than they deserve. A systematic approach to studying, monitoring, and advertising side effects is needed to better understand their causes, consequences, and the contexts in which they are most likely to emerge. The purpose of this piece is to stimulate conversations within the field about the phenomenon of side effects as well as what might be done to improve our science and practice in this domain.