No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

1 HE ADMINISTERING of psychological tests prior to treatment is so recent an innovation in clinical research that sufficient time has not yet elapsed for vahdating the prognostic claims made for the various tests Nevertheless, a review of these claims has mdicated that there seem to be underlying factors common to the vanous prognostic indicators that have been reported in the literature (14) The most common finding has been that good test performance is indicative of good prognosis, while poor performance is indicative of poor prognosis This positive correlation between performance and piDgnosis is, however, not the universal finding Several studies have fotmd a negative relationship between these two factors Thus O'Connell and Penrose (10) reported that psychotic patients who showed marked inc(Mnpetence m reaction time, tapping rate, and strength of gnp tests were those m whom metrazol therapy was most effective Zubm and Thompson (17) found that whereas good performance on sorting tests was favorably prognostic for patients treated with insulin, it was not prognostic for those who had had insulin shock treatments before resorting to metrazol Hams, Bowman and Simon (6), Hales and Simon (4), and Carp (1) have indicated that psychotic {»tients who have high scores (more symptoms) before treatment on the psychotic components of the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory benefit most from shock theraRT Landis and Erlick (7) have reported that an analysis of errors in the Porteus Maze Test performance of psychotic patients revealed a preponderance of "confusion" errors in those who subsequently recovered Schnack, Shakow, and Lively (13) administered the 1916 Bmet, the Kent-Rosanoff Word Association Test, and a

No abstract