The structured consensus method was a feasible and fair mechanism for choosing candidate tests, and direct comparison of beta battery tests in a common sample allowed selection of a final consensus battery. The MATRICS Consensus Cognitive Battery is expected to be the standard tool for assessing cognitive change in clinical trials of cognition-enhancing drugs for schizophrenia. It may also aid evaluation of cognitive remediation strategies.

Co-norming a battery such as the MATRICS Consensus Cognitive Battery, comprising tests from independent test developers each with their own set of norms, facilitates valid interpretation of test scores and communication of findings across studies. These normative data will aid in estimating the magnitude of change during clinical trials of cognition-enhancing agents and make it possible to derive more directly interpretable composite scores.

The MATRICS Psychometric and Standardization Study was conducted as a final stage in the development of the MATRICS Consensus Cognitive Battery (MCCB). The study included 176 persons with schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder and 300 community residents. Data were analyzed to examine the cognitive profile of clinically stable schizophrenia patients on the MCCB. Secondarily, the data were analyzed to identify which combination of cognitive domains and Publisher's Disclaimer: This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final citable form. Please note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain. Conflict of interestAuthor Kern is an officer for MATRICS Assessment, Inc. and receives financial compensation for his role within the non-profit organization; Authors Green and Nuechterlein are officers within MATRICS Assessment, Inc. but do not receive any financial remuneration for their respective roles. No other authors have any conflicts of interest with respect to this manuscript. ContributorsAuthors Green, Nuechterlein, and Marder designed the study and wrote the protocol. Authors Sugar, Lee, and Kern performed the data analyses. Author Kern wrote the first draft of the manuscript with contributions from authors Gold and Dickinson. All authors contributed to and have approved the final manuscript. NIH Public Access NIH-PA Author ManuscriptNIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript corresponding cut-off scores best discriminated patients from community residents, and patients competitively employed vs. those not. Raw scores on the ten MCCB tests were entered into the MCCB scoring program which provided age-and gender-corrected T-scores on seven cognitive domains. To test for between-group differences, we conducted a 2 (group) × 7 (cognitive domain) MANOVA with follow-up independent t -tests on the individual domains. Classification and regression trees (CART) were used for the discrimination analyses. Examination of patient Tscores across the seven cognitive domains revealed a relatively compact profile with T-scores ranging from 33.4 for speed of processing to 39.3 for reasoning and problem-solving. Speed of processing and social cognition best distinguished individuals with schizophrenia from community residents; speed of processing along with visual learning and attention/vigilance optimally distinguished patients competitively employed from those who were not. The cognitive profile findings provide a standard to which future studies can compare results from other schizophrenia samples and related disorders; the classification results point to specific areas and levels of cognitive impairment that may advance work rehabilitation efforts.

Psychometric properties of all of the measures were considered acceptable, and the measures were generally comparable across the various criteria, except that the functional capacity measures had stronger relationships to cognitive performance and fewer missing data. The development and evaluation of potential co-primary measures is still at an early stage, and it was decided not to endorse a single measure for clinical trials at this point. The current findings offer the initial steps to identify functionally meaningful co-primary measures in this area and will help to guide further evaluation of such measures.