Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34934639›Full record

ArticleSchizophrenia research. Cognition2022

Validity of remote administration of the MATRICS Consensus Cognitive Battery for individuals with severe mental illness.

Madisen T Russell, Kensie M Funsch, Cassi R Springfield, Robert A Ackerman, Colin A Depp, Philip D Harvey, Raeanne C Moore, Amy E Pinkham

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Schizophrenia research. Cognition, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Ten years ofSchizophrenia research. Cognition · 2024
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Madisen T RussellDepartment of Psychology, University of Texas at Dallas, 800 W. Campbell Rd., Richardson, TX 75080, United States of America.
Kensie M FunschDepartment of Psychology, University of Texas at Dallas, 800 W. Campbell Rd., Richardson, TX 75080, United States of America.
Cassi R SpringfieldDepartment of Psychology, University of Texas at Dallas, 800 W. Campbell Rd., Richardson, TX 75080, United States of America.
Robert A AckermanDepartment of Psychology, University of Texas at Dallas, 800 W. Campbell Rd., Richardson, TX 75080, United States of America.
Colin A DeppDepartment of Psychiatry, University of California San Diego, 9500 Gilman Dr., La Jolla, CA, 92093, United States of America.
Philip D HarveyDepartment of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, 1120 NW 14th Street, Miami, FL 33136, United States of America.
Raeanne C MooreDepartment of Psychiatry, University of California San Diego, 9500 Gilman Dr., La Jolla, CA, 92093, United States of America.
Amy E PinkhamDepartment of Psychology, University of Texas at Dallas, 800 W. Campbell Rd., Richardson, TX 75080, United States of America.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The MATRICS Consensus Cognitive Battery (MCCB) is a gold-standard tool for assessing cognitive functioning in individuals with severe mental illness. This study is an initial examination of the validity of remote administration of 4 MCCB tests measuring processing speed (Trail Making Test: Part A, Animal Fluency), working memory (Letter-Number Span), and verbal learning and memory (Hopkins Verbal Learning Test-Revised). We conducted analyses on individuals with bipolar disorder (BD) and schizophrenia-spectrum disorders (SCZ), as well as healthy volunteers, who were assessed in-person (BD = 80, SCZ = 116, HV = 14) vs. remotely (BD = 93, SCZ = 43, HV = 30) to determine if there were significant differences in performance based on administration format. Additional analyses tested whether remote and in-person assessment performance was similarly correlated with symptom severity, cognitive and social cognitive performance, and functional outcomes. Individuals with BD performed significantly better than those with SCZ on all MCCB subtests across administration format. Animal Fluency did not differ by administration format, but remote participants performed significantly worse on Trail Making and HVLT-R. On the Letter-Number Span task, individuals with bipolar disorder performed significantly better when participating remotely. Finally, patterns of correlations with related constructs were largely similar between administration formats. Thus, results suggest that remote administration of some of the MCCB subtests may be a valid alternative to in-person testing, but more research is necessary to determine why some tasks were affected by administration format.

Indexed as

Bipolar disorderCognitive functioningRemote assessmentSchizophreniaTelehealth

Identifiers

PMID34934639
PMCPMC8655110

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.