Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37886698›Full record

ArticleSchizophrenia research. Cognition2023

Self-report versus performance based executive functioning in people with psychotic disorders.

B C van Aken, R Rietveld, A I Wierdsma, Y Voskes, G H M Pijnenborg, J van Weeghel, C L Mulder

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Schizophrenia research. Cognition, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed
–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

18 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Psilocybin-assisted neurofeedback for the improvement of executive functions: a randomized semi-naturalistic-lab feasibility study.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2024
    Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Shared and Unique Components of Executive Function as Predictors of Aggression Trajectories in High-Risk Adolescents.Journal of clinical child and adolescent psychology : the official journal for the Society of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, American Psychological Association, Division 53 · 2025
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
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

7 authors.

B C van AkenDepartment of Psychiatry, Erasmus MC, Epidemiological and Social Psychiatric Research Institute, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
R RietveldDepartment of Psychiatry, Erasmus MC, Epidemiological and Social Psychiatric Research Institute, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
A I WierdsmaDepartment of Psychiatry, Erasmus MC, Epidemiological and Social Psychiatric Research Institute, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
Y VoskesDepartment of Ethics, Law and Humanities, Amsterdam UMC, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
G H M PijnenborgDepartment of Psychotic Disorders, GGZ Drenthe, Assen, the Netherlands.
J van WeeghelPhrenos Centre of Expertise, Utrecht, the Netherlands.
C L MulderDepartment of Psychiatry, Erasmus MC, Epidemiological and Social Psychiatric Research Institute, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Although executive functioning is often measured using performance-based measures, these measures have their limits, and self-report measures may provide added value. Especially since these two types of measures often do not correlate with one another. It thus has been proposed they might measure different aspects of the same construct. To explore the differences between a performance-based measure of executive functioning and a self-report measure, we examined their associations in patients with a psychotic disorder with the following: other neurocognitive measures; psychotic symptoms; anxiety and depression symptoms, and daily-life outcome measures. Method: This cross-sectional study consisted of baseline measures collected as part of a cohort study of people with a psychotic disorder (the UP'S study; Results: The TOL was associated with other neurocognitive measures, such as verbal list learning (β = 0.24), digit sequencing (β = 0.35); token motor task (β = 0.20); verbal fluency (β = 0.24); symbol coding (β = 0.43); and a screener for intelligence (β = 2.02). It was not associated with PANNS-R or WHO-DAS scores. In contrast, the BRIEF-A was associated not with other neurocognitive measures, but with the PANSS-R (β = 0.32); PHQ-9 (β = 0.52); and GAD-7 (β = 0.55); and with all the WHODAS domains: cognition domain (β = 0.54), mobility domain (β = 0.30) and selfcare domain (β = 0.22). Conclusion: Performance-based and self-report measures of executive functioning measure different aspects of executive functioning. Both have different associations with neurocognition, symptomatology and daily functioning measures. The difference between the two instruments is probably due to differences in the underlying construct assessed.

Indexed as

Executive functioningPerformance basedSelf-report

Identifiers

PMID37886698
PMCPMC10598699

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.