Cited by 114Schizophrenia research and treatmentMental Health and PsychiatryAutism Spectrum Disorder Research

Metacognition in schizophrenia: correlates and stability of deficits in theory of mind and self-reflectivity.

Lysaker, Paul H., Olesek, Kyle L., Warman, Debbie M., Martin, Joel M., Salzman, Anlize K., Nicolò, Giuseppe, Salvatore, Giampaolo, Dimaggio, Giancarlo·2011·Psychiatry Research

Abstract

Research suggests that many with schizophrenia experience a range of deficits in metacognition including difficulties recognizing the emotions and intentions of others as well as reflecting upon and questioning their own thinking. Unclear, however, is the extent to which these deficits are stable over time, how closely related they are to one another and whether their associations with core aspects of the disorder such as disorganization symptoms are stable over time. To explore this issue, we administered three assessments of Theory of Mind (ToM), the Beck Cognitive Insight Scale (BCIS), and the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale at baseline and 6 months to 36 participants with schizophrenia. Correlations revealed the ToM and BCIS scores were stable across the two test administrations and that the ToM tests were closely linked to each other but not to the BCIS. Poorer baseline performance on the ToM tests and the Self-Certainty scale of the BCIS were linked to greater cognitive symptoms at baseline and follow-up, while greater Self-Reflectivity on the BCIS was linked to greater levels of emotional distress at both baseline and 6-month follow-up. Results are consistent with assertions that deficits in metacognition are a stable feature of schizophrenia.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.psychres.2010.07.016

Cites

52 of 52 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

3 of the 55 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Lysaker, P. H., Olesek, K. L., Warman, D. M., Martin, J. M., Salzman, A. K., Nicolò, G., Salvatore, G., & Dimaggio, G.
Affiliations
  • Richard L. Roudebush VA Medical Center (US)
  • University of Indianapolis (US)
  • Butler University (US)
Corresponding author
Lysaker, Paul H.
Venue
Psychiatry Research
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2011-11
Volume
190
Issue
1
Pages
18-22
ISSN
0165-1781 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2078062326
Cited by
114
References
55
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 10 · 2016: 12 · 2015: 9 · 2014: 11 · 2013: 16 · 2012: 14
FWCI
8.72
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Psychiatry Research (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Schizophrenia research and treatment
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Philosophy › Mental Health and Psychiatry
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Autism Spectrum Disorder Research
Keywords
metacognition, schizophrenia, theory of mind, self-reflectivity, cognitive insight, Beck Cognitive Insight Scale, emotional distress, cognitive symptoms, disorganization symptoms, test-retest stability, self-certainty
MeSH terms
Adult, Awareness, Cognition Disorders, Emotions, Eye, Female, Hospitals, Veterans, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Neuropsychological Tests, Psychiatric Status Rating Scales, Psychotic Disorders, Schizophrenia, Schizophrenic Psychology, Theory of Mind

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review