CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 1,573Schizophrenia research and treatmentPsychological Testing and AssessmentMental Health and Psychiatry

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 25 of the 27 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

The Brief Assessment of Cognition in Schizophrenia: reliability, sensitivity, and comparison with a standard neurocognitive battery

Keefe, R·2004·Schizophrenia Research
DOI 10.1016/j.schres.2003.09.011
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Studies of neurocognitive function in patients with schizophrenia use widely variable assessment techniques. Clinical trials assessing the cognitive enhancing effect of new medications have used neurocognitive assessment batteries that differed in content, length and administration procedures. The Brief Assessment of Cognition in Schizophrenia (BACS) is a newly developed instrument that assesses the aspects of cognition found to be most impaired and most strongly correlated with outcome in patients with schizophrenia. The BACS requires less than 35 min to complete in patients with schizophrenia, yields a high completion rate in these patients, and has high reliability. The BACS was found to be as sensitive to cognitive impairment in patients with schizophrenia as a standard battery of tests that required over 2 h to administer. Compared to healthy controls matched for age and parental education, patients with schizophrenia performed 1.49 standard deviations lower on a composite score calculated from the BACS and 1.61 standard deviations lower on a composite score calculated from the standard battery. The BACS composite scores were highly correlated with the standard battery composite scores in patients (r=0.76) and healthy controls (r=0.90). These psychometric properties make the BACS a promising tool for assessing cognition repeatedly in patients with schizophrenia, especially in clinical trials of cognitive enhancement.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.schres.2003.09.011

Cites

25 of 25 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Verification

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?

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

2 of the 27 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 1,573

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Keefe, R.
Affiliations
Duke University (US)
Corresponding author
Keefe, R
ORCID
Keefe, R
Venue
Schizophrenia Research
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2004-06-01
Volume
68
Issue
2-3
Pages
283-297
ISSN
0920-9964 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.schres.2003.09.011
OpenAlex
W2008062633
Cited by
1,573
References
27
Citations by year
2026: 100 · 2025: 129 · 2024: 115 · 2023: 96 · 2022: 107 · 2021: 130 · 2020: 129 · 2019: 105 · 2018: 90 · 2017: 89 · 2016: 83 · 2015: 82 · 2014: 62 · 2013: 65 · 2012: 44
FWCI
4.09
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
www.elsevier.com/tdm/userlicense/1.0/ (tdm)
Locations
  • Schizophrenia Research (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Schizophrenia research and treatment
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Psychological Testing and Assessment
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Philosophy › Mental Health and Psychiatry
Keywords
Brief Assessment of Cognition in Schizophrenia, schizophrenia
MeSH terms
Adult, Clinical Trials as Topic, Cognition Disorders, Female, Humans, Male, Neuropsychological Tests, Practice, Psychological, Psychometrics, Research Design, Schizophrenia, Schizophrenic Psychology, Sensitivity and Specificity, Antipsychotic Agents, Reproducibility of Results

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