Cognitive predictors of psychosocial functioning outcome in schizophrenia: a follow-up study of subjects participating in a rehabilitation program
Abstract
The aims of this prospective study were to explore in subjects with psychosis participating in a rehabilitation program whether cognitive performances at baseline predicted (i) psychosocial functioning over a 15-16 month follow-up; (ii) improvement in psychosocial functioning over the rehabilitation program. Visuo-spatial tests from the Cambridge Neuropsychological Test Automated Battery (CANTAB) were administered to assess cognitive performance in 55 subjects with schizophrenia spectrum disorders who completed a rehabilitation program. The Multnomah Community Ability Scale (MCAS) was used to measure dimensions of community functioning. One subscale of the Client's Assessment of Strengths, Interests, and Goals (CASIG) provided a measure of subjective quality of life (QoL). Improvement was defined as a 15% or more increase in psychosocial scores between baseline and follow-up. Worse baseline sustained attention predicted better self-rated quality of life, and better baseline visual memory predicted better community functioning over the rehabilitation follow-up period, in particular, higher autonomy in activities of daily living, and less physical and psychiatric symptoms that could interfere with rehabilitation. Baseline cognitive performances predicted community functioning improvement during the follow-up period: visual memory predicted improvement in daily living autonomy and in social competence; sustained attention predicted improvement in behavioral problems (such as medication compliance, collaboration with treatment providers or impulse control) and social competence; planning performances predicted improvement in social competence. These cognitive functions could be specifically targeted in a rehabilitation program aimed at enhancing functioning in those particular dimensions.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
The severity of cognitive impairment predicts poorer treatment adherence in patients with schizophrenia.
“The severity of cognitive impairment predicts poorer treatment adherence6,7”
From Clinical trials of potential cognitive-enhancing drugs in schizophrenia: what have we learned so far? (2013) · cites this paper as [7]
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 44 · Cited by 149
- Authors
- Prouteau, A., Verdoux, H., Briand, C., Lesage, A., Lalonde, P., Nicole, L., Reinharz, D., & Stip, E.
- Affiliations
- Inserm (FR)
- Université de Montréal (CA)
- Institut universitaire en santé mentale de Montréal (CA)
- Université Laval (CA)
- ORCID
- Venue
- Schizophrenia Research
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2005-09
- Volume
- 77
- Issue
- 2-3
- Pages
- 343-353
- ISSN
- 0920-9964 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2160274416
- Cited by
- 149
- References
- 44
- Citations by year
- 2026: 3 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 11 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 8 · 2016: 8 · 2015: 7 · 2014: 12 · 2013: 7 · 2012: 7
- FWCI
- 6.20
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Schizophrenia 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
- Social Sciences › Safety Research › Disability Education and Employment
- Keywords
- schizophrenia, cognitive predictors
- MeSH terms
- Adult, Aged, Cognition, Female, Follow-Up Studies, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Neuropsychological Tests, Prognosis, Quality of Life, Schizophrenia, Schizophrenic Psychology, Social Adjustment, Likelihood Functions, Logistic Models
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