Cited by 525Schizophrenia research and treatmentMental Health and PsychiatryAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes

Metacognitive training in schizophrenia: from basic research to knowledge translation and intervention.

Moritz, Steffen, Woodward, Todd S·2007·Current Opinion in Psychiatry

Abstract

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: There has been a marked increase in the study of cognitive biases in schizophrenia, which has in part been stimulated by encouraging results with cognitive-behavioral interventions in the disorder. We summarize new evidence on cognitive biases thought to trigger or maintain positive symptoms in schizophrenia and present a new therapeutic intervention. RECENT FINDINGS: Recent studies indicate that patients with paranoid schizophrenia jump to conclusions, show attributional biases, share a bias against disconfirmatory evidence, are overconfident in errors, and display problems with theory of mind. Many of these biases precede the psychotic episode and may represent cognitive traits. Building upon this literature, we developed a metacognitive training program that aims to convey scientific knowledge on cognitive biases to patients and provides corrective experiences in an engaging and supportive manner. Two new studies provide preliminary evidence for the feasibility and efficacy of this approach. SUMMARY: The gap between our advanced understanding of cognitive processes in schizophrenia and its application in clinical treatment is increasingly being narrowed. Despite emerging evidence for the feasibility and efficacy of metacognitive training as a stand-alone program, its most powerful application may be in combination with individual cognitive-behavioral therapy.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1097/yco.0b013e3282f0b8ed

Cites

53 of 53 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

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Moritz, S., & Woodward, T. S.
Affiliations
  • University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf (DE)
  • Simon Fraser University (CA)
Corresponding author
Moritz, Steffen
Venue
Current Opinion in Psychiatry
Published
2007-11
Volume
20
Issue
6
Pages
619-625
ISSN
0951-7367 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1966491990
Cited by
525
References
53
Citations by year
2026: 19 · 2025: 25 · 2024: 14 · 2023: 23 · 2022: 41 · 2021: 26 · 2020: 58 · 2019: 56 · 2018: 38 · 2017: 28 · 2016: 26 · 2015: 17 · 2014: 26 · 2013: 26 · 2012: 27
FWCI
2.22
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Current Opinion in Psychiatry (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 › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
Keywords
metacognitive training, schizophrenia, cognitive biases, paranoid schizophrenia, cognitive behavioral therapy, attribution bias, theory of mind, positive symptoms, knowledge translation, cognitive characteristics
MeSH terms
Delusions, Humans, Memory, Schizophrenia, Schizophrenic Psychology, Self Concept, Social Behavior, Cognitive Behavioral Therapy

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