Validation of the structured interview section of the penn computerized adaptive test for neurocognitive and clinical psychopathology assessment (CAT GOASSESS).

Large-scale studies and burdened clinical settings require precise, efficient measures that assess multiple domains of psychopathology. Computerized adaptive tests (CATs) can reduce administration time without compromising data quality. We examined feasibility and validity of an adaptive psychopathology measure, GOASSESS, in a clinical community-based sample (N = 315; ages 18-35) comprising three groups: healthy controls, psychosis, mood/anxiety disorders. Assessment duration was compared between the Full and CAT GOASSESS. External validity was tested by comparing how the CAT and Full versions related to demographic variables, study group, and socioeconomic status. The relationships between scale scores and criteria were statistically compared within a mixed-model framework to account for dependency between relationships. Convergent validity was assessed by comparing scores of the CAT and the Full GOASSESS using Pearson correlations. The CAT GOASSESS reduced interview duration by more than 90 % across study groups and preserved relationships to external criteria and demographic variables as the Full GOASSESS. All CAT GOASSESS scales could replace those of the Full instrument. Overall, the CAT GOASSESS showed acceptable psychometric properties and demonstrated feasibility by markedly reducing assessment time compared to the Full GOASSESS. The adaptive version could be used in large-scale studies or clinical settings for intake screening.

Comparison of two cognitive screening measures in a longitudinal sample of youth at-risk for psychosis.

BACKGROUND: Validated screening tools are needed to detect subtle cognitive impairment in individuals at-risk for developing psychosis. Here, the utility of the Mini-Mental Status Examination (MMSE) and Penn Computerized Neurocognitive Battery (CNB) were evaluated for detecting cognitive impairment in individuals with psychosis spectrum (PS) symptoms. METHODS: Participants (n = 229; 54 % female) completed the MMSE and CNB at baseline and two-year follow-up. PS (n = 91) and typically developing (TD; n = 138) participants were enrolled at baseline based on the presence or absence of PS symptoms. After two years, 65 participants remained PS, 104 participants remained TD, 23 participants had Emergent (EP) subthreshold PS symptoms, and 37 participants were experiencing Other Psychopathology (OP). RESULTS: Generally, those with PS had lower scores than TD on both the MMSE (p < 0.0001) and CNB (p < 0.0001). Additionally, OP participants performed lower on the MMSE than TD (p = 0.02). Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analyses indicated similar area under the curve (AUCs) for the two instruments (0.67); the MMSE showed higher specificity (0.71 vs. 0.62), while the CNB showed higher sensitivity (0.66 vs 0.52). Use of the MMSE and CNB in combination provided the highest diagnostic classification. CONCLUSION: The MMSE and CNB can be used to screen for cognitive impairment in PS. The MMSE is better at ruling out PS-related cognitive impairment while the CNB is better at ruling in PS-related cognitive impairment. Overall, our results indicate that both tests are useful in screening for cognitive impairment, particularly in combination, in a PS population.