Factor analyzing the Norwegian MATRICS Consensus Cognitive Battery.

AIM: The MATRICS Consensus Cognitive Battery (MCCB) assesses seven cognitive domains with 10 subtests. This domain structure has not been demonstrated. Three factors have been produced in US samples. We examined the dimensional structure of the Norwegian MCCB. In addition, we studied the contribution of each subtest to the battery sum score. METHODS: The participants were 131 patients with schizophrenia spectrum disorders and 300 healthy controls. Their Norwegian MCCB test scores were subject to exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis and regression analysis. RESULTS: The theoretical MCCB factor structure was not shown. In the patient group, three-factor and two-factor models had acceptable fit. In both groups, the Symbol Coding, Spatial Span, Letter-Number Span, and Visual Learning subtests contributed most to the sum score. CONCLUSION: The theoretical domain structure of the MCCB could not be demonstrated in these Norwegian participants. Consonant with US studies, models with three and two factors had mediocre fit, and in the schizophrenia spectrum disorder group only. In both groups, the subtests Symbol Coding, Working Memory, and Learning were the most sensitive in tapping general neurocognitive performance, supporting US results. We conclude that in both Norway and the USA, the MCCB generates the same cognitive domains through factor analysis, but that these domains are not the ones suggested by the MATRICS project.

Validation of the work behavior inventory.

BACKGROUND: The Work Behavior Inventory (WBI) was developed in the USA for the assessment of vocational functioning for people with severe mental illness. It is rated in a work setting by an employment specialist through observation and an interview with the immediate supervisor. AIMS: The present study aims to examine the psychometric properties of the Norwegian version of the WBI. METHODS: The participants (n = 148) of the Job Management Program (JUMP) study for psychotic disorders were assessed with the WBI around the fourth week of work. A principal component analysis identified three substantial factors. RESULTS: The three corresponding scales were termed Social Skills revised, Work Quality revised and Compliance with work norms. The scales had a high internal consistency. Correlations with the Social Functioning Scale, education and previous work history supported the validity of the subscales. CONCLUSION: The results indicate that the Norwegian version of the WBI maintains good psychometric properties, and that vocational functioning can be reliably and validly assessed in a Norwegian setting. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: There has been a lack of validated assessment tools for this group in Norway. Functional assessment with the WBI provides a comprehensive evaluation of the individuals' strengths and challenges in the vocational setting, and provides goals for the vocational rehabilitation.