2011年8月26日 星期五

WCST使用指標與解釋 (8/26)

主要指標:
l   Perseverative errors: cognitive flexibility1-7; planning8, abstract thinking (reasoning ability)6, 7, 9, set shifting5, 10, 11, problem solving9, and working memory12
l   Number of categories completed: cognitive flexibility13, planning8, abstract thinking9, 14, set shifting10, 15, problem solving9, working memory12
l   Perseverative response: cognitive flexibility6, 7, 13, abstract thinking6, 7, and problem solving15
l   Total number correct: cognitive flexibility5 and set shifting5
l   Conceptual level responses: cognitive flexibility13

次要指標:
l   Nonperseverative errors: inhibition11, 16
l   Failure to maintain set: problem solving15, motor programming17, attention18, 19, memory19


分數越高代表能力越好的指標:number of categories completed、total number correct、conceptual level responses、nonperseverative errors。
分數越高代表能力越差的指標:perseverative errors、perseverative response、failure to maintain set。

References
1.         Anokhin AP, Golosheykin S, Grant JD, et al. Developmental and genetic influences on prefrontal function in adolescents: a longitudinal twin study of WCST performance. Neuroscience Letters 2010;472:119-22.
2.         Bradbury C, Cassin SE, Rector NA. Obsessive beliefs and neurocognitive flexibility in obsessive-compulsive disorder. Psychiatry Research 2011;187:160-5.
3.         Ciurli P, Bivona U, Barba C, et al. Metacognitive unawareness correlates with executive function impairment after severe traumatic brain injury. Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society 2010;16:360-8.
4.         Poljac E, Simon S, Ringlever L, et al. Impaired task switching performance in children with dyslexia but not in children with autism. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 2010;63:401-16.
5.         Cohen LJ, Nesci C, Steinfeld M, et al. Investigating the relationship between sexual and chemical addictions by comparing executive function in subjects with pedophilia or opiate addiction and healthy controls. Journal of Psychiatric Practice 2010;16:405-12.
6.         Flavia M, Stampatori C, Zanotti D, et al. Efficacy and specificity of intensive cognitive rehabilitation of attention and executive functions in multiple sclerosis. Journal of the Neurological Sciences 2010;288:101-5.
7.         Mattioli F, Stampatori C, Capra R. The effect of natalizumab on cognitive function in patients with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis: preliminary results of a 1-year follow-up study. Neurological Sciences 2011;32:83-8.
8.         Bora E, Yucel M, Pantelis C. Neurocognitive markers of psychosis in bipolar disorder: a meta-analytic study. Journal of Affective Disorders 2010;127:1-9.
9.         Severtson SG, von Thomsen S, Hedden SL, et al. The association between executive functioning and motivation to enter treatment among regular users of heroin and/or cocaine in Baltimore, MD. Addictive Behaviors 2010;35:717-20.
10.       Guillot CR, Fanning JR, Bullock JS, et al. Effects of alcohol on tests of executive functioning in men and women: a dose response examination. Experimental & Clinical Psychopharmacology 2010;18:409-17.
11.       Lera-Miguel S, Andres-Perpina S, Calvo R, et al. Early-onset bipolar disorder: how about visual-spatial skills and executive functions?.[Erratum appears in Eur Arch Psychiatry Clin Neurosci. 2011 Apr;261(3):229 Note: Lourdes, Fananas [corrected to Fananas, Lourdes]]. European Archives of Psychiatry & Clinical Neuroscience 2011;261:195-203.
12.       Yatham LN, Torres IJ, Malhi GS, et al. The International Society for Bipolar Disorders-Battery for Assessment of Neurocognition (ISBD-BANC). Bipolar Disorders 2010;12:351-63.
13.       Farag NH, Rashed H-A, Hassan M, et al. Hepatitis C infection, Cognition, and inflammation in an Egyptian sample. Journal of Medical Virology 2011;83:261-6.
14.       Bosia M, Anselmetti S, Pirovano A, et al. HTTLPR functional polymorphism in schizophrenia: executive functions vs. sustained attention dissociation. Progress in Neuro-Psychopharmacology & Biological Psychiatry 2010;34:81-5.
15.       Butterfield LC, Cimino CR, Oelke LE, et al. The independent influence of apathy and depression on cognitive functioning in Parkinson's disease. Neuropsychology 2010;24:721-30.
16.       Lien Y-J, Yang H-J, Kuo P-H, et al. Relation of perseverative tendency and life events to depressive symptoms: findings from a prospective study in non-referred adolescents in Taiwan. Behavioral Medicine 2011;37:1-7.
17.       Cunha PJ, Nicastri S, de Andrade AG, et al. The frontal assessment battery (FAB) reveals neurocognitive dysfunction in substance-dependent individuals in distinct executive domains: Abstract reasoning, motor programming, and cognitive flexibility. Addictive Behaviors 2010;35:875-81.
18.       Egan GJ, Hasenkamp W, Wilcox L, et al. Declarative memory and WCST-64 performance in subjects with schizophrenia and healthy controls. Psychiatry Research 2011;188:191-6.
19.       Suzuki H, Gen K, Inoue Y. An unblinded comparison of the clinical and cognitive effects of switching from first-generation antipsychotics to aripiprazole, perospirone or olanzapine in patients with chronic schizophrenia. Progress in Neuro-Psychopharmacology & Biological Psychiatry 2011;35:161-8.


2 則留言:

  1. 就5項主要指標而言:
    1. 前4項指標於各研究之解讀(所代表意義)不同,各指標您會採用那種解讀?
    2. 部份指標所代表意義重複,那如何區隔?若未能區隔,那數值一致嗎?如果一致,那豈不重複?若不一致,又將如何解釋?

    回覆刪除
  2. 1. 於文獻所提之意義,我所採用的解讀
    * perseverative error(PE): cognitive flexibility, and set shifting.
    * number of categories completed(NCC): abstract thinking, and problem solving.
    * perseverative response(PR): cognitive flexibility, and set shifting.
    * conceptual level responses(CLR): cognitive flexibility
    * total number correct(TNC): cognitive flexibility

    2. 這5個指標於因素分析中,歸類於同一個因素,主要測量cognitive flexibility和problem solving。所以所代表的意義會重覆。
    我跑了這些的指標於4次測驗的相關,PE和PR的相關高(0.9),CLR和TNC的相關高(0.9),NCC與其他的指標相關較低,PR和PE與CLR和NCC的相關為中度到高。
    許多文獻都提及PE與NCC為主要的指標,所以對其的解釋較多。
    部分指標代表意義重覆,我尚不知要如何區隔,但可看出指標間有高相關。我現在的想法是,可能會使用PE、NCC、TNC此三個指標。使用TNC的目的為,想比較個案答對的題數。

    回覆刪除