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.

Accelerating Medicines Partnership® Schizophrenia (AMP® SCZ): Rationale and Study Design of the Largest Global Prospective Cohort Study of Clinical High Risk for Psychosis

This article describes the rationale, aims, and methodology of the Accelerating Medicines Partnership® Schizophrenia (AMP® SCZ). This is the largest international collaboration to date that will develop algorithms to predict trajectories and outcomes of individuals at clinical high risk (CHR) for psychosis and to advance the development and use of novel pharmacological interventions for CHR individuals. We present a description of the participating research networks and the data processing analysis and coordination center, their processes for data harmonization across 43 sites from 13 participating countries (recruitment across North America, Australia, Europe, Asia, and South America), data flow and quality assessment processes, data analyses, and the transfer of data to the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) Data Archive (NDA) for use by the research community. In an expected sample of approximately 2000 CHR individuals and 640 matched healthy controls, AMP SCZ will collect clinical, environmental, and cognitive data along with multimodal biomarkers, including neuroimaging, electrophysiology, fluid biospecimens, speech and facial expression samples, novel measures derived from digital health technologies including smartphone-based daily surveys, and passive sensing as well as actigraphy. The study will investigate a range of clinical outcomes over a 2-year period, including transition to psychosis, remission or persistence of CHR status, attenuated positive symptoms, persistent negative symptoms, mood and anxiety symptoms, and psychosocial functioning. The global reach of AMP SCZ and its harmonized innovative methods promise to catalyze the development of new treatments to address critical unmet clinical and public health needs in CHR individuals.

Validation of the cognitive section of the Penn computerized adaptive test for neurocognitive and clinical psychopathology assessment (CAT-CCNB)

BACKGROUND

The Penn Computerized Neurocognitive Battery is an efficient tool for assessing brain-behavior domains, and its efficiency was augmented via computerized adaptive testing (CAT). This battery requires validation in a separate sample to establish psychometric properties.

METHODS

In a mixed community/clinical sample of N = 307 18-to-35-year-olds, we tested the relationships of the CAT tests with the full-form tests. We compared discriminability among recruitment groups (psychosis, mood, control) and examined how their scores relate to demographics. CAT-Full relationships were evaluated based on a minimum inter-test correlation of 0.70 or an inter-test correlation within at least 0.10 of the full-form correlation with a previous administration of the full battery. Differences in criterion relationships were tested via mixed models.

RESULTS

Most tests (15/17) met the minimum criteria for replacing the full-form with the updated CAT version (mean r = 0.67; range = 0.53-0.80) when compared to relationships of the full-forms with previous administrations of the full-forms (mean r = 0.68; range = 0.50-0.85). Most (16/17) CAT-based relationships with diagnostics and other validity criteria were indistinguishable (interaction p > 0.05) from their full-form counterparts.

CONCLUSIONS

The updated CNB shows psychometric properties acceptable for research. The full-forms of some tests should be retained due to insufficient time savings to justify the loss in precision.

Gender, Race/Ethnicity, and Patient-Therapist Matching on Gender and Race/Ethnicity: Predictors/Moderators of the Effectiveness of Trust/Respect Feedback

A plethora of studies has exhibited the effectiveness of using measurement-based care feedback systems within mental health services to improve treatment outcomes; however, patient gender/race and patient-therapist matching on gender and race remain relatively unexplored as predictors/moderators in feedback studies. We conducted predictor/moderator analyses focusing on the relation of gender, race/ethnicity, and patient-therapist gender and race/ethnicity matching on two outcomes: patient self-reported levels of (1) functioning and (2) trust/respect within the therapeutic relationship. We used data from a randomized controlled trial studying the effectiveness of a feedback system comparing patient-reported levels of trust and respect towards their provider (together with symptom feedback) in comparison to symptom only feedback. We found that men improved in functioning more than women when their therapists received trust/respect feedback compared to symptom only feedback (F[1, 902] = 9.79, p = .002, d = 0.21). We also found that dyads matched on race/ethnicity but not gender, and those matched on gender but not race/ethnicity, improved in functioning over time more than dyads mismatched on both gender and race/ethnicity and those matched on both gender and race/ethnicity (F[1, 897] = 8.63, p = .0034, d = 0.20). On trust/respect outcomes, we found a gender difference over time (F[1, 759] = 6.61, p = .01, d = 0.19), a gender matching difference by feedback condition interaction (F[1, 757] = 5.25, p = .02, d = 0.17), and a racial/ethnic matching difference on trust/respect scores over time (F[1, 785] = 3.89, p = .049, d = 0.14). Male patients showed an initial decrease followed by a steady increase in trust/respect over time while female patients showed an initial increase followed by a steady decrease. Gender-matched therapeutic dyads showed higher levels of trust/respect compared to mismatched dyads when therapists received symptom only feedback, but this difference was not apparent when trust/respect feedback was provided. Dyads mismatched on race/ethnicity improved steadily in trust/respect over time, but matched dyads decreased in trust/respect after an initial increase. Future research should focus on the use of feedback systems to enhance outcomes for patients with specific gender and racial/ethnic identities.

Randomized controlled trial evaluating feedback to community-based therapists based on patient reports of trust and respect

OBJECTIVE

Patient trust/respect toward their therapists may be an important component of patient-therapist relationships. This randomized controlled trial evaluated the impact of providing weekly feedback to therapists regarding patient ratings of trust/respect toward their therapist.

METHOD

Adult patients seeking mental health treatment at four community clinics (two community mental health centers and two community-based intensive treatment programs) were randomized to either having their primary therapist receive weekly symptom feedback-only or symptoms plus trust/respect feedback. Data were collected both prior to and during COVID-19. The primary outcome measure was a measure of functioning obtained weekly at baseline and the subsequent 11 weeks, with the primary analysis focusing on patients who received any treatment. Secondary outcomes included measures of symptoms and trust/respect.

RESULTS

Among 233 consented patients, 185 had a postbaseline assessment and were analyzed for the primary and secondary outcomes (median age of 30 years; 5.4% Asian, 12.4% Hispanic, 17.8% Black, 67.0% White, 4.3% more than 1 race, and 5.4% unknown; 64.4% female). On the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Social Roles and Activities scale (primary outcome), the trust/respect plus symptom feedback group had significantly greater improvements over time than the symptom alone feedback group (p = .0006, effect size d = .22). Secondary outcome measures of symptoms and trust/respect also showed statistically significant greater improvement for the trust/respect feedback group.

CONCLUSIONS

In this trial, trust/respect feedback to therapists was associated with significantly greater improvements in treatment outcomes. Evaluation of the mechanisms of such improvements is needed. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).

Repeated assessments of depressive symptoms in randomized psychosocial intervention trials: best practice for analyzing symptom change over time

OBJECTIVE

Psychotherapy randomized trials rarely have tested for the best fitting model for time effects. We examined the fit of different statistical models for examining time when repeated assessments of depressive symptoms are the primary outcome.

METHOD

We used data from three studies comparing psychotherapy treatments for major depressive disorder. Outcome measures were self-report ratings for Study 1 (N = 237) and Study 2 (N = 100) and clinician ratings for Study 3 (N = 120) of depressive symptoms measured at every session (Studies 1 and 2) or monthly (Study 3). We examined the fit of the following time patterns: linear, quadratic, cubic, log transformation of time, piece-wise linear, and unstructured.

RESULTS

In Study 1, a log-linear model had the best fit (Δ Akaike information criterion [AICc] = 7.5). In Study 2, all models had essentially no support (Δ AICcs > 10) in comparison to the best fitting model, which was the unstructured model. In Study 3, the cubic model had the best fit, but it was not significantly better than a log-linear (Δ AICc = 3.5) or unstructured model (Δ AICc = 2.5).

CONCLUSIONS

Trials should routinely compare different time models, including an unstructured model, when repeated measures of depressive symptoms are the primary outcome.