Comparing a Computerized Digit Symbol Test to a Pen-and-Paper Classic
Pratt, Danielle N. Luther, Lauren Kinney, Kyle S. Osborne, Kenneth Juston Corlett, Philip R. Powers, Albert R. Woods, Scott W. Gold, James M. Schiffman, Jason Ellman, Lauren M.
Pratt, Danielle N.
Luther, Lauren
Kinney, Kyle S.
Osborne, Kenneth Juston
Corlett, Philip R.
Powers, Albert R.
Woods, Scott W.
Gold, James M.
Schiffman, Jason
Ellman, Lauren M.
Citations
Altmetric:
Genre
Journal article
Date
2023-09-28
Advisor
Committee member
Group
Department
Psychology and Neuroscience
Permanent link to this record
Collections
Research Projects
Organizational Units
Journal Issue
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1093/schizbullopen/sgad027
Abstract
Background and Hypothesis: Processing speed dysfunction is a core feature of psychosis and predictive of conversion in individuals at clinical high risk (CHR) for psychosis. Although traditionally measured with pen-and-paper tasks, computerized digit symbol tasks are needed to meet the increasing demand for remote assessments. Therefore we: (1) assessed the relationship between traditional and computerized processing speed measurements; (2) compared effect sizes of impairment for progressive and persistent subgroups of CHR individuals on these tasks; and (3) explored causes contributing to task performance differences. Study Design: Participants included 92 CHR individuals and 60 healthy controls who completed clinical interviews, the Brief Assessment of Cognition in Schizophrenia Symbol Coding test, the computerized TestMyBrain Digit Symbol Matching Test, a finger-tapping task, and a self-reported motor abilities measure. Correlations, Hedges’ g, and linear models were utilized, respectively, to achieve the above aims. Study Results: Task performance was strongly correlated (r = 0.505). A similar degree of impairment was seen between progressive (g = −0.541) and persistent (g = −0.417) groups on the paper version. The computerized task uniquely identified impairment for progressive individuals (g = −477), as the persistent group performed similarly to controls (g = −0.184). Motor abilities were related to the computerized version, but the paper version was more related to symptoms and psychosis risk level. Conclusions: The paper symbol coding task measures impairment throughout the CHR state, while the computerized version only identifies impairment in those with worsening symptomatology. These results may be reflective of sensitivity differences, an artifact of existing subgroups, or evidence of mechanistic differences.
Description
Citation
Danielle N Pratt, Lauren Luther, Kyle S Kinney, Kenneth Juston Osborne, Philip R Corlett, Albert R Powers, Scott W Woods, James M Gold, Jason Schiffman, Lauren M Ellman, Gregory P Strauss, Elaine F Walker, Richard Zinbarg, James A Waltz, Steven M Silverstein, Vijay A Mittal, Comparing a Computerized Digit Symbol Test to a Pen-and-Paper Classic, Schizophrenia Bulletin Open, Volume 4, Issue 1, January 2023, sgad027, https://doi.org/10.1093/schizbullopen/sgad027
Citation to related work
Oxford University Press (OUP)
Has part
Schizophrenia Bulletin Open, Vol. 4, Iss. 1
ADA compliance
For Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) accommodation, including help with reading this content, please contact scholarshare@temple.edu