Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-c4f8m Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-24T05:55:48.986Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A consideration of neuropsychologically normal schizophrenia

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 January 2003

Daniel N. Allen ,
Gerald Goldstein  and
Erin Warnick
Daniel N. Allen
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, University of Nevada, Las Vegas, 4505 Maryland Parkway, Box 455030, Las Vegas, NV 89154
Gerald Goldstein
Affiliation:
VA Pittsburgh Healthcare System, Pittsburgh, PA 15206 University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA 15213
Erin Warnick
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, University of Nevada, Las Vegas, 4505 Maryland Parkway, Box 455030, Las Vegas, NV 89154
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Neuropsychological deficits are considered by many to be core features of schizophrenia. However, about 20% of patients with schizophrenia appear to have normal neuropsychological function. This study investigates this subgroup by comparing a “neuropsychologically normal” schizophrenia group to a non-schizophrenic, non-brain damaged patient comparison (PC) sample, and to patients with definitive brain damage who performed normally on neuropsychological testing. All patients completed the Halstead-Reitan Neuropsychological Test Battery and were classified as neuropsychologically normal or impaired using the Average Impairment Rating (AIR). In a sample of 113 patients with schizophrenia, 19.5% were classified as neuropsychologically normal. The brain damaged neuropsychologically normal group (BD-NN) consisted of 14.3% of 124 subjects. These groups were compared with a patient non-schizophrenic, non-brain damaged group who were selected on the basis of having an Average Impairment Rating in the neuropsychologically normal range. The neuropsychologically normal schizophrenic group performed less well than the non-brain damaged, non-schizophrenic patient comparison group on a number of tests, indicating that patients in this group may not be completely neuropsychologically normal, and would be better characterized as “high-functioning” or near normal. The results are discussed in regard to possible neurobiological differences between neuropsychologically impaired and intact schizophrenic patients, and implications for course and outcome. (JINS, 2003, 9, 56–63.)

Keywords

SchizophreniaAbstract reasoningCluster analysisPremorbid ability
Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society , Volume 9 , Issue 1 , January 2003 , pp. 56 - 63
Copyright
Copyright © The International Neuropsychological Society 2003

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Andreasen, N.C. (1982). The Scale for Assessment of Negative Symptoms. Iowa City, IA: University of Iowa.Google Scholar
Bunney, W.E. & Hamburg, D.A. (1963). Methods for reliable, longitudinal observation of behavior. Archives of General Psychiatry, 9, 280–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Delis, D.C., Kramer, J.H., Kaplan, E., & Ober, B.A. (1987). California Verbal Learning Test. New York: Psychological Corporation.Google Scholar
Goldberg, T.E. & Gold, J.M. (1995). Neurocognitive deficits in schizophrenia. In S.R. Hirsch & D.R. Weinberger (Eds.), Schizophrenia (pp. 146–162). London: Blackwell Science Ltd.Google Scholar
Goldstein, G. (1990). Neuropsychological heterogeneity in schizophrenia: A consideration of abstraction and problem solving abilities. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 5, 251–264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldstein, G. (1998). Assessment of abstract reasoning. In G. Goldstein, P.D. Nussbaum & S.R. Beers (Eds.) Neuropsychology (pp. 317–331). New York: Plenum Press.Google Scholar
Goldstein, G., Allen, D.N., & Seaton, B.E. (1998). A comparison of two clustering solutions for cognitive heterogeneity in schizophrenia. Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society, 4, 353–362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldstein, G. & Shemansky, W.J. (1995). Influences on cognitive heterogeneity in schizophrenia. Schizophrenia Research, 18, 59–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heaton, R.K, Chelune, G.J., Talley, J.L., Kay, G.G., & Curtis, G. (1993). Wisconsin Card Sorting Test manual: Revised and expanded. Odessa FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.Google Scholar
Heaton, R.K., Grant, I., & Matthews, C.G. (1991). Comprehensive norms for an expanded Halstead-Reitan battery. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.Google Scholar
Heinrichs, R.W. & Awad, A.G. (1993). Neurocognitive subtypes of chronic schizophrenia. Schizophrenia Research, 9, 49–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koren, D., Seidman, L.J., Harrison, R.H., Lyons, M.J., Kremen, W.S., Caplan, B., Goldstein, J.M, Faraone, S.V., & Tsuang, M.T. (1998). Factor structure of the Wisconsin Card Sorting Test: Dimensions of deficit in schizophrenia. Neuropsychology, 12, 289–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kremen, W.S., Seidman, L.J., Faraone, S.V., Pepple, J.R., Lyons, M.J., & Tsuang, M.T. (1996). The “3 Rs” and neuropsychological function in schizophrenia: An empirical test of the matching fallacy. Neuropsychology, 10, 22–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kremen, W.S., Seidman, L.J., Faraone, S.V., Toomey, R., & Tsuang, M.T. (2000). The paradox of normal neuropsychological function in schizophrenia. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 109, 743–752.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Overall, J.E. & Gorham, D.R. (1962). The brief psychiatric rating scale. Psychological Reports, 10, 799–812.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Palmer, B.W., Heaton, R.K., Paulsen, J.S., Kuck, J., Braff, D., Harris, M.J., Zisook, S., & Jeste, D.V. (1997). Is it possible to be schizophrenic yet neuropsychologically normal? Neuropsychology, 11, 437–446.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reitan, R.M. & Wolfson, D. (1994). A selective and critical review of neuropsychological deficits and the frontal lobes. Neuropsychology Review, 4, 161–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schopler, E. & Mesibov, G. (Eds.) (1992). High-functioning individuals with autism. New York: Plenum Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Seaton, B.E., Allen, D.N., Goldstein, G., Kelley, M.E., & van Kammen, D.P. (1999). Relations between cognitive and symptom profile heterogeneity in schizophrenia. Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 187, 414–419.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Seaton, B.E., Goldstein, G., & Allen, D.N. (2001). Sources of heterogeneity in schizophrenia: The role of neuropsychological functioning. Neuropsychology Review, 11, 45–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Silverstein, M.L. & Zerwic, M.J. (1985). Clinical psychopathologic symptoms in neuropsychologically impaired and intact schizophrenics. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 53, 267–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Torrey, E.F., Bowler, A.E., Taylor, E.H., & Gottesman, I.I. (1994). Schizophrenia and manic depressive disorder. New York, Basic Books.Google Scholar
Wechsler, D. (1955). Manual for the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale. San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corporation.Google Scholar
Wechsler, D. (1981). Manual for the Revised Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale (WAIS–R). San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corporation.Google Scholar
Weinberger, D. (2001, March). Prefrontal cortical function in schizophrenia: A career trek on the royal road from phenomenology to genetic causation. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Psychopathological Association, New York, NY.Google Scholar