Mild vs. moderate: How behavioral speech measures predict metacognitive capacity across different levels of formal thought disorder.
Mild vs. moderate: How behavioral speech measures predict metacognitive capacity across different levels of formal thought disorder.
复制标题
轻度与中度：行为言语测量如何预测不同程度的正式思维障碍的元认知能力。
DOI：
10.1016/j.jpsychires.2022.11.013
复制
发表时间：
2023
影响因子：
4.8
通讯作者：
Minor,KyleS
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Myers,EvanJ;Abel,DanielleB;Hardin,KathrynL;Bettis,RobertJ;Beard,AshlynnM;Salyers,MichelleP;Lysaker,PaulH;Minor,KyleS
言语混乱是精神分裂症形式思维障碍（FTD）的一个关键组成部分。最近的研究将杂乱的言语与元认知的缺陷联系起来，或者说一个人整合经验形成复杂心理表征的能力。元认知能力差异出现的 FTD 水平仍不清楚。在两项研究中，我们使用不同的分数来形成 FTD 组，目的是 1) 探索混乱的言语与元认知之间的关系，2) 比较训练有素的评分者和自动分析方法。使用沟通障碍指数 (CDI)、Coh-Metrix 多维指数和元认知评估量表对临床访谈进行混乱的言语和元认知编码。在研究 1 中，我们检查了 CDI 和 Coh-Metrix 预测 FTD (n= 16) 和非 FTD (n= 29) 组元认知的能力。我们假设 FTD 组的元认知较低，并且 CDI 和 Coh-Metrix 都会解释元认知的显着差异。在研究 2 中，我们使用更严格的 FTD 评分（FTD：n= 23；非 FTD：n= 23）对独立样本进行了相同的分析。分析表明，在中等但不温和的截止条件下：1）自动化方法区分了 FTD 和非 FTD 群体，2）出现了元认知差异，3）行为测量导致了元认知的显着差异（34％）。结果强调了将 FTD 截止值设置在中等水平并使用含有高水平 FTD 的样本的重要性。研究结果扩展了 FTD 和元认知之间的联系，并证明了将训练有素的评分者与自动言语测量配对的好处。
Disorganized speech is a key component of formal thought disorder (FTD) in schizophrenia. Recent work has tied disorganized speech to deficits in metacognition, or one's ability to integrate experiences to form complex mental representations. The level of FTD at which differences in metacognitive capacity emerge remains unclear. Across two studies, using different cut scores to form FTD groups, we aimed to 1) explore the relationship between disorganized speech and metacognition and 2) compare trained rater and automated analysis methods. Clinical interviews were coded for disorganized speech and metacognition using the Communication Disturbances Index (CDI), Coh-Metrix multidimensional indices, and Metacognition Assessment Scale. In Study 1, we examined CDI and Coh-Metrix's ability to predict metacognition in FTD (n= 16) and non-FTD (n= 29) groups. We hypothesized the FTD group would have lower metacognition and that both CDI and Coh-Metrix would account for significant variance in metacognition. In Study 2, we conducted the same analyses with an independent sample using more stringent FTD cut scores (FTD:n= 23; non-FTD:n= 23). Analyses indicated that at a moderate but not mild cutoff: 1) automated methods differentiated FTD and non-FTD groups, 2) differences in metacognition emerged, and 3) behavioral measures accounted for significant variance (34%) in metacognition. Results emphasize the importance of setting the FTD cutoff at a moderate level and using samples that contain high levels of FTD. Findings extend research linking FTD and metacognition and demonstrate the benefit of pairing trained rater and automated speech measures.