Questioning the Effort Hypothesis That Depressed Patients Perform Disproportionately Worse on Effortful Cognitive Tasks.
Questioning the Effort Hypothesis That Depressed Patients Perform Disproportionately Worse on Effortful Cognitive Tasks.
复制标题
DOI：
10.1177/0031512519898356
复制
发表时间：
2020-04
影响因子：
1.6
通讯作者：
Weisenbach S
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Hammers DB;Weisenbach S
关于努力假说的争论--抑郁症患者在费力任务上的表现将不成比例地低于他们在自动任务上的表现--表明需要更多的研究来确定这一概念是否是“临床知识”。在这项研究中，我们根据贝克抑郁问卷−2(BDI-2)的自我报告，将285名接受神经心理评估的门诊患者分为三组-无抑郁、轻中度抑郁和重度抑郁。然后，我们采用双向(3×2)混合马诺瓦测验，比较了两组受试者在RIFF2和7选择性注意测验总速度和总准确度指数、WAIS-IV中的数字广度分测验以及连线测验A和B部分上的表现。在我们的样本中，有轻度到中度抑郁或重度抑郁的患者在四项注意力或执行功能测试(跟踪测试)中只有一项的更努力版本的表现比没有抑郁的患者更差。因此，这些数据未能完全支持一种假设，即在更费力的任务中表现得不成比例地糟糕。虽然这项研究并不否定某些特定情况下的努力假说，尤其是在追踪测验中使用，但临床医生在解释大多数临床环境和大多数测量中的测试结果时，有理由谨慎地常规地应用努力假说。
The debate over effort hypothesis – that performance on effortful tasks by patients with depression will be disproportionately worse than their performance on automatic tasks – shows a need for additional research to settle whether or not this notion is “clinical lore.” In this study, we categorized 285 outpatient recipients of neuropsychological evaluations into three groups - No Depression, Mild-to-Moderate Depression, and Severe Depression - based on their Beck Depression Inventory −2 (BDI-2) self-reports. We then compared these groups’ performances on both “automatic” and “effortful” versions of the Ruff 2 & 7 Selective Attention Test Total Speed and Total Accuracy Indices, the Digit Span subtest from the WAIS-IV, and Trail Making Test Parts A and B, using a two-way (3 × 2) mixed MANOVA. Patients with Mild-to-Moderate Depression or Severe Depression performed disproportionately worse than patients with No Depression in our sample on more effortful versions of only one of the four attention or executive functioning measures (Trail Making Test). Thus, these data failed to fully support a hypothesis of disproportionately worse performance on more effortful tasks. While this study does not negate the effort hypothesis in some specific instances, particularly for use in the Trail Making Test, there is cause for clinician caution in routinely applying the effort hypothesis when interpreting test findings in most clinical settings and for most measures.
登录
查看更多内容
影响因子：
2.1
作者：
Ghasemi A;Zahediasl S
通讯作者：
Zahediasl S
影响因子：
1.9
作者：
ALLEN C C;RUFF R M
通讯作者：
RUFF R M
影响因子：
11.3
作者：
TANCER, ME;BROWN, TM;GOLDEN, RN
通讯作者：
GOLDEN, RN
影响因子：
6.9
作者：
Den Hartog, HM;Derix, MMA;Jolles, J
通讯作者：
Jolles, J
主要抑郁症的皮层脑改变：来自谜的主要抑郁症工作组的发现。
影响因子：
11
作者：
Schmaal L;Veltman DJ;van Erp TG;Sämann PG;Frodl T;Jahanshad N;Loehrer E;Tiemeier H;Hofman A;Niessen WJ;Vernooij MW;Ikram MA;Wittfeld K;Grabe HJ;Block A;Hegenscheid K;Völzke H;Hoehn D;Czisch M;Lagopoulos J;Hatton SN;Hickie IB;Goya-Maldonado R;Krämer B;Gruber O;Couvy-Duchesne B;Rentería ME;Strike LT;Mills NT;de Zubicaray GI;McMahon KL;Medland SE;Martin NG;Gillespie NA;Wright MJ;Hall GB;MacQueen GM;Frey EM;Carballedo A;van Velzen LS;van Tol MJ;van der Wee NJ;Veer IM;Walter H;Schnell K;Schramm E;Normann C;Schoepf D;Konrad C;Zurowski B;Nickson T;McIntosh AM;Papmeyer M;Whalley HC;Sussmann JE;Godlewska BR;Cowen PJ;Fischer FH;Rose M;Penninx BW;Thompson PM;Hibar DP
通讯作者：
Hibar DP