Daily Functioning and Information-Processing Skills Among Persons With Schizophrenia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to describe the limitations in information-processing skills observed among persons with schizophrenia performing daily tasks and to explore whether subgroups of participants have similar profiles based on these functional limitations. METHODS: Eighty-two participants with schizophrenia living in the community were assessed during their performance of a daily activity (meal preparation). Measures included a performance-based assessment for evaluating information-processing skills-the Perceive, Recall, Plan, and Perform System of Task Analysis-community functioning and symptom assessments, and neuropsychological tests from the Cambridge Neuropsychological Test Automated Battery. Research participants were classified as having high efficiency or low efficiency according to their score on the performance-based assessment and were compared on the functional, cognitive, and symptoms variables. RESULTS: Participants committed various errors, and functional limitations, namely problematic information-processing skills in the perceive, recall, and plan quadrants, were observed during the daily task performance. Participants from the high-efficiency group were more independent in their living skills and more successful in attaining residential independence compared with participants from the low-efficiency group. The only cognitive test that differentiated both groups was the visuospatial associative learning test. No differences were found in the severity of symptoms. CONCLUSIONS: Findings suggest that both performance in a daily task and memory-and specifically associative learning capacity-provide key information for the level of residential independence. Interventions aiming for the efficient use of information-processing skills during daily tasks among persons with schizophrenia should be carried out accordingly.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".