MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2336498223 · doi:10.1037/prj0000189

Action-based cognitive remediation for individuals with serious mental illnesses: Effects of real-world simulations and goal setting on functional and vocational outcomes.

2016· article· en· W2336498223 on OpenAlex
Christopher R. Bowie, Michael Grossman, Maya Gupta, Katherine Holshausen, Michael W. Best

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenuePsychiatric Rehabilitation Journal · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSchizophrenia research and treatment
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyCognitive remediation therapyNeurocognitiveCognitionClinical psychologyPsychological interventionCognitive skillCompetence (human resources)Developmental psychologyPsychiatrySocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: Cognitive remediation programs often have larger effects on cognition compared with everyday outcomes. We compared changes across cognitive, functional competence, and vocational domains in 2 cognitive remediation programs. METHOD: A sequential enrollment, nonrandom design with 50 individuals with serious mental illnesses (psychotic and mood disorders) from a community vocational rehabilitation program. Action-Based Cognitive Remediation (ABCR), a new program that combines traditional cognitive training techniques with simulated workplace situations and goal setting for engaging with cognitively demanding activities (N = 24; 19 completers) was compared with traditional cognitive remediation (tCR; N = 26; 15 completers). Both groups met twice-weekly for 2-hr sessions over 10 weeks. Repeated measures analysis of variance was used to examine effects pre- and posttreatment and 10 weeks after treatment. Univariate analysis of variance and chi-square tests were used to compare work outcomes 6 months after intervention. RESULTS: Significantly more ABCR participants (83%) were retained in the intervention compared with tCR (57%) and reported greater increases in perceived competence with cognitively challenging tasks (η2 = .23). ABCR effects were significantly larger than tCR on functional competence (η2 = .53), with smaller, nonsignificant differences in social cognition (η2 = .14) and neurocognition (η 2 = .16). ABCR participants were marginally more likely to be competitively employed (68.4% vs. 40%) and, among those employed, ABCR participants experienced less job-related stress (η2 = .37). CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Cognitive rehabilitative programs for serious mental illness that rely on computer-based training for neuroplasticity should ensure opportunities for active skill development and therapist-supported techniques to overcome challenges with generalizing cognitive effects to everyday outcomes. (PsycINFO Database Record

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.041
Threshold uncertainty score0.346

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.012
GPT teacher head0.323
Teacher spread0.310 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it