Revisiting the validity of measures of social cognitive bias in schizophrenia: Additional results from the Social Cognition Psychometric Evaluation (SCOPE) study

Objective The ongoing Social Cognition Psychometric Evaluation (SCOPE) study is in the process of forming a gold‐standard battery of social cognition tests for use in clinical trials. Previous SCOPE phases have not acknowledged key differences between social cognition skills and biases, and psychome...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:British journal of clinical psychology 2016-11, Vol.55 (4), p.441-454
Main Authors: Buck, Benjamin E., Pinkham, Amy E., Harvey, Philip D., Penn, David L.
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Adolescent
Adult
Ambiguity
Attribution
attributional bias
Bias
Blame
Clinical research
Clinical trials
Cognition & reasoning
Cognition Disorders - etiology
Cognition Disorders - psychology
Cognitive ability
Cognitive bias
Cognitive skills
Credibility
Discomfort
Emotions
Female
Hostility
Humans
Interpersonal conflict
Interpersonal Relations
Male
Middle Aged
Paranoia
Paranoid Disorders - psychology
Prospective Studies
Psychiatric Status Rating Scales - standards
Psychometrics - statistics & numerical data
Quantitative psychology
Questionnaires
Schizophrenia
Schizophrenia - diagnosis
Schizophrenic Psychology
Social Behavior
Social cognition
Social cognitive skills
Social Perception
Social skills
Surveys and Questionnaires
Trust
trustworthiness
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Objective The ongoing Social Cognition Psychometric Evaluation (SCOPE) study is in the process of forming a gold‐standard battery of social cognition tests for use in clinical trials. Previous SCOPE phases have not acknowledged key differences between social cognition skills and biases, and psychometric validity analyses might provide important information if tailored to bias‐related outcomes. This study aims to validate these measures with such bias‐related outcomes. Methods Two measures of social cognitive bias – the Ambiguous Intention Hostility Questionnaire (AIHQ; hostile attribution bias) and Trustworthiness Task (distrust bias) – were reviewed according to their relationships to (1) current and prospective symptom levels, (2) questionnaires of trait paranoia and hostility and informant‐rated hostility, (3) interpersonal conflict, as well as (4) relationships to measures of trait paranoia, hostility, and interpersonal conflict above and beyond the influence of clinically rated symptoms. Results Results supported hypotheses that social cognitive bias provides information about cognition, symptoms, and functioning related to interpersonal conflict. Each bias demonstrated relationships to trait paranoia questionnaires, hostility, or interpersonal conflict outcomes, and these persisted above and beyond the influence of clinically rated symptoms. Hostile attribution bias also predicted change in symptom levels over a brief interval. Conclusions Overall, the current bias‐specific psychometric analysis provides support for continued study of social cognitive biases. Practitioner points Hostile attribution bias may play a role in important outcome variables given relationships to emotional discomfort and suspiciousness symptoms, trait paranoia and hostility, interpersonal conflict, as well as prospective hostility symptoms. Distrust bias may also impact real‐world functioning, as it is related to hostility, suspiciousness, and positive symptoms, trait paranoia, and hostility. Relationships of social cognitive biases to interpersonal conflict outcomes exist independently of interview‐rated symptoms and persist above and beyond the influence of social cognitive skills, which appear to demonstrate weaker relationships to these outcomes. Understanding and assessing the individual's biases towards distrust or blame might help practioners predict interpersonal conflict and future increases in symptoms.
ISSN:0144-6657
2044-8260
DOI:10.1111/bjc.12113