A psychometric analysis of 2 interview-based measures of cognitive deficits was conducted: the 21-item Clinical Global Impression of Cognition in Schizophrenia (CGI-CogS; Ventura et al., 2008), and the 20-item Schizophrenia Cognition Rating Scale (SCoRS; Keefe et al., 2006), which were administered on 2 occasions to a sample of people with schizophrenia. Traditional psychometrics, bifactor analysis, and item response theory methods were used to explore item functioning and dimensionality and to compare instruments. Despite containing similar item content, responses to the CGI-CogS demonstrated superior psychometric properties (e.g., higher item intercorrelations, better spread of ratings across response categories) relative to the SCoRS. The authors argue that these differences arise mainly from the differential use of prompts and how the items are phrased and scored. Bifactor analysis demonstrated that although both measures capture a broad range of cognitive functioning (e.g., working memory, social cognition), the common variance on each is overwhelmingly explained by a single general factor. Item response theory analyses of the combined pool of 41 items showed that measurement precision is peaked in the mild to moderate range of cognitive impairment. Finally, simulated adaptive testing revealed that only about 10 to 12 items are necessary to achieve latent trait level estimates with reasonably small standard errors for most individuals. This suggests that these interview-based measures of cognitive deficits could be shortened without loss of measurement precision.
Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 57 citations exist upstream.
Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.