↓ Skip to main content

Reliability, validity and treatment sensitivity of the Schizophrenia Cognition Rating Scale

Overview of attention for article published in European Neuropsychopharmacology, June 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (68th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (78th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
facebook
1 Facebook page
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Readers on

mendeley
124 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Article details
Title
Reliability, validity and treatment sensitivity of the Schizophrenia Cognition Rating Scale
Published in
European Neuropsychopharmacology, June 2014
DOI 10.1016/j.euroneuro.2014.06.009
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

Cognitive functioning can be assessed with performance-based assessments such as neuropsychological tests and with interview-based assessments. Both assessment methods have the potential to assess whether treatments for schizophrenia improve clinically relevant aspects of cognitive impairment. However, little is known about the reliability, validity and treatment responsiveness of interview-based measures, especially in the context of clinical trials. Data from two studies were utilized to assess these features of the Schizophrenia Cognition Rating Scale (SCoRS). One of the studies was a validation study involving 79 patients with schizophrenia assessed at 3 academic research centers in the US. The other study was a 32-site clinical trial conducted in the US and Europe comparing the effects of encenicline, an alpha-7 nicotine agonist, to placebo in 319 patients with schizophrenia. The SCoRS interviewer ratings demonstrated excellent test-retest reliability in several different circumstances, including those that did not involve treatment (ICC> 0.90), and during treatment (ICC>0.80). SCoRS interviewer ratings were related to cognitive performance as measured by the MCCB (r=-0.35), and demonstrated significant sensitivity to treatment with encenicline compared to placebo (P<.001). These data suggest that the SCoRS has potential as a clinically relevant measure in clinical trials aiming to improve cognition in schizophrenia, and may be useful for clinical practice. The weaknesses of the SCoRS include its reliance on informant information, which is not available for some patients, and reduced validity when patient׳s self-report is the sole information source.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
Activity
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 124 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Login to view Mendeley reader trends over time.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
Unknown 124 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 13 10%
Other 11 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 9%
Student > Master 11 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 10 8%
Other 27 22%
Unknown 41 33%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 27 22%
Medicine and Dentistry 19 15%
Neuroscience 10 8%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 3%
Other 10 8%
Unknown 50 40%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 29 January 2024.
All research outputs
#7,960,052
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from European Neuropsychopharmacology
#775
of 2,571 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#72,486
of 242,653 outputs
Outputs of similar age from European Neuropsychopharmacology
#9
of 41 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 67th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,571 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 69% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 242,653 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 41 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its contemporaries.