Neurocognitive Predictors of Confabulation in Schizophrenia: A Systematic and Quantitative Review

K. Grimes, K. Zakzanis
{"title":"Neurocognitive Predictors of Confabulation in Schizophrenia: A Systematic and Quantitative Review","authors":"K. Grimes, K. Zakzanis","doi":"10.15173/IJRR.V1I2.3492","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Confabulations, or false memories, are observed in various disorders, including schizophrenia. In forensic psychiatric assessment, this is problematic, particularly when garnering a clinical history and detailed account of the index offense(s) from the individual being charged. This study sought to quantitatively synthesize the existing literature regarding the frequency of confabulations in schizophrenia and its neurocognitive correlates. The keywords “schizophrenia” and “psychosis” were systematically canvassed in combination with “confabulation,” “false memory,” and “false memories” on PsycINFO, PubMed, and Scopus. Inclusion criteria included the following: (1) Participant samples that included the patients with schizophrenia and healthy controls; (2) commercially available neuropsychological test measures were employed (i.e., no experimental paradigms were considered); (3) quantitative data (i.e., means and standard deviations) was available so that an effect size could be computed; (4) published findings in peer-reviewed academic journals and written in English. Studies examining high-risk or first-episode psychosis groups were excluded. Five studies were included in the final analysis. Effect sizes in terms of Cohen’s d were calculated for number of confabulations made. When available, the correlations between confabulation and neurocognitive variables were recorded. The findings suggest that patients with schizophrenia confabulated more than healthy controls for new information if it was related to old information. The relationship between confabulations and neurocognitive variables was inconsistent. Together, the results from this quantitative review has important implications for interviewing techniques in forensic psychiatric assessment. Specifically, the assessor should take great care not to ask leading questions or introduce unverified, contextual information into the interview, as it may result in a confabulation, rather than a more accurate account of the event.","PeriodicalId":181328,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Risk and Recovery","volume":"116 34","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-06-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Risk and Recovery","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.15173/IJRR.V1I2.3492","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

Confabulations, or false memories, are observed in various disorders, including schizophrenia. In forensic psychiatric assessment, this is problematic, particularly when garnering a clinical history and detailed account of the index offense(s) from the individual being charged. This study sought to quantitatively synthesize the existing literature regarding the frequency of confabulations in schizophrenia and its neurocognitive correlates. The keywords “schizophrenia” and “psychosis” were systematically canvassed in combination with “confabulation,” “false memory,” and “false memories” on PsycINFO, PubMed, and Scopus. Inclusion criteria included the following: (1) Participant samples that included the patients with schizophrenia and healthy controls; (2) commercially available neuropsychological test measures were employed (i.e., no experimental paradigms were considered); (3) quantitative data (i.e., means and standard deviations) was available so that an effect size could be computed; (4) published findings in peer-reviewed academic journals and written in English. Studies examining high-risk or first-episode psychosis groups were excluded. Five studies were included in the final analysis. Effect sizes in terms of Cohen’s d were calculated for number of confabulations made. When available, the correlations between confabulation and neurocognitive variables were recorded. The findings suggest that patients with schizophrenia confabulated more than healthy controls for new information if it was related to old information. The relationship between confabulations and neurocognitive variables was inconsistent. Together, the results from this quantitative review has important implications for interviewing techniques in forensic psychiatric assessment. Specifically, the assessor should take great care not to ask leading questions or introduce unverified, contextual information into the interview, as it may result in a confabulation, rather than a more accurate account of the event.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
精神分裂症虚构的神经认知预测因素:系统和定量的回顾
虚构,或错误记忆,在包括精神分裂症在内的各种疾病中都可以观察到。在法医精神病学评估中,这是有问题的,特别是当从被指控的个人那里获得临床病史和对主要罪行的详细描述时。本研究试图定量综合现有文献关于精神分裂症的虚构频率及其神经认知相关。在PsycINFO、PubMed和Scopus上,我们将关键词“精神分裂症”和“精神病”与“虚构”、“错误记忆”和“错误记忆”结合起来进行了系统的调查。纳入标准包括:(1)参与者样本包括精神分裂症患者和健康对照;(2)采用市售的神经心理学测试方法(即不考虑实验范式);(3)可获得定量数据(即均值和标准差),以便计算效应量;(4)在同行评议的学术期刊上以英文发表研究成果。排除高危或首发精神病人群的研究。五项研究被纳入最终分析。以Cohen’s d表示的效应大小是根据虚构的数量计算的。在可用的情况下,虚构和神经认知变量之间的相关性被记录下来。研究结果表明,如果新信息与旧信息有关,精神分裂症患者比健康对照组更容易虚构新信息。虚构与神经认知变量之间的关系不一致。总之,从这个定量审查的结果有重要的意义,面谈技术在法医精神病学评估。具体来说,评估员应该非常小心,不要问引导性问题或在面试中引入未经证实的背景信息,因为这可能会导致虚构,而不是对事件的更准确的描述。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Violence risk assessment of older adults. The psychiatric aspects of terrorism: Prevention and rehabilitation. Impacts of implementing a forensic treatment mall: A program evaluation A conceptual framework for the management of a COVID-19 outbreak on a secure forensic Inpatient unit. Convergent, discriminant and predictive validity of two instruments to assess recidivism risk among released individuals who have sexually offended: The SORAG and the VRAG-R.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1