Objective: To examine the efficacy of dynamic cognitive treatment in rehabilitation of schizophrenic clients.
Subjects: Fifty-eight schizophrenic clients that were matched equally into two groups: a study group (n = 29) (treated by Instrumental Enrichment) and a control group (treated with traditional occupational therapy methods).
Setting: The subjects were treated in a day rehabilitation centre in the community.
Study design: The programme lasted one year, the same schedule was provided for both groups. Subjects were randomly assigned and assessed before and after intervention with the same battery and at a follow-up six months later, work and residence status were evaluated.
Main outcome measures: Instruments included: (1) memory and thought processes, measured by a battery of structured tests from the Learning Potential Assessment Device (LPAD), Raven Progressive Matrices and General Aptitude Test Battery (GATB); (2) functional outcomes, instrumental activities of daily living (IADL), measured by a questionnaire; work and residence status; (3) self-concept measured with Fitts questionnaire.
Results: Results showed significant differences between the groups on almost all the cognitive tests (MANOVA revealed significant differences between the two groups for both memory and thought process (F(2.52) = 13.75, p < 0.001; and F(1.46) = 7.28, p < 0.001, respectively) as well as in work (χ2 = 14.30, p < 0.001), and residence (χ2 = 3.86, p < 0.05) status. There were no significant differences in IADL questionnaire or the self-concept scale.
Conclusions: The successful outcome points to the importance of including long-term cognitive intervention in rehabilitation of schizophrenic clients. This work suggests that the classic view of schizophrenia as a progressive irreversible decline that cannot be altered may be wrong.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Green MF, Kern RS, Braff DL, Mintz J. Neurocognitive deficits and functional outcome in schizophrenia: are we measuring the ‘right stuff’?Schizophr Bull2000; 26: 119–136.
2.
Spaulding WD, Fleming SK, Reed D, Sullivan M, Storzbach D, Lam M. Cognitive functioning in schizophrenia: implication for psychiatric rehabilitation. Schizophr Bull1999; 25: 275–290.
3.
Hogarty GE, Flesher S. Development theory for a cognitive enhancement therapy for schizophrenia. Schizophr Bull1999; 25: 677–692.
4.
Hogarty GE, Flesher S. Practice principles of cognitive enhancement therapy. Schizophr Bull1999; 25:693–708.
5.
Bellack AS, Gold JM, Buchanan RW. Cognitive rehabilitation for schizophrenia: problems, prospects and strategies. Schizophr Bull1999; 25: 257–274.
6.
Feuerstein R, Rand Y, Hoffman MB. The dynamic assessment of retard performance, the learning potential assessment device. Theory instruments and techniques. Baltimore: University Park Press, 1979.
7.
Feuerstein R, Rand Y, Hoffman MB, Miller R. Instrumental enrichment. An intervention program for cognitive modifiability. Baltimore: University Park Press, 1980.
8.
Hayes RL, McGrath JJ. Review: cognitive rehabilitation for people with schizophrenia and related conditions. Cochrane Library, 2000.
9.
Hayes RL, McGrath JJ. Cognitive rehabilitation for people with schizophrenia and related conditions: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Schizophr Res2000; 41: 221–222.
10.
Medalia A, Aluma M, Tryon W, Merriam AF. Effectiveness of attention training in schizophrenia. Schizophr Bull1998; 24: 147–152.
11.
Tompkins LM, Goldman RS, Axelrod BN. Modifiability of neuropsychological dysfunction in schizophrenia. Biol Psychiatry1995; 38: 105–111.
12.
Wykes T, Reeder C, Corner J, Williams C, Everitt B. The effects of neurocognitive remediation on executive processing in patients with schizophrenia. Schizophr Bull1999; 25: 292–307.
13.
Spaulding WD, Reed D, Sullivan M, Richardson C, Weiler M. Effects of cognitive treatment in psychiatric rehabilitation. Schizophr Bull1999; 25: 657–676.
14.
Hadas-Lidor N. Feuerstein's theory of cognitive modifiability and its applications to occupational therapy. Isr J Occup Ther1996; 5: 1–11.
15.
Oltmanns TF, Neale JM. Schizophrenic performance when distractors are present: attentional deficit or differential task difficulty?J Abnorm Psychol1975; 84: 205–209.
16.
Cornblatt B, Lenzenweger MF, Erlenmeyer-Kimling L. The continuous performance test, identical pairs version: II. Contrasting attentional profiles in schizophrenic and depressed patients. Psychiatry Res1989; 29: 65–85.
17.
Saykin AJ, Gur RC, Gur RE et al. Neuropsychological function in schizophrenia. Arch Gen Psychiatry1991; 48: 618–624.
18.
Kay SR. Conceptual disorder in schizophrenia as a function of encoding orientation. J Nerv Ment Dis1987; 170: 154–163.
19.
Gur RE, Resnick SM, Alavi A et al. Regional brain function in schizophrenia: I. A positron emission tomography study. Arch Gen Psychiatry1987; 44: 119–125.
20.
Suddath RL, Casanova MF, Goldderg TE, Daniel DG, Kelsoe JR, Weinberger DR. Temporal lobe pathology in schizophrenia: a quantitative magnetic resonance imaging study. Am J Psychiatry1989; 146: 464–472.
21.
Kern RS, Green MF. Cognitive prerequisites of skill acquisition in schizophrenia: bridging micro and macro-levels of processing. In: Spaulding WD ed. Cognitive technology in psychiatric rehabilitation. Nebraska: University of Nebraska Press, 1994: 49–67.
22.
Feuerstein R, Klein PS, Tannenbaum AJ. Mediated Learning Experience (MLE): theoretical psychosocial and learning implication. London: Freund Publishing House, 1991.
23.
Hadas-Lidor N, Katz N. Dynamic model for cognitive modifiability: application in occupational therapy. In: Katz N ed. Cognition and occupation in rehabilitation: cognitive models for intervention in occupational therapy. Bethesda, MD: The American Occupational Therapy Association, 1998: 281–304.
24.
Lidz CS. Dynamic assessment. London: The Guildford Press, 1987.
25.
American Psychiatric Association. Diagnostic and statistical manual of mentally disordered, fourth edition – revised. Washington DC: American Psychiatric Association, 1994.
26.
Lezak M. Neuropsychological assessment, third edition. New York: Oxford University Press, 1995.
27.
Raven J. The progressive matrices and Mill Hill vocabulary scale in western societies. In: Irvine SH, Berry JW eds. Human assessment and cultural factors. New York: Plenum Press, 1983.
28.
Raven J, Court JH. Manual for Raven's progressive matrices and vocabulary scales. London: HK Lewis, 1985.
29.
General Aptitude Test Battery (GATB): manual for the uses. Washington, DC: US Department of Labor, 1970.
30.
Yaacobi Vakrat R, Katz N, Hoffien D. Implications of traumatic brain injury on the level of activity of daily living: a retrospective follow-up study. Isr J Occup Ther1999; 8: E3–E21.
31.
Fitts WH. Tennessee (Department of Health) Self-Concept Scale (Manual). Nashville, Tennessee: Counselor Recordings and Tests, 1965 (Hebrew edition, 1970).
32.
Matan A, Hadas-Lidor N. Group therapy using instrumental enrichment with clients suffering from schizophrenia. Isr J Occup Ther1996; 5: 12–28.
33.
Goldberg JO. Cognitive retraining in a community psychiatric rehabilitation program. In: Spaulding WD ed. Cognitive technology in psychiatric rehabilitation. Nebraska: University of Nebraska Press, 1994: 67–87.
34.
Fisher AG. Assessment of motor and process scales (AMPS), second edition. Fort Collins, CO: Three Star Press, 1997.
