...
首页> 外文期刊>Schizophrenia bulletin >Has the generalized deficit become the generalized criticism?
【24h】

Has the generalized deficit become the generalized criticism?

机译:普遍赤字是否已成为普遍批评?

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

The generalized cognitive deficit problem refers to a situation in which a generalized deficit gives the false appearance of a specific deficit due to the psychometric properties of tests, and it is an important methodological consideration in schizophrenia research. However, it also generates considerable confusion and is often used indiscriminately as a scientific criticism, even in situations to which it does not apply. Further, the generalized deficit problem creates few concerns in interpretation for many central questions in contemporary schizophrenia research. The research literature has shifted away from the traditional goal of identifying generalized vs differential deficits, and the field now demonstrates (1) increased recognition that a generalized deficit, broadly defined, probably does not exist in schizophrenia, (2) increased emphasis on explaining both shared and unique variance across measures to understand the mechanisms through which cognition relates to external variables (eg, functional outcome), and (3) increased use of neuroscientific methods to explore cognition in schizophrenia in which the structure and richness of data can be used to minimize misinterpretation of the sort that can occur when using only behavioral measures. Clearly, consideration of the generalized deficit still remains essential in certain experimental contexts, but criticisms based on this concern are unwarranted in many other situations in schizophrenia research. This commentary is intended to help clarify the distinctions between these 2 situations so that concerns will be expressed in a more selective, less reflexive, manner.
机译:广义认知缺陷问题是指由于测试的心理计量学特性导致广义缺陷导致特定缺陷的假象的情况,这是精神分裂症研究中的重要方法论考虑。但是,它也引起了极大的混乱,即使在不适用的情况下也经常被无视地用作科学批评。此外,广义缺陷问题在当代精神分裂症研究中对许多核心问题的解释中几乎没有引起关注。研究文献已经偏离了识别广义缺陷与差异性缺陷的传统目标,该领域现在表明(1)越来越多的人认识到精神分裂症中可能不存在广义定义的广义缺陷,(2)越来越强调对两者进行解释跨度量的共享和独特方差,以了解认知与外部变量(例如功能结果)相关的机制,以及(3)越来越多地使用神经科学方法来探索精神分裂症的认知,在认知中,数据的结构和丰富程度可用于仅使用行为措施时,尽量减少对类型的误解。显然,在某些实验情况下,对普遍性赤字的考虑仍然很重要,但是在精神分裂症研究的许多其他情况下,基于这种担忧的批评是没有根据的。这篇评论旨在帮助澄清这两种情况之间的区别,以便以更加选择性,较少反思的方式表达关注。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号