A comparative study of the MATRICS and IntegNeuro cognitive assessment batteries

Abstract

Cognitive impairment is prevalent in schizophrenia and is related to poorer functional and treatment outcomes. Cognitive assessment is therefore now a routine component of clinical trials of new treatments for schizophrenia. The current gold-standard for cognitive assessment in clinical trials for schizophrenia is the MATRICS (Measurement and Treatment Research to Improve Cognition in Schizophrenia) Consensus Cognitive Battery (MCCB), which was developed based on expert consensus and incorporates paper-and-pencil tests (and one computerized measure) with an established history in the field of neuropsychology. Recently, however, interest has increased in using computerized batteries for clinical trials. In this study, we tested 155 people with schizophrenia and 75 healthy control participants on both the MCCB and IntegNeuro, a touch-screen-based computerized battery with previously demonstrated high levels of reliability and validity, to determine comparability between test scores. In addition, we assessed test–retest reliability and practice effects over a one-month interval for both batteries and determined correlations between cognitive test scores and scores on functional outcome measures. High levels of agreement were observed between total battery composite scores (r > .80) and, in a canonical correlation analysis, between all critical single test scores from each battery (r _c > .90). The batteries demonstrated essentially equivalent sensitivity in discriminating between patients and controls and equivalent levels of test–retest reliability and practice effects. Correlations between cognitive test scores and functional outcome measures were equivalent between the two batteries and low in nearly all cases. The number of missing data points was greater with IntegNeuro, highlighting the requirements for test administrator involvement even with computerized batteries.

Keywords:

• Schizophrenia
• Cognition
• Assessment
• Computers
• Psychometric properties

This work was supported by a grant to the first author from AstraZeneca. The following authors conceived and designed the study described in this paper: Steven M. Silverstein, Judith Jaeger, Stephen Zukin, Stephen Furlong, and Gersham Dent. The following authors facilitated data management and data sharing for this study: Igor Malinovsky, Danielle Hawthorne, and Sarah Carson. The following authors served as site principal investigators and coordinated staff training and data collection at their sites: Sandra M. Wilkniss, Adam Savitz, and Anne-Marie Donovan-Lepore. Stephanie Marcello assisted with research assistant training, participant recruitment, and data collection. Shane Raines analyzed the data for this study. S. M. Silverstein served as a paid consultant for the Brain Resource Company on several occasions prior to the initiation of this study. He currently receives funding from the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) and AstraZeneca. A. Savitz receives funding from the Stanley Medical Research Institute. S. M. Wilkniss receives funding from NIMH. J. Jaeger, S. Raines, S. R. Zukin, S. Furlong, and G. Dent are employees of AstraZeneca and report no conflicts of interest. A.-M. Donovan-Lepore, S. Marcello, I. Malinovsky, D. Hawthorne, and S. Carson report no biomedical financial interests or conflicts of interest.