Evidence for two distinct domains of negative symptoms: Confirming the factorial structure of the CAINS.

Negative symptoms are an important predictor of course of illness as well as social and occupational functioning. Clinically effective interventions are scarce. For negative symptoms to become a reliable primary endpoint in treatment studies, clear operationalization and construct validation is needed. Recent factor analyses mostly find two main factors for negative symptoms: diminished expression und amotivation/anhedonia. The Clinical Assessment Interview for Negative Symptoms (CAINS) consists of the subscales "motivation and pleasure" and "expression". We assessed three samples of subjects with schizophrenia (n = 105) for different aspects of the scale's reliability and validity. A confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) of the CAINS confirmed its two-factorial structure. The subscales had distinct correlational profiles: "Motivation and pleasure" was strongly associated with functional outcome and depression and further with neurocognition, positive symptoms and social cognition. "Expression" seems independent of sources of secondary negative symptoms and neurocognition. We found good internal consistency and interrater agreement. Test-retest reliability (two-week interval) was moderate for the CAINS and its "expression" subscale and low for the "motivation and pleasure" subscale. Our findings indicate that the CAINS differentiates reliably between the two main domains of negative symptoms with some questions remaining concerning the validity of the "motivation and pleasure" subscale.

Self-assessment of negative symptoms - Critical appraisal of the motivation and pleasure - Self-report's (MAP-SR) validity and reliability.

OBJECTIVE: The negative symptom domain remains a major challenge concerning treatment. A valid self-report measure could assist clinicians and researchers in identifying patients with a relevant subjective burden. The Motivation and Pleasure - Self Report (MAP-SR) derives from the CAINS and is supposed to reflect the "amotivation" factor of negative symptoms. We evaluated different aspects of the scale's reliability and validity. This is the first factorial analysis as well as the first analysis of test-retest reliability. METHODS: We assessed three samples of subjects with schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder (n = 93) and a broad spectrum of related domains. RESULTS: We explored a 3-, 2- and 1-factor solution (explaining 50.93, 44.85 and 36.18% of variance, respectively). The factor "pleasure and hedonic activity" consists of eight items and was most robust; the factors "social motivation" and "motivation for work" were problematic. Test-retest reliability of the scale was adequate (rS = 0.63, p = .005). Neither the MAP-SR nor the "pleasure and hedonic activities" factor are associated with the PANSS negative symptom scale. There are significant associations with the observer-rated CAINS-MAP scale, experiences of pleasure, and social cognition but none with functional outcome. Discriminant validity could not be established with regards to depression and extrapyramidal symptoms. CONCLUSIONS: We found that the MAP-SR is adequate to assess anhedonia but is less suitable when assessing motivation. Therefore, we propose using the "pleasure and hedonic activity scale" to cover the "anhedonia" subdomain. We think the "motivation" part of the instrument requires reconstruction.

Have a look around: the effect of physical environments on risk behaviour in work-related versus non-work related decision-making tasks.

Due to ubiquitous computing, knowledge workers do not only work in typical work-associated environments (e.g. the office) but also wherever it best suits their schedule or preferences (e.g. the park). In two experiments using laboratory and field methods, we compared decision making in work and non-work environments. We hypothesised that participants make riskier work-related decisions when in work-associated environments and riskier non-work-related decisions in non-work-associated environments. Therefore, if environment (work vs. non-work) and decision-making task (work-related vs. non-work-related) are incongruent, then risk-taking should be lower, as the decision maker might feel the situation is unusual or inappropriate. Although results do not reveal that work-associated environments generally encourage riskier work-related decisions (and likewise for non-work), we found environmental effects on decision making when including mood as a moderator. Practitioner summary: Mobile workers are required to make decisions in various environments. We assumed that decisions are more risky when they are made in a fitting environment (e.g. work-related decisions in work environments). Results of the two experiments (laboratory and field) only show an environmental effect when mood is included as a moderator.

Ubiquitous Working: Do Work Versus Non-work Environments Affect Decision-Making and Concentration?

New communication technologies and mobile devices have enabled knowledge workers to work independently of location and in more than one fixed environment (ubiquitous working). Previous research shows that physical environments can influence cognition and work performance. We manipulated environment (i.e., a virtual office as a typical work environment compared to a virtual garden as a non-work environment) and time pressure (i.e., inducing time pressure vs. no time pressure) in order to investigate whether the environment influences decision-making and concentration. N = 109 students participated in this laboratory experiment. We posited (a) that a work environment would activate a work-related schema which in turn would enhance concentration performance and make decisions more risky compared to non-work environments and (b) that the environmental effect is more pronounced if time pressure is present compared to conditions where no time pressure is present. We found modest hypothesis-confirming main effects of environment on decision-making and concentration but no interaction effect with time pressure. As we used an innovative methodology that entails several limitations, future research is needed to give insights into the process and to investigate whether results hold true for all types of work settings, work demands, or work activities.