Similarly socio behavioral abilities as measured by the NOSIE 30 were also not

Similarly socio behavioral abilities as measured by

This preview shows page 2 - 5 out of 5 pages.

FAS and WISC mazes, were not found to be a significant predictor in the overall model. Similarly, socio- behavioral abilities as measured by the NOSIE-30 were also not found to be significant. From this study, overall cognitive functioning appears to be contributing to 15.2 % of the variance found in performance on the Hinting Task. Table 1. Demographics and Symptomatology of Participants Mean (SD) N = 42 Years of Education 12.95 (2.14) Number of Previous Hospitalizations 7.00 (4.78) Age of Onset 22.98 (9.02) BPRS Total Score 43.22 (7.76) Table 2. Distribution of the Criterion Variable Hinting Task Time 1 20.0 18.0 16.0 14.0 12.0 10.0 8.0 Hinting Task Time 1 Frequency 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 Std. Dev =2.83 Mean =14.6 N =42.00
Image of page 2
Table 3. Neurocognitive, social cognitive and social behavioral correlates of performance on Hinting Task Measure Mean (SD) Hinting Task Neurocognitive measures RBANS List Learning 22.36 (6.40) Pearson correlation .285 Sig. (2-tailed) .067 RBANS Story Memory 13.29 (4.35) Pearson correlation .358* Sig. (2-tailed) .020 RBANS Immediate Memory 74.83 (18.10) Pearson correlation .355* Sig. (2-tailed) .021 RBANS Figure Copy 15.17 (3.72) Pearson correlation .120 Sig. (2-tailed) .449 RBANS Line Orientation 14.95 (4.45) Pearson correlation .076 Sig. (2-tailed) .632 RBANS Visuospatial/Construction 79.95 (19.47) Pearson correlation .317 Sig. (2-tailed) .041 RBANS Picture Naming 9.50 (.741) Pearson correlation .279 Sig. (2-tailed) .073 RBANS Fluency 17.17 (4.73) Pearson correlation .217 Sig. (2-tailed) .168 RBANS Language 87.36 (14.85) Pearson correlation .370* Sig. (2-tailed) .016 RBANS Digit Span 9.21 (2.51) Pearson correlation .262 Sig. (2-tailed) .093 RBANS Coding 35.95 (10.47) Pearson correlation .052 Sig. (2-tailed) .743 RBANS Attention 72.95 (17.36) Pearson correlation .327* Sig. (2-tailed) .035 RBANS List Recall 4.57 (2.63) Pearson correlation .171 Sig. (2-tailed) .280 RBANS List Recognition 18.19 (2.60) Pearson correlation .087 Sig. (2-tailed) .586 RBANS Story Recall 7.45 (2.92) Pearson correlation .368* Sig. (2-tailed) .017 RBANS Figure Recall 10.60 (4.62) Pearson correlation .255 Sig. (2-tailed) .103 RBANS Delayed Memory 78.43 (21.16) Pearson correlation .271 Sig. (2-tailed) .082 FAS 28.76 (11.13) Pearson correlation .199 Sig. (2-tailed) .206 WISC Mazes 17.76 (5.94) Pearson correlation .079 Sig. (2-tailed) .621 Social Cognitive Measures FKK Internal 34.05 (6.56) Pearson correlation .056 Sig. (2-tailed) .723 FKK Self-Concept 33.74 (5.11) Pearson correlation .096 Sig. (2-tailed) .546 FKK Self Efficacy 67.79 (9.89) Pearson correlation .087 (Internality + Self-Concept) Sig. (2-tailed) .584 FKK Powerful Others 25.60 (7.62) Pearson correlation -.035 Sig. (2-tailed) .828 FKK Chance 23.33 (7.04) Pearson correlation -.147 Sig. (2-tailed) .354 FKK Externality 48.93 (12.96) Pearson correlation -.100 (Powerful Others + Chance) Sig. (2-tailed) .529 Social Behavioral Measures NOSIE Daily Schedule 36.03 (2.96) Pearson correlation .194 Sig. (2-tailed) .219 NOSIE Social Interest 18.22 (6.41) Pearson correlation -.035 Sig. (2-tailed) .827 NOSIE Neatness 25.81 (3.82) Pearson correlation .237 Sig. (2-tailed) .130 NOSIE Irritability 2.70 (3.78) Pearson correlation .017 Sig. (2-tailed) .914 NOSIE Psychoticism .93 (2.26) Pearson correlation -.056 Sig. (2-tailed) .724 NOSIE Motor Retardation 4.47 (2.81) Pearson correlation -.146 Sig. (2-tailed) -.357
Image of page 3
Table 4. Multiple regression model for neurocognitive factors and performance on Hinting Task R 2 df B p Overall Model .152 1, 41 NA .011 Constant -- -- RBANS Total .390 .011 Discussion These results indicate that overall neurocognitive functioning accounts for a portion of the variance in social cognition and social inference as measured by performance on the Hinting Task. Functioning in specific neurocognitive domains such as immediate and delayed memory, attention, visuospatial abilities, language and executive functioning were not found to significantly contribute to the overall model. The fact that a specific neurocognitive ability was unable to be specified may point towards underlying latent factors that possibly exist that as of yet, neurocognitive assessments have been unable to identify—more specifically, those related to social inference and social cognitive abilities.
Image of page 4
Image of page 5

You've reached the end of your free preview.

Want to read all 5 pages?

  • Spring '14
  • Psychology, Sig., RBANS, Social Cognitive Ability

What students are saying

  • Left Quote Icon

    As a current student on this bumpy collegiate pathway, I stumbled upon Course Hero, where I can find study resources for nearly all my courses, get online help from tutors 24/7, and even share my old projects, papers, and lecture notes with other students.

    Student Picture

    Kiran Temple University Fox School of Business ‘17, Course Hero Intern

  • Left Quote Icon

    I cannot even describe how much Course Hero helped me this summer. It’s truly become something I can always rely on and help me. In the end, I was not only able to survive summer classes, but I was able to thrive thanks to Course Hero.

    Student Picture

    Dana University of Pennsylvania ‘17, Course Hero Intern

  • Left Quote Icon

    The ability to access any university’s resources through Course Hero proved invaluable in my case. I was behind on Tulane coursework and actually used UCLA’s materials to help me move forward and get everything together on time.

    Student Picture

    Jill Tulane University ‘16, Course Hero Intern

Stuck? We have tutors online 24/7 who can help you get unstuck.
A+ icon
Ask Expert Tutors You can ask You can ask ( soon) You can ask (will expire )
Answers in as fast as 15 minutes
A+ icon
Ask Expert Tutors