Table 3.
Statistics From the Analyses With Negative Symptoms and Functional Capacity as Mediators Between Neurocognition (CAI) and Functional Outcome
| X | Y | M | N | a/a’/a’’, estimates (CI) | b/b’/b’’, estimates (CI) | c, estimates (CI) | c’, estimates (CI) | Indirect effect estimate (CI) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Model 7 | ||||||||
| CAI Composite score | SLOF Int | MAP | 566 | −3.29 (−2.75, −3.82) | −0.29 (−0.36, −0.22) | −1.34 (−1.70, −0.98) | −0.28 (−0.70,. 41) | −0.95 (−1.26, −0.65) * |
| CAI Composite score | SLOF Int | EXP | 566 | −2.87 (−2.46, −3.29) | .01 (−0.08,0.10) | † | ||
| CAI Composite score | SLOF Int | UPSA-B | 566 | −9.91 (−11.14, −8.67) | .01 (−0.01,0.04) | † | ||
| Model 8 | ||||||||
| CAI Composite score | SLOF ELS | MAP | 564 | −3.28 (−2.74, −3.82) | −0.08 (−0.17,0.01) | −3.40 (−3.88, −2.81) | −1.06 (−1.60, −0.52) | † |
| CAI Composite score | SLOF ELS | EXP | 564 | −2.87 (−2.45, −3.29) | −0.19 (−0.31, −0.07) | −0.55 (−0.95, −0.18) * | ||
| CAI Composite score | SLOF ELS | UPSA-B | 564 | −9.91 (−11.14, −8.67) | 0.15 (−0.12,0.18) | −1. 51 (−1.88, −1.17) * | ||
| Model 9 | ||||||||
| CAI Composite score | SLOF WS | MAP | 565 | −3.29 (−2.75, −3.83) | −0.08 (−0.14, −0.01) | −2.15 (−2.48, −1.82) | −1.11 (−1.51, −0.070) | −0.25 (−0.50, −0.04) * |
| CAI Composite score | SLOF WS | EXP | 565 | −2.88 (−2.46, −3.29) | −0.07 (−0.15,0.02) | † | ||
| CAI Composite score | SLOF WS | UPSA-B | 565 | −9.88 (−11.12, −8.64) | .06 (0.04,0.08) | −0.60 (−0.81, −0.39) * | ||
Note: CAI, Cognitive Assessment Interview; SLOF, Specific Level of Functioning Scale; Int, interpersonal relationships; ELS, everyday life skills; WS, work skills; MAP, Motivational deficit; EXP, Expressive deficit; UPSA-B, University of California San Diego (UCSD) Performance-based Skills Assessment.
In italics, P ≤ .05.
*Prerequisites to test for mediation are fulfilled, and the 95% CI of the indirect effect does not include zero and is therefore significant.
†Prerequisites to test for mediation are not fulfilled.
The results showed that (1) the direct effect of neurocognition on SLOF interpersonal relationships became nonsignificant, suggesting complete mediation through the motivational deficit domain; (2) the direct effect of neurocognition on SLOF everyday life skills was reduced but remained significant, suggesting partial mediation through expressive deficit domain and functional capacity; (3) the direct effect of neurocognition on SLOF work skills was reduced but remained significant, suggesting partial mediation through both motivational deficit domain and functional capacity.