Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2008 Jul 1.
Published in final edited form as: Schizophr Res. 2007 Apr 30;93(1-3):266–277. doi: 10.1016/j.schres.2007.03.013

Figure 4.

Figure 4

Means (SD) of neurocognitive domains from the baseline assessment. At Risk subjects are divided into those who were “true prodromals”, who had converted to psychosis, and those who remained At Risk, because they had not experienced a psychotic conversion, at 1 year follow-up. Relative to the healthy comparison subjects, the true prodromals evidence impairment that was of the same magnitude as that of the FE group on verbal episodic memory (Cohen d, effect size = 1.34 and 1.01 vs healthy comparison subjects respectively) and general intelligence (effect size = 1.28 and 1.34 vs healthy comparison subjects respectively). All three clinical groups showed approximately equal impairment relative to healthy comparison subjects on Working Memory (effect size range = 0.79 to 1.03).