Table 1. Demographical and clinical data.
| CHR (n = 88) |
CON1 (n = 48) |
FEP (n = 21) |
SCZ (n = 34) |
CON2 (n = 37) |
GROUP effect* | Pairwise comparisons* | H/p -values | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age (mean/SEM) | ||||||||
| 22.0/0.5 | 22.7/0.5 | 27.0/1.5 | 37.1/2.0 | 28.6/1.2 | H(4)=80.8 p<0.0001 |
CHR vs. FEP CHR vs. SCZ |
−54.6/0.006 −104.5/0.000 |
|
| Sex (mean/SEM) | ||||||||
| female/male | 67/21 | 33/15 | 5/16 | 12/22 | 13/24 | H(4)=38.9 p<0.0001 |
FEP vs. CHR CON2 vs.CON1 |
59.6/0.000 38.2/0.020 |
| Education (mean/SEM) | ||||||||
| Years | 15.5/0.5 | 16.6/0.4 | 14.1/0.7 | 14.2/0.6 | 16.6/0.6 | H(4)=16.7 p=0.002 |
CON1 vs. SCZ | 41.8/0.027 |
| BACS†(mean/SEM) | CHR (n = 88) |
CON1 (n = 48) |
FEP (n = 18) |
SCZ (n = 28) |
CON2 (n = 37) |
GROUP effect | Pairwise comparisons | H/p -values |
| Verbal Memory | −0.36/0.17 | 0.23/0.17 | −0.41/0.38 | −0.93/0.24 | 0.79/0.14 | H(4)=26.5 p<0.0001 |
SCZ vs. CON2 | −76.1/0.000 |
| Digit Sequencing | −0.39/0.12 | −0.07/0.11 | 0.26/0.36 | −1.07/0.20 | 0.62/0.17 | H(4)=35.5 p<0.0001 |
SCZ vs. FEP SCZ vs. CHR SCZ vs. CON2 |
66.9/0.003 38.6/0.036 −90.1/0.000 |
| Token Motor Task | −0.64/0.15 | 0.28/0.16 | 0.60/0.27 | 0.47/0.21 | 1.39/0.15 | H(4)=56.9 p<0.0001 |
SCZ vs. CHR CHR vs. CON1 CHR vs. FEP SCZ vs. CON2 |
46.9/0.004 −37.8/0.005 −54.5/0.006 −45.3/0.050 |
| Verbal Fluency | 0.15/0.12 | 0.38/0.19 | −0.85/0.49 | −0.90/0.20 | 0.64/0.21 | H(4)=27.1 p<0.0001 |
SCZ vs. CHR FEP vs. CON2 SCZ vs. CON2 |
52.0/0.001 −51.7/0.000 −73.3/0.000 |
| Symbol Coding | −0.04/0.14 | 0.62/0.16 | −0.96/0.27 | −1.19/0.23 | −0.26/0.15 | H(4)=46.6 p<0.0001 |
SCZ vs. CHR FEP vs. CHR SCZ vs. CON2 CHR vs. CON1 |
57.0/0.000 44.5/0.049 −48.0/0.030 −32.4/0.031 |
| Tower of London | 0.18/0.12 | 0.28/0.10 | 0.51/0.24 | −0.19/0.21 | 0.85/0.13 | H(4)=15.0 p<0.0001 |
SCZ vs. CON2 | −76.1/0.000 |
| COMPOSITE score | −0.31/0.14 | 0.46/0.10 | −0.22/0.35 | −1.03/0.21 | 1.11/0.11 | H(4)=61.0 p<0.0001 |
SCZ vs. CON2 FEP vs. CON2 CHR vs. CON1 |
−111.3/0.000 −72.1/0.001 −38.5/0.004 |
| PANSS (mean/SEM) | FEP (n = 16) |
SCZ (n = 30) |
GROUP effect | |||||
| Negative | 18.0/1.3 | 16.6/1.1 | not sign diff | |||||
| Excitation | 9.4/0.8 | 7.2/0.7 | H(1)=6.1, p=0.013 | |||||
| Cognitive | 12.3/1.1 | 10.5/0.7 | not sign diff | |||||
| Positive | 12.5/0.7 | 9.8/0.7 | H(1)=5.1, p=0.024 | |||||
| Depression | 14.8/1.1 | 12.2/0.6 | H(1)=3.9, p=0.047 | |||||
| TOTAL | 66.9/3.2 | 56.3/3.0 | H(1)=5.4, p=0.020 | |||||
| CAARMS (mean/SEM) *frequency | CHR (n = 88) | SPI-A (n = 25) | CAARMS (n = 29) | BOTH‡(n = 34) | GROUP effect | Pairwise comparisons | H/p -values | |
| Unusual Thought Content | 5.2/0.8 | 3.6/1.4 | 3.9/1.1 | 7.6/1.3 | H(2)=6.8 p=0.033 |
not sign diff | ||
| Non-Bizarre Ideas | 9.9/0.8 | 5.6/1.1 | 9.7/1.4 | 13.3/1.3 | H(2)=14.3 p=0.001 |
SPI-A vs. SPI-A+CAARMS | −25.2/0.000 | |
| Perceptual Abnormalities | 8.1/0.7 | 3.9/0.7 | 9.4/1.3 | 10.2/1.1 | H(2)=15.7 p<0.0001 |
SPI-A vs. SPI-A+CAARMS SPI-A vs. SPI-A+CAARMS |
−21.5/0.006 −25.2/0.000 |
|
| Disorganized Speech | 4.3/0.6 | 3.8/0.9 | 2.1/0.8 | 6.5/0.9 | H(2)=11.9 p=0.003 |
CAARMS vs. SPI-A+CAARMS | −20.8/0.002 | |
| TOTAL | 27.6/1.8 | 16.8/2.9 | 25.0/2.4 | 37.6/2.8 | H(2)=22.2 p<0.0001 |
SPI-A vs. SPI-A+CAARMS CAARMS vs. SPI-A+CAARMS |
−31.4/0.000 −17.4/0.021 |
|
| Global Functioning (GAF: mean/SEM) | CHR (n = 88) |
CON1 (n = 48) |
GROUP effect | |||||
| 59.8/1.2 | 87.4/1.0 | H(1)=81.0, p<0.0001 | ||||||
| MEDICATION | CHR (n = 88) |
CON1 (n = 48) |
||||||
| None | 39 | 46 | ||||||
| Anti-psychotic | 1 | 0 | ||||||
| Mood-stabilizer | 1 | 0 | ||||||
| Anti-depressant | 20 | 0 | ||||||
| Anti-convulsant | 0 | 0 | ||||||
| Other | 11 | 0 | ||||||
| Multiple | 16 | 2 | ||||||
*Kruskal-Wallis independent-sample test. Alpha-level 0.05, two-sided with p-values adjusted for ties.
†Kruskal-Wallis independent-sample test performed on z-standardized data (Keefe et al., 2008). Alpha-level 0.05, two-sided, p-values adjusted for ties.