Corrigendum

Neurocognitive and self-efficacy benefits of cognitive remediation in schizophrenia: A randomized controlled trial (Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society (2018) 24: 6 (549-562) DOI: 10.1017/S1355617717001369)

Shayden D. Bryce, Susan L. Rossell, Stuart J. Lee, Richard J. Lawrence, Eric J. Tan, Sean P. Carruthers, Jennie L. Ponsford

Research output: Contribution to journalComment / DebateOtherpeer-review

Abstract

In the article by Bryce et al. (2018) incorrect standard deviations were used when calculating the reliable change indices presented in this article. While the correct standard deviation (SD) was used in calculating the Matrics Consensus Cognitive Battery (MCCB) composite reliable change value, an error was made in using cognitive domain SDs from an incorrect domain (i.e., speed SD used for attention domain, etc.) for the domain reliable change values. The article also contains two minor manual entry errors for two participants' end cognition score. The authors have rechecked the data and re-run all analyses using the corrected data. The interpretation of the data does not change. This remains correct. The incorrect and correct text are as follows: Page 549, Abstract, line 8 under Results: "Favoring CR (p = .028)" should read "Favoring CR (p = .027)" Page 549, Abstract, line 9 under Results: "End-group, 17 (77%)" should read "End-group 13 (59.1%)" Page 554, under Results: Para 1, line 3: "group x time interaction (p = .028)" should read "group x time interaction (p = .027)" Para 2, line 2: "both end of group (p = .008)" should read "both end of group (p = .005)" Para 2, line 5: "3-month follow-up (p = .20)" should read "3-month follow-up (p = .43)" Page 554, under Results, Rates of Reliable Cognitive Improvement and Effect Size: (Table Presented) Para 1, line 1: "As shown in Table 3, five CR completers (22.73%)" should read "As shown in Table 3, six CR completers (27.27%)". Para 1, line 6: "moderate effect overall (dz = 0.68)" should read "moderate effect overall (dz = 0.73)" Para 1, lines 7-9: "Seventeen CR (77.27%) and nine CG (42.86%) completers improved reliably in at least one MCCB cognitive domain" should read "Thirteen CR (59.1%) and six CG (30.0%) completers improved reliably in at least one MCCB cognitive domain". Page 555, under Discussion: Para 2, line 7: "In addition, three-quarters" should read "in addition, approximately 60% (59.1%)". Para 2, line 9: "following CR (c.f., ≤ 50% in CG" should read "following CR (c.f., 30% in CG") The corrected Tables 2 and 3 are as follows.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)659-660
Number of pages2
JournalJournal of the International Neuropsychological Society
Volume25
Issue number6
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 1 Jul 2019

Cite this

@article{8af50f02c78b4f718da0834a8f3080b8,
title = "Corrigendum: Neurocognitive and self-efficacy benefits of cognitive remediation in schizophrenia: A randomized controlled trial (Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society (2018) 24: 6 (549-562) DOI: 10.1017/S1355617717001369)",
abstract = "In the article by Bryce et al. (2018) incorrect standard deviations were used when calculating the reliable change indices presented in this article. While the correct standard deviation (SD) was used in calculating the Matrics Consensus Cognitive Battery (MCCB) composite reliable change value, an error was made in using cognitive domain SDs from an incorrect domain (i.e., speed SD used for attention domain, etc.) for the domain reliable change values. The article also contains two minor manual entry errors for two participants' end cognition score. The authors have rechecked the data and re-run all analyses using the corrected data. The interpretation of the data does not change. This remains correct. The incorrect and correct text are as follows: Page 549, Abstract, line 8 under Results: {"}Favoring CR (p = .028){"} should read {"}Favoring CR (p = .027){"} Page 549, Abstract, line 9 under Results: {"}End-group, 17 (77{\%}){"} should read {"}End-group 13 (59.1{\%}){"} Page 554, under Results: Para 1, line 3: {"}group x time interaction (p = .028){"} should read {"}group x time interaction (p = .027){"} Para 2, line 2: {"}both end of group (p = .008){"} should read {"}both end of group (p = .005){"} Para 2, line 5: {"}3-month follow-up (p = .20){"} should read {"}3-month follow-up (p = .43){"} Page 554, under Results, Rates of Reliable Cognitive Improvement and Effect Size: (Table Presented) Para 1, line 1: {"}As shown in Table 3, five CR completers (22.73{\%}){"} should read {"}As shown in Table 3, six CR completers (27.27{\%}){"}. Para 1, line 6: {"}moderate effect overall (dz = 0.68){"} should read {"}moderate effect overall (dz = 0.73){"} Para 1, lines 7-9: {"}Seventeen CR (77.27{\%}) and nine CG (42.86{\%}) completers improved reliably in at least one MCCB cognitive domain{"} should read {"}Thirteen CR (59.1{\%}) and six CG (30.0{\%}) completers improved reliably in at least one MCCB cognitive domain{"}. Page 555, under Discussion: Para 2, line 7: {"}In addition, three-quarters{"} should read {"}in addition, approximately 60{\%} (59.1{\%}){"}. Para 2, line 9: {"}following CR (c.f., ≤ 50{\%} in CG{"} should read {"}following CR (c.f., 30{\%} in CG{"}) The corrected Tables 2 and 3 are as follows.",
author = "Bryce, {Shayden D.} and Rossell, {Susan L.} and Lee, {Stuart J.} and Lawrence, {Richard J.} and Tan, {Eric J.} and Carruthers, {Sean P.} and Ponsford, {Jennie L.}",
year = "2019",
month = "7",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1017/S1355617719000535",
language = "English",
volume = "25",
pages = "659--660",
journal = "Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society",
issn = "1355-6177",
publisher = "Cambridge University Press",
number = "6",

}

Corrigendum : Neurocognitive and self-efficacy benefits of cognitive remediation in schizophrenia: A randomized controlled trial (Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society (2018) 24: 6 (549-562) DOI: 10.1017/S1355617717001369). / Bryce, Shayden D.; Rossell, Susan L.; Lee, Stuart J.; Lawrence, Richard J.; Tan, Eric J.; Carruthers, Sean P.; Ponsford, Jennie L.

In: Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society, Vol. 25, No. 6, 01.07.2019, p. 659-660.

Research output: Contribution to journalComment / DebateOtherpeer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - Corrigendum

T2 - Neurocognitive and self-efficacy benefits of cognitive remediation in schizophrenia: A randomized controlled trial (Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society (2018) 24: 6 (549-562) DOI: 10.1017/S1355617717001369)

AU - Bryce, Shayden D.

AU - Rossell, Susan L.

AU - Lee, Stuart J.

AU - Lawrence, Richard J.

AU - Tan, Eric J.

AU - Carruthers, Sean P.

AU - Ponsford, Jennie L.

PY - 2019/7/1

Y1 - 2019/7/1

N2 - In the article by Bryce et al. (2018) incorrect standard deviations were used when calculating the reliable change indices presented in this article. While the correct standard deviation (SD) was used in calculating the Matrics Consensus Cognitive Battery (MCCB) composite reliable change value, an error was made in using cognitive domain SDs from an incorrect domain (i.e., speed SD used for attention domain, etc.) for the domain reliable change values. The article also contains two minor manual entry errors for two participants' end cognition score. The authors have rechecked the data and re-run all analyses using the corrected data. The interpretation of the data does not change. This remains correct. The incorrect and correct text are as follows: Page 549, Abstract, line 8 under Results: "Favoring CR (p = .028)" should read "Favoring CR (p = .027)" Page 549, Abstract, line 9 under Results: "End-group, 17 (77%)" should read "End-group 13 (59.1%)" Page 554, under Results: Para 1, line 3: "group x time interaction (p = .028)" should read "group x time interaction (p = .027)" Para 2, line 2: "both end of group (p = .008)" should read "both end of group (p = .005)" Para 2, line 5: "3-month follow-up (p = .20)" should read "3-month follow-up (p = .43)" Page 554, under Results, Rates of Reliable Cognitive Improvement and Effect Size: (Table Presented) Para 1, line 1: "As shown in Table 3, five CR completers (22.73%)" should read "As shown in Table 3, six CR completers (27.27%)". Para 1, line 6: "moderate effect overall (dz = 0.68)" should read "moderate effect overall (dz = 0.73)" Para 1, lines 7-9: "Seventeen CR (77.27%) and nine CG (42.86%) completers improved reliably in at least one MCCB cognitive domain" should read "Thirteen CR (59.1%) and six CG (30.0%) completers improved reliably in at least one MCCB cognitive domain". Page 555, under Discussion: Para 2, line 7: "In addition, three-quarters" should read "in addition, approximately 60% (59.1%)". Para 2, line 9: "following CR (c.f., ≤ 50% in CG" should read "following CR (c.f., 30% in CG") The corrected Tables 2 and 3 are as follows.

AB - In the article by Bryce et al. (2018) incorrect standard deviations were used when calculating the reliable change indices presented in this article. While the correct standard deviation (SD) was used in calculating the Matrics Consensus Cognitive Battery (MCCB) composite reliable change value, an error was made in using cognitive domain SDs from an incorrect domain (i.e., speed SD used for attention domain, etc.) for the domain reliable change values. The article also contains two minor manual entry errors for two participants' end cognition score. The authors have rechecked the data and re-run all analyses using the corrected data. The interpretation of the data does not change. This remains correct. The incorrect and correct text are as follows: Page 549, Abstract, line 8 under Results: "Favoring CR (p = .028)" should read "Favoring CR (p = .027)" Page 549, Abstract, line 9 under Results: "End-group, 17 (77%)" should read "End-group 13 (59.1%)" Page 554, under Results: Para 1, line 3: "group x time interaction (p = .028)" should read "group x time interaction (p = .027)" Para 2, line 2: "both end of group (p = .008)" should read "both end of group (p = .005)" Para 2, line 5: "3-month follow-up (p = .20)" should read "3-month follow-up (p = .43)" Page 554, under Results, Rates of Reliable Cognitive Improvement and Effect Size: (Table Presented) Para 1, line 1: "As shown in Table 3, five CR completers (22.73%)" should read "As shown in Table 3, six CR completers (27.27%)". Para 1, line 6: "moderate effect overall (dz = 0.68)" should read "moderate effect overall (dz = 0.73)" Para 1, lines 7-9: "Seventeen CR (77.27%) and nine CG (42.86%) completers improved reliably in at least one MCCB cognitive domain" should read "Thirteen CR (59.1%) and six CG (30.0%) completers improved reliably in at least one MCCB cognitive domain". Page 555, under Discussion: Para 2, line 7: "In addition, three-quarters" should read "in addition, approximately 60% (59.1%)". Para 2, line 9: "following CR (c.f., ≤ 50% in CG" should read "following CR (c.f., 30% in CG") The corrected Tables 2 and 3 are as follows.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85068903653&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1017/S1355617719000535

DO - 10.1017/S1355617719000535

M3 - Comment / Debate

VL - 25

SP - 659

EP - 660

JO - Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society

JF - Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society

SN - 1355-6177

IS - 6

ER -