Do individuals in mental health neurological outpatient and non-clinical populations have distinct profiles on the common cognitive complaints checklist (CCCC)?

Surridge, Karen Suzanne (2013). Do individuals in mental health neurological outpatient and non-clinical populations have distinct profiles on the common cognitive complaints checklist (CCCC)? University of Birmingham. Clin.Psy.D.

[img]
Preview
Surridge13ClinPsy_Vol1.pdf
PDF - Redacted Version

Download (3MB)
[img] Surridge13ClinPsy_Vol2.pdf
PDF - Accepted Version
Restricted to Repository staff only until 1 July 2023.

Download (1MB) | Request a copy

Abstract

Objectives: To use the Common Cognitive Complaints Checklist to provide base-rate data of common cognitive complaints in non-clinical individuals; and to identify common cognitive complaints that discriminate between three populations: non-clinical, mental health, mixed-neurological.

Methods: 133 volunteers, recruited from three populations (non-clinical, mental health, mixed-neurological), completed measures of psychological distress, cognitive complaints and intellectual functioning.

Results: The mental health group reported significantly higher levels of distress, and individuals with higher levels of distress tended to report more cognitive complaints. Base-rate data was established by calculating patterns of endorsement in the non-clinical group, providing a profile of ‘normal’ reporting. Three discriminant function analyses were applied, which performed excellently, revealing 26 items that maximally discriminated between the groups.

Conclusions: The base-rate data revealed that it was unusual for individuals in the non-clinical group to report cognitive complaints occurring very frequently. These data could help clinicians determine whether or not the frequency of any complaint is ‘normal’. The calculated discriminant functions for the 26 identified items could be used to plot probabilities of responses falling within each of the three populations, helping clinicians determine the population in which their patients’ responses are likely to fall. Strengths and limitations are discussed along with suggestions for future research.

Type of Work: Thesis (Doctorates > Clin.Psy.D.)
Award Type: Doctorates > Clin.Psy.D.
Supervisor(s):
Supervisor(s)EmailORCID
Jones, ChristopherUNSPECIFIEDUNSPECIFIED
Powell, TheresaUNSPECIFIEDUNSPECIFIED
Licence:
College/Faculty: Colleges (2008 onwards) > College of Life & Environmental Sciences
School or Department: School of Psychology
Funders: None/not applicable
Subjects: B Philosophy. Psychology. Religion > BF Psychology
URI: http://etheses.bham.ac.uk/id/eprint/4143

Actions

Request a Correction Request a Correction
View Item View Item

Downloads

Downloads per month over past year