Interactions of Aggression, Mentalizing, Metacognition and Empathy in a forensic population of persons with a psychotic disorder
|- candidate number||17545|
|- NTR Number||NTR4502|
|- ISRCTN||ISRCTN no longer applicable|
|- Date ISRCTN created|
|- date ISRCTN requested|
|- Date Registered NTR||22-apr-2014|
|- Secondary IDs||- |
|- Public Title||Interactions of Aggression, Mentalizing, Metacognition and Empathy in a forensic population of persons with a psychotic disorder
|- Scientific Title||Interactions of Aggression, Mentalizing, Metacognition and Empathy in a forensic population of persons with a psychotic disorder|
|- hypothesis||This study compares persons with a psychotic disorder currently in treatment at a forensic clinic (F-P), with patients with a psychotic disorder currently not in treatment at a forensic clinic (P) and with healthy controls (HC). Confounders such as current mood state, threat/control-override(TCO), temperament and character, trauma and the existence of a diagnosis of psychopathy will be statistically controlled for. |
The study will test four hypotheses:
1) (F-P) show a pattern of more affective metacognitive impairments than (HC) and (P). Cognitively oriented aspects of metacognition are expected to be equally impaired in (P) and (F-P) (Abu-Akel & Abushua’leh, 2004; Bogaerts, Polak, Spreen, & Zwets, 2012).
2) We expect that in (F-P) deficits in metacognitive “mastery” as measured by the MAS-A are more severe than those found in (P), and correlate significantly with assessments of risk for future violence (Brüne, Schaub, Juckel, & Langdon, 2011; Lysaker, Erickson, Buck, et al., 2011; Lysaker, Erickson, Ringer, et al., 2011).
3) We expect that in F-P metacognitive deficits in understanding others and empathy, are significantly correlated with “Clinical” items of the HKT-30 regarding Empathy, Hostility and Social and Relational skills.
4) Persons with aggression where the primary explanation is positive psychotic will score elevated on measures of Threat/Control-override (TCO). This group will be more prone to impulsive violence as measured by the IPAS, while those with personality-related difficulties (psychopathic traits) will show a tendency toward premeditated violence as measured by the IPAS (Nederlof et al., 2011a; Nederlof, Muris, & Hovens, 2011b).
Based on hypotheses 1 – 4 we expect to be able to gain further insight into the manner in which various elements of metacognition interact with one another and characteristics of violence, using network analysis (Borsboom & Cramer, 2013; Cramer, Waldorp, van der Maas, & Borsboom, 2010)
|- Healt Condition(s) or Problem(s) studied||Psychosis, Schizophrenia, Violence, Forensic psychiatry, Empathy, Metacognition|
|- Inclusion criteria||- Primary diagnosis of schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder (DSM-IV-TR) |
- Age >18
- Ability to give informed consent
- Currently in care at a forensic clinic
- No change in medication in the past 30 days
|- Exclusion criteria||- Co-morbid neurological disorder |
- Inability to read / write
- IQ below 70
|- mec approval received||no|
|- multicenter trial||no|
|- Type||2 or more arms, non-randomized|
|- planned startdate ||1-jun-2014|
|- planned closingdate||1-jun-2016|
|- Target number of participants||60|
|- Primary outcome||Metacognition|
|- Secondary outcome||Empathy, Impulsive vs. Premeditated Violence, Psychopathy, Symptoms, Temperament and Character, Trauma, Threat-Control-Override|
|- Timepoints||T1: Single measure. |
|- Trial web site|
|- CONTACT FOR PUBLIC QUERIES|| Steven de Jong|
|- CONTACT for SCIENTIFIC QUERIES|| Steven de Jong|
|- Sponsor/Initiator ||University of Groningen, GGZ Drenthe|
(Source(s) of Monetary or Material Support)
|- Brief summary||Primary Objective: |
This study seeks to examine the differences between healthy controls, patients with a psychotic disorder that have never been in care at a forensic clinic, and patients with a psychotic disorder in care at a forensic clinic on several measures of metacognition. The primary objective is to identify risk factors amongst these variables.
Secondary objective is to use network analysis to determine whether metacognitive deficits and aggressive behaviour ‘clusters’ in the manner which Bo et al. (2012) propose.
|- Main changes (audit trail)|
|- RECORD||22-apr-2014 - 1-mei-2014|
- Indien u gegevens wilt toevoegen of veranderen, kunt u een mail sturen naar firstname.lastname@example.org