Use this URL to cite or link to this record in EThOS: http://ethos.bl.uk/OrderDetails.do?uin=uk.bl.ethos.571818
Title: Do individuals in mental health neurological outpatient and non-clinical populations have distinct profiles on the common cognitive complaints checklist (CCCC)?
Author: Surridge, Karen Suzanne
Awarding Body: University of Birmingham
Current Institution: University of Birmingham
Date of Award: 2013
Availability of Full Text:
Access through EThOS:
Full text unavailable from EThOS. Thesis embargoed until 31 Dec 2018
Access through Institution:
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.
Supervisor: Not available Sponsor: Not available
Qualification Name: Thesis (Clin.Psy.D.) Qualification Level: Doctoral
EThOS ID: uk.bl.ethos.571818  DOI: Not available
Keywords: BF Psychology
Share: