M226. ECOLOGICAL MOMENTARY ASSESSMENT OF REAL-WORLD FUNCTIONING IN SCHIZOPHRENIA: MODERATING EFFECTS OF COGNITIVE AND FUNCTIONAL ABILITY STATUS

Abstract

Background: Neurocognitive and functional heterogeneity is common in schizophrenia (SZ), and functioning is notoriously difficult to measure. Ecological Momentary Assessment (EMA) may help overcome the retrospective recall and subjective biases associated with standard self-report measures; however, how EMA-measured real-world functioning indicators align with other neurocognitive and functional capacity indicators is not well established. The current study aimed to characterize individuals with schizophrenia-spectrum disorders based upon their objective global neurocognitive functioning and functional capacity, and examine differences in EMA-measured functioning. Method(s): The study included 100 outpatient, English-speaking adults with SZ (n=82) or schizoaffective disorder (n=18). All participants completed EMA surveys administered at stratified random intervals 7 times per day for 7 days to assess self-rated proficiency in performing activities within home-care, self-care, leisure, work/school, and treatment engagement dimensions, as well as need for assistance/prompting to complete the tasks. Moreover, participants completed an in-lab comprehensive neuropsychological assessment battery (MATRICS Consensus Cognitive Battery) and a performance-based measure of functional capacity (UCSD Performance-Based Skills Assessment-Brief [UPSA-B]). Latent profile analyses (LPA) were used to derive categorical latent variables that represent profiles of individuals who have similar global neurocognitive functioning and UPSA-B performance. The optimal number of profiles for the sample was determined by evaluating models using the Akaike information criteria (AIC; Akaike, 1974), sample size-adjusted Bayesian information criteria (sBIC; Schwarz, 1978), and the Lo-Mendell-Rubin Adjusted Likelihood Ratio Test (LMRT; Lo, Mendell, & Rubin, 2001). Independent samples t-tests were used to examine group differences between the identified latent profile groups on EMA-reported outcomes. Result(s): LPA identified a 2-profile solution with the best fit; participants in profile 1 (n=43) demonstrated mild-to-moderate global cognitive impairment and lower UPSA-B scores (Low functioning; LF), whereas participants in profile 2 (n=57) demonstrated average cognitive functioning and higher UPSA-B performance (High functioning; HF). The groups did not significantly differ on number of EMA surveys answered (p=.12). Compared to the HF group, the LF group reported poorer proficiency in overall reported activities (p=.001), which was driven by lower reported proficiency in home-care, self-care, and leisure activities (ps