•  

Intervention Summary

Back to Results Start New Search

Cognitive Enhancement Therapy

Cognitive Enhancement Therapy (CET) is a cognitive rehabilitation training program for adults with chronic or early-course schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder (per DSM-III-R or DSM-IV criteria) who are stabilized and maintained on antipsychotic medication and not abusing substances. CET is designed to provide cognitive training to participants to help them improve impairments related to neurocognition (including poor memory and problem-solving abilities), cognitive style (including impoverished, disorganized, or rigid cognitive style), social cognition (including lack of perspective taking, foresight, and social context appraisal), and social adjustment (including social, vocational, and family functioning), which characterize these mental disorders and limit functional recovery and adjustment to community living. Through CET, participants learn to shift their thinking from rigid serial processing to a more generalized processing of the core essence or gist of a social situation and a spontaneous abstraction of social themes.

CET is manual driven and delivered over a period of 18 months, beginning with approximately 3 months of weekly 1-hour sessions of computer-assisted neurocognitive attention training conducted with pairs of participants. As the treatment proceeds over 18 months, participants engage in 60 hours of targeted, performance-based neurocognitive training exercises to improve their attention, memory, and problem-solving abilities. After approximately 3 months of neurocognitive training, participants start to attend social-cognitive group sessions, which last for 1.5 hours each and are held weekly; there are a total of 45 social-cognitive group sessions in the program. In these sessions, clinicians help groups of six to eight participants improve social-cognitive abilities (e.g., taking perspectives, abstracting the main point in social interactions, appraising social contexts, managing emotions) and achieve individualized recovery plans. Participants also use experiential learning and real-life cognitive exercises to facilitate the development of social wisdom and success in interpersonal interactions; enhance social comfort; respond to unrehearsed social exchanges; present homework and lead homework reviews; provide feedback to peers; and receive psychoeducation on social cognition and schizophrenia. Clinicians provide active, supportive coaching to keep each participant on task and to encourage greater understanding of social cognition and greater elaboration, organization, and flexibility in thinking and communication. After social-cognitive group sessions begin, neurocognitive training and social-cognitive training proceed concurrently throughout the remainder of the program.

Both neurocognitive training and social-cognitive group sessions are facilitated by master's-level clinicians who have at least 2 years' experience in the treatment of schizophrenia. Social-cognitive group sessions require a minimum of two master's-level clinicians, who follow a comprehensive structured curriculum. CET is designed to be implemented in agency- and center-based treatment settings.

Descriptive Information

Areas of Interest Mental health treatment
Outcomes Review Date: January 2012
1: Neurocognition
2: Cognitive style
3: Social cognition
4: Social adjustment
Outcome Categories Mental health
Social functioning
Ages 18-25 (Young adult)
26-55 (Adult)
Genders Male
Female
Races/Ethnicities Asian
Black or African American
White
Race/ethnicity unspecified
Settings Outpatient
Geographic Locations Urban
Suburban
Implementation History CET was initially developed and piloted in the early 1990s. The program was successfully tested in a randomized clinical trial (RCT) conducted from 1995 to 2002 to study the use of CET with outpatients with chronic schizophrenia; this study was led by Gerard Hogarty at the University of Pittsburgh. CET was validated in an RCT conducted from 2001 to 2006 to study the use of CET with patients with early-course schizophrenia; this study was led by Gerard Hogarty and Matcheri Keshavan at the University of Pittsburgh. Both studies were funded by the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) and conducted at the Western Psychiatric Institute and Clinic in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. A total of 121 patients participated in the first CET study, and 58 patients participated in the early-course study. CET also has been implemented in the Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, area with two nonresearch community mental health centers, which each serve more than 1,000 individuals with schizophrenia. NIMH has funded an expanded study of CET (in Pittsburgh and in Boston, Massachusetts) with patients with early-course schizophrenia and schizoaffective disorder. In addition, studies are being conducted in Pittsburgh on the effectiveness of CET with verbal young adults with high functioning autism spectrum disorder and with patients with schizophrenia who use cannabis and alcohol.
NIH Funding/CER Studies Partially/fully funded by National Institutes of Health: Yes
Evaluated in comparative effectiveness research studies: Yes
Adaptations No population- or culture-specific adaptations of the intervention were identified by the developer.
Adverse Effects No adverse effects, concerns, or unintended consequences were identified by the developer.
IOM Prevention Categories IOM prevention categories are not applicable.

Quality of Research
Review Date: January 2012

Documents Reviewed

The documents below were reviewed for Quality of Research. The research point of contact can provide information regarding the studies reviewed and the availability of additional materials, including those from more recent studies that may have been conducted.

Study 1

Hogarty, G. E., Flesher, S., Ulrich, R., Carter, M., Greenwald, D., Pogue-Geile, M., et al. (2004). Cognitive Enhancement Therapy for schizophrenia: Effects of a 2-year randomized trial on cognition and behavior. Archives of General Psychiatry, 61(9), 866-876.  Pub Med icon

Hogarty, G. E., Greenwald, D. P., & Eack, S. M. (2006). Durability and mechanism of effects of Cognitive Enhancement Therapy. Psychiatric Services, 57(12), 1751-1757.  Pub Med icon

Hogarty, G. E., Greenwald, D. P., & Eack, S. M. (2006). Durability and mechanism of effects of Cognitive Enhancement Therapy [Supplemental material: Methods]. Psychiatric Services, 57(12), 1751-1757.  Pub Med icon

Hogarty, G. E., Greenwald, D. P., & Eack, S. M. (2006). Durability and mechanism of effects of Cognitive Enhancement Therapy [Supplemental material: Tables]. Psychiatric Services, 57(12), 1751-1757.  Pub Med icon

Study 2

Eack, S. M., Greenwald, D. P., Hogarty, S. S., Cooley, S. J., DiBarry, A. L., Montrose, D. M., et al. (2009). Cognitive Enhancement Therapy for early-course schizophrenia: Effects of a two-year randomized controlled trial. Psychiatric Services, 60(11), 1468-1476.  Pub Med icon

Eack, S. M., Greenwald, D. P., Hogarty, S. S., Cooley, S. J., DiBarry, A. L., Montrose, D. M., et al. (2009). Cognitive Enhancement Therapy for early-course schizophrenia: Effects of a two-year randomized controlled trial [Supplemental material: Table]. Psychiatric Services, 60(11), 1468-1476.  Pub Med icon

Supplementary Materials

Eack, S. M. (2011). Cognitive Enhancement Therapy measurement supplement. Unpublished manuscript.

Eack, S. M., Hogarty, G. E., Greenwald, D. P., Hogarty, S. S., & Keshavan, M. S. (2007). Cognitive Enhancement Therapy improves emotional intelligence in early course schizophrenia: Preliminary effects. Schizophrenia Research, 89(1-3), 308-311.  Pub Med icon

Hogarty, G. E., & Flesher, S. (1999). Practice principles of Cognitive Enhancement Therapy for schizophrenia. Schizophrenia Bulletin, 25(4), 693-708.  Pub Med icon

Outcomes

Outcome 1: Neurocognition
Description of Measures Neurocognition was assessed in both studies using a selected set of neuropsychological test instruments measuring memory, language, and executive mental functioning:

  • Immediate and delayed recall items from stories A and B of the Wechsler Memory Scale-Revised, which measures memory functions
  • List A total recall, short-term free recall, and long-term free recall from the California Verbal Learning Test, which measures different classes of verbal memory
  • Digit span, digit symbol, picture arrangement, and vocabulary items from the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale-Revised, a general test of intelligence (defined as the global capacity of an individual to act purposefully, think rationally, and deal effectively with his or her environment) that consists of six verbal and five performance subtests
  • Trail B time to completion and perseverative and nonperseverative errors, categories completed, and percentage of conceptual responses from the Wisconsin Card Sorting Test, which assesses executive frontal lobe brain functioning (e.g., strategic planning, organized searching, utilizing environmental feedback to shift cognitive sets, directing one's behavior toward achieving a goal, modulating impulsive responding)
  • Trail-Making Test B, an assessment of task switching that measures visual search speed, scanning, speed of processing, mental flexibility, and executive functioning of respondents, who connect a set of 25 dots labeled with numbers, letters, or alternating numbers and letters
One study also used two additional instruments:

  • The Tower of London Test, which assesses executive functioning to identify deficits in planning. The respondent is presented with various problem-solving tasks that involve the use of two boards with pegs and several beads of different colors.
  • The Neurological Evaluation Scale, which consists of 26 items that assess three functioning domains--sensory integration, motor coordination, and sequencing of complex motor acts--and an "others" domain that includes short-term memory, frontal release signs (the reappearance of primitive reflexes, e.g., sucking and rooting, that are present at birth but absent in a normal mature brain), and eye movement abnormalities. The scale is also useful for assessing stereognosis (inability of the respondent to recognize commonplace items placed in his or her hand, such as keys, when his or her eyes are closed) or graphesthesia (inability of the respondent to recognize a letter drawn on the palm of his or her hand when his or her eyes are closed).
In both studies, scores from the individual neuropsychological test instruments were scaled to a common metric and averaged to form composite scores. The composite scores were then standardized to a baseline mean, and change scores were calculated from the baseline mean to the assessments at 12 and 24 months into the study.
Key Findings In one study, a randomized clinical trial (RCT) was conducted at a university-based psychiatric research clinic with outpatients who had a DSM-III-R or DSM-IV diagnosis of chronic schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder at study entry. Participants were symptomatically stable but clinician rated as being cognitively and socially disabled (with the Cognitive Style and Social Cognition Eligibility Interview, specifically designed for this study) and were randomly assigned to the intervention group, which received 2 years of CET, or the comparison group, which received 2 years of Enriched Supportive Therapy (EST). EST consisted of illness management through applied coping strategies and education. Assessments occurred at baseline and at 12 and 24 months into the study. Compared with participants who received EST, those who received CET had a greater improvement in the neurocognition change score at 12 months into the study (p = .003) and at 24 months into the study (p = .02), after controlling for gender, length of illness, level of psychosis, and IQ level. These group differences were associated with a medium effect size at 12 months into the study (Cohen's d = 0.64) and a small effect size at 24 months into the study (Cohen's d = 0.46).

In another study, an RCT was conducted at a university-based psychiatric research clinic with outpatients who had a DSM-IV diagnosis of early-course (defined as present for 8 years or less) schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder at study entry. Participants were symptomatically stable but clinician rated as being cognitively and socially disabled (with the Cognitive Style and Social Cognition Eligibility Interview, specifically designed for this study) and were randomly assigned to the intervention group, which received 2 years of CET, or the comparison group, which received 2 years of EST. EST consisted of illness management through applied coping strategies and education. Assessments occurred at baseline and at 12 and 24 months into the study. Compared with participants who received EST, those who received CET had a greater improvement in the neurocognition change score at 24 months into the study (p = .023), after controlling for age, gender, length of illness, IQ level, and dose of medication. This group difference was associated with a small effect size (Cohen's d = 0.46). No significant between-group difference was found at 12 months into the study.
Studies Measuring Outcome Study 1, Study 2
Study Designs Experimental
Quality of Research Rating 3.0 (0.0-4.0 scale)
Outcome 2: Cognitive style
Description of Measures Cognitive style was assessed using two clinician-rated instruments: the Cognitive Styles and Social Cognition Eligibility Criteria and the associated Cognitive Styles Inventory.

The Cognitive Styles and Social Cognition Eligibility Criteria is a structured interview designed to elicit behaviors and verbal responses that provide information on the presence and severity of impairments in cognitive style and social cognition. The instrument includes direct questioning about interpersonal interactions and social problem solving, as well as vignettes that require the respondent to take the perspective of another person and appraise social context. For the cognitive styles component of the instrument, the clinician rates the severity of cognitive style impairment across three generalized domains, each of which includes disability and social handicap subgroups:

  • Impoverished cognitive style (e.g., poverty of speech production, amotivation, reduced or flat affect)
    • Disability examples: effortful planning or problem solving, difficulty initiating behavior, and effortful recall of information
    • Social handicap examples: language not expressing needs, preferences, or opinions; lack of credible account of behavior; low stamina; and social withdrawal
  • Disorganized cognitive style (e.g., spontaneous, labile affect; loose ideational content; poor attention; poverty of speech content)
    • Disability examples: chaotic or imprecise planning, difficulty terminating behavior, and difficulty staying on track
    • Social handicap examples: inappropriate responses not self-edited, difficulty using language coherently, hard-to-follow train of thought, impulsive, and readily changing plans or goals
  • Rigid cognitive style (e.g., fixed, inflexible, ideational content; restricted cognitive schema; constrained affect; obsessive, repetitive thinking)
    • Disability examples: plans, goals, and problem solving that are limited by inflexible thinking
    • Social handicap examples: behavior that is restricted by preoccupation with details, tendency toward stereotyped views, and single-minded pursuit of inappropriate goals or career objectives
The Cognitive Styles Inventory is a 46-item clinician-rated micromeasure of the three generalized cognitive style domains used in the Cognitive Styles and Social Cognition Eligibility Criteria (i.e., impoverished, disorganized, and rigid).

In both studies, scores from the instruments were scaled to a common metric and averaged to form composite scores. The composite scores were then standardized to a baseline mean, and change scores were calculated from the baseline mean to the assessments at 12 and 24 months into the study.
Key Findings In one study, an RCT was conducted at a university-based psychiatric research clinic with outpatients who had a DSM-III-R or DSM-IV diagnosis of chronic schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder at study entry. Participants were symptomatically stable but clinician rated as being cognitively and socially disabled (with the Cognitive Style and Social Cognition Eligibility Interview, specifically designed for this study) and were randomly assigned to the intervention group, which received 2 years of CET, or the comparison group, which received 2 years of Enriched Supportive Therapy (EST). EST consisted of illness management through applied coping strategies and education. Assessments occurred at baseline and at 12 and 24 months into the study. Compared with participants who received EST, those who received CET had a greater improvement in the cognitive style change score at 24 months into the study (p = .001), after controlling for gender, length of illness, level of psychosis, and IQ level. This group difference was associated with a medium effect size (Cohen's d = 0.69). No significant between-group difference was found at 12 months into the study.

In another study, an RCT was conducted at a university-based psychiatric research clinic with outpatients who had a DSM-IV diagnosis of early-course (defined as present for 8 years or less) schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder at study entry. Participants were symptomatically stable but clinician rated as being cognitively and socially disabled (with the Cognitive Style and Social Cognition Eligibility Interview, specifically designed for this study) and were randomly assigned to the intervention group, which received 2 years of CET, or the comparison group, which received 2 years of EST. EST consisted of illness management through applied coping strategies and education. Assessments occurred at baseline and at 12 and 24 months into the study. Compared with participants who received EST, those who received CET had a greater improvement in the cognitive style change score at 12 months into the study (p = .023) and at 24 months into the study (p = .003), after controlling for age, gender, length of illness, IQ level, and dose of medication. These group differences were associated with a medium effect size at 12 months into the study (Cohen's d = 0.68) and a large effect size at 24 months into the study (Cohen's d = 1.02).
Studies Measuring Outcome Study 1, Study 2
Study Designs Experimental
Quality of Research Rating 2.7 (0.0-4.0 scale)
Outcome 3: Social cognition
Description of Measures Social cognition was assessed in both studies using two clinician-rated instruments: the Cognitive Styles and Social Cognition Eligibility Criteria and the Social Cognition Profile.

The Cognitive Styles and Social Cognition Eligibility Criteria is a structured interview designed to elicit behaviors and verbal responses that provide information on the presence and severity of impairments in cognitive style and social cognition. The instrument includes direct questioning about interpersonal interactions and social problem solving, as well as vignettes that require the respondent to take the perspective of another person and appraise social context. For the social cognition component of the instrument, clinicians rate the severity of social cognition impairment across five generalized domains:

  • Vocational ineffectiveness (e.g., unemployed or working below potential; reduced work stamina; unable to establish or maintain a routine; unable to use feedback from coworkers, supervisor, or authority figures)
  • Interpersonal ineffectiveness (e.g., lack of empathy, flexibility, or reciprocity; unable to negotiate conflicts, express needs, act wisely, or take perspectives)
  • Lack of foresight (e.g., unable to assess long-term consequences of behavior, good or bad; difficulty forming long-range plans)
  • Gist extraction deficits (e.g., difficulty understanding formal or informal rules of conduct as social contexts change; unable to assess central point or norm of social situation)
  • Adjustment to disability (e.g., unable to temporarily revise expectations; failure to understand or accept residual limitations imposed by illness)
The Social Cognition Profile is a 50-item clinician-rated instrument that assesses social cognition across four domain factors: tolerant (e.g., accepting, respectful, cooperative), supportive (e.g., empathic, reciprocal, friendly), perceptive (e.g., foresightful, self-aware, gistful), and self-confident (e.g., comfortable, assertive, involved). Clinicians rate each item on a 5-point scale, with higher scores reflecting better social cognition.

One study also used the Mayer-Salovey-Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test (MSCEIT), a 140-item performance-based test of the respondent's emotional intelligence. The MSCEIT contains eight subtests that require respondents to identify emotions expressed by a face or in designs; generate a mood and solve problems with that mood; define the causes of different emotions and demonstrate an understanding of the progression of emotions; and determine how to best include emotion in one's thoughts during situations involving oneself or other people.

In both studies, scores from the instruments were scaled to a common metric and averaged to form composite scores. The composite scores were then standardized to a baseline mean, and change scores were calculated from the baseline mean to the assessments at 12 and 24 months into the study.
Key Findings In one study, an RCT was conducted at a university-based psychiatric research clinic with outpatients who had a DSM-III-R or DSM-IV diagnosis of chronic schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder at study entry. Participants were symptomatically stable but clinician rated as being cognitively and socially disabled (with the Cognitive Style and Social Cognition Eligibility Interview, specifically designed for this study) and were randomly assigned to the intervention group, which received 2 years of CET, or the comparison group, which received 2 years of Enriched Supportive Therapy (EST). EST consisted of illness management through applied coping strategies and education. Assessments occurred at baseline and at 12 and 24 months into the study. Compared with participants who received EST, those who received CET had a greater improvement in the social cognition change score at 24 months into the study (p = .001), after controlling for gender, length of illness, level of psychosis, and IQ level. This group difference was associated with a medium effect size (Cohen's d = 0.72). No significant between-group difference was found at 12 months into the study.

In another study, an RCT was conducted at a university-based psychiatric research clinic with outpatients who had a DSM-IV diagnosis of early-course (defined as present for 8 years or less) schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder at study entry. Participants were symptomatically stable but clinician rated as being cognitively and socially disabled (with the Cognitive Style and Social Cognition Eligibility Interview, specifically designed for this study) and were randomly assigned to the intervention group, which received 2 years of CET, or the comparison group, which received 2 years of EST. EST consisted of illness management through applied coping strategies and education. Assessments occurred at baseline and at 12 and 24 months into the study. Compared with participants who received EST, those who received CET had a greater improvement in the social cognition change score at 12 months into the study (p < .001) and at 24 months into the study (p < .001), after controlling for age, gender, length of illness, IQ level, and dose of medication. These group differences were associated with large effect sizes (Cohen's d = 1.08 and 1.55 at 12 and 24 months into the study, respectively).
Studies Measuring Outcome Study 1, Study 2
Study Designs Experimental
Quality of Research Rating 2.7 (0.0-4.0 scale)
Outcome 4: Social adjustment
Description of Measures Social adjustment was assessed in both studies with three clinician-rated instruments:

  • The Major Role Adjustment Inventory, a 32-item measure of major role adjustment that assesses vocational, social, and household role functioning.
  • The Global Assessment Scale, a global measure of patient functioning that is rated on a scale from 0 to 100, with higher ratings indicating better social adjustment.
  • The Performance Potential Inventory, a 55-item measure of functional disability based on employment disability criteria used by the Social Security Administration. Items are rated on a 5-point scale, with higher scores indicating better social adjustment.
One study also used the clinician-rated Social Adjustment Scale-II, a 44-item structured interview-based measure that covers seven domains: work affinity (e.g., work performance, time lost at work because of illness), primary/family relations in the household (e.g., friction with parents or spouse), social functioning outside the home (e.g., friction with extended relatives or parents not living with the patient), interpersonal anguish (e.g., distress at work, loneliness, satisfaction with social adjustment), sexual relations (e.g., frequency, interest in sexual relations), social leisure (e.g., frequency of social contacts, participation in social leisure activities, interpersonal effectiveness), and self-care (e.g., personal hygiene). Each item is rated on a 5- or 6-point scale that ranges from 0 (good adjustment) to 4 or 5 (poor adjustment).

In both studies, scores from the instruments were scaled to a common metric and averaged to form composite scores. The composite scores were then standardized to a baseline mean, and change scores were calculated from the baseline mean to the assessments at 12 and 24 months into the study.
Key Findings In one study, an RCT was conducted at a university-based psychiatric research clinic with outpatients who had a DSM-III-R or DSM-IV diagnosis of chronic schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder at study entry. Participants were symptomatically stable but clinician rated as being cognitively and socially disabled (with the Cognitive Style and Social Cognition Eligibility Interview, specifically designed for this study) and were randomly assigned to the intervention group, which received 2 years of CET, or the comparison group, which received 2 years of Enriched Supportive Therapy (EST). EST consisted of illness management through applied coping strategies and education. Assessments occurred at baseline and at 12 and 24 months into the study. Compared with participants who received EST, those who received CET had a greater improvement in the social adjustment change score at 12 months into the study (p = .046) and at 24 months into the study (p = .01), after controlling for gender, length of illness, level of psychosis, and IQ level. These group differences were associated with a small effect size at 12 months into the study (Cohen's d = 0.40) and a medium effect size at 24 months into the study (Cohen's d = 0.56).

In another study, an RCT was conducted at a university-based psychiatric research clinic with outpatients who had a DSM-IV diagnosis of early-course (defined as present for 8 years or less) schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder at study entry. Participants were symptomatically stable but clinician rated as being cognitively and socially disabled (with the Cognitive Style and Social Cognition Eligibility Interview, specifically designed for this study) and were randomly assigned to the intervention group, which received 2 years of CET, or the comparison group, which received 2 years of EST. EST consisted of illness management through applied coping strategies and education. Assessments occurred at baseline and at 12 and 24 months into the study. Compared with participants who received EST, those who received CET had a greater improvement in the social adjustment change score at 12 months into the study (p = .001) and at 24 months into the study (p < .001), after controlling for age, gender, length of illness, IQ level, and dose of medication. These group differences were associated with large effect sizes (Cohen's d = 0.82 and 1.53 at 12 and 24 months into the study, respectively).
Studies Measuring Outcome Study 1, Study 2
Study Designs Experimental
Quality of Research Rating 2.8 (0.0-4.0 scale)

Study Populations

The following populations were identified in the studies reviewed for Quality of Research.

Study Age Gender Race/Ethnicity
Study 1 26-55 (Adult) 59% Male
41% Female
89% White
11% Black or African American
Study 2 18-25 (Young adult)
26-55 (Adult)
69% Male
31% Female
69% White
19% Black or African American
10.3% Asian
1.7% Race/ethnicity unspecified

Quality of Research Ratings by Criteria (0.0-4.0 scale)

External reviewers independently evaluate the Quality of Research for an intervention's reported results using six criteria:

  1. Reliability of measures
  2. Validity of measures
  3. Intervention fidelity
  4. Missing data and attrition
  5. Potential confounding variables
  6. Appropriateness of analysis

For more information about these criteria and the meaning of the ratings, see Quality of Research.

Outcome Reliability
of Measures
Validity
of Measures
Fidelity Missing
Data/Attrition
Confounding
Variables
Data
Analysis
Overall
Rating
1: Neurocognition 3.3 3.1 2.9 2.6 2.9 3.2 3.0
2: Cognitive style 2.3 2.5 2.9 2.6 2.9 3.2 2.7
3: Social cognition 2.3 2.3 2.9 2.6 2.9 3.2 2.7
4: Social adjustment 2.5 2.8 2.9 2.6 2.9 3.2 2.8

Study Strengths

Sample internal consistency and test-retest reliability were established for the clinician-rated instruments assessing the cognitive style, social cognition, and social adjustment outcomes. In both studies, the neurocognition outcome measures were from standard neuropsychological test batteries, the investigators included sample internal consistency and test-retest reliability for the neurocognition composite scores, and an independent psychometrician administered the neuropsychological test batteries, which further increased reliability. In both studies, efforts to ensure intervention fidelity included tracking of session attendance, indication of the intervention dosage received by study participants, adherence to a session agenda, and supervision by the program developers. Investigators used a fidelity scale to rate clinician drift in random audiotaped intervention sessions in one study and in random audio- or videotaped sessions in another study. In both studies, the intervention was manual driven, and random assignment was used to control many potential confounding variables. One study used an intent-to-treat approach that included data from all randomized participants in the analyses. Appropriate statistical modeling was used in both studies, with verification of multivariate main effects by effect sizes in addition to statistical significance and post hoc between-group testing of the individual measures composing each outcome's composite score.

Study Weaknesses

Interrater and clinician reliability for rating the instruments assessing the cognitive style, social cognition, and social adjustment outcomes was not established during either study. In both studies, the construct validity of the four outcomes' composite scores was not tested and confirmed by independent investigators. The validity of using neuropsychological test instruments as longitudinal outcome measures, a function for which these tests were not designed, is questionable. There is no evidence that a tested fidelity scale with demonstrated psychometric properties was used in either study, and the ratings of intervention sessions for clinician drift were discontinued during the final year of treatment in one study because of funding restrictions. Clinician assessors who rated participants with the outcome measures were not blind to study condition in either study, which could have introduced a bias in the composite outcome findings. An intent-to-treat approach to the data analysis was not used in one study, and missing data were not handled by sophisticated statistical modeling in either study. In one study, there was no discussion of the differences between participants who dropped out of the study and those who remained in the study across the full 2-year period.

Readiness for Dissemination
Review Date: January 2012

Materials Reviewed

The materials below were reviewed for Readiness for Dissemination. The implementation point of contact can provide information regarding implementation of the intervention and the availability of additional, updated, or new materials.

Hogarty, G. E., Flesher, S., & Greenwald, D. (2006). Cognitive style and social cognition eligibility criteria (short form). In G. E. Hogarty & D. P. Greenwald, Cognitive Enhancement Therapy: The training manual (pp. 405-408). Pittsburgh, PA: Author.

Hogarty, G. E., & Greenwald, D. (2006). Cognitive Enhancement Therapy supplemental CD-ROM: Agendas-handouts-score sheets-assessments. Pittsburgh, PA: Author.

Hogarty, G. E., & Greenwald, D. P. (2006). Cognitive Enhancement Therapy: The training manual. Pittsburgh, PA: Author.

Hogarty, G. E., Greenwald, D., & Flesher, S. (2006). Social cognition profile (micro-measures) clinician report. In G. E. Hogarty & D. P. Greenwald, Cognitive Enhancement Therapy: The training manual (pp. 412-415). Pittsburgh, PA: Author.

Other program materials:

  • CET Computer Fidelity Evaluation Form
  • CET Group Fidelity Evaluation Form
  • Cognitive Enhancement Therapy Implementation Checklist
  • Cognitive Enhancement Therapy Training Program
  • Fidelity Monitoring
  • Outcome Monitoring
  • Recommended Readings
  • Supplemental Information
  • Support Resources

Readiness for Dissemination Ratings by Criteria (0.0-4.0 scale)

External reviewers independently evaluate the intervention's Readiness for Dissemination using three criteria:

  1. Availability of implementation materials
  2. Availability of training and support resources
  3. Availability of quality assurance procedures

For more information about these criteria and the meaning of the ratings, see Readiness for Dissemination.

Implementation
Materials
Training and Support
Resources
Quality Assurance
Procedures
Overall
Rating
3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5

Dissemination Strengths

The program materials are well organized and easy to follow, with step-by-step instructions explaining the implementation process. Training materials are standardized and well organized. The training and support workshops are comprehensive, covering the spectrum of skills needed to implement the program. Baseline, assessment, and outcome monitoring tools are provided, which establish a methodology for tracking progress during implementation. Fidelity evaluation forms and the implementation checklist assess the degree to which the program is being implemented with fidelity.

Dissemination Weaknesses

Limited preimplementation guidance is available for agencies and practitioners. Training, although not required, is limited to workshops that are conducted at the developer's site, which may make it less accessible to potential implementers.

Costs

The cost information below was provided by the developer. Although this cost information may have been updated by the developer since the time of review, it may not reflect the current costs or availability of items (including newly developed or discontinued items). The implementation point of contact can provide current information and discuss implementation requirements.

Item Description Cost Required by Developer
CET manual $50 each; $45 each for 5 or more Yes
CET CD-ROM (includes agendas, handouts, scoring sheets, and assessments) $25 each Yes
Additional CET materials (neurocognitive training software: Orientation Remediation Module and memory and problem-solving exercises) Contact the developer Yes
3 off-site CET training workshops for clinicians and supervisors (conducted in an 18-month period in Pittsburgh, PA) Contact the developer No
Contact Information

To learn more about implementation, contact:
CET Training, LLC
(412) 206-9418
questions@CognitiveEnhancementTherapy.com

To learn more about research, contact:
Shaun M. Eack, Ph.D.
(412) 648-9029
sme12@pitt.edu

Consider these Questions to Ask (PDF, 54KB) as you explore the possible use of this intervention.

Web Site(s):