ABSTRACT Introduction Cognition is a common symptom dimension in major mood disorders and is associated with impairments in daily life functioning. Assessments that capture cognitive difficulties reflective of those that people experience in the real world are therefore much needed; however, most cognitive assessments lack ecological validity. A recently developed, fully immersive VR platform for cognitive assessment (CAVIR) has proven to be feasible, well‐tolerated, sensitive to cognitive impairment in psychiatric populations, and associated with measures of daily functioning. Here we aimed to assess the validity of a newly developed English language version of CAVIR in people with primary mood disorders (PMD) and controls (HC). Method We enrolled 40 people with PMD including Bipolar I Disorder, Bipolar II Disorder, and Major Depressive Disorder, and 40 healthy controls. Participants were administered the CAVIR, the MATRICS Consensus Cognitive Battery (MCCB), symptom ratings, and measures of daily functioning (FAST, UPSA‐B). Results Patients scored worse than controls on the CAVIR composite and all subtests ( p = 0.02– p < 0.0001), except the executive functioning task ( p = 0.85). Comparing the composite and domain scores of CAVIR to their corresponding domains on the MCCB revealed modest to moderate, significant correlations on the composite and all domains except executive functioning. The CAVIR was associated with both performance‐based (UPSA‐B) and interview rated (FAST) measures of functioning. Conclusions This newly translated English language version of CAVIR performed very similarly to the original version and was sensitive to cognitive impairments in people with PMD. CAVIR composite and most subtests were correlated with an established paper and pencil cognitive battery and were associated with measures of functioning. The CAVIR is self‐administered, quick, and requires minimal training, making it a useful tool for assessing cognition.
Lewandowski et al. (Thu,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: