Free Access
Psychother Psychosom 2012;81:38–43

Higher Executive Control and Visual Memory Performance Predict Treatment Completion in Borderline Personality Disorder

Fertuck E.A.a, c · Keilp J.c · Song I.d · Morris M.C.c · Wilson S.T.c · Brodsky B.S.c · Stanley B.b, c
aSubprogram in Clinical Psychology, Department of Psychology, City University of New York, bDepartment of Psychology, City University of New York, John Jay College, cDepartment of Psychiatry, Columbia University, New York State Psychiatric Institute, New York, N.Y., and dNIMH, Center for the Study of Emotion and Attention, University of Florida, Gainesville, Fla., USA
email Corresponding Author


 goto top of outline Key Words

  • Borderline personality disorder
  • Neuropsychology
  • Treatment retention
  • Treatment completion
  • Treatment adherence
  • Psychotherapy
  • Executive function
  • Memory
  • Executive control

 goto top of outline Abstract

Background: Non-completion of a prescribed course of treatment occurs in 20–60% of individuals diagnosed with borderline personality disorder (BPD). While symptom severity, personality traits and environmental factors have been implicated as predictors of treatment non-completion (TNC), there have been no studies of neuropsychological predictors in this population. Methods: From a randomized controlled trial, a subsample of 31, unmedicated outpatients diagnosed with BPD with recent self-injurious behavior was assessed on 5 neuropsychological domains. Patients were also assessed for general IQ, demographic and other salient clinical variables. Patients were randomized to one of four treatment conditions, which lasted up to 1 year. Number of weeks in treatment (WIT) up to 1 year was utilized as the index of TNC. Results: Thirty-three percent of the subsample (n = 12) did not complete 1 year of treatment. However, more WIT were predicted by better baseline executive control (Trails B; p < 0.01) and visual memory performance (Benton visual retention; p < 0.001); other neuropsychological domains did not predict WIT. Conclusion: In the treatment of outpatients with BPD, better executive control and visual memory performance predict more WIT. Assessing and addressing these neurocognitive factors in treatment may reduce TNC in this high-risk population.

Copyright © 2011 S. Karger AG, Basel

goto top of outline Introduction

Borderline personality disorder (BPD) is a high-risk disorder that is associated with profound emotional suffering [1]. BPD is prevalent, affecting at least 1–2% of the general population [2]. Individuals with BPD with a history of suicide attempts and non-suicidal self-injurious behavior are at particularly high risk and, simultaneously, can be the most challenging to engage in treatment [3]. An emerging body of evidence suggests that BPD can be treated with specialized interventions [4,5,6]. While clinicians and researchers now take a guardedly optimistic view of the efficacy of BPD-specific psychosocial [7] and pharmacological treatments [8], attrition or treatment non-completion (TNC) in BPD remains a pressing clinical challenge [9].

TNC is defined as patient dropout, discontinuation, premature termination or attrition in the course of a prescribed treatment [9]. In efficacious BPD treatments, the prevention of TNC is one of the highest priorities for intervention, ranking just behind self-destructive behavior [10,11,12]. TNC may not only undermine the recovery of those with BPD, it also reduces the efficient and timely delivery of services [9]. TNC also contributes to stigma among clinicians who may eschew treating those with BPD due to a perceived propensity for TNC.

goto top of outline Potential Role of Neurocognition in Treatment Completion

There are only limited data on the predictors of treatment adherence in patients with BPD [for a review, see [9] ]. Among potential predictors, basic neuropsychological processes such as executive control (EC), impulse control, attention and memory performance may be prerequisite capacities for effective engagement in psychotherapeutic and other treatments, yet they have not been investigated in BPD. Impaired EC and impulse control may be core vulnerabilities in BPD. Recent reviews indicate that BPD is associated with mild to moderate deficits in neuropsychological task performance, particularly EC, impulse control and long-term memory consolidation [13,14,15]. Negative affect can further exacerbate deficient EC in BPD [13,16]. Neurocognitive deficits may be difficult to distinguish from those produced by comorbid affective disorders, although intercurrent anxiety may play a more important role in cognitive deficits in BPD [17].

This study aims to investigate neuropsychological domains as prospective predictors of TNC in a subsample of patients who participated in a randomized controlled trial of 1 year of specialized treatment for BPD. Most prior studies of TNC in BPD have not used randomized controlled trial designs with manualized psychotherapies. We investigate neuropsychological predictors in the context of other key variables including demographics, psychopathological traits and symptoms, as well as clinical history.


goto top of outline Methods

goto top of outline Participants

A subsample of 31 patients with a diagnosis of DSM-IV BPD and recent self-injury and/or suicide attempt that completed the neuropsychological battery participated in this study. The patients were recruited during a randomized controlled trial (NCT00533117 at; principal investigator: B.S.) from the New York City metropolitan area. The institutional review board approved the study, all participants were informed about the risks and benefits of participation and all provided written consent.

Exclusion criteria for the BPD group were bipolar I disorder, schizophrenia and other psychotic disorders, mental retardation, history of severe head trauma, neurological disease, or other cognitive impairment that might interfere with the accuracy of assessments or the capacity to provide informed consent. The mean age for the group was 29.5 years (SD 8.3), with 14.9 years of education (SD 2.4), 51.6% were white, 87.1% female and 9.7% married. Hamilton depression (HAM-D) scores for the group averaged 18.1 (SD 6.8), 87.1% had a prior suicide attempt, 83.9% a history of non-suicidal self-injury and 66.6% reported a history of physical or sexual abuse before age 18 years. Co-occurring diagnoses included 74.2% with current or past major depression, 32.3% with post-traumatic stress disorder, 9.7% with panic disorder, 6.5% with generalized anxiety disorder, 19.4% with social phobia, 25.8% with an eating disorder, 51.6% with current or past substance abuse/dependence, which are comparable rates to other treatment seeking BPD samples. On Axis II, the most common co-occurring condition was avoidant PD (16.1%) and the least was narcissistic PD (3.2%).

Participants were randomized to one of four treatment conditions: dialectical behavior therapy [10] and fluoxetine, dialectical behavior therapy and placebo, supportive psychotherapy and fluoxetine, or supportive psychotherapy and placebo. Prior to the initiation of treatment, participants were washed out of medication if they were on medication. After washout, neuropsychological assessment was conducted while the patient was unmedicated. Subsequently, randomized treatment was initiated and the length of the trial was 1 year for all treatment conditions. Treatment completion was operationalized as the number of consecutive weeks in treatment (WIT) completed.


goto top of outline Measures

goto top of outline Clinical Assessment

Diagnoses were determined by the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV, patient edition (SCID-I) [19], and the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV Axis II Personality Disorders (SCID-II) [20]. Recent reliability studies within our research division yielded the following intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs; criterion levels are shown in parentheses): Axis I diagnosis/SCID-I, ICC = 0.80 (0.70); Axis II diagnosis/SCID-II, ICC = 0.70 (0.70); BPD diagnosis, ICC = 0.89 (0.70).

goto top of outline Neuropsychological Assessment

The neuropsychological battery included tests that assessed five general domains: attention, memory, working memory, executive function and impulse control [for further description of tests, see [17] ]. In addition, general intellectual functioning was assessed with the Peabody picture vocabulary test [21].

Executive Control
Wisconsin Card Sorting Task. The Wisconsin card sorting task (WCST) [22] is a standard clinical measure of abstraction and executive function. The sum of standardized subscores for total errors, perseverative errors and nonperseverative errors were reported and used for the overall domain score of the task.

Trail Making Task. As a measure of diffuse brain injury and psychomotor functioning, the Trail making task [23] is a brief, paper-and-pencil task composed of two parts. In part A, participants are instructed to draw lines to connect the randomly arranged, numbered circles in ascending order as quickly as possible. In part B, participants must draw a line and connect the circles that include either numbers or letters in a more complex sequence (i.e. alternating between ascending numbers and letters).

Buschke Selective Reminding Test. The Buschke selective reminding test [24] is a list learning task used extensively in studies of dementia. In this study, the total score of the test included both immediate and delayed recall performance.

Benton Visual Retention Test. The Benton visual retention test (VRT) [25] is a widely used instrument that assesses visual perception, visual memory and visuoconstructive abilities with multiple alternate forms and administrations. Administration ‘D’ (10-second exposure/15-second delay) was used here to reduce potential ceiling effects.

Continuous Performance Test. The 4-digit fast condition of the identical pairs version of the continuous performance test [26] was used to assess sustained attention. In this study, there were 150 trials, containing 28 targets (i.e. a series of 4-digit numbers) and 25 ‘catch’ trials (i.e. very similar but not identical to the numbers that preceded it). Hit and false alarm rates were recorded, and the signal detection indices d’ (sensitivity) was computed as an outcome measure.

Computerized Stroop Color/Word Task. The computerized Stroop task [27] is designed as a clinical version based on the standard color-word paradigm [28] using a button-press response. The interference effect was based on the percent difference in median reaction time between incongruently colored words and colored Xs.

Working Memory Tasks
Computerized A, Not B Logical Reasoning Task. The A, not B task is a computerized version of a paper-and-pencil working memory and reasoning task developed by Baddeley [29] based on decoding syllogisms [27]. Response time to correct solutions was the key outcome variable.

n-Back Task. The n-back task is adapted from Cohen et al. [30]. Participants were required to monitor a sequence of individually presented letters (500 ms, at the rate of every 3 s) to determine if the letter matched the previous letter presented (1-back), the letter two items previous (2-back), or the letter three times previous (3-back). The hit rate (correct responses/target trials) and error rate (non-target responses/non-target trials) and an overall sensitivity index (d’) were computed to evaluate performance [26].

Impulse Control Tasks
Time-Estimation Task. This computer-based time-estimation task asks participants to estimate intervals of 10, 20, 40, 60 or 90 s by pressing a response key when a screen appeared, giving the interval to be estimated with a start tone [27]. Performance was scored as interval estimates, which were collapsed for each task into a single overall average percent deviation scores.

Computerized Go-No Go Task. A participant’s ability to withhold responding to less frequent non-target stimuli has been assessed using the go-no go paradigm. In our task [27], when the X appeared in one of six locations on a computer screen, it was accompanied by one of two tones, designated as ‘high’ (about 400 Hz) or ‘low’ (about 200 Hz). Participants were instructed to hit a response key when the X appeared in the top half of the screen and was accompanied by the low tone. There were 225 stimuli, 81 of which required a participant to withhold responding. The total number of incorrect responses to these mismatch trials (i.e. commission errors) were reported and adjusted for the total number of correct responses.

Scores were transformed to age, sex and education-adjusted Z-scores before being combined into aggregate domain scores.

goto top of outline Neuropsychological Domain Scores

EC = Wisconsin card sort (errors) plus difference in score between Trails B and Trails A (difference in standardized scores). Memory = Buschke (total) and Benton VRT (errors). Attention = Continuous performance test and Stroop. Working memory = n-back and A, not B. Impulse control = Time production and go-no go (log of commission errors).

goto top of outline Clinical Measures

Depression severity was assessed using the HAM-D [31].

State Affect
Concurrent negative emotional state was assessed with the profile of mood states [32], a 65-item self-report questionnaire that provides scores for 6 transient emotional states: tension-anxiety, depression-dejection, anger-hostility, confusion-bewilderment, vigor-activity and fatigue-inertia.

Impulsivity was assessed with the Barratt impulsiveness scale (BIS). The version of the BIS used in this study is the initial version of the 11th revision of the test, provided to us by Barratt [33] and used for the last 14 years in the Suicide Research Center in which this research was based [27].

Data Analysis
The dependent variable in all primary analyses was the number of consecutive WIT during the treatment year (mean 41.2, SD 17.6). Due to the non-normal and highly dispersed and skewed distribution of the WIT variable (skewness –1.15), we used a generalized linear model (GLM) with a negative binomial distribution and robust estimator covariance matrix to evaluate the effect of our independent variables (neuropsychological domains and symptoms/traits) on WIT. Negative binomial GLM performs better than standard GLM with count data or overdispersed data (i.e. where the variance is much larger than the mean) [34].

The analyses of neuropsychological test data were carried out in a hierarchical fashion to reduce and structure the number of statistical comparisons of test scores. The five domain scores were analyzed first, followed by individual tests within domains when a significant difference at the domain level was found. For all neuropsychological main effects on WIT, the impact of depression severity, treatment condition, trait impulsivity (BIS), state negative affect (profile of mood states, total), age and gender were assessed by entering these as covariates into the GLM analyses.


goto top of outline Results

goto top of outline Neuropsychological Domains

Table 1 summarizes the GLM findings for the neuropsychological predictors. Better EC predicted more WIT. When depression severity (HAM-D) was added to this GLM, EC remained a significant main effect predictor, and higher depression severity was an additional main effect predictor of fewer WIT.

Table 1. GLM (negative binomial) of neuropsychological predictors of WIT in a BPD sample (n = 31)

Of the two measures that comprise EC (in separate analyses), better Trails B performance was a significant predictor of WIT; however, the number of WCST errors was not. Trails A minus Trails B was also a significant predictor, though less so than Trails B performance independently.

As a single predictor in the GLM, memory performance predicted WIT at the trend level. However, when depression severity (HAM-D) was added to the GLM, better performance in the memory domain was a significant predictor of WIT.

Of the two measures that comprise the memory domain (when assessed separately), the Benton VRT was a significant predictor of WIT. However, Buschke total recall was not.

Additionally, a post-hoc analysis of variance was used to identify differences in neuropsychological performance between treatment completers and non-completers in a binary analysis. The result completely corresponded with the GLM results. The standardized Z-score (higher scores indicate worse performance) for Trails B performance was better in completers (n = 19; mean 0.54, SD 1.00) compared to non-completers (n = 12; mean 0.99, SD 2.51; F = 5.73; p < 0.05). The standardized Z-score for Benton VRT performance was higher in completers (mean 0.41, SD 0.96) compared to non-completers (mean 0.70, SD 1.04; F = 14.78; p < 0.001). By contrast, there were no differences between completers and non-completers on the attention, working memory, impulse control or IQ estimate domains.

Unexpectedly, neuropsychological domains of attention, impulse control, as well as working memory performance domains did not predict WIT. In addition, IQ did not predict WIT.

goto top of outline Analysis of Other Potentially Confounding Variables

Depression severity (HAM-D), treatment condition, trait impulsivity (BIS), state negative affect (profile of mood states, total), age or gender did not alter the impact of neuropsychological performance on WIT. The exception was depression severity (reported above), which acted as a suppressor variable in the memory domain.


goto top of outline Discussion

To our knowledge, this is the first study to identify specific domains of neurocognitive performance as prospective predictors of TNC in BPD. WIT was predicted by better EC (Trails B) and visual memory (Benton) performance. By contrast, other neuropsychological domains (i.e. impulse control, working memory, attention and general IQ) were not predictive TNC.

EC in BPD has been proposed as an impaired modulatory system that impacts affective, cognitive and interpersonal domains of symptomatology [14,35]. Our findings extend this line of research and suggest that behavioral coordination and modulation during the treatment process are largely based on the deployment of EC, rather than on processes of attention, working memory or behavioral inhibition. In particular, in the present study, only one of two EC tasks, Trails B, predicted WIT. A difference between the two EC tasks (WCST and Trails B) is that the Trails B emphasizes both speed and accuracy, whereas the WCST only assesses accuracy. We speculate that the combination of speed and accuracy are jointly important for treatment completion in BPD.

The capacity to flexibly and efficiently apply cognitive rules to novel stimuli may be an important prerequisite for psychosocial interventions, which demand applying new skills and insights to real world situations. Supporting these assertions, the present finding is in line with several prospective studies of alcoholism and other substance use disorders in which Trails B was predictive of participation in aftercare sessions and length of hospital stay during inpatient treatment [36,37]. Our negative finding on the WCST is consistent with a study which found that WCST scores did not differ between treatment completers and dropouts in the treatment of cocaine dependence [18].

In the present study, visual memory performance was the strongest neuropsychological predictor of WIT. Although there are a growing number of studies indicating that memory dysfunction predicts general outcomes of treatment in clinical disorders (e.g., schizophrenia, anxiety disorders and substance use disorders), memory performance has rarely been examined as a predictor of treatment completion. A study of cocaine dependence reported a relationship between better memory performance and treatment completion in outpatients receiving cognitive-behavioral therapy [18]. Another recent study suggests that poorer verbal memory limits the response to cognitive-behavioral therapy for schizophrenia [38]. Given that memory and learning are interdependent processes, the findings of the present study may point to a synergistic relationship between memory and EC performance in the effective treatment of BPD.

It is worth noting that once depression severity is accounted for in the GLM model, a significant relationship emerges between better memory and more WIT. This finding suggests that severity of depression obscures the importance of memory performance in the prediction of TNC, perhaps because depression can itself impair memory performance [39].

The strengths of this study include the randomization of patients to manualized psychotherapeutic and controlled psychopharmacologic treatment conditions. Other assets of this study are the prospective nature of the predictions, the medication-free status of the patients and the comprehensive nature of neuropsychological assessment. The limits of this study include the relatively small sample and the potential for type II errors in the number of statistical tests. However, the hierarchical nature of our data analysis reduced the chance of such errors.

Treatment developers need to enhance the role of TNC prevention either as part of existing treatments, or as an independent preparatory phase of intervention prior to initiation of other therapies [40]. Future research also needs to address the impact of neuropsychological functions and TNC on symptomatic and functional outcomes longitudinally [41].


goto top of outline Acknowledgements

This study was supported in part by grants from NIMH (K23 MH077044) to E.F., and NIMH (R01 MH061017 and MH62665) and NIAAA (P20 AA015630) to B.S. Eli Lilly provided the fluoxetine and placebos for this study at no cost. The authors have no financial involvement (including employment, fees, share ownership) or affiliation with any organization whose financial interests may be affected by the material in the manuscript.

 goto top of outline References
  1. Horesh N, Sever J, Apter A: A comparison of life events between suicidal adolescents with major depression and borderline personality disorder. Compr Psychiatry 2003;44:277–283.
  2. Lenzenweger MF, Lane MC, Loranger AW, Kessler RC: DSM-IV personality disorders in the National Comorbidity Survey Replication. Biol Psychiatry 2007;62:553–564.
  3. Chiesa M, Sharp R, Fonagy P: Clinical associations of deliberate self-injury and its impact on the outcome of community-based and long-term inpatient treatment for personality disorder. Psychother Psychosom 2011;80:100–109.
  4. Binks CA, Fenton M, McCarthy L, Lee T, Adams CE, Duggan C: Psychological therapies for people with borderline personality disorder. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2006;1: CD005652.
  5. Oldham JM: Guideline Watch: Practice Guideline for the Treatment of Patients with Borderline Personality Disorder. Arlington, American Psychiatric Association, 2005.
  6. Sneed JR, Fertuck EA, Kanellopoeulos D, Culang ME: Borderline personality disorder; in Sturmey P, Hersen M (eds): Handbook of Evidence-Based Practice in Clinical Psychology. Hoboken, Wiley, in press.
  7. Gabbard GO: Do all roads lead to Rome? New findings on borderline personality disorder. Am J Psychiatry 2007;164:853–855.
  8. Feurino L III, Silk KR: State of the art in the pharmacologic treatment of borderline personality disorder. Curr Psychiatry Rep 2011;13:69–75.
  9. McMurran M, Huband N, Overton E: Non-completion of personality disorder treatments: a systematic review of correlates, consequences, and interventions. Clin Psychol Rev 2010;30:277–287.
  10. Linehan MM: Cognitive-Behavioral Treatment of Borderline Personality Disorder. New York, Guilford Press, 1993.
  11. Allen DM: Techniques for reducing therapy-interfering behavior in patients with borderline personality disorder. Similarities in four diverse treatment paradigms. J Psychother Pract Res 1997;6:25–35.
  12. Clarkin JF, Yeomans FE, Kernberg OF: Psychotherapy for Borderline Personality: Focusing on Object Relations, ed 1. Washington, American Psychiatric Press, 2006.
  13. Nigg JT, Silk KR, Stavro G, Miller T: Disinhibition and borderline personality disorder. Dev Psychopathol 2005;17:1129–1149.
  14. Fertuck EA, Lenzenweger MF, Clarkin JF, Hoermann S, Stanley B: Executive neurocognition, memory systems, and borderline personality disorder. Clin Psychol Rev 2006;26:346–375.
  15. Ruocco AC: The neuropsychology of borderline personality disorder: a meta-analysis and review. Psychiatry Res 2005;137:191–202.
  16. Posner MI, Rothbart MK, Vizueta N, Levy KN, Evans DE, Clarkin JF: Attentional mechanisms of borderline personality disorder. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2002;99:16366–16370.
  17. Fertuck EA, Marsano-Jozefowicz S, Stanley B, Tryon WW, Oquendo M, Mann JJ, Keilp JG: The impact of borderline personality disorder and anxiety on neuropsychological performance in major depression. J Pers Disord 2006;20:55–70.
  18. Aharonovich E, Hasin DS, Brooks AC, Liu X, Bisaga A, Nunes EV: Cognitive deficits predict low treatment retention in cocaine dependent patients. Drug Alcohol Depend 2006;81:313–322.
  19. First MB, Spitzer RL, Gibbon M, Williams J: Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV Axis I Disorders – Patient Edition: SCID-I/P. Washington, American Psychiatric Press, 1996.
  20. Maffei C, Fossati A, Agostoni I, Barraco A, Bagnato M, Deborah D, Namia C, Novella L, Petrachi M: Interrater reliability and internal consistency of the structured clinical interview for DSM-IV axis II personality disorders (SCID-II), version 2.0. J Pers Disord 1997;11:279–284.
  21. Mangiaracina J, Simon MJ: Comparison of the PPVT-R and WAIS-R in state hospital psychiatric patients. J Clin Psychol 1986;42:817–820.
  22. Grant DA, Berg EA: A behavioral analysis of degree of reinforcement and ease of shifting to new responses in a Weigl-type card-sorting problem. J Exp Psychol 1948;38:404–411.
  23. Reitan RM, Wolfson D: The Halstead-Reitan Neuropsychological Test Battery: Theory and Clinical Interpretation. Tucson, Neuropsychology Press, 1985.
  24. Buschke H, Fuld PA: Evaluating storage, retention, and retrieval in disordered memory and learning. Neurology 1974;24:1019–1025.
  25. Sivan AB: Benton Visual Retention Test, ed 5. San Antonio, Psychological Corporation, 1992.
  26. Cornblatt BA, Keilp JG: Impaired attention, genetics, and the pathophysiology of schizophrenia. Schizophr Bull 1994;20:31–46.
  27. Keilp JG, Sackeim HA, Mann JJ: Correlates of trait impulsiveness in performance measures and neuropsychological tests. Psychiatry Res 2005;135:191–201.
  28. MacLeod CM: Half a century of research on the Stroop effect: an integrative review. Psychol Bull 1991;109:163–203.
  29. Baddeley AD: A three minute reasoning test based on grammatical transformations. Psychon Sci 1968;10:1019–1025.
  30. Cohen JD, Forman SD, Braver TS, Casey BJ, Servan-Schreiber D, Noll DC: Activation of prefrontal cortex in a non-spatial working memory task with functional MRI. Hum Brain Map 1994;1:293–304.
  31. Hamilton M: A rating scale for depression. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 1960;23:56–62.
  32. Oldham JM, Bender DS, Skodol AE, Dyck IR, Sanislow CA, Yen S, Grilo CM, Shea MT, Zanarini MC, Gunderson EJ, McGlashan TH: Testing an APA practice guideline: symptom-targeted medication utilization for patients with borderline personality disorder. J Psychiatr Pract 2004;10:156–161.
  33. Barratt ES: Impulsiveness and aggression; in Monahan J, Steadman HJ (eds): Violence and Mental Disorder: Developments in Risk Assessment. Chicago, University of Chicago Press, 1994, pp 61–79.
  34. Hilbe JM: Negative binomial regression. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2007.
  35. Lenzenweger MF, Clarkin JF, Fertuck EA, Kernberg OF: Executive neurocognitive functioning and neurobehavioral systems indicators in borderline personality disorder: a preliminary study. J Pers Disord 2004;18:421–438.
  36. Castaneda R, Lifshutz H, Galanter M, Medalia A, Franco H: Treatment compliance after detoxification among highly disadvantaged alcoholics. Am J Drug Alcohol Abuse 1992;18:223–234.
  37. Harris AH, McKellar JD, Moos RH, Schaefer JA, Cronkite RC: Predictors of engagement in continuing care following residential substance use disorder treatment. Drug Alcohol Depend 2006;84:93–101.
  38. Penades R, Catalan R, Pujol N, Puig O, Guarch J, Masana G, Navarro V, Gasto C: Is memory impairment a rate limiter in cognitive behavioural therapy for chronic schizophrenia? Psychother Psychosom 2010;79:129–130.
  39. Keilp JG, Sackeim HA, Brodsky BS, Oquendo MA, Malone KM, Mann JJ: Neuropsychological dysfunction in depressed suicide attempters. Am J Psychiatry 2001;158:735–741.
  40. Ogrodniczuk JS: New directions in treatment research for personality disorders: effectiveness of different levels of care. Psychother Psychosom 2011;80:65–69.
  41. Bartak A, Andrea H, Spreeuwenberg MD, Ziegler UM, Dekker J, Rossum BV, Hamers EFM, Scholte W, Aerts J, Busschbach JJV, Verheul R, Stijnen T, Emmelkamp PMG: Effectiveness of outpatient, day hospital, and inpatient psychotherapeutic treatment for patients with cluster B personality disorders. Psychother Psychosom 2011;80:28–38.

 goto top of outline Author Contacts

Eric A. Fertuck, PhD
Department of Psychology, The City College of New York
The City University of New York, 160 Convent Ave.
New York, NY 10031 (USA)
Tel. +1 212 650 5847, E-Mail

 goto top of outline Article Information

Received: August 11, 2010
Accepted after revision: May 26, 2011
Published online: November 22, 2011
Number of Print Pages : 6
Number of Figures : 0, Number of Tables : 1, Number of References : 41

 goto top of outline Publication Details

Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics

Vol. 81, No. 1, Year 2012 (Cover Date: December 2011)

Journal Editor: Fava G.A. (Bologna)
ISSN: 0033-3190 (Print), eISSN: 1423-0348 (Online)

For additional information:

Copyright / Drug Dosage / Disclaimer

Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher or, in the case of photocopying, direct payment of a specified fee to the Copyright Clearance Center.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in goverment regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.