A thorough understanding of the cognitive effects of antidepressant medications is essential given their frequency of use. This meta-analysis was conducted to investigate whether antidepressants differentially affect the various domains of cognitive functioning for depressed and non-depressed participants. An electronic search of PsycInfo, Medline and Google Scholar was conducted for all journal articles published between January 1998 and January 2017. Thirty-three studies were included enabling calculation of Hedges' g using a random effects model for the cognitive domains of divided attention, executive function, expressive language, immediate memory, perceptual motor skills, processing speed, recent memory, sustained attention, visuospatial-constructional skills and working memory. Results revealed that overall, antidepressants have a modest, positive effect on divided attention, executive function, immediate memory, processing speed, recent memory and sustained attention for depressed participants. Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRI's) were found to have the greatest positive effect on cognition for depressed participants, as compared to the other classes of antidepressants analysed. Antidepressants did not significantly affect cognitive function in non-depressed participants.

This meta-analysis examined how performance on various cognitive domains of neuropsychological functioning can contribute to predicting progression to dementia from mild cognitive impairment (MCI) or subjective memory complaints. Studies performed between the years of 1997 and 2018 were identified through a search of the electronic databases Medline and PsycINFO. Data from the articles identified were pooled to determine standardized mean differences, calculated as Hedges g, using a random-effects model. Twenty-four studies were included in the analysis. The majority of studies examined the progression of amnestic mild cognitive impairment (aMCI) to Alzheimer’s disease (AD). Nonprogressors performed significantly better than did progressors in the domains of divided attention, executive function, expressive language, immediate recall, processing speed, delayed recall, visuospatial/constructional ability, working memory, and sustained attention. These findings indicate that individuals with MCI or subjective memory complaints who do not progress to dementia, perform better at baseline as compared with individuals that progress to dementia on a range of neuropsychological measures, and lends further support to the contention that neuropsychological assessment can make important contributions to predicting progression to dementia while individuals are still in the MCI or subjective memory complaint stage.

The review demonstrated the benefit of NPA in assisting with diagnosis and prognosis, and showed positive findings with regard to consumer perceptions of NPA. The neuropsychological literature would materially benefit from high-quality randomized control trials of NPA to definitively demonstrate the efficacy of this measure in clinical management.

Objective: While there is a wealth of research into the Flynn effect, as yet no research exists examining the effect on tests of premorbid functioning. This study investigated the ability of the National Adult Reading Test (NART), the Wechsler Test of Adult Reading (WTAR), and the Test of Premorbid Functioning (TOPF) to predict premorbid IQ. It was hypothesised that the tests of premorbid functioning would produce differing premorbid IQ estimates, with the NART predicting the highest premorbid IQ scores, followed by the NART-2 and the WTAR, with the TOPF predicting the lowest scores. Method: Ninety-five unimpaired Australian male and female participants aged between 18 and 65 years were administered a comprehensive battery of tests, including each of the tests of premorbid functioning. Results: Results indicated that premorbid IQ estimates were significantly different (p < .001) from each other, with the NART producing the highest premorbid IQ estimate and the TOPF the lowest estimate. Conclusions: These findings indicate that premorbid estimates of functioning are subject to the Flynn effect, thus use of estimates produced by tests of premorbid abilities that were designed to predict to earlier editions of the Wechsler scales will tend to inflate the level of premorbid baseline, leading to the possibility of spurious diagnosis of deficit. Clinicians should employ the most recently normed versions of these tests and employ the premorbid estimate which has been validated to predict the edition of the Wechsler scales that the individual will actually be using during any testing.

Objective: The Excellence in Research for Australia (ERA) data collections completed in 2010, 2012, and 2015 were developed by the Australian Research Council to identify the quality of research produced by the broad range of Australian tertiary education institutions. In each evaluation, the quality of research produced by the institutions was rated on a 5-point scale ranging from "well above world standard" to "well below world standard" within each field of research (FoR). The FoRs relevant to psychology include codes 1701 (Psychology), 1702 (Cognitive Sciences), and 17 (Psychology and Other Cognitive Sciences), a combination of the aforementioned codes.Method: This analysis examined and compared the ratings of the 41 Australian universities across the years 2010, 2012, and 2015 for the psychology codes (i.e., 17, 1701, and 1702), as well as examining the combined means for all three data collections. The universities were also compared according to institution type (i.e., Group of 8, the Australian Innovative Research Universities, the Australian University Technology Network, and the Regional Universities Network across years. The final analysis compared other codes relevant to psychology across the years 2010, 2012, and 2015. Results: Results of the analyses revealed an overall improvement in research ratings by the universities, with most improving or at least holding their ground. Conclusion: It is still concerning that almost 40% of the institutions did not meet the benchmark of at or above world standard. Some of the issues associated with the ERA data collections are discussed, and suggestions are made for improving this process.