Twenty-four people affected by schizophrenia, diagnosed according to DSM-IV-TR (APA, 2000) participated to the study. Subjects were outpatients of the department of Mental Health of Campobasso, Italy. All participants gave their informed consent.

The inclusion criteria were: (a) age more than 17 and less than 56 years, (b) DSM-IV diagnosis of schizophrenia confirmed following the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV Axis I Disorders (SCID-I) [26], (c) prevalence of symptoms confirmed by the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) [27], and (d) presence of cognitive impairments confirmed by a battery of neuropsychological tests. Exclusion criteria were: (a) IQ below 85 points , (b) organic cerebral diseases or primary diagnosis of substance abuse, (c) psychiatric co-morbidity, (d) psychotic exacerbation in the previous six months, and (e) plans to change medication during the treatment phase. After a complete description of the study to the subjects involved, written informed-consent was obtained.

Patients were followed up for 12 months, with interviews at baseline (T0) , 6 months, 12 months (T1). Data were collected by clinical records, through clinical interview, psychological evaluation, rating scales and the specific interview for aimed at investigating social functioning. The researchers (psychologists) trained by specific training .Subjects were divided in two groups, REC and PST.

Randomization was independently conducted by Department of Mental Health of National Institute of Health of Rome. A random-number table was used to generate lots that were drawn in sealed envelopes, each assigning the respective patient to PST or REC group.

Patients were assessed before and after treatment by independent researchers (psychologist and neuropsychologist) of Institute of Psychiatry, University of l’Aquila. The evaluation being directed to key outcome variables including social, clinical, and neurocognitive tests.

We used the Italian version of the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) [28] which has similar psychometric properties to those obtained in the original version. Symptoms were assessed with regard to the month leading up to the evaluation.

We also calculated scores obtained in the 5-factor model developed by Lindenmayer et al. [29] which yields results for Negative, Positive, Cognitive, Excitement and Depression/Anxiety components.

The PSP was developed on the basis of the social functioning component of the DSM-IV social and occupational functioning assessment scale (SOFAS) [30, 31]. The scale was interviewer-administered to informants, who provided information based on their knowledge of the patient’s behavior.

Patient functioning was assessed in four main areas: socially useful activities; personal and social relationships; self-care; and disturbing and aggressive behaviors. Difficulty in each area was rated on a single item using a six-point scale: Absent; Mild; Manifest but not marked; Marked; Severe; or Very severe, where lower ratings indicated better functioning. A global item was rated by the interviewer, ranging from 0 to 100 in ten-point intervals, where lower scores indicated poorer functioning [30, 31].

The basic score ranges and corresponding functioning levels described by the developers were 1–30 (Poor functioning, requiring intensive support or supervision); 31–70 (Manifest disabilities of various degrees); 71–90 (Mild difficulties); and 91–100 (More than adequate functioning).

The inter-rater reliability for the global score, measured by the infraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), was 0.98 and the weighted Kappa was 0.94 . Further information about the measure can be obtained from the primary developer.

All participants completed a complete neuropsychological battery. The different raw scores were converted into T-scores (Mean: 50; SD: 10) and, in order to make all scores comparable, the norms adapted for age and educational level, as outlined in the manual covering each test, were applied. The neurocognitive assessment was carried out through the following instruments: Estimated IQ: Raven progressive matrices; Working Memory: forward and backward Digit Span; Psychomotor Speed: Trail Making Test-A (TMT-A); Verbal Memory: Rey Auditory Verbal Learning Test (RAVLT); Executive Function: Tower of London, Trail Making Test-B (TMT-B); Verbal Fluency; key search (Bads), Zoo map test (Bads) [32].

This task is an Italian adaptation of a cognitive task used by Blair & Cipolotti [33] proposed in literature by Happe [34].

This task consists in a short version of 24 short vignettes, each accompanied by a picture and two questions; the comprehension question “Was it true, what X said?”, and the justification question “Why did X say that?”. The 12 story-types included Lie, White Lie, Joke, Pretend, Misunderget, Double Bluff and Contrary Emotion. A set of control “physical stories” was also given to the subjects. These stories did not involve mental states but described instead an unforeseen outcome with a mechanical physical cause [34].

The explication given in response to the “Why” question was rated as either correct or incorrect. A justification could be incorrect because it involved errors about the facts given in the story, or because it involved an inference which was inappropriate as a reason for the story character’s utterance. The justifications were also scored as either involving mental state or physical states. Many of the story characters’ utterances could be justified correctly either in term of mental states or physical states. Mental states answers included those that referred to thoughts, feelings, desires, traits, and dispositions. It was given only one score per story, giving the subject credit for patient’s “best” answer. That is, if a subject gave a correct answer and an inappropriate one, it would be selected the correct answer.

Each participant was tested alone in a room which was free from distractions. The experimenter introduced each story as follows: ‘Here are some stories and some questions. I am going to read the stories, and I’d like you to listen carefully and answer the questions at the end of each story. If you want, you may read the stories yourself while I am listening. OK? Let’s start’. The experimenter sat next to the individual and read out each story. The participants preferred sometimes reading the story out loud to the experimenter. The sheet remained in front of the participant throughout the reading and questioning tasks. This was done in order to minimize memory requirement.

First and Second Order Theory of Mind tasks [35,36] were used to measure players’ ability to make inferences about mental states was investigated through the comprehension of false beliefs stories. Two stories were read to the participants individually in order to assess second- order ToM competence (the capacity to understand other people’s false beliefs): The Washing Machine story [37, 38] and The Wallpaper Story [37, 38].

Each participant was tested alone in a room which was free from distractions. The experimenter introduced each story as follows: ‘Here are some stories and some questions. I am going to read the stories, and I’d like you to listen carefully and answer the questions at the end of each story

These stories were presented to the subjects in a series of cartoons, in which the various actions of the characters were depicted in sequences. All the subjects were asked a ToM question and three control questions:

In this task, the participant was presented with 58 short stories describing emotional situations and was asked about what the main protagonists might feel in that situation. Fourteen stories were designed to elicit attributions of happiness, 14 of sadness, 10 of fear, 10 of anger and 10 of embarrassment. The task was scored according to the number of correct attributions made for each story category. Any positive affect (including relieved, overjoyed and ecstatic) was scored as correct for the happiness stories. Any sad affect (including sad, upset and devastated) was scored as correct for the sadness stories. Correct responses to the fearful stories included fearful, scared and petrified. Correct responses to the angry stories included angry, annoyed and irritated. Correct responses to the embarrassment stories included embarrassed, stupid and humiliated.

Both intervention were conducted by professional qualified as psychologist or social worker for each treatment. Each weekly session last 90 minutes, followed by two exercices (weekly frequency) plained among sessions (six-monthly).

We followed Fallon unpublished manual [23] very similar to that of Barbieri, et al. [24]. A structured method of resolving problems, such as PST, allows patients with schizophrenia to develop solutions to everyday problems, by assigning them a role of responsibility and allowing individuals to experience an active management of the problems themselves. The PST includes stimulation of perceptive , processing and attentive processes, along with skills in specific social situations. In addition, PST does not suggest the participants any predetermined solution, but aims to teach strategies of thought that allow the choice of a solution based on a careful evaluation of their and others’ actions. The PST is divided into four stages of increasing complexity, involving identification and definition of practical problems to solve interpersonal issues, and finally intrapersonal management of crisis situations and suffering.

This intervention conducted by psychologist and social worker of Day Center of Campobasso.

Two groups participated in this study: each group were composed by 6 patients.

The users had the manual to read during the session .

Phase 1: patients clarify their current personal life goals and the problems they must overcome to achieve those goals. They are instructed about the 6-step structured Problem Solving method, and use this to deal with practical problems related to one or more of their goals, such as shopping, nutrition, exercise, use of transport, budgeting and scheduling daily activities.

Phase 2: patients deal with interpersonal problems such as making friends, expressing positive feelings, giving and receiving criticisms etc

Phase 3: problems of residual psychotic and non-psychotic symptoms are addressed in this part of the course. In addition to the 6-step Problem Solving structure, patients learn to perform a Problem Analysis that helps to formulate the precise nature of the problem, triggers and reinforces and modifying factors, including current effective and ineffective coping strategies.

Phase 4: in the final phase, issues of coping with distressing feelings associated with major life crises (including major stressful life events, persisting intolerable stressors, and recurrent major episodes of illness) are addressed. These may include coping with a full range of emotions, fear, sadness, jealousy, anger, frustration, disappointment and their associated behaviors, such as aggression, self-harm, withdrawal, and substance use.

The techniques used are brainstorming, role-play, cognitive restructuring, homework and information and social reinforcement. The task group has to provide modeling, immediate feedback and opportunities for application of skills in "here and now." In addition, work has focused on issues related to the concrete life of the participants. The usual steps of PST are to define problems in specific terms, to think creatively trying to find an alternative solution, to bring the positive or negative side to every situation, to choose the best solution, splitting the solution chosen in a series of achievable steps in order to evaluate the effectiveness of the choice. The main targets of this method are to help each patient to achieve the objectives he/she considers most important for his/her life. The program does not, in fact, propose only the solution of major problems, but also the way to cope with the smaller stresses of daily life, eating, sleeping, working and having fun, in order to have a more satisfactory life.

The treatment provides a six-months weekly meeting lasting about 75-90 minutes, held with a group composed of 8 to 12 patients. The intervention is structured and manualized, and is substantially based on the psychoeducational approach integrated with behavioural and cognitive techniques. The manual it has not been published yet, but the technique to manage the group and the theoretical principal of the approach it is similar to the approach developed by Vendittelli et al. [39] for psychiatric ward [40].

Sessions are provided to teach patients to recognize events and situations they are usually exposed to in everyday life. In order to improve effective interpersonal communication and structured Problem Solving skills, practical training is provided. To carry out goal-oriented tasks, patients after the sessions must do homework with the help of nursing staff.

These are reviewed at the beginning of the next group’s activity, the following day.

The intervention consists of three phases: sharing the objectives of work (motivation and consent); learning to be aware of faces emotions and understanding other’s behaviors.

The emotions that are treated are as follows: a) fear; b) joy; c) anger; d) Fault; e) sadness; f) shame; g) jealousy; h) envy; i) interest; l) embarrassment; m) disgust.

The activity consists in learning/education through the “Socratic approach”, that is, through mediated learning techniques the conductor teaches the subjects to observe other patients’ faces in order to recognize their emotions and to observe others’ behaviors in order to understand their mental state. The conductor is helped by a co-tenant who writes on a blackboard a summary of the work. This phase of education also called " Emotional Navigator " engages provides for 20-25 seats.

In the third phase, conductor and co-tenant, using two boards far from each other, collect each the summary of the "emotional work" of his own mind on his own blackboard. The blackboard is divided into five areas: 1) context/situation; 2) Mood/Emotions felt; 3) Thoughts/Pictures mental disabilities, 4) Body Sensations; 5) Actions / Behaviour / Attitudes / Expressions.

The group program (Day-Center of Campobasso) is conducted by a professional (called the “conductor”) with the assistance of another (the “co-conductor”). Conductors come from various professional backgrounds, but in this study the main trainer was a psychiatrist while the co-conductor was a psychologist. Two black-boards were used to make notes during the sessions. Groups was held one day a week from 09.15 am to 11.00 am. Each weekly session was clearly structured, and followed the steps outlined in the REC manual unpublished which content is described in Vendittelli & Veltro [41]. The techniques, instead, were very similar to those illustrated in the manual of cognitive behavioral therapy for inpatients [39]. The treatment was based on psychoeducative strategies and on the main behavioral cognitive therapy.

Data analytic plan was as follows: a series of independent t tests to examine baseline differences between the REC and PST group on the clinical and demographic variables was performed. Second, we compared the two groups on baseline clinical and demographic variables. If baseline differences were present, these variables were entered as covariates in the analyses.

To examine the efficacy of REC vs PST group, we conducted a series of 2 X 2 repeated measures Anova Treatment (between subjects Pst Vs REC) X Time (pre-test vs. post-test; within subjects). Non parametric tests we used for qualitative variables.

The primary analyses focused on the change on neurocognition (cognitive and social cognition) as a result of the treatment. Thus, if REC is effective in improving social cognition and PST is effective in problem solving, we should see an interaction effect Data were analysed with SPSS 16.0.

The mean age of total sample was 38.38 years (± 8.81), mean years of education 11.29 (±. 3.29).

All subjects were taking neuroleptics whose Chlorpromazine mean daily dosage equivalents were 180.51 (± 148.92) mg/eq [42] (Kessler & Waletzky, 1981); the mean duration of illness was 13.03 (±. 8.08).

The mean I.Q., assessed through Mini Mental State Examination, was 27.46 points (s.d. 4.35).

Mean age PST users was 37.7 (±11.16s), mean age REC users was 38.8 (± 6.3) (t = 0.29; df = 22; p = 0.77; IC 95% = -6,6 + 8,7). Mean age of education in the PST group was 11.17 (± 4.0), in the REC group was 11.42 (± 2.5) (t= 0.18; df = 22; p = 0.86; IC 95% = - 2.62 + 3.11). mean age of illness inthe first group was 11.91 (± 7.9), in the second group was 14.17 (± 8.3) (t = 0.68; df = 22, p = 50, IC 95% - 4.6 + 9.1). There was no statistical significant difference in QI level, in the ratio of previews admissions in the hospital, in symptomatology and neurocognitive functions between the groups examined by t-test. The Social functioning (PSP 0-100) in PST group was 47.5 (± 17.9), in REC group was 47.6 (± 17.9) (t = 0.23; df = 22; p = 0.98; IC 95% ± 15).