Interpersonal process and outcome in variants of cognitive–behavioral psychotherapy
Abstract
Early sessions from three variants of cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) were examined to replicate work done in psychodynamic-interpersonal treatments linking interpersonal process to outcome (W. P. Henry, T. E. Schacht, & H. H. Strupp, 1986, 1990). Cases were available from a component study of CBT for generalized anxiety disorder (T. D. Borkovec, M. G. Newman, A. L. Pincus, & R. Lytle, 2002) and were selected to form good and poor outcome groups maintained through a 1-year follow-up. A third group was also examined that had initial positive outcomes and marked decline by follow-up (n = 8 for each). Structural analysis of social behavior (SASB) was used to identify interpersonal behaviors. Contrary to the authors' expectation, SASB variables were not strong predictors of outcome, and lower levels of interpersonal hostility were found than was the case in previous work. Findings are discussed in light of differences observed between treatment variants and the role that manuals may have in standardizing some aspects of the therapeutic relationship.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
One study reported no link between therapist-client behavior during sessions and treatment outcome.
“In contrast, no association was found between in session therapist/client behavior and treatment outcome (Critchfield, Henry, Castonguay, & Borkovec, 2007).”
From Interpersonal Problems, Mindfulness, and Therapy Outcome in an Acceptance-Based Behavior Therapy for Generalized Anxiety Disorder (2015) · cites this paper as Critchfield, Henry, Castonguay, & Borkovec, 2007
No citation lists for this paper
No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.
References 63 · Cited by 36
- Authors
- Critchfield, K. L., Henry, W. P., Castonguay, L. G., & Borkovec, T. D.
- Affiliations
- University of Utah (US)
- Pennsylvania State University (US)
- Corresponding author
- Critchfield, Kenneth L.
- Venue
- Journal of Clinical Psychology
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2006-11-17
- Volume
- 63
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 31-51
- ISSN
- 0021-9762 (ISSN-L)
- 1097-4679
- OpenAlex
- W1979756671
- Cited by
- 36
- References
- 63
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 2 · 2018: 6 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 3 · 2013: 2 · 2012: 5
- FWCI
- 1.48
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Journal of Clinical Psychology (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- National Institute of Mental Health (R01MH039172, MH-39172)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychotherapy Techniques and Applications
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychological Treatments and Assessments
- Keywords
- cognitive behavioral therapy, interpersonal processes, treatment outcomes, generalized anxiety disorder, interpersonal hostility, Structural Analysis of Social Behavior, therapeutic relationship, treatment manual, early therapy sessions, prognostic factors
- MeSH terms
- Adult, Anxiety Disorders, Female, Humans, Interpersonal Relations, Interviews as Topic, Male, Pennsylvania, Social Behavior, Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, Treatment Outcome
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
