Cited by 63Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive ProcessesPsychological Treatments and AssessmentsPsychotherapy Techniques and Applications

Impact of a treatment rationale on expectancy and engagement in cognitive behavioral therapy for social anxiety

Ahmed, Mariyam, Westra, Henny A.·2009·Cognitive Therapy and Research

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s10608-008-9182-1

Cites

45 of 45 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Ahmed, M., & Westra, H. A.
Affiliations
York University (CA)
Corresponding author
Ahmed, Mariyam
Venue
Cognitive Therapy and Research
Published
2008-01-31
Volume
33
Issue
3
Pages
314-322
ISSN
  • 0147-5916 (ISSN-L)
  • 1573-2819
OpenAlex
W2028990780
Cited by
63
References
45
Citations by year
2025: 6 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 2 · 2013: 5 · 2012: 5
FWCI
2.10
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Cognitive Therapy and Research (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychological Treatments and Assessments
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychotherapy Techniques and Applications
Keywords
treatment rationale, social anxiety, cognitive behavioral therapy, treatment expectancy, patient engagement, self-efficacy, fear of negative evaluation, exposure frequency, individual differences

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