Cited by 95Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive ProcessesPsychotherapy Techniques and ApplicationsPsychological Treatments and Assessments

Assessing patients' cognitive therapy skills: initial evaluation of the competencies of cognitive therapy scale

Open access
Strunk, Daniel R., Hollars, Shannon N., Adler, Abby D., Goldstein, Lizabeth A., Braun, Justin D.·2014·Cognitive Therapy and Research

Abstract

In Cognitive Therapy (CT), therapists work to help patients develop skills to cope with negative affect. Most current methods of assessing patients' skills are cumbersome and impractical for clinical use. To address this issue, we developed and conducted an initial psychometric evaluation of self and therapist reported versions of a new measure of CT skills: the Competencies of Cognitive Therapy Scale (CCTS). We evaluated the CCTS at intake and post-treatment in a sample of 67 patients participating in CT. The CCTS correlated with a preexisting measure of CT skills (the Ways of Responding Questionnaire) and was also related to concurrent depressive symptoms. Across CT, self-reported improvements in CT competencies were associated with greater changes in depressive symptoms. These findings offer initial evidence for the validity of the CCTS. We discuss the CCTS in comparison with other measures of CT skills and suggest future research directions.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s10608-014-9617-9

Cites

29 of 29 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • The study controlled for two plausible confounds: prior symptom change and concurrent symptoms.

    “we controlled for two plausible confounds: prior symptom change and concurrent symptoms (Strunk et al., 2014).”

    From Differential role of CBT skills, DBT skills and psychological flexibility in predicting depressive versus anxiety symptom improvement (2016) · cites this paper as Strunk et al., 2014

    In Results, “Does the CCTS merely measure symptom severity?” (page unavailable), Strunk et al. report controlling for depressive symptoms measured at the same assessment. In “Relation of the CCTS and Change in Depressive Symptoms” (page unavailable), they control for intake symptom scores when examining intake-to-post-treatment change, but do not report controlling for prior symptom change. Thus the citation supports the concurrent-symptoms part, not both stated confounds. (LLM, conf=0.83)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Greater depressive symptom improvement is associated with greater acquisition and use of CBT skills, as measured by the SoCT, CBTSQ, and CCTS.

    “Studies using these measures have reported that greater depressive symptom improvement is associated with greater acquisition and use of CBT skills, as assessed by the SoCT (Jarrett et al., 2011; 2013), CBTSQ (Jacob et al., 2011; Webb et al., 2013) and CCTS (Strunk et al., 2014).”
  • Self-reported CBT skills measures may inadvertently measure and be confounded with concurrent symptoms.

    “others have noted how measures of self-reported CBT skills may inadvertently measure and be confounded with concurrent symptoms (Strunk et al., 2014).”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. First MB Spitzer RL Miriam G Williams JBW 2002 Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV-TR Axis I Disorders, Research Version, Patient Edition. (SCID-I/P) New York Biometrics Research, New York State Psychiatric Institute
  2. Strunk DR 2009 Competencies of cognitive therapy scale Unpublished instrument PMC4232848 25408560
  3. Weissman AN 1979 The Dysfunctional Attitude Scale: A validation study Dissertation Abstracts International 40 1389B 1390B

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Strunk, D. R., Hollars, S. N., Adler, A. D., Goldstein, L. A., & Braun, J. D.
Affiliations
The Ohio State University (US)
Corresponding author
Strunk, Daniel R.
Venue
Cognitive Therapy and Research
Published
2014-04-17
Volume
38
Issue
5
Pages
559-569
ISSN
  • 0147-5916 (ISSN-L)
  • 1573-2819
OpenAlex
W2057454138
Cited by
95
References
29
Citations by year
2026: 14 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 13 · 2022: 16 · 2021: 14 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 5
FWCI
7.42
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Cognitive Therapy and Research (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
National Center for Research Resources (TL1RR025753)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychotherapy Techniques and Applications
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychological Treatments and Assessments
Keywords
psychometric validation, self-report measures, depressive symptoms, cognitive therapy

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