Cited by 111Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive ProcessesChild and Adolescent Psychosocial and Emotional DevelopmentChild Therapy and Development

Specific phobias in youth: a randomized controlled trial comparing one-session treatment to a parent-augmented one-session treatment

Open access
Ollendick, Thomas H., Halldorsdottir, Thorhildur, Fraire, Maria G., Austin, Kristin E., Noguchi, Ryoichi J.P., Lewis, Krystal M., Jarrett, Matthew A., Cunningham, Natoshia R. +3 more·2015·Behavior Therapy

Abstract

Objective Examine the efficacy of a parent-augmented One-Session Treatment (A-OST) in treating specific phobias (SP) in youth by comparing this novel treatment to child-focused OST, a well-established treatment.Method A total of 97 youth (ages 6-15, 51.5% female, 84.5% White) who fulfilled diagnostic criteria for SP were randomized to either A-OST or OST. SPs were assessed with semistructured diagnostic interviews, clinician improvement ratings, and parent and child improvement ratings. In addition, measures of treatment satisfaction and parental self-efficacy were obtained. Blind assessments were completed pretreatment, posttreatment, and 1month and 6months following treatment. Analyses were undertaken using mixed models. In addition, gender, age, internalizing/externalizing problems, parent overprotection, and parent anxiety were examined as potential predictors and moderators of treatment outcome.Results Both treatment conditions produced similar outcomes with approximately 50% of youth in both treatments diagnosis free and judged to be much or very much improved at posttreatment and 1-month follow-up. At 6-month follow-up, however, the treatments diverged with OST resulting in marginally superior outcomes to A-OST, contrary to predictions. Only age of child predicted treatment outcome across the two treatments (older children did better); unexpectedly, none of the variables moderated treatment outcomes.Conclusions Parent augmentation of OST produced no appreciable gains in treatment outcomes. Directions for future research are highlighted.

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 · 10.1016/j.beth.2014.09.004

Cites

55 of 55 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?

  • With the exception of a slightly modified psychological treatment for blood-injury phobia, subtypes of specific phobia are not differentially responsive to exposure-based treatments.

    “Moreover, with the exception of a slightly modified psychological treatment for blood-injury phobia, [79] subtypes of specific phobia are not differentially responsive to exposure-based treatments.[80,81]”

    From The Classification of Anxiety and Fear-Related Disorders in the ICD-11: Review: Anxiety and Fear-Related Disorders in ICD-11 (2016) · cites this paper as [81]

    The Treatment section says exposure-based one-session treatment is efficacious for children with several specific-phobia subtypes. It does not establish that the subtypes respond equally: the Discussion says the small numbers in each subtype limited exploration of phobia type. The blood-injury exception is attached to a different citation in the citing sentence. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

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

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Ollendick, T. H., Halldorsdottir, T., Fraire, M. G., Austin, K. E., Noguchi, R. J. P., Lewis, K. M., Jarrett, M. A., Cunningham, N. R., Canavera, K., Allen, K. B., & Whitmore, M. J.
Affiliations
  • George Mason University (US)
  • University of Illinois Chicago (US)
  • University of Alabama (US)
  • Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center (US)
  • St. Jude Children's Research Hospital (US)
  • University of Pittsburgh (US)
  • Virginia Tech (US)
Corresponding author
Ollendick, Thomas H.
Venue
Behavior Therapy
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2015-03
Volume
46
Issue
2
Pages
141-155
ISSN
0005-7894 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2051126658
Cited by
111
References
51
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 10 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 15 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 20 · 2016: 9 · 2015: 8 · 2014: 1
FWCI
17.59
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Behavior Therapy (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
National Institute of Mental Health
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Child and Adolescent Psychosocial and Emotional Development
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Child Therapy and Development
Keywords
specific phobia, youth, single-session intervention, parental involvement, treatment outcomes, predictors of treatment outcome, age as moderator, parental self-efficacy, treatment satisfaction, parental anxiety
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Age Factors, Child, Female, Follow-Up Studies, Humans, Male, Parents, Phobic Disorders, Psychiatric Status Rating Scales, Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, Single-Blind Method, Treatment Outcome, Patient Satisfaction, Self Efficacy

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