Cited by 241Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive ProcessesPsychological Treatments and AssessmentsPsychotherapy Techniques and Applications

The efficacy of cognitive-behavioral interventions for reducing anxiety sensitivity: A meta-analytic review

Smits, Jasper A.J., Berry, Angela C., Tart, Candyce D., Powers, Mark B.·2008·Behaviour Research and Therapy

Abstract

The present study meta-analytically reviewed the efficacy of cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) vs. control conditions in the reduction of anxiety sensitivity. A computerized search was conducted to identify CBT outcome studies that included the Anxiety Sensitivity Index as a dependent variable. Of the 989 studies that were identified, 24 randomized-controlled trials with a total of 1851 participants met inclusion criteria and were included in the analysis. Data were extracted separately for treatment-seeking (16 studies) and at-risk (eight studies) samples. Results indicated large effect sizes for treatment-seeking samples, Hedges' g=1.40, SE=0.21, 95% CI: 1.00-1.81, p<0.001, and moderate to large effect sizes for at risk samples Hedges' g=0.74, SE=0.18, 95% CI: 0.39-1.08, p<0.001. Additionally, both the amount of therapist contact and control modality (waitlist vs. psychological control) moderated the effect sizes for treatment-seeking samples. Our review indicates that CBT is efficacious in reducing anxiety sensitivity. However, more research is needed to determine the mechanisms by which CBT exert its effects on anxiety sensitivity.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.brat.2008.06.010

Cites

65 of 65 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, 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

1 of the 66 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Smits, J. A. J., Berry, A. C., Tart, C. D., & Powers, M. B.
Affiliations
  • Southern Methodist University (US)
  • University of Amsterdam (NL)
Corresponding author
Smits, Jasper A.J.
Venue
Behaviour Research and Therapy
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2008-09
Volume
46
Issue
9
Pages
1047-1054
ISSN
0005-7967 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2116897798
Cited by
241
References
66
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 12 · 2023: 14 · 2022: 16 · 2021: 16 · 2020: 13 · 2019: 24 · 2018: 16 · 2017: 16 · 2016: 21 · 2015: 20 · 2014: 12 · 2013: 10 · 2012: 19
FWCI
7.73
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Behaviour Research and Therapy (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • UvA-DARE (University of Amsterdam) (publishedVersion)
  • Radboud Repository (Radboud University) (submittedVersion)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion)
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
cognitive behavioral therapy, anxiety sensitivity, Anxiety Sensitivity Index, treatment efficacy, therapist contact, waitlist control, psychological control, mechanisms of change
MeSH terms
Anxiety Disorders, Female, Humans, Male, Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic

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