Cited by 191Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive ProcessesPsychotherapy Techniques and ApplicationsPsychological Treatments and Assessments

The compensation and capitalization models: a test of two approaches to individualizing the treatment of depression

Cheavens, Jennifer S., Strunk, Daniel R., Lazarus, Sophie A., Goldstein, Lizabeth A.·2012·Behaviour Research and Therapy

Abstract

Despite long-standing calls for the individualization of treatments for depression, modest progress has been made in this effort. The primary objective of this study was to test two competing approaches to personalizing cognitive-behavioral treatment of depression (viz., capitalization and compensation). Thirty-four adults meeting criteria for Major Depressive Disorder (59% female, 85% Caucasian) were randomized to 16-weeks of cognitive-behavioral treatment in which strategies used were selected based on either the capitalization approach (treatment matched to relative strengths) or the compensation approach (treatment matched to relative deficits). Outcome was assessed with a composite measure of both self-report (i.e., Beck Depression Inventory) and observer-rated (i.e., Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression) depressive symptoms. Hierarchical linear modeling revealed a significant treatment approach by time interaction indicating a faster rate of symptom change for the capitalization approach compared to the compensation approach (d = .69, p = .03). Personalizing treatment to patients' relative strengths led to better outcome than treatment personalized to patients' relative deficits. If replicated, these findings would suggest a significant change in thinking about how therapists might best adapt cognitive-behavioral interventions for depression for particular patients.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.brat.2012.08.002

Cites

21 of 21 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

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Cheavens, J. S., Strunk, D. R., Lazarus, S. A., & Goldstein, L. A.
Affiliations
The Ohio State University (US)
Corresponding author
Cheavens, Jennifer S.
Venue
Behaviour Research and Therapy
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2012-11
Volume
50
Issue
11
Pages
699-706
ISSN
0005-7967 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1994384348
Cited by
191
References
21
Citations by year
2026: 9 · 2025: 13 · 2024: 19 · 2023: 14 · 2022: 19 · 2021: 17 · 2020: 18 · 2019: 11 · 2018: 39 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 9 · 2015: 9 · 2014: 6 · 2013: 3
FWCI
7.73
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Behaviour Research and Therapy (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
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
depression, cognitive behavioral therapy, personalized treatment, major depressive disorder, treatment response, strengths-based intervention
MeSH terms
Adult, Depressive Disorder, Major, Major Depressive Disorder, Female, Humans, Individuality, Male, Models, Psychological, Psychiatric Status Rating Scales, Recurrence, Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, Self Report

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