Cited by 92Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive ProcessesPsychological Treatments and AssessmentsDigital Mental Health Interventions

Integrating cognitive bias modification into a standard cognitive behavioural treatment package for social phobia: A randomized controlled trial

Rapee, Ronald M., MacLeod, Colin, Carpenter, Leigh, Gaston, Jonathan E., Frei, Jacqueline, Peters, Lorna, Baillie, Andrew J.·2013·Behaviour Research and Therapy

Abstract

Objective The aim of the current study was to integrate recent developments in the retraining of attentional biases towards threat into a standard cognitive behavioural treatment package for social phobia.Method 134 participants (M age-32.4: 53% female) meeting DSM-IV criteria for social phobia received a 12-week cognitive behavioural treatment program. They were randomly allocated to receive on a daily basis using home practice, either an additional computerised probe procedure designed to train attentional resource allocation away from threat, or a placebo variant of this procedure. Measures included diagnostic severity, social anxiety symptoms, life interference, and depression as well as state anxiety in response to a laboratory social threat.Results At the end of treatment there were no significant differences between groups in attentional bias towards threat or in treatment response (all p's>0.05). Both groups showed similar and highly significant reductions in diagnostic severity, social anxiety symptoms, depression symptoms, and life interference at post-treatment that was maintained and in most cases increased at 6 month follow-up (uncontrolled effect sizes ranged from d=0.34 to d=1.90).Conclusions The current results do not indicate that integration of information processing-derived attentional bias modification procedures into standard treatment packages as conducted in this study augments attentional change or enhances treatment efficacy. Further refinement of bias modification techniques, and better methods of integrating them with conventional approaches, may be needed to produce better effects.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.brat.2013.01.005

Cites

46 of 46 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
Rapee, R. M., MacLeod, C., Carpenter, L., Gaston, J. E., Frei, J., Peters, L., & Baillie, A. J.
Affiliations
  • Macquarie University (AU)
  • The University of Western Australia (AU)
Corresponding author
Rapee, Ronald M.
Venue
Behaviour Research and Therapy
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2013-05
Volume
51
Issue
4-5
Pages
207-215
ISSN
0005-7967 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2144985278
Cited by
92
References
46
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 9 · 2017: 11 · 2016: 13 · 2015: 21 · 2014: 12 · 2013: 5
FWCI
22.97
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Behaviour Research and Therapy (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • UWA Profiles and Research Repository (UWA) (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 › Applied Psychology › Digital Mental Health Interventions
Keywords
cognitive bias modification, social anxiety disorder, social anxiety, cognitive behavioral therapy, treatment integration, home practice, depression, state anxiety, treatment efficacy
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Aged, Cognition, Female, Follow-Up Studies, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Phobic Disorders, Surveys and Questionnaires, Therapy, Computer-Assisted, Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, Treatment Outcome, Young Adult

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