Cited by 71Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive ProcessesChild and Adolescent Psychosocial and Emotional DevelopmentPsychological Treatments and Assessments

Cognitive bias modification of interpretations: A viable treatment for child and adolescent anxiety?

Lau, Jennifer Y.F.·2013·Behaviour Research and Therapy

Abstract

Anxiety disorders in children and adolescents are common and impairing. As many patients do not benefit from - or have difficulties accessing - frontline treatments, novel, effective and easy-to-deliver interventions are needed. Cognitive Bias Modification of Interpretations (CBM-I) training has been used to treat adult anxiety disorders. CBM-I methods train individuals to endorse benign rather than negative resolutions of ambiguous cues. Developmental extensions of CBM-I are important for several reasons. First, implementing CBM-I in symptomatic children and adolescents may facilitate early preventative gains. Second, as training uses simple learning mechanisms, CBM-I may reflect a developmentally-suitable strategy for shaping adaptive processing styles. Third, as this age range involves protracted neurocognitive maturation and associated plasticity, administering CBM-I early could drive powerful, long-lasting benefits for emotional development. Finally, data from CBM-I studies could inform the cognitive mechanisms involved in the genesis of early-emerging anxiety. This paper provides the first organised review of CBM-I studies conducted in children and adolescents, and contains suggestions for future research that may help realise the therapeutic potential of early CBM-I interventions.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.brat.2013.07.001

Cites

70 of 70 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?

  • Both bottom-up and top-down processes may contribute to interpretation bias, which has been targeted by computer-delivered interpretation bias modification (IBM) training.

    “Both bottom-up and top-down processes may contribute to this bias, which has been targeted by computer-delivered interpretation bias modification (IBM) training (Lau, 2013;MacLeod & Mathews, 2012).”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Lau, J. Y. F.
Affiliations
University of Oxford (GB)
Corresponding author
Lau, Jennifer Y.F.
Venue
Behaviour Research and Therapy
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2013-10
Volume
51
Issue
10
Pages
614-622
ISSN
0005-7967 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2078800226
Cited by
71
References
70
Citations by year
2025: 4 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 9 · 2016: 9 · 2015: 15 · 2014: 8 · 2013: 1
FWCI
1.82
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Behaviour Research and Therapy (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Research Portal (King's College London) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • British Academy
  • Nuffield Trust
  • Calleva Research Centre for Evolution and Human Sciences
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 › Psychological Treatments and Assessments
Keywords
child and adolescent anxiety, anxiety disorders, cognitive bias modification, early intervention, cognitive development
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adolescent Behavior, Anxiety, Child, Child Behavior Disorders, Humans, Cognitive Behavioral 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