CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 121

An effectiveness study of individual vs. group cognitive behavioral therapy for anxiety disorders in youth

Wergeland, Gro Janne H., Fjermestad, Krister W., Marin, Carla E., Haugland, Bente Storm-Mowatt, Bjaastad, Jon Fauskanger, Oeding, Kristin, Bjelland, Ingvar, Silverman, Wendy K. +3 more·2014·Behaviour Research and Therapy
DOI 10.1016/j.brat.2014.03.007
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Objective Conducted a randomized controlled trial to investigate the effectiveness of cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT), and compared the relative effectiveness of individual (ICBT) and group (GCBT) treatment approaches for anxiety disorders in children and adolescents. Methods Referred youth (N = 182, M age = 11.5 years, range 8-15 years, 53% girls) with separation anxiety, social phobia, or generalized anxiety disorder were randomly assigned to ICBT, GCBT or a waitlist control (WLC) in community clinics. Pre-, post-, and one year follow-up assessments included youth and parent completed diagnostic interview and symptom measures. After comparing CBT (ICBT and GCBT combined) to WLC, ICBT and GCBT were compared along diagnostic recovery rates, clinically significant improvement, and symptom measures scores using traditional hypothesis tests, as well as statistical equivalence tests. Results Significantly more youth lost all anxiety disorders after CBT compared to WLC. Full diagnostic recovery rate was 25.3% for ICBT and 20.5% in GCBT, which was not significantly different. There was continued lack of significant differences between ICBT and GCBT at one year follow-up. However, equivalence between GCBT and ICBT could only be demonstrated for clinical severity rating of the principal anxiety disorder and child reported anxiety symptoms post-treatment. Conclusion Findings support the effectiveness of CBT compared to no intervention for youth with anxiety disorders, with no signi…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.brat.2014.03.007

Cites

13 of 13 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
Wergeland, G. J. H., Fjermestad, K. W., Marin, C. E., Haugland, B. S.-M., Bjaastad, J. F., Oeding, K., Bjelland, I., Silverman, W. K., Öst, L.-G., Havik, O. E., & Heiervang, E. R.
Venue
Behaviour Research and Therapy
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2014-06
Volume
57
Pages
1-12
ISSN
0005-7967
DOI
10.1016/j.brat.2014.03.007
Cited by
121
References
13
Language
en
Licence
www.elsevier.com/tdm/userlicense/1.0/ (tdm)
Funders
  • Meltzer Research Foundation at the University of Bergen, Norway
  • Josef and Haldis Andresen's Foundation
  • Solveig and Johan P. Sommer's Foundation
  • Maja and John Nilsen's Foundation

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