Cited by 102Obsessive-Compulsive Spectrum DisordersAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive ProcessesPerfectionism, Procrastination, Anxiety Studies

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 38 of the 41 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Mechanisms of change in cognitive therapy for obsessive compulsive disorder: Role of maladaptive beliefs and schemas

Open access

Abstract

The present study aimed to identify mechanisms of change in individuals with moderately severe obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) receiving cognitive therapy (CT). Thirty-six adults with OCD received CT over 24 weeks. At weeks 0, 4/6, 12, 16/18, and 24, independent evaluators assessed OCD severity, along with obsessive beliefs and maladaptive schemas. To examine mechanisms of change, we utilized a time-varying lagged regression model with a random intercept and slope. Results indicated that perfectionism and certainty obsessive beliefs and maladaptive schemas related to dependency and incompetence significantly mediated (improved) treatment response. In conclusion, cognitive changes in perfectionism/certainty beliefs and maladaptive schemas related to dependency/incompetence precede behavioral symptom reduction for OCD patients. Targeting these mechanisms in future OCD treatment trials will emphasize the most relevant processes and facilitate maximum improvement.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.brat.2014.12.006

Cites

38 of 38 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 41 references

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 102

Metadata

Authors
Wilhelm, S., Berman, N. C., Keshaviah, A., Schwartz, R. A., & Steketee, G.
Affiliations
  • Harvard University (US)
  • Boston University (US)
Corresponding author
Wilhelm, Sabine
Venue
Behaviour Research and Therapy
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2015-02
Volume
65
Pages
5-10
ISSN
0005-7967 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2020581855
Cited by
102
References
41
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 14 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 14 · 2018: 11 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 9 · 2015: 6
FWCI
8.28
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Behaviour Research and Therapy (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
NIMH (R21 MH058804)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Obsessive-Compulsive Spectrum Disorders
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Perfectionism, Procrastination, Anxiety Studies
Keywords
obsessive-compulsive disorder, cognitive therapy, mechanisms of change, maladaptive schemas, obsessive beliefs, perfectionism, treatment response, symptom relief
MeSH terms
Adult, Cognition, Culture, Female, Humans, Male, Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder, Psychiatric Status Rating Scales, 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