Cited by 101Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive ProcessesDigital Mental Health InterventionsChild and Adolescent Psychosocial and Emotional Development

Generic versus disorder specific cognitive behavior therapy for social anxiety disorder in youth: A randomized controlled trial using internet delivery

Open access
Spence, Susan H., Donovan, Caroline L., March, Sonja, Kenardy, Justin A., Hearn, Cate S.·2017·Behaviour Research and Therapy

Abstract

The study examined whether the efficacy of cognitive behavioral treatment for Social Anxiety Disorder for children and adolescents is increased if intervention addresses specific cognitive and behavioral factors linked to the development and maintenance of SAD in young people, over and above the traditional generic CBT approach. Participants were 125 youth, aged 8-17 years, with a primary diagnosis of SAD, who were randomly assigned to generic CBT (CBT-GEN), social anxiety specific CBT (CBT-SAD) or a wait list control (WLC). Intervention was delivered using a therapist-supported online program. After 12-weeks, participants who received treatment (CBT-SAD or CBT-GEN) showed significantly greater reduction in social anxiety and post-event processing, and greater improvement in global functioning than the WLC but there was no significant difference between CBT-SAD and CBT-GEN on any outcome variable at 12-weeks or 6-month follow-up. Despite significant reductions in anxiety, the majority in both treatment conditions continued to meet diagnostic criteria for SAD at 6-month follow-up. Decreases in social anxiety were associated with decreases in post-event processing. Future research should continue to investigate disorder-specific interventions for SAD in young people, drawing on evidence regarding causal or maintaining factors, in order to enhance treatment outcomes for this debilitating condition.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.brat.2016.12.003

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, 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?

No citation lists for this paper

No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.

References 67 · Cited by 101

Authors
Spence, S. H., Donovan, C. L., March, S., Kenardy, J. A., & Hearn, C. S.
Affiliations
  • Griffith University (AU)
  • University of Southern Queensland (AU)
  • The University of Queensland (AU)
Corresponding author
Spence, Susan H.
Venue
Behaviour Research and Therapy
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2017-03
Volume
90
Pages
41-57
ISSN
0005-7967 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2559802043
Cited by
101
References
67
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 13 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 15 · 2019: 18 · 2018: 11 · 2017: 6
FWCI
16.61
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Behaviour Research and Therapy (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • University of Southern Queensland ePrints (University of Southern Queensland) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • Griffith Research Online (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Digital Mental Health Interventions
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Child and Adolescent Psychosocial and Emotional Development
Keywords
social anxiety disorder, youth, cognitive behavioral therapy, online intervention, post-event processing, treatment efficacy, children and adolescents
MeSH terms
Phobia, Social, Adolescent, Child, Female, Humans, Male, Therapy, Computer-Assisted, Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, Treatment Outcome, Internet

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