Cited by 76Perfectionism, Procrastination, Anxiety StudiesDigital Mental Health InterventionsAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes

A randomized controlled trial of internet-based cognitive behavior therapy for perfectionism including an investigation of outcome predictors

Open access
Rozental, Alexander, Shafran, Roz, Wade, Tracey, Egan, Sarah, Nordgren, Lise Bergman, Carlbring, Per, Landström, Andreas, Roos, Stina +5 more·2017·Behaviour Research and Therapy

Abstract

Being highly attentive to details can be a positive feature. However, for some individuals, perfectionism can lead to distress and is associated with many psychiatric disorders. Cognitive behavior therapy has been shown to yield many benefits for those experiencing problems with perfectionism, but the access to evidence-based care is limited. The current study investigated the efficacy of guided Internet-based Cognitive Behavior Therapy (ICBT) and predictors of treatment outcome. In total, 156 individuals were included and randomized to an eight-week treatment or wait-list control. Self-report measures of perfectionism, depression, anxiety, self-criticism, self-compassion, and quality of life were distributed during screening and at post-treatment. Intention-to-treat were used for all statistical analyses. Moderate to large between-group effect sizes were obtained for the primary outcome measures, Frost Multidimensional Perfectionism Scale, subscales Concerns over Mistakes and Personal Standards, Cohen's d = 0.68-1.00, 95% Confidence Interval (CI) [0.36-1.33], with 35 (44.9%) of the patients in treatment being improved. Predictors were also explored, but none were related to treatment outcome. In sum, guided ICBT can be helpful for addressing problems with clinical perfectionism, but research of its long-term benefits is warranted.

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.2017.05.015

Cites

41 of 41 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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?

  • The lack of mediational analyses and consistent predictors of outcome with CBT-P should be considered limitations.

    “The lack of mediational analyses and consistent predictors of outcome with CBT-P should also be considered as limitations (Rozental et al., 2017).”

    From Coming of age: A reflection of the first 21 years of cognitive behaviour therapy for perfectionism (2023) · cites this paper as Rozental et al., 2017

    The Predictors of treatment outcome section reports that none of the examined predictors was associated with post-treatment perfectionism scores, and the Discussion calls for research on other predictors. The Discussion also says that what contributed to treatment efficacy needs closer investigation, but it does not identify a lack of mediational analyses as a limitation. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

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

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

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Sheehan, D., Lecrubier, Y., Sheehan, K. H., Sheehan, K., Amorim, P., Janavs, J., . . . Dunbar, G. (1998). Diagnostic Psychiatric Interview for DSM-IV and ICD-10. The Journal of Clinical Psychiatry, 59, 22-33.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Rozental, A., Shafran, R., Wade, T., Egan, S., Nordgren, L. B., Carlbring, P., Landström, A., Roos, S., Skoglund, M., Thelander, E., Trosell, L., Örtenholm, A., & Andersson, G.
Affiliations
  • Stockholm University (SE)
  • University College London (GB)
  • Flinders University (AU)
  • Curtin University (AU)
  • Linköping University (SE)
Corresponding author
Rozental, Alexander
Venue
Behaviour Research and Therapy
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2017-08
Volume
95
Pages
79-86
ISSN
0005-7967 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2617253031
Cited by
76
References
41
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 10 · 2021: 13 · 2020: 11 · 2019: 12 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 2
FWCI
11.17
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Behaviour Research and Therapy (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
  • eSpace (Curtin University) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children
  • Linköpings Universitet
  • NIHR Biomedical Research Centre, Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust/Institute of Cancer Research
  • University College London
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Perfectionism, Procrastination, Anxiety Studies
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Digital Mental Health Interventions
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
Keywords
perfectionism, internet-based cognitive behavioral therapy, treatment outcome predictors, self-criticism, self-compassion, personal standards, depression, anxiety, quality of life, Frost Multidimensional Perfectionism Scale
MeSH terms
Perfectionism, Adult, Anxiety, Anxiety Disorders, Depression, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Prognosis, Psychiatric Status Rating Scales, Quality of Life, Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, Treatment Outcome, Internet, 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