Cited by 11Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive ProcessesPsychotherapy Techniques and ApplicationsPsychological Treatments and Assessments

Assessing in-session rumination and its effects on CBT for depression

Open access
Kennedy, J.C., Dunlop, B.W., Craighead, L.W., Nemeroff, C.B., Mayberg, H.S., Craighead, W.E.·2022·Behaviour Research and Therapy

Abstract

The study evaluated if rumination of patients during therapy (i.e., in-session rumination) relates to whether or not they do less well in CBT treatment. We developed a reliably assessed in-session rumination observational measure and evaluated its relationship to depression over the course of CBT. Rated sessions came from 63 treatment-naïve patients with major depressive disorder who participated in CBT in the PReDICT study (Dunlop et al., 2017). In-session rumination was operationalized as repetitive, negative, and passive talking about depressive topics. Trained undergraduates rated the intensity and duration of in-session rumination occurring during 57 initial therapy sessions (i.e., session one) and 45 sessions in the middle of treatment (i.e., session eight). The observational ratings were sufficiently reliable (all ICCs > 0.69). Mixed model results indicated that greater intensity of in-session rumination during the initial treatment session predicted higher levels of subsequent clinician-rated depressive symptoms (p < .023). Regression results indicated that greater intensity and duration of in-session rumination at session 8 significantly predicted higher clinician-rated symptoms at end of treatment (p's < 0.02). In-session rumination intensity and duration were not, however, related to subsequent self-reported depressive symptoms. The results support efforts to identify which patients might benefit from rumination-specific interventions.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.brat.2022.104209

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?

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 57 · Cited by 11

Authors
Kennedy, J. C., Dunlop, B. W., Craighead, L. W., Nemeroff, C. B., Mayberg, H. S., & Craighead, W. E.
Affiliations
  • Emory University (US)
  • The University of Texas at Austin (US)
  • Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai (US)
Corresponding author
Craighead, W.E.
Venue
Behaviour Research and Therapy
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2022-12
Volume
159
Pages
104209
ISSN
0005-7967 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4303859233
Cited by
11
References
57
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 1
FWCI
2.07
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Behaviour Research and Therapy (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health (5r01mh080880-05)
  • National Institute of Mental Health (R01-MH080880, P50MH077083)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychotherapy Techniques and Applications
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychological Treatments and Assessments
Keywords
cognitive behavioral therapy, major depressive disorder, rumination, treatment outcomes, observational rating scale, depressive symptoms, PREDICT study
MeSH terms
Depression, Major Depressive Disorder, Humans, Self Report

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