Assessing in-session rumination and its effects on CBT for depression
Open accessAbstract
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
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
In depression, common ruminations include passive and negative thoughts about feelings of guilt, inefficacy, negative topics, and self-criticism.
“In depression, common ruminations include passive and negative thoughts about feelings of guilt, inefficacy, negative topics, and self-criticism. 99”
From The revival of psilocybin between scientific excitement, evidence of efficacy, and real-world challenges (2024) · cites this paper as [99]
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
- bronze
- doi.org
- Licence
- www.elsevier.com/tdm/userlicense/1.0/ (tdm)
- www.elsevier.com/legal/tdmrep-license (tdm)
- www.elsevier.com/open-access/userlicense/1.0/ (am, 325 d)
- doi.org/10.15223/policy-017 (stm-asf)
- doi.org/10.15223/policy-037 (stm-asf)
- doi.org/10.15223/policy-012 (stm-asf)
- doi.org/10.15223/policy-029 (stm-asf)
- doi.org/10.15223/policy-004 (stm-asf)
- 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