Cited by 190Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive ProcessesPsychotherapy Techniques and ApplicationsPsychological Treatments and Assessments

It’s complicated: the relation between cognitive change procedures, cognitive change, and symptom change in cognitive therapy for depression.

Open access
Lorenzo-Luaces, Lorenzo, German, Ramaris E., DeRubeis, Robert J.·2015·Clinical Psychology Review

Abstract

Many attempts have been made to discover and characterize the mechanisms of change in psychotherapies for depression, yet no clear, evidence-based account of the relationship between therapeutic procedures, psychological mechanisms, and symptom improvement has emerged. Negatively-biased thinking plays an important role in the phenomenology of depression, and most theorists acknowledge that cognitive changes occur during successful treatments. However, the causal role of cognitive change procedures in promoting cognitive change and alleviating depressive symptoms has been questioned. We describe the methodological and inferential limitations of the relevant empirical investigations and provide recommendations for addressing them. We then develop a framework within which the possible links between cognitive procedures, cognitive change, and symptom change can be considered. We conclude that cognitive procedures are effective in alleviating symptoms of depression and that cognitive change, regardless of how it is achieved, contributes to symptom change, a pattern of findings that lends support to the cognitive theory of depression.

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.cpr.2014.12.003

Cites

112 of 112 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?

  • Failure to maintain the boundary between active elements and mechanisms is a common problem in psychotherapy process research.

    “Failure to maintain the boundary between active elements (e.g., cognitive change proced­ ures) and mechanisms (e.g., cognitive change) is a common problem in psychotherapy process research (Bruijniks et al., 2018; Lorenzo-Luaces et al., 2015).”

    From Measuring the active elements of cognitive-behavioral therapies (2023) · cites this paper as Lorenzo-Luaces et al., 2015

  • To determine the most effective components of CBT and whether CBT works via the mechanisms proposed by the approach, quantifiable measures of treatment delivered need to be obtained in a natural clinical context and be gathered from a sufficiently large enough sample to draw meaningful conclusions.

    “To determine the most effective components of CBT and whether CBT works via the mechanisms proposed by the approach,15 quantifiable measures of treatment delivered need to be obtained in a natural clinical context and be gathered from a sufficiently large enough sample to draw meaningful conclusions.”

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. Rice L Greenberg L Patterns of change: An intensive analysis of psychotherapeutic process 1984 Guilford Press New York

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Lorenzo-Luaces, L., German, R. E., & DeRubeis, R. J.
Affiliations
University of Pennsylvania (US)
Corresponding author
DeRubeis, Robert J.
Venue
Clinical Psychology Review
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2015-11
Volume
41
Pages
3-15
ISSN
0272-7358 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1984747549
Cited by
190
References
109
Citations by year
2026: 15 · 2025: 15 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 23 · 2022: 15 · 2021: 20 · 2020: 20 · 2019: 17 · 2018: 25 · 2017: 12 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 10
FWCI
1.31
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Clinical Psychology Review (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
National Institute of Mental Health (R01MH080097, R01MH060998, R01MH060353, R10MH055877)
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 therapy, depression, cognitive change, mechanisms of change, symptom change, cognitive strategies, negative bias, cognitive theories of depression, psychotherapy mechanisms
MeSH terms
Major Depressive Disorder, Humans, Psychotherapeutic Processes, Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, Treatment Outcome

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