CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 378Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive ProcessesNeural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesPsychological Treatments and Assessments

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 128 of the 135 references it cites were found in a registry or an index, and 7 are not checked yet.

A comprehensive meta-analysis of interpretation biases in depression

Open access
Everaert, Jonas, Podina, Ioana R., Koster, Ernst H.W.·2017·Clinical Psychology Review
DOI 10.1016/j.cpr.2017.09.005
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Interpretation biases have long been theorized to play a central role in depression. Yet, the strength of the empirical evidence for this bias remains a topic of debate. This meta-analysis aimed to estimate the overall effect size and to identify moderators relevant to theory and methodology. PsycINFO, Embase, Web of Science, Scopus, PubMed, and dissertation databases were searched. A random-effects meta-analysis was performed on 87 studies (N=9443). Results revealed a medium overall effect size (g=0.72, 95%-CI:[0.62;0.82]). Equivalent effect sizes were observed for patients diagnosed with clinical depression (g=0.60, 95%-CI:[0.37;0.75]), patients remitted from depression (g=0.59, 95%-CI:[0.33;0.86]), and undiagnosed individuals reporting elevated depressive symptoms (g=0.66, 95%-CI:[0.47;0.84]). The effect size was larger for self-referential stimuli (g=0.90, 95%-CI[0.78;1.01]), but was not modified by the presence (g=0.74, 95%-CI[0.59;0.90]) or absence (g=0.72, 95%-CI[0.58;0.85]) of mental imagery instructions. Similar effect sizes were observed for a negative interpretation bias (g=0.58, 95%-CI:[0.40;0.75]) and lack of a positive interpretation bias (g=0.60, 95%-CI:[0.36;0.85]). The effect size was only significant when interpretation bias was measured directly (g=0.88, 95%-CI[0.77;0.99]), but not when measured indirectly (g=0.04, 95%-CI[-0.14;0.22]). It is concluded that depression is associated with interpretation biases, but caution is necessary because methodological factors shape conclusions. Implications and recommendations for future research are outlined.

Overview

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.2017.09.005

Cites

128 of 135 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

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?

Self-check

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

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

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Dickson, 2015, Investigating the role of cognitive biases as a risk factor for depression (Dissertation Abstracts International)

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 378

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Everaert, J., Podina, I. R., & Koster, E. H. W.
Affiliations
  • Ghent University (BE)
  • University of Bucharest (RO)
Corresponding author
Everaert, Jonas
ORCID
Venue
Clinical Psychology Review
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2017-12
Volume
58
Pages
33-48
ISSN
0272-7358 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.cpr.2017.09.005
OpenAlex
W2756528888
Cited by
378
References
133
Citations by year
2026: 59 · 2025: 35 · 2024: 41 · 2023: 49 · 2022: 42 · 2021: 34 · 2020: 79 · 2019: 28 · 2018: 10 · 2017: 1
FWCI
5.10
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Clinical Psychology Review (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Ghent University Academic Bibliography (Ghent University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
  • Yale University
  • Universiteit Gent
  • Universitatea din București
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychological Treatments and Assessments
Keywords
interpretation bias, depression, cognitive biases, negative interpretation bias, mental imagery, depression remission, depressive symptoms
MeSH terms
Depression, Depressive Disorder, Humans, Thinking

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