Cited by 250Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive ProcessesPsychotherapy Techniques and ApplicationsPsychological Treatments and Assessments

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 44 of the 44 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Assessing therapist reservations about exposure therapy for anxiety disorders: The Therapist Beliefs about Exposure Scale

Abstract

Exposure therapy is underutilized in the treatment of pathological anxiety and is often delivered in a suboptimal manner. Negative beliefs about exposure appear common among therapists and may pose a barrier to its dissemination. To permit reliable and valid assessment of such beliefs, we constructed the 21-item Therapist Beliefs about Exposure Scale (TBES) and examined its reliability and validity in three samples of practicing clinicians. The TBES demonstrated a clear single-factor structure, excellent internal consistency (αs=.90-.96), and exceptionally high six-month test-retest reliability (r=.89). Negative beliefs about exposure therapy were associated with therapist demographic characteristics, negative reactions to a series of exposure therapy case vignettes, and the cautious delivery of exposure therapy in the treatment of a hypothetical client with obsessive-compulsive disorder. Lastly, TBES scores decreased markedly following a didactic workshop on exposure therapy. The present findings support the reliability and validity of the TBES.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.janxdis.2013.04.006

Cites

44 of 44 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, 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?

Citations

Cites

Show all 44 references

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Young, 2008, Persistent depression and anxiety in the United States, Psychiatric Services, 59, 1391, 10.1176/ps.2008.59.12.1391 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 201–250 of 250

Metadata

Authors
Deacon, B. J., Farrell, N. R., Kemp, J. J., Dixon, L. J., Sy, J. T., Zhang, A. R., & McGrath, P. B.
Affiliations
  • University of Wyoming (US)
  • Alexian Brothers Health System (US)
Venue
Journal of Anxiety Disorders
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2013-12
Volume
27
Issue
8
Pages
772-780
ISSN
0887-6185 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2166084011
Cited by
248
References
44
Citations by year
2026: 17 · 2025: 30 · 2024: 18 · 2023: 19 · 2022: 30 · 2021: 20 · 2020: 22 · 2019: 22 · 2018: 16 · 2017: 20 · 2016: 10 · 2015: 13 · 2014: 6 · 2013: 5
FWCI
15.32
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Anxiety Disorders (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Research Online (University of Wollongong) (submittedVersion)
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
exposure therapy, therapist beliefs, anxiety disorders, obsessive-compulsive disorder, treatment dissemination, therapist attitudes, scale development, test-retest reliability, factor structure
MeSH terms
Adult, Anxiety Disorders, Attitude of Health Personnel, Cross-Sectional Studies, Female, Humans, Implosive Therapy, Male, Middle Aged, Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale, Personality Inventory, Professional Practice, Psychiatric Status Rating Scales, Sensitivity and Specificity, Reproducibility of Results, Principal Component Analysis

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