Cited by 13Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive ProcessesPsychological Treatments and AssessmentsPsychotherapy Techniques and Applications

What explains the failure to identify replicable moderators of symptom change in social anxiety disorder?

Open access
Erceg-Hurn, David M., Campbell, Bruce N.C., McEvoy, Peter M.·2023·Journal of Anxiety Disorders

Published version of a preprint

Abstract

Trials of cognitive behaviour therapy (CBT) for social anxiety disorder (SAD) have struggled to identify replicable moderators of treatment outcome. This could be due to a genuine lack of effects, or a spurious finding caused by methodological factors such as inadequate testing of theory-driven moderators, use of small homogenous samples, failure to model non-linear relationships, and over-reliance on significance testing. We probed explanations for the field's failure to detect moderators by testing whether 15 theory-driven and atheoretical variables moderated treatment outcome in a large heterogeneous sample treated with group CBT for SAD. Moderation was not assessed by only using p-values for linear models, but also by considering effect sizes, plots, and non-linear relationships. Despite using a comprehensive approach to assess moderation, only two variables - the baseline severity of SAD symptoms and fear of negative evaluation (FNE) - were found to moderate social anxiety symptom trajectories. FNE had a non-linear relationship with symptom change that would have been missed using common research methods. Our findings suggest both a genuine lack of effects and limitations of research methods have contributed to the field's inability to identify moderators. We provide suggestions that may increase the likelihood of future researchers detecting genuine effects.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.janxdis.2023.102676

Cites

18 of 18 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Erceg-Hurn, D. M., Campbell, B. N. C., & McEvoy, P. M.
Affiliations
  • Centre for Clinical Interventions (AU)
  • Curtin University (AU)
Venue
Journal of Anxiety Disorders
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2023-03
Volume
94
Pages
102676
ISSN
0887-6185 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4319066481
Cited by
13
References
18
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 4
FWCI
2.88
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Anxiety Disorders (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PsyArXiv (OSF Preprints) (submittedVersion)
  • PsyArXiv (OSF Preprints) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
National Health and Medical Research Council (APP1104007)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychological Treatments and Assessments
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychotherapy Techniques and Applications
Keywords
social anxiety disorder, cognitive behavioral therapy, group cognitive behavioral therapy, treatment moderators, symptom change, fear of negative evaluation, baseline symptom severity, nonlinear relationship, methodological limitations, symptom trajectories
MeSH terms
Phobia, Social, Anxiety, Anxiety Disorders, Fear, Humans, 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