Cited by 428Personality Disorders and PsychopathologyPsychotherapy Techniques and ApplicationsAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes

A schema-focused approach to group psychotherapy for outpatients with borderline personality disorder: A randomized controlled trial

Farrell, Joan M., Shaw, Ida A., Webber, Michael A.·2009·Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry

Abstract

This study tests the effectiveness of adding an eight-month, thirty-session schema-focused therapy (SFT) group to treatment-as-usual (TAU) individual psychotherapy for borderline personality disorder (BPD). Patients (N=32) were randomly assigned to SFT-TAU and TAU alone. Dropout was 0% SFT, 25% TAU. Significant reductions in BPD symptoms and global severity of psychiatric symptoms, and improved global functioning with large treatment effect sizes were found in the SFT-TAU group. At the end of treatment, 94% of SFT-TAU compared to 16% of TAU no longer met BPD diagnosis criteria (p<.001). This study supports group SFT as an effective treatment for BPD that leads to recovery and improved overall functioning.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jbtep.2009.01.002

Cites

35 of 35 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

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?

  • Farrell 2009 reported very large, statistically significant effects for all reported pathology-related outcomes, that is, BPD severity, affective instability, impulsivity, interpersonal problems, dissociative/psychotic symptoms, general psychopathology, and overall mental health status.

    “The authors report findings resulting in very large, statistically significant effects for all reported pathology-related outcomes, that is, BPD severity, affective instability, impulsivity, interpersonal problems, dissociative/psychotic symptoms, general psychopathology, and overall mental health status.”

    From Psychological therapies for people with borderline personality disorder. (2012) · cites this paper as Farrell 2009

  • Farrell 2009 used treatment adherence safeguards: weekly supervision meetings, random videotape fidelity review by program developers, and a manual as an additional fidelity check.

    “Weekly supervision meetings took place during the course of the study and random videotapes of sessions were reviewed for fidelity by the program developers.The manual developed for the study acted as an additional fidelity check.”

    From Psychological therapies for people with borderline personality disorder. (2012) · cites this paper as Farrell 2009

  • Farrell 2009 data indicate a very large, statistically significant difference in favour of SFT-G for mental health status/functioning (SMD 1.20; N = 28, 95% CI 0.38 to 2.03; Analysis 2.15).

    “Again, Farrell 2009 report data indicating a very large, statistically significant difference in favour of SFT-G (SMD 1.20; N = 28, 95% CI 0.38 to 2.03; Analysis 2.15).”

    From Psychological therapies for people with borderline personality disorder. (2012) · cites this paper as Farrell 2009

  • In Farrell 2009, observer-rated outcomes were not assessed by blind raters.

    “(Farrell 2009, p. 319) Overall, observer-rated outcomes were not assessed by blind raters.”

    From Psychological therapies for people with borderline personality disorder. (2012) · cites this paper as Farrell 2009

  • In Farrell 2009, two of the three groups had the two program developers as therapists and the third had one developer and one clinical psychologist.

    “Two of the three groups had the two program developers as therapists and the third had one developer and one clinical psychologist”

    From Psychological therapies for people with borderline personality disorder. (2012) · cites this paper as Farrell 2009

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

3 of the 38 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Farrell, J. M., Shaw, I. A., & Webber, M. A.
Affiliations
Indiana University Hospital (US)
Corresponding author
Farrell, Joan M.
Venue
Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2009-06
Volume
40
Issue
2
Pages
317-328
ISSN
0005-7916 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2156247218
Cited by
428
References
38
Citations by year
2026: 12 · 2025: 17 · 2024: 19 · 2023: 20 · 2022: 30 · 2021: 27 · 2020: 42 · 2019: 22 · 2018: 25 · 2017: 28 · 2016: 29 · 2015: 30 · 2014: 29 · 2013: 26 · 2012: 36
FWCI
25.17
Type
journal article
Language
en
Update notices
erratum (2018-09-01)
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
National Institute of Mental Health
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Personality Disorders and Psychopathology
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychotherapy Techniques and Applications
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
Keywords
schema therapy, borderline personality disorder, group therapy, outpatient care, individual psychotherapy, treatment discontinuation, psychiatric symptom severity, global functioning
MeSH terms
Adult, Borderline Personality Disorder, Female, Humans, Interview, Psychological, Middle Aged, Outpatients, Psychiatric Status Rating Scales, Psychotherapy, Group, Socioeconomic Factors, Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, Treatment Outcome, Young Adult

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