CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 78Stuttering Research and TreatmentDigital Mental Health InterventionsAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes

A Standalone Internet Cognitive Behavior Therapy Treatment for Social Anxiety in Adults Who Stutter: CBTpsych

Helgadóttir, Fjóla Dögg, Menzies, Ross G., Onslow, Mark, Packman, Ann, O’Brian, Sue·2014·Journal of Fluency Disorders
DOI 10.1016/j.jfludis.2014.04.001
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Purpose Social anxiety is common for those who stutter and efficacious cognitive behavior therapy (CBT) for them appears viable. However, there are difficulties with provision of CBT services for anxiety among those who stutter. Standalone Internet CBT treatment is a potential solution to those problems. CBTpsych is a fully automated, online social anxiety intervention for those who stutter. This report is a Phase I trial of CBTpsych.Method Fourteen participants were allowed 5 months to complete seven sections of CBTpsych. Pre-treatment and post-treatment assessments tested for social anxiety, common unhelpful thoughts related to stuttering, quality of life and stuttering frequency.Results Significant post-treatment improvements in social anxiety, unhelpful thoughts, and quality of life were reported. Five of seven participants diagnosed with social anxiety lost those diagnoses at post-treatment. The two participants who did not lose social anxiety diagnoses did not complete all the CBTpsych modules. CBTpsych did not improve stuttering frequency. Eleven of the fourteen participants who began treatment completed Section 4 or more of the CBTpsych intervention.Conclusions CBTpsych provides a potential means to provide CBT treatment for social anxiety associated with stuttering, to any client without cost, regardless of location. Further clinical trials are warranted.Educational objectives At the end of this activity the reader will be able to: (a) describe that social anxiety is common in those who stutter; (b) discuss the origin of social anxiety and the associated link with bullying; (c) summarize the problems in provision of effective evidence based cognitive behavior therapy for adults who stutter; (d) describe a scalable computerized treatment designed to tackle the service provision gap; (e) describe the unhelpful thoughts associated with stuttering that this fully automated computer program was able to tackle; (f) list the positive outcomes for individuals who stuttered that participated in this trial such as the reduction of social anxiety symptoms and improvement in the quality of life for individuals who stuttered and participated in this trial.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jfludis.2014.04.001

Cites

40 of 40 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?

  • A sample size of 56 participants (28 per group) was calculated to achieve 80% power at a 5% alpha, based on an expected 0.5-point OASES-A gap between groups at T2 and adjustment for at least 15% dropout.

    “According to the literature [4,49] we hypothesized that at the end of the intervention program (at T2), a 0.5-point gap at this test would be obtained between the intervention group and the control group. Furthermore, after adjustment of at least 15% of dropout rate that was expected in the study [36,38,39] a required sample size of 56 participants was calculated in order to achieve an alpha of 5%”

    From Inquiry based stress reduction (Ibsr) improves overall stuttering experience among adults who stutter: A randomized controlled trial (2021) · cites this paper as [49]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Helgadóttir, F. D., Menzies, R. G., Onslow, M., Packman, A., & O’Brian, S.
Affiliations
The University of Sydney (AU)
Corresponding author
Onslow, Mark
ORCID
Venue
Journal of Fluency Disorders
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2014-09
Volume
41
Pages
47-54
ISSN
0094-730X (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.jfludis.2014.04.001
OpenAlex
W2073312957
Cited by
78
References
40
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 10 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 13 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 1
FWCI
5.11
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
Locations
  • Journal of Fluency Disorders (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
National Health and Medical Research Council
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Stuttering Research and Treatment
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Digital Mental Health Interventions
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
Keywords
stuttering, social anxiety, cognitive behavioral therapy, online therapy, computer-based intervention, quality of life, stuttering frequency, bullying, service gaps, adults who stutter
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Anxiety, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Models, Psychological, Psychiatric Status Rating Scales, Social Adjustment, Social Behavior, Speech, Stuttering, Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, Treatment Outcome, Internet, 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