Cited by 49Personality Disorders and PsychopathologyPsychotherapy Techniques and ApplicationsAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes

A pilot study of manual-assisted cognitive therapy with a therapeutic assessment augmentation for borderline personality disorder

Open access
Morey, Leslie C., Lowmaster, Sara E., Hopwood, Christopher J.·2010·Psychiatry Research

Abstract

This study examined the efficacy of Manual Assisted Cognitive Therapy (MACT) as a stand-alone treatment for Borderline Personality Disorder (BPD) with suicidal ideation, and piloted a Therapeutic Assessment (TA) intervention among 16 patients randomly assigned to MACT or MACT+TA. Although MACT was associated with significant reductions in BPD features and suicidal ideation, less than half of the sample completed the treatment. The TA augmentation did not improve treatment retention but it was associated with somewhat greater clinical improvement. Although findings associate MACT with symptom reduction among persisting patients, attrition rate was problematically high in the overall sample.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.psychres.2010.04.055

Cites

8 of 8 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?

  • Morey 2010 reported a marginal, statistically not different between-group effect for suicidality (SMD -0.03; N=16; 95% CI -1.01 to 0.95).

    “Both rendered marginal, statistically not different between-group effects (suicidality: SMD -0.03; N = 16; 95% CI -1.01 to 0.95; Analysis 4.3; parasuicidality: SMD 0.08; N = 16; 95% CI -0.90 to 1.06; Analysis 4.4).”
  • Morey 2010 reported a marginal, statistically not different between-group effect for parasuicidality (SMD 0.08; N=16; 95% CI -0.90 to 1.06).

    “Both rendered marginal, statistically not different between-group effects (suicidality: SMD -0.03; N = 16; 95% CI -1.01 to 0.95; Analysis 4.3; parasuicidality: SMD 0.08; N = 16; 95% CI -0.90 to 1.06; Analysis 4.4).”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Morey, L. C., Lowmaster, S. E., & Hopwood, C. J.
Affiliations
  • Texas A&M University (US)
  • Michigan State University (US)
Corresponding author
Morey, Leslie C.
Venue
Psychiatry Research
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2010-08
Volume
178
Issue
3
Pages
531-535
ISSN
0165-1781 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2074075888
Cited by
49
References
8
Citations by year
2024: 2 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 1 · 2014: 7 · 2013: 2 · 2012: 3
FWCI
2.11
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Psychiatry Research (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Zurich Open Repository and Archive (University of Zurich) (acceptedVersion)
  • Zurich Open Repository and Archive (University of Zurich) (submittedVersion)
  • Zurich Open Repository and Archive (University of Zurich)
Funders
American Foundation for Suicide Prevention
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
borderline personality disorder, suicidal ideation, therapeutic assessment, augmentation therapy, treatment retention, attrition, psychotherapy efficacy
MeSH terms
Adult, Analysis of Variance, Bibliotherapy, Borderline Personality Disorder, Female, Follow-Up Studies, Humans, Male, Pilot Projects, Probability, Suicide, Attempted, Reproducibility of Results, Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, 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