Cognitive behavioral versus exposure only treatment for social phobia: A meta-analysis
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
The most recent and extensive meta-analysis by Gould et al. replicated the findings of Feske and Chambless showing that CT was superior to wait-list and placebo attention controls (ES=0.93) for social phobia.
“The most recent and extensive meta-analysis by Gould et al. replicated the findings of Feske and Chambless showing that CT was superior to wait-list and placebo attention controls (ES=0.93)”
From The empirical status of cognitive-behavioral therapy: A review of meta-analyses (2006) · cites this paper as Feske & Chambless, 1995
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 68 · Cited by 447
- Authors
- Feske, U., & Chambless, D. L.
- Affiliations
- American University (US)
- Corresponding author
- Chambless, Dianne L.
- ORCID
- Chambless, Dianne L.
- Venue
- Behavior Therapy
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 1995
- Volume
- 26
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 695-720
- ISSN
- 0005-7894 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2028183738
- Cited by
- 447
- References
- 68
- Citations by year
- 2026: 5 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 10 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 31 · 2018: 15 · 2017: 14 · 2016: 21 · 2015: 19 · 2014: 19 · 2013: 31 · 2012: 11
- FWCI
- 4.40
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Behavior Therapy (publishedVersion)
- 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, social anxiety, cognitive behavioral therapy, exposure therapy, treatment comparison, treatment duration, cognitive symptoms, mood
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
