Cited by 79Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive ProcessesPsychological Treatments and AssessmentsPsychotherapy Techniques and Applications

Group social skills training or cognitive group therapy as the clinical treatment of choice for generalized social phobia?

van Dam-Baggen, Rien, Kraaimaat, Floris·2000·Journal of Anxiety Disorders

Abstract

This study focused on determining whether group social skills training (SST) or cognitive-behavioral group therapy (CBT) works best to treat social anxiety in psychiatric patients. Participants were psychiatric outpatients with a Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (4th ed.) diagnosis of generalized social phobia (GSP). A matching procedure was used to obtain two equivalent samples in both conditions (N = 48). It was shown that both SST and CBT were effective in reducing social and general anxiety, decreasing the severity of psychopathology and increasing social skills and self-control. As for differential effects, patients participating in SST experienced a significantly greater reduction of social anxiety and a greater increase in social skills than those in CBT. Moreover, it was shown that social anxiety and social skills scores of the SST group at follow-up reached the level of a normal reference group, whereas those of the CBT participants improved only to that of nonsocially anxious patients with anxiety disorders. Finally, it was revealed that commitment to and satisfaction with treatment of participants in both conditions did not differ. Keeping in mind that this was a quasiexperimental study, the authors concluded that in a clinical setting, group SST may be the best way to treat psychiatric patients with GSP, where comorbidity is the rule rather than the exception.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/s0887-6185(00)00038-4

Cites

43 of 43 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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 44 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
van Dam-Baggen, R., & Kraaimaat, F.
Affiliations
Radboud University Nijmegen (NL)
Venue
Journal of Anxiety Disorders
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2000-09
Volume
14
Issue
5
Pages
437-451
ISSN
0887-6185 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2055420710
Cited by
78
References
44
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 1 · 2014: 9 · 2013: 3 · 2012: 6
FWCI
4.31
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Anxiety Disorders (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Radboud Repository (Radboud University) (submittedVersion)
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
generalized social phobia, social anxiety, group social skills training, group cognitive behavioral therapy, psychiatric outpatients, social skills, treatment satisfaction, treatment commitment, comorbidities, anxiety disorders
MeSH terms
Adult, Analysis of Variance, Behavior Therapy, Female, Follow-Up Studies, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Netherlands, Phobic Disorders, Psychotherapy, Group, Severity of Illness Index, Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, Treatment Outcome, Self Efficacy

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