CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 74Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive ProcessesChild and Adolescent Psychosocial and Emotional DevelopmentMindfulness and Compassion Interventions

A randomised controlled trial of acceptance and commitment therapy and cognitive-behaviour therapy for generalised anxiety disorder

Open access
Avdagic, Elbina, Morrissey, Shirley A., Boschen, Mark J.·2014·Behaviour Change
DOI 10.1017/bec.2014.5
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

The study examined the relative efficacy of group acceptance and commitment therapy (ACT) for generalised anxiety disorder (GAD) compared to group cognitive-behavioural therapy (CBT). Fifty-one individuals with GAD were randomly allocated to a 6-week intervention, either ACT or CBT. Participants were assessed at pre-treatment, post-treatment, and 3-month follow-up on symptom measures, quality of life, and process measures. Data from 38 participants (19 in each group) were available at post-assessment, indicating significant improvements on all measures for both treatment conditions. Treatment gains were maintained at follow-up, with significant further improvements in anxiety, depression and stress symptoms for both groups. While no between-group differences were found at treatment completion, a significant interaction indicating steeper reduction in worrying symptoms (d =.79) from pre- to post-assessment was found for the ACT group compared to the CBT group. Furthermore, in relation to worrying, at treatment completion 78.9% of participants in the ACT group achieved reliable change compared to 47.4% of participants in the CBT group. However, both groups showed equivalent reliable change rates of 60% at the follow-up assessment. The results suggest that group ACT was as efficacious as group CBT. While participants in the ACT group maintained treatment gains at follow-up, participants in the CBT group continued to improve between post-assessment and follow-up. © The Author(s), published by Cambridge.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1017/bec.2014.5

Cites

54 of 54 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

50 tests recomputed · 0 with the reported and recomputed p on opposite sides of .05

Claims the paper makes

9 of 49 cited sources checked · 8 supported · 0 flagged · accuracy not yet measured

  • Premisecitation

    Application of ACT to mixed anxiety disorders (including GAD) led to improvements comparable to CBT.

    “Research has demonstrated that the application of ACT to mixedanxiety disorders (including GAD) led to improvements that were comparable to CBT (e.g., Arch et al., 2012).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Arch et al., 2012 source
  • Premisecitation

    Apart from a pilot study investigating ACT and CBT for GAD in older individuals, there are no published, randomised controlled trials of ACT and CBT focusing exclusively on GAD.

    “Currently, apart from a pilot study investigating ACT and CBT for GAD in older individuals (Wetherell et al., 2011), there are no published, randomised controlled trials of ACT and CBT focusing exclusively on GAD.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Wetherell et al., 2011 source
  • Interpretationcitation

    The current results are comparable to other randomised controlled trials of ACT and CBT, such as Forman et al. (2007) and Arch et al. (2012).

    “These results are comparable to other randomised controlled trials of ACT and CBT, such as Forman, Herbert, Moitra, Yeomans, and Geller (2007) and Arch et al. (2012).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Forman, Herbert, Moitra, Yeomans, and Geller (2007) source
    • cites Arch et al. (2012) source
  • Premisecitation

    Forman et al. (2007) and Arch et al. (2012) found that ACT and CT/CBT interventions achieved similar improvements at treatment completion on either anxiety-specific measures or broader outcomes such as quality of life.

    “Both of these studies found that ACT and CT/CBT interventions achieved similar improvements at treatment completion on either anxiety specific measures or broader outcomes (e.g., quality of life).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Forman et al. (2007) source
    • cites Arch et al. (2012) source
  • Findingown data

    At treatment completion, 78.9% of participants in the ACT group achieved reliable change on worrying compared to 47.4% in the CBT group.

    “at treatment completion 78.9% of participants in the ACT group achieved reliable change compared to 47.4% of participants in the CBT group.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. 42
  • May combine two claims. 50

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductcitation

    Random assignment to ACT or CBT was based on CONSORT guidelines for running and reporting randomised controlled trials.

    “Based on CONSORT guidelines for running and reporting randomised controlled trials (Moher, Schulz, & Douglas, 2001), Figure 1 shows the flow of participants throughout the study.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Moher, Schulz, & Douglas, 2001 source

      The CONSORT checklist (Results, item 13) strongly recommends a diagram showing participant flow, including the numbers randomly assigned to each group; this supports the citation for Figure 1. The Discussion says CONSORT was developed to improve reporting of trials, not to prescribe how to run a trial or assign participants to ACT or CBT. (LLM, conf=0.88)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation

    Recommendations that further research is necessary to determine the generalisability of the findings, and in particular to further compare the acceptance based therapies to active treatments for GAD, remains.

    “Nevertheless, the recommendations from Roemer et al. (2008) and Powers, Zum Vörde Sive Vörding, and Emmelkamp (2009) that further research is necessary to determine the generalisability of the findings, and in particular to further compare the acceptance based therapies to active treatments for GAD, remains.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Roemer et al., 2008 source
    • cites Powers, Zum Vörde Sive Vörding, and Emmelkamp, 2009 source

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Results of a randomised controlled trial of ABBT for GAD using a wait-list control demonstrated its efficacy and indicated that 77% of participants achieved high end-state functioning at post-assessment, with these gains being maintained at both 3-month and 9-month follow-up.

    “Results of a randomised controlled trial of ABBT for GAD using a wait-list control demonstrated its efficacy and indicated that 77% of participants achieved high end-state functioning at post-assessment, with these gains being maintained at both 3-month and 9-month follow-up (Roemer et al., 2008).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Roemer et al., 2008 source

  • May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductcitation

    The attrition rate across both interventions was 25.5%, similar to other studies such as Arch et al. (2012).

    “While the number of people who dropped out of therapy across both interventions was high (25.5%),this attrition rate is similar to other studies, such as Arch et al. (2012).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Arch et al., 2012 source

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    ABBT has been investigated in an open trial, a randomised wait-list controlled trial, and a randomised controlled trial of ABBT and applied relaxation.

    “another acceptancebased approach, developed specifically for GAD -acceptance-based behavioural therapy (ABBT; Roemer & Orsillo, 2005) -has been investigated in an open trial (Roemer & Orsillo, 2007), a randomised wait-list controlled trial (Roemer, Orsillo, & Salters-Pedneault, 2008), and a randomised controlled trial of ABBT and applied relaxation (Hayes-Skeleton, Roemer, & Orsillo, 2013).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Roemer & Orsillo, 2005

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

    • cites Roemer & Orsillo, 2007

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

    • cites Roemer, Orsillo, & Salters-Pedneault, 2008 source

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    There was no main effect of group for the AAQ-9 scale or the action and willingness subscales.

    “There was no main effect of group for either the AAQ-9 scale or the action and willingness subscales.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Simple effect analysis demonstrated a significant difference between the groups in Session 6, F(1, 49) = 8.82, p = .005, partial η2 = .153, with participants in the ACT group reporting lower levels of interference compared to the CBT group.

    “Simple effect analysis demonstrated a significant difference between the groups in Session 6, F(1, 49) = 8.82, p = .005partial η 2 = .153,with participants in the ACT group reporting lower levels of interference compared to the CBT group.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • The authors state this as an assumption: Individuals who discontinued treatment experienced no change (used in the last-observation-carry-forward ITT analysis).

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    DASS-21 ITT: significant main effect of time for each subscale: depression F(1,49)=26.31, p<.001, partial η2=.349; anxiety F(1,49)=39.65, p<.001, partial η2=.447; stress F(1,49)=45.12, p<.001, partial η2=.479.

    “The ITT analyses also revealed significant main effect of time for each of the DASS subscales across both group.Participants reported significantly lower levels of depressive symptoms, F(1, 49) = 26.31,p < .001,partial η 2 = .349,anxiety, F(1, 49) = 39.65,p < .001,partial η 2 = .447,and stress, F(1, 49) = 45.12,p < .001,partial η 2 = .479from pre-to post-assessment.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • The authors state this as an assumption: Individuals who discontinued treatment experienced no change (used in the last-observation-carry-forward ITT analysis).

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    In the ITT analysis for the CAQ, there was no significant time × group interaction and no main effect of group.

    “and no significant time × group interaction and no main effect of group.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    QOLI ITT: participants reported better quality of life at post-assessment across both interventions, F(1, 45) = 7.81, p = .008, partial η2 = .148.

    “Participants reported better quality of life at post-assessment across both interventions, F(1, 45) = 7.81, p = .008,partial η 2 = .148.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
    • The authors state this as an assumption: Individuals who discontinued treatment experienced no change (used in the last-observation-carry-forward ITT analysis).

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    In the IUS ITT analysis, the ACT group demonstrated a steeper improvement with a moderate effect size, but the difference did not reach statistical significance (F(1,48)=3.05, p=.087, partial η2=.060).

    “While the ACT group demonstrated a steeper improvement with moderate effect size, the difference found did not reach statistical significance, F(1, 48) = 3.05, p = .087,partial η 2 = .060.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    While the ACT group initially achieved greater improvements in worrying symptoms, this difference was not evident at follow-up, with both groups showing comparable results on the PSWQ.

    “While the ACT group initially achieved greater improvements in participants' worrying symptoms, this difference was not evident at the follow-up, with both groups showing comparable results on the PSWQ.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    DASS-21: no significant time × group interaction and no main effect of group for any of the DASS subscales.

    “No significant time × group interaction and no main effect of group were found for any of the DASS subscales.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    At follow-up, there were no differences between the two interventions, with both groups achieving reliable change rates of 60%.

    “However, there were no differences between the two interventions at the follow-up assessment, with both groups achieving reliable change rates of 60%.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    QOLI ITT: no main effect of group, F(1, 45) = 0.00, p = .985, partial η2 = .000, and no interaction between group and time, F(1, 45) = .078, p = 0.78, partial η2 = .002.

    “No main effect of group, F(1, 45) = 0.00, p = .985,partial η 2 = .000,and no interaction between group and time, F(1, 45) = .078,p = 0.78, partial η 2 = .002,was found.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
    • The authors state this as an assumption: Individuals who discontinued treatment experienced no change (used in the last-observation-carry-forward ITT analysis).

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Simple effect analysis showed a greater reduction of worrying at post-assessment for the ACT intervention compared to the CBT intervention; however, the difference did not reach statistical significance, F(1, 36) = 3.64, p = .064, partial η2 = .092.

    “Simple effect analysis showed a greater reduction of worrying at postassessment for the ACT intervention compared to the CBT intervention; however, the found difference did not reach statistical significance, F(1, 36) = 3.64, p = .064,partial η 2 = .092.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    DASS-21 ITT: no significant main effect of group, and no interaction effect for the DASS subscales.

    “There was no significant main effect of group, and no interaction effect found for the DASS subscales.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • The authors state this as an assumption: Individuals who discontinued treatment experienced no change (used in the last-observation-carry-forward ITT analysis).

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    The treatment benefits obtained in the current study at the end of the group interventions were either maintained or further improved at 3-month follow-up, with no significant differences between the two groups.

    “In addition, the above treatment benefits obtained in the current study at the end of the group interventions were either maintained or further improved at 3-month follow-up, with no significant differences between the two groups.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    No significant time × group interactions or main effect of group was found for any of the outcome measures at the follow-up assessment.

    “No significant time × group interactions or main effect of group was found for any of the outcome measures at the follow-up assessment.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Although the interaction was not significant, there was a trend of steeper decrease on the WW-II for the ACT group relative to the CBT group.

    “Nevertheless, while the interaction effect was not significantly different, a trend of steeper decrease on this measure was found for the ACT group relative to the CBT group.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    The obtained benefits were maintained at 3-month follow-up, with further gains on the DASS-21 for both groups.

    “Furthermore, the obtained benefits were maintained at 3-month follow-up, with further gains on the DASS-21 for both groups.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Both groups reported greater acceptance of distressing thoughts, sensations and feelings, and increased tolerance of uncertainty at the end of treatment, with a trend towards a steeper increase on these measures with moderate effect sizes for the ACT group compared to the CBT group.

    “the findings indicated that although both groups reported greater acceptance of distressing thoughts, sensations and feelings, and increased tolerance of uncertainty at the end of treatment, a trend towards a steeper increase on these measures with moderate effect sizes was recorded for the ACT group compared to the CBT group.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    QOLI: no main effect of group F(1, 32) = .048, p = .828, partial η2 = .001 and no interaction between group and time F(1, 32) = .803, p = .377, partial η2 = .024.

    “There was no main effect of group F(1, 32) = .048,p = .828,partial η 2 = .001and no interaction between group and time F(1, 32) = .803,p = .377,partial η 2 = .024.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    PSWQ ITT: time × group interaction only approached statistical significance, F(1, 49) = 3.97, p = .052, partial η2 = .075; effect size moderate and suggested a sharper decline in worrying from pre-to post-treatment for the ACT group compared to the CBT group.

    “While time × group interaction only approached statistical significance, F(1, 49) = 3.97, p = .052,partial η 2 = .075,the effect size of the difference was moderate and suggested a sharper decline in worrying from pre-to post-treatment for the ACT group compared to the CBT group.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
    • The authors state this as an assumption: Individuals who discontinued treatment experienced no change (used in the last-observation-carry-forward ITT analysis).

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    A larger number of participants in the ACT group were considered improved or recovered at the end of treatment compared to the CBT group, but no differences between groups were recorded at follow-up, with CBT participants continuing to improve from post- to follow-up.

    “While a larger number of participants in the ACT group were considered improved or recovered at the end of treatment compared to the CBT groups, no differences between the groups were recorded at the follow-up, with participants in the CBT group continuing to improve from post-to follow-up assessment.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation

    Only around 50% of GAD individuals reach high end-state functioning after treatment.

    “generally, only around 50% of GAD individuals reach high end-state functioning after treatment (Erikson & Newman, 2005).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Erikson & Newman, 2005

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Study design and conductown data

    Fifty-one individuals with GAD were randomly allocated to a 6-week intervention, either ACT or CBT.

    “Fifty-one individuals with GAD were randomly allocated to a 6-week intervention, either ACT or CBT.”
    • Also stated in: § Participants · plain
      “The remaining 51 participants (34 females and 17 males), aged between 19 and 69 years (M = 36.17,SD = 13.1), were randomly allocated either to the ACT group (n = 25) or CBT group (n = 26).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    GAD leads to significant impairment in everyday life.

    “which leads to significant impairment in the everyday life of its sufferers (Kessler, Walters, & Witchen, 2004)”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Kessler, Walters, & Witchen, 2004

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    GAD is a chronic condition.

    “Generalised anxiety disorder (GAD) is described as a chronic condition (Yonkers, Warshaw, Massion, & Keller, 1996)”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Yonkers, Warshaw, Massion, & Keller, 1996 source

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    GAD is commonly associated with other disorders.

    “commonly associated with other disorders (Brown & Barlow, 1992)”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Brown & Barlow, 1992

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation

    CBT is suggested as a preferred type of therapy for GAD.

    “While CBT is suggested as a preferred type of therapy for GAD (Ballenger et al., 2001)”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Ballenger et al., 2001

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductown data

    In the current study, the internal consistency of the competence subscale and intra-class correlation were good (α = .83 and ICC = .86).

    “In the current study, the internal consistency of the competence subscale and intra-class correlation were good (α = .83and ICC = .86).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductown data

    For the ACT group, the knowledge of treatment was rated as 4.8, the skill in delivering treatment as 4.5, the appropriate application of treatment components as 4.4, and the relationship with participants as 4.2.

    “For the ACT group, the knowledge of treatment was rated as 4.8, the skill in delivering treatment as 4.5, the appropriate application of treatment components as 4.4, and the relationship with participants as 4.2.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductown data

    The therapist's competence was assessed in relation to five skills: knowledge of treatment, skill in delivering treatment, appropriate application of treatment components within the context of session, relationship with the client, and overall performance.

    “The therapist's competence was assessed in relation to five skills: 'knowledge of treatment', 'skill in delivering treatment', 'appropriate application of treatment components within the context of session', 'relationship with the client', and 'overall performance'.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductown data

    Nine participants discontinued their therapy during the study period, three from ACT (12%) and six from CBT (23%).

    “Nine participants discontinued their therapy during the study period, three from the ACT group (12%) and six from the CBT group (23%).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    The inter-rater reliability for the competence subscale was found to be good with ICC = .86, while the internal consistency was very good with α = .95.

    “The inter-rater reliability for the competence subscale was found to be good with ICC = .86,while the internal consistency was very good with α = .95(McGrath et al., 2005).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites McGrath et al., 2005

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S1 (asserted), S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    The main difference between ACT and CBT lies in their theoretical explanations of psychopathology.

    “Researchers have suggested that the main difference between the two approaches lies in their theoretical explanations of psychopathology (Forman et al., 2012).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Forman et al., 2012 source

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductown data

    In the current study, the internal consistency of the IUS was α = .96.

    “Similar results for internal consistency were obtained in the current study with α = .96.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    The AAQ has demonstrated acceptable internal consistency and test-retest reliability over a 4-month period.

    “The AAQ has demonstrated acceptable internal consistency (α = .70)and test-retest reliability (r = .64)over a 4-month period (Hayes et al., 2004).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Hayes et al., 2004 source

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductown data

    In the current study, the DASS-21 subscales demonstrated good internal consistency (α = .90 for depression, α = .81 for anxiety and α = .84 for stress).

    “In the current study, the DASS-21 subscales demonstrated good internal consistency (α = .90for depression, α = .81for anxiety and α = .84for stress).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Study design and conductown data

    Participants were randomly assigned to either CBT or ACT condition using simple randomisation.

    “Participants were randomly assigned to either CBT or ACT condition using simple randomisation.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductown data

    In the current study, the internal consistency of the PSWQ was very good, with α = .90.

    “In the current study, the internal consistency was very good, with α = .90.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductown data

    In the current study, the internal consistency for the CAQ was very good with α = .96.

    “In the current study, the internal consistency for the scale was very good with α = .96.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Premiseown data

    The ACT and CBT subscales of the DUACRS showed very good inter-rater reliability and internal consistency.

    “The ACT and CBT subscales showed very good inter-rater reliability, as measured by the intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC = .96for ACT and ICC = .94for CBT) and internal consistency (α = .93for ACT and α = .91for CBT).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites McGrath et al., 2005

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductown data

    Four participants, even though completing treatment, did not return their post-assessment questionnaires.

    “Four participants, even though completing treatment, did not return their post-assessment questionnaires (three from the ACT group and one from the CBT group).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductown data

    In the current study, the internal consistency for the total WW-II was α = .95.

    “Similar results were obtained in the current study, with α = .95for the total scale.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    Holowka et al. (2000) reported very good internal consistency for the total WW-II (α = .93).

    “Holowka et al. (2000) reported very good internal consistency for the total WW-II (α = .93).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Holowka et al., 2000

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    The reported inter-rater reliability for principal GAD diagnosis is k = .67.

    “The reported inter-rater reliability for principal GAD diagnosis is k = .67(Brown, Di Nardo, Lehman, & Campbell, 2001).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Brown, Di Nardo, Lehman, & Campbell, 2001

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductcitation

    The DUACRS was used to assess treatment fidelity.

    “The Drexel University ACT/CBT Therapist Adherence and Competence Rating Scale (DUACRS: McGrath et al., 2005) was used to assess treatment fidelity.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites McGrath et al., 2005

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductown data

    The CBT received the following ratings: 5 for the knowledge of treatment, 4.8 for the skill in delivering treatment, 4.6 for the appropriate application of treatment components, and 4.2 for the relationship with participants.

    “The CBT received the following ratings: 5 for the knowledge of treatment, 4.8 for the skill in delivering treatment, 4.6 for the appropriate application of treatment components, and 4.2 for the relationship with participants.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductown data

    The overall competence was judged to be 4.4 for the ACT group and 5 for the CBT group.

    “Finally, the overall competence was judged to be 4.4 for the ACT group and 5 for the CBT group.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductnone given

    The randomisation process was conducted by the first author with the leading group therapist blind to the randomisation procedure.

    “The randomisation process was conducted by the first author with the leading group therapist blind to the randomisation procedure.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    The CAQ has shown very good internal consistency and good test-retest reliability over a 4- to 6-week period.

    “The CAQ has shown very good internal consistency (α = .95)and good test-retest reliability over a 4-to 6-week period, r = .85(Sexton & Dugas, 2008).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Sexton & Dugas, 2008 source

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    The PSWQ has demonstrated good to very good internal consistency and adequate to good test-retest reliability.

    “The PSWQ has demonstrated good to very good internal consistency (coefficients alpha ranging from .86 to .93. across clinical and college samples) and adequate to good test-retest reliability (r = .74to .93 across periods ranging from 2 to 10 weeks (Molina & Borkovec, 1994).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Molina & Borkovec, 1994

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    ACT places an emphasis on psychological flexibility and argues that experiential avoidance is a central reason for developing psychopathology.

    “ACT places an emphasis on psychological flexibility and argues that experiential avoidance -either struggle with, or an attempt to control, aversive internal experiences (e.g., thoughts, feelings and sensations) -is a central reason for developing psychopathology (Hayes et al., 1999).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Hayes et al., 1999

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Study design and conductreasoning

    To control for therapist effect confounds, each session for both groups was conducted jointly by the same therapists.

    “To control for therapist effect confounds, each session for both groups was conducted jointly by the same therapists.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    While there is now evidence that ACT can be effectively used for anxiety problems, research is still required comparing ACT with CBT to establish any advances in using ACT over CBT.

    “While there is now evidence that ACT can be effectively used for anxiety problems, research is still required comparing ACT with CBT to establish any advances in using ACT over CBT ( Öst, 2008;Powers et al., 2009).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Öst, 2008

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

    • cites Powers et al., 2009 source

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductown data

    In the current study, internal consistency was similar with α = .70 for AAQ-9, and α = .69 for both action and willingness subscales.

    “In the current study, internal consistency was similar with α = .70for AAQ-9, and α = .69for both action and willingness subscales.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductcitation

    The current study did not use a wait-list control group, based on a suggestion that the comparison of a relatively new treatment and a well-established one does not need to include a control group.

    “The current study did not use a wait-list control group.The decision was based on a suggestion that the comparison of a relatively new treatment and a well-established one does not need to include a control group (Kazdin, 2002).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Kazdin, 2002

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Forman et al. (2012) concluded that psychological acceptance strategies facilitated outcome for ACT, while cognitive and affective change strategies facilitated outcome for CBT.

    “Forman et al. (2012) in their study that investigated unique and common mechanisms of change for ACT and CBT, concluded that 'psychological acceptance strategies' facilitated outcome for ACT, while 'cognitive and affective change strategies', such as cognitive restructuring, facilitated the outcome for CBT.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Forman et al., 2012 source

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation

    CBT pinpoints dysfunctional cognitions, arising from flawed information processing, as one of the main contributors to psychopathology.

    “CBT pinpoints dysfunctional cognitions, arising from flawed information processing, as one of the main contributors to psychopathology (Forman et al., 2012).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Forman et al., 2012 source

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    The English translation of the IUS has demonstrated very good internal consistency in a sample of college students and good test-retest reliability over a period of 5 weeks.

    “The English translation of the IUS has demonstrated very good internal consistency in a sample of college students, α = .94,and good test-retest reliability over a period of 5 weeks, r = .74(Buhr & Dugas, 2002).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Buhr & Dugas, 2002 source

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Study design and conductnone given

    In the current study, 20% of randomly selected, digitally recorded sessions were rated by two independent clinical psychologists who were trained both in ACT and CBT and who had no other involvement with the current study.

    “In the current study, 20% of randomly selected, digitally recorded sessions were rated by two independent clinical psychologists who were trained both in ACT and CBT and who had no other involvement with the current study.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductown data

    In the current study, the internal consistency of the QOLI was good, with α = .83.

    “The internal consistency for the current study was good, with α = .83.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    The DASS has been found to have good internal consistency.

    “The DASS has been found to have good internal consistency (α = .91,.84,.90 for depression, anxiety and stress, respectively; Lovibond & Lovibond, 1995).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Lovibond & Lovibond, 1995

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Hayes-Skeleton et al. (2013) found that between 63.3% and 80% of participants in ABBT demonstrated clinically significant change, which was comparable to changes in applied relaxation.

    “Similarly, Hayes-Skeleton et al. (2013) found that between 63.3% and 80% of participants in ABBT demonstrated clinically significant change, which was comparable to changes in applied relaxation.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Hayes-Skeleton et al., 2013

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductreasoning

    In this study, the inter-rater reliability was not calculated as the ADIS-IV interviews were conducted over the phone and not recorded to allow a comparison between the assessors.

    “In this study, the inter-rater reliability was not calculated as the ADIS-IV interviews were conducted over the phone and not recorded to allow a comparison between the assessors.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    The QLI demonstrated good internal consistency and good test-retest reliability over a 2-week period.

    “The QLI demonstrated good internal consistency (α = .79 in a community sample) and good test-retest reliability over a 2-week period, r = .73(Frish, 1994).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Frish, 1994

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationcitation

    The results are consistent with the proposition that ACT might achieve changes through decreasing experiential avoidance and that CBT results might be attributable to affective and cognitive changes.

    “These results are consistent with the proposition that ACT might achieve changes through decreasing experiential avoidance and that CBT results might be attributable to affective and cognitive changes (Forman et al., 2012).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Forman et al., 2012 source

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductnone given

    Therapists' allegiance with either ACT or CBT was not assessed.

    “While therapists' allegiance with either ACT or CBT was not assessed”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    The obtained effect sizes for the AAQ time × group interactions were moderate, suggesting greater magnitude of change from pre- to post-assessment for the ACT group compared to the CBT group.

    “the obtained effect sizes were moderate, suggesting greater magnitude of change from pre-to post-assessment for the ACT group compared to the CBT group.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    The interaction effect size for the WW-II ITT analysis was moderate, suggesting steeper changes for the ACT group.

    “Once more, the interaction effect size was moderate, suggesting steeper changes for the ACT group.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    While the CBT group achieved comparable results at follow-up, the clinical changes in CBT were more gradual compared to ACT, and participants in the CBT group needed more time to practise the CBT skills.

    “While the CBT group achieved comparable results at the follow-up, it seemed that the clinical changes in CBT were more gradual compared to ACT, and that participants in the CBT group needed more time to practise the CBT skills.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductnone given

    Regular daily discussions were scheduled, particularly around interviews that raised uncertainty regarding a diagnosis, and those cases were discussed in detail with mutual agreement about a diagnosis.

    “In addition, regular daily discussions were scheduled, particularly around those interviews that raised some uncertainty regarding a diagnosis.Those cases were discussed in detail and mutual agreement about a diagnosis was made.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductnone given

    Another limitation was not calculating inter-rater reliability for ADIS interviews.

    “Another limitation was in not calculating inter-rater reliability for ADIS interviews.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductnone given

    All ADIS interviews were performed by either an experienced clinical psychologist or a registered psychologist with at least 2 years of clinical practice.

    “However, all interviews were performed by either an experienced clinical psychologist or registered psychologist with at least 2 years of clinical practice.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    Similar improvement rates were achieved at 3-month follow-up for the CBT group, suggesting that the CBT group might have needed more time to practise the skills in order to reach similar outcomes.

    “Similar improvement rates were achieved at 3-month follow-up for the CBT group, suggesting that the CBT group might have needed more time to practise the skills in order to reach similar outcomes.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Study design and conductown data

    The results need to be interpreted with caution due to the small, well-educated sample size.

    “Despite the pleasing outcomes from this study, the results do need to be interpreted with caution due to the small, well-educated sample size.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
78 of 78

  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    Individuals who discontinued treatment experienced no change (used in the last-observation-carry-forward ITT analysis).

    “This method is based on the conservative hypothesis that individuals who discontinued treatment experienced no change.”
1 of 1

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?

Statistics that don’t add up

Each reported p-value recomputed from its test statistic and degrees of freedom.

  • Statistic does not fit its p-value and effect size: F(2, 98) = 5.60, p = .003

    Minor

    The paper reports p = .003 here; recomputing from the test statistic and its degrees of freedom gives p = .005. The partial eta squared printed with it (ηp² = .109) corresponds to F ≈ 5.99 and p = .003, which fits the reported p-value and not the statistic: the statistic appears to be the misprint.

    Reported p = .003 · recomputed p = .005

  • Inconsistent p-value: F(1, 49) = .94,p = .335

    Minor

    The paper reports p = .335 here; recomputing from the test statistic and its degrees of freedom gives p = .337. The check cannot tell whether the statistic or the p-value is the misprint.

    Reported p = .335 · recomputed p = .337

  • Inconsistent p-value: F(2, 98) = 3.50, p = .038

    Minor

    The paper reports p = .038 here; recomputing from the test statistic and its degrees of freedom gives p = .034. The check cannot tell whether the statistic or the p-value is the misprint.

    Reported p = .038 · recomputed p = .034

  • Inconsistent p-value: F(1, 37) = 4.13, p = .050

    Minor

    The paper reports p = .05 here; recomputing from the test statistic and its degrees of freedom gives p = .049. The check cannot tell whether the statistic or the p-value is the misprint.

    Reported p = .05 · recomputed p = .049

  • Statistic does not fit its p-value and effect size: F(1, 49) = 1.51, p = .289

    Minor

    The paper reports p = .289 here; recomputing from the test statistic and its degrees of freedom gives p = .225. The partial eta squared printed with it (ηp² = .023) corresponds to F ≈ 1.15 and p = .288, which fits the reported p-value and not the statistic: the statistic appears to be the misprint.

    Reported p = .289 · recomputed p = .225

5 of 5

Statistics recomputed

Every reported test result, recomputed from its test statistic and degrees of freedom. A result shows as not adding up only once an independent check has confirmed it.

  • Doesn’t add upF(1, 49) = 1.51reported p = .289 · recomputed p = .225

    “F(1, 49) = 1.51, p = .289”

  • Doesn’t add upF(2, 98) = 3.5reported p = .038 · recomputed p = .034

    “F(2, 98) = 3.50, p = .038”

  • Doesn’t add upF(2, 98) = 5.6reported p = .003 · recomputed p = .005

    “F(2, 98) = 5.60, p = .003”

  • Doesn’t add upF(1, 49) = 0.94reported p = .335 · recomputed p = .337

    “F(1, 49) = .94,p = .335”

  • Doesn’t add upF(1, 37) = 4.13reported p = .05 · recomputed p = .049

    “F(1, 37) = 4.13, p = .050”

  • ConsistentF(1, 36) = 59.9reported p < .001 · recomputed p < .001

    “F(1, 36) = 59.90, p < .001”

  • ConsistentF(1, 36) = 4.95reported p = .032 · recomputed p = .032

    “F(1, 36) = 4.95, p = .032”

  • ConsistentF(1, 36) = 3.64reported p = .064 · recomputed p = .064

    “F(1, 36) = 3.64, p = .064”

  • ConsistentF(1, 49) = 42.54reported p < .001 · recomputed p < .001

    “F(1, 49) = 42.54,p < .001”

  • ConsistentF(1, 49) = 3.97reported p = .052 · recomputed p = .052

    “F(1, 49) = 3.97, p = .052”

  • ConsistentF(1, 36) = 31.75reported p < .001 · recomputed p < .001

    “F(1,36) = 31.75,p < .001”

  • ConsistentF(1, 36) = 53.55reported p < .001 · recomputed p < .001

    “F(1, 36) = 53.55,p < .001”

  • ConsistentF(1, 36) = 64.68reported p < .001 · recomputed p < .001

    “F(1, 36) = 64.68,p < .001”

  • ConsistentF(1, 49) = 26.31reported p < .001 · recomputed p < .001

    “F(1, 49) = 26.31,p < .001”

  • ConsistentF(1, 49) = 39.65reported p < .001 · recomputed p < .001

    “F(1, 49) = 39.65,p < .001”

  • ConsistentF(1, 49) = 45.12reported p < .001 · recomputed p < .001

    “F(1, 49) = 45.12,p < .001”

  • ConsistentF(1, 32) = 10.71reported p = .003 · recomputed p = .003

    “F(1, 32) = 10.71,p = .003”

  • ConsistentF(1, 32) = 0.048reported p = .828 · recomputed p = .828

    “F(1, 32) = .048,p = .828”

  • ConsistentF(1, 32) = 0.803reported p = .377 · recomputed p = .377

    “F(1, 32) = .803,p = .377”

  • ConsistentF(1, 45) = 7.81reported p = .008 · recomputed p = .008

    “F(1, 45) = 7.81, p = .008”

  • ConsistentF(1, 45) = 0reported p = .985 · recomputed p = 1.000

    “F(1, 45) = 0.00, p = .985”

  • ConsistentF(1, 45) = 0.078reported p = .78 · recomputed p = .781

    “F(1, 45) = .078,p = .78”

  • ConsistentF(2, 98) = 24.96reported p = 0 · recomputed p < .001

    “F(2,98) = 24.96,p = .000”

  • ConsistentF(1, 49) = 4.93reported p = .031 · recomputed p = .031

    “F(1, 49) = 4.93, p = .031”

  • ConsistentF(1, 49) = 8.44reported p = .005 · recomputed p = .005

    “F(1,49) = 8.44, p = .005”

  • ConsistentF(2, 98) = 26.15reported p = 0 · recomputed p < .001

    “F(2, 98) = 26.15,p = .000”

  • ConsistentF(1, 49) = 2.85reported p = .098 · recomputed p = .098

    “F(1, 49) = 2.85, p = .098”

  • ConsistentF(1, 49) = 8.82reported p = .005 · recomputed p = .005

    “F(1, 49) = 8.82, p = .005”

  • ConsistentF(1, 36) = 30.63reported p < .001 · recomputed p < .001

    “F(1, 36) = 30.63,p < .001”

  • ConsistentF(1, 36) = 52.31reported p < .001 · recomputed p < .001

    “F(1, 36) = 52.31,p < .001”

  • ConsistentF(1, 36) = 3.85reported p = .057 · recomputed p = .058

    “F(1, 36) = 3.85, p = .057”

  • ConsistentF(1, 36) = 3.8reported p = .059 · recomputed p = .059

    “F(1, 36) = 3.80, p = .059”

  • ConsistentF(1, 36) = 3.95reported p = .055 · recomputed p = .055

    “F(1, 36) = 3.95, p = .055”

  • ConsistentF(1, 48) = 45.79reported p < .001 · recomputed p < .001

    “F(1, 48) = 45.79,p < .001”

  • ConsistentF(1, 36) = 25.39reported p < .001 · recomputed p < .001

    “F(1, 36) = 25.39,p < .001”

  • ConsistentF(1, 36) = 3.14reported p = .085 · recomputed p = .085

    “F(1, 36) = 3.14, p = .085”

  • ConsistentF(1, 36) = 1.73reported p = .197 · recomputed p = .197

    “F(1, 36) = 1.73, p = .197”

  • ConsistentF(1, 49) = 22.57reported p < .001 · recomputed p < .001

    “F(1, 49) = 22.57, p < .001”

  • ConsistentF(1, 49) = 3.37reported p = .073 · recomputed p = .072

    “F(1, 49) = 3.37, p = .073”

  • ConsistentF(1, 35) = 68.21reported p < .001 · recomputed p < .001

    “F(1, 35) = 68.21,p < .001”

  • ConsistentF(1, 35) = 0.44reported p = .511 · recomputed p = .511

    “F(1, 35) = .440,p = .511”

  • ConsistentF(1, 48) = 3.05reported p = .087 · recomputed p = .087

    “F(1, 48) = 3.05, p = .087”

  • ConsistentF(1, 48) = 0.21reported p = .651 · recomputed p = .649

    “F(1, 48) = .21,p = .651”

  • ConsistentF(1, 35) = 11.39reported p = .002 · recomputed p = .002

    “F(1, 35) = 11.39,p = .002”

  • ConsistentF(1, 35) = 0.882reported p = .354 · recomputed p = .354

    “F(1, 35) = .882,p = .354”

  • ConsistentF(1, 35) = 0.035reported p = .852 · recomputed p = .853

    “F(1, 35) = .035,p = .852”

  • ConsistentF(1, 49) = 12.14reported p = .001 · recomputed p = .001

    “F(1, 49) = 12.14, p = .001”

  • ConsistentF(1, 28) = 6.25reported p = .019 · recomputed p = .019

    “F(1, 28) = 6.25, p = .019”

  • ConsistentF(1, 28) = 8.92reported p = .006 · recomputed p = .006

    “F(1, 28) = 8.92, p = .006”

  • ConsistentF(1, 28) = 47.26reported p < .001 · recomputed p < .001

    “F(1, 28) = 47.26,p < .001”

50 of 50

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.

  • Quality-of-life scores exceed the stated scale range

    Minor

    The measure is described as ranging from −6 to 6, but the reported baseline mean of 30.9 is outside that range. The scoring description and the tabulated scores cannot both be correct.

  • ACT gender percentages do not match the counts

    Minor

    In the 25-person ACT group, 19 women represent 76%, not 72%; the six men represent 24%, not the displayed 28%.

    Reported 72 · recomputed 76

  • Medication percentages use incorrect group denominators

    Minor

    The table lists 13 medication users in the 26-person CBT group, which is 50%, not 52%. It also lists 13 nonusers in the 25-person ACT group as 50%, rather than 52%.

    Reported 52 · recomputed 50

  • Previous-treatment prevalence differs from the baseline table

    Minor

    The baseline table records 18 ACT and 15 CBT participants with previous treatment, or 33 of 51 (64.7%). The narrative reports 62.7%.

  • IUS tests use different denominator degrees of freedom

    Minor

    The pre-to-post IUS main-effect and group-by-time tests are presented as part of the same mixed-factorial analysis, but their denominator degrees of freedom are 35 and 37, respectively.

  • Therapy dropout rate includes questionnaire nonreturns

    Minor

    Nine of the 51 participants discontinued therapy, a rate of 17.6%, not 25.5%. The reported percentage instead corresponds to all 13 participants without post-assessment data, including four who completed treatment.

    Reported 25.5 · recomputed 17.647059

  • Pre-treatment participant count does not follow from the recruitment figures

    Minor

    The text says 60 people agreed to group treatment and 10 withdrew before it began, leaving 50 rather than the reported 51 participants.

    Reported 51 · recomputed 50

7 of 7

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

2 of the 56 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. Frish, 1994, Manual and treatment guide for the Quality of Life Inventory
  2. 1994, Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders
  3. Holowka, 2000, Measuring beliefs about worry: A psychometric evaluation of the Why Worry-II Questionnaire

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Avdagic, E., Morrissey, S. A., & Boschen, M. J.
Affiliations
Griffith University (AU)
Corresponding author
Morrissey, Shirley A.
ORCID
Venue
Behaviour Change
Publisher
Cambridge University Press (CUP)
Published
2014-05-21
Volume
31
Issue
2
Pages
110-130
ISSN
  • 0813-4839 (ISSN-L)
  • 2049-7768
DOI
10.1017/bec.2014.5
OpenAlex
W2075053306
Cited by
73
References
56
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 4
FWCI
4.07
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
www.cambridge.org/core/terms (unspecified)
Locations
  • Behaviour Change (publishedVersion)
  • Griffith Research Online (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Child and Adolescent Psychosocial and Emotional Development
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Mindfulness and Compassion Interventions
Keywords
generalized anxiety disorder, acceptance and commitment therapy, cognitive behavioral therapy, group therapy, treatment efficacy, maintenance therapy, worry, depression

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.

Claims read by deepseek-v4.1-flash under definition version 3 (extract-v3) on 2026-10-11.

Classified by jev-1.13-20260917 (gold-guideline-v0.2) on 2026-10-11.

Cited sources are checked by gpt-6-sol.

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