Cited by 118Digital Mental Health InterventionsAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive ProcessesPsychological Treatments and Assessments

Computerized CBT (Think, Feel, Do) for Depression and Anxiety in Children and Adolescents: Outcomes and Feedback from a Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial

Stallard, Paul, Richardson, Thomas, Velleman, Sophie, Attwood, Megan·2011·Behavioural and Cognitive Psychotherapy

Abstract

Background: Research has demonstrated the effectiveness of computerized cognitive behaviour therapy (cCBT) for depression and anxiety in adults, but there has been little work with children and adolescents. Aims: To describe the development of a cCBT intervention (Think, Feel, Do) for young people, and preliminary outcomes and feedback from a pilot randomized controlled trial. Method: Twenty participants aged 11 to 16 with depression or anxiety were randomized to receive cCBT immediately or after a delay. Standardized measures were used to assess self-reported anxiety, depression, self-esteem and cognitions, as well as parent rated strengths and difficulties. A feedback form was also completed to assess young people's views of the programme. Results: A total of 15 participants completed the pre and post assessments in the trial, and 17 provided feedback on the intervention. Paired samples t-tests demonstrated significant improvements on 3 subscales in the control condition, compared to 7 subscales in the cCBT condition. Feedback showed moderate to high satisfaction for participants. Conclusions: This study provides encouraging preliminary results for the effectiveness and acceptability of cCBT with this age group.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1017/s135246581000086x

Cites

45 of 45 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

The text we found for this paper looks like another document, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Self-check

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

The text we found for this paper looks like another document, so the self-check wasn’t run.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Stallard, P., Richardson, T., Velleman, S., & Attwood, M.
Affiliations
University of Bath (GB)
Corresponding author
Stallard, Paul
Venue
Behavioural and Cognitive Psychotherapy
Published
2011-01-28
Volume
39
Issue
3
Pages
273-284
ISSN
  • 1352-4658 (ISSN-L)
  • 1469-1833
OpenAlex
W2162635829
Cited by
118
References
45
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 10 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 15 · 2019: 12 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 8 · 2015: 13 · 2014: 10 · 2013: 5 · 2012: 2
FWCI
8.51
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Behavioural and Cognitive Psychotherapy (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • The University of Bath Online Publications Store (The University of Bath) (submittedVersion)
  • Pure (University of Bath) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institute for Health and Care Research (PB-PG-0407-13049)
  • Research for Patient Benefit Programme
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Digital Mental Health Interventions
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychological Treatments and Assessments
Keywords
depression, anxiety, children and adolescents, self-esteem, cognitive distortions, strengths and difficulties, treatment acceptability
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Anxiety Disorders, Child, Computer Graphics, Depressive Disorder, Emotions, Feedback, Female, Follow-Up Studies, Humans, Male, Personality Inventory, Pilot Projects, Psychometrics, Self Concept, Software, Therapy, Computer-Assisted, Thinking, Video Recording, Cognitive Behavioral Therapy

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.

Classified by jev-1.13-20260917 (gold-guideline-v0.2) on 2026-10-09.

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