Cited by 1,294Posttraumatic Stress Disorder ResearchPsychotherapy Techniques and ApplicationsSexual Assault and Victimization Studies

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 43 of the 43 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

A comparison of cognitive-processing therapy with prolonged exposure and a waiting condition for the treatment of chronic posttraumatic stress disorder in female rape victims.

Open access
Resick, Patricia A., Nishith, Pallavi, Weaver, Terri L., Astin, Millie C., Feuer, Catherine A.·2002·Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to compare cognitive-processing therapy (CPT) with prolonged exposure and a minimal attention condition (MA) for the treatment of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and depression. One hundred seventy-one female rape victims were randomized into 1 of the 3 conditions, and 121 completed treatment. Participants were assessed with the Clinician-Administered PTSD Scale, the PTSD Symptom Scale, the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV, the Beck Depression Inventory, and the Trauma-Related Guilt Inventory. Independent assessments were made at pretreatment, posttreatment, and 3 and 9 months posttreatment. Analyses indicated that both treatments were highly efficacious and superior to MA. The 2 therapies had similar results except that CPT produced better scores on 2 of 4 guilt subscales.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/0022-006x.70.4.867

Cites

43 of 43 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Verification

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?

Citations

Cites

Show all 34 references

Research works printed but not linked: 6

  1. 10.1007/BF02105408 · DOI · Paper page
  2. Calhoun, 1993, PTSD., 48
  3. Cohen, 1988, Statistical power analyses for the behavioral sciences
  4. Foa, 1996, Mechanics of change in exposure therapy., 329
  5. Resick, 1992, Cognitive treatment of a crime-related PTSD., 171
  6. Resick, 1991, Clinical treatment of adult female victims of sexual assault., 261

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 701–800 of 1,001

Metadata

Authors
Resick, P. A., Nishith, P., Weaver, T. L., Astin, M. C., & Feuer, C. A.
Affiliations
University of Missouri–St. Louis (US)
Venue
Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology
Published
2002-08
Volume
70
Issue
4
Pages
867-879
ISSN
  • 0022-006X (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-2117
OpenAlex
W1972193811
Cited by
1,294
References
34
Citations by year
2026: 22 · 2025: 35 · 2024: 33 · 2023: 34 · 2022: 45 · 2021: 64 · 2020: 64 · 2019: 90 · 2018: 72 · 2017: 59 · 2016: 65 · 2015: 94 · 2014: 81 · 2013: 84 · 2012: 66
FWCI
37.97
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
National Institute of Mental Health (R01MH051509, 1-R01-MH51509)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Posttraumatic Stress Disorder Research
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychotherapy Techniques and Applications
  • Social Sciences › Gender Studies › Sexual Assault and Victimization Studies
Keywords
cognitive processing therapy, prolonged exposure, post-traumatic stress disorder, rape victims, depression, trauma-related guilt, psychotherapy efficacy, treatment comparison
MeSH terms
Adult, Chronic Disease, Female, Humans, Random Allocation, Rape, Stress Disorders, Post-Traumatic, Time Factors, Reproducibility of Results, 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.

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