Cited by 483Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive ProcessesPsychotherapy Techniques and ApplicationsPsychological Treatments and Assessments

Cognitive–behavioral therapy for adult anxiety disorders in clinical practice: A meta-analysis of effectiveness studies.

Open access
Stewart, Rebecca E., Chambless, Dianne L.·2009·Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology

Abstract

The efficacy of cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) for anxiety in adults is well established. In the present study, the authors examined whether CBT tested under well-controlled conditions generalizes to less-controlled, real-world circumstances. Fifty-six effectiveness studies of CBT for adult anxiety disorders were located and synthesized. Meta-analytic effect sizes are presented for disorder-specific symptom measures as well as symptoms of generalized anxiety and depression for each disorder, and benchmarked to results from randomized controlled trials. All pretest-posttest effect sizes for disorder-specific symptom measures were large, suggesting that CBT for adult anxiety disorders is effective in clinically representative conditions. Six studies included a control group, and between-groups comparisons yielded large effect sizes for disorder-specific symptoms in favor of CBT. Benchmarking indicated that results from effectiveness studies were in the range of those obtained in selected efficacy trials. To test whether studies that are more representative of clinical settings have smaller effect sizes, the authors coded studies for 9 criteria for clinical representativeness. Results indicate an inverse relationship between clinical representativeness and outcome, but the magnitude of the relationship is quite small.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/a0016032

Cites

99 of 99 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Exposure-based CBT has robust support from efficacy and effectiveness clinical trials.

    “Despite the robust support for exposure-based CBT in efficacy and effectiveness clinical trials (Stewart & Chambless, 2009)”

    From Stakeholder Perceptions of the Barriers to Receiving and Delivering Exposure-Based Cognitive Behavioral Therapy for Anxiety Disorders in Adult Community Mental Health Settings (2019) · cites this paper as Stewart & Chambless, 2009

    The Discussion reports that CBT for adult anxiety disorders was robustly effective in clinically representative settings, with effect sizes generally within the range of selected efficacy studies. The Method (Studies) defines CBT broadly to include cognitive treatments, behavioral treatments such as exposure, or both. The paper therefore supports the claim about CBT generally, but does not establish the same conclusion specifically for exposure-based CBT. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Prior studies have shown that increases in the quality and quantity of clinical supervision can explain some treatment effects.

    “Prior studies have shown that increases in the quality and quantity of clinical supervision can explain some treatment effects.39,40”

    From Controlled trial of psychotherapy for Congolese survivors of sexual violence (2013) · cites this paper as [40]

    The Results (page unavailable) associate lack of therapist training and treatment monitoring with smaller outcome effect sizes. The Discussion (page unavailable) cautions that these analyses are exploratory and correlational. The paper does not assess increases in the quality or quantity of clinical supervision specifically, or establish that supervision explains treatment effects. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • CBT for anxiety disorders is effective in routine care settings (Cohen's d = 0.9-2.6).

    “there is evidence from meta-analyses supporting that CBT for anxiety disorders is effective in routine care settings (Cohen ' s d = 0.9 -2.6; Hans and Hiller, 2013; Stewart and Chambless, 2009; van Ingen et al ., 2009)”

    From Effectiveness and predictors of group cognitive behaviour therapy outcome for generalised anxiety disorder in an out-patient hospital setting (2024) · cites this paper as Stewart and Chambless, 2009

    The Discussion concludes that CBT is effective for adult anxiety disorders in clinical settings. The Results report large, uncontrolled pretest–posttest effects for disorder-specific symptoms, but give a range of 0.83–2.59, not the cited 0.9–2.6; the cited lower bound is slightly too high. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • CBT has become the strongest empirically supported psychological treatment for anxiety.

    “cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) has become the strongest empirically supported psycho logical treatment for anxiety”

    From Which emotion regulation strategies are mediating the outcome of acceptance and commitment therapy compared to cognitive-behaviour therapy in the treatment of anxiety symptoms? (2025) · cites this paper as Stewart & Chambless, 2009

    The Abstract (page not available) says CBT appears prominently among empirically supported treatments for adult anxiety disorders, and the Discussion reports that it is effective in clinical practice. Neither section establishes that CBT is the strongest-supported psychological treatment relative to other therapies. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • The present study satisfied multiple effectiveness-trial criteria involving representative patients, therapists, and services.

    “This study met several criteria for an effectiveness trial, including clinically representative patients (various primary disorders, highly comorbid, severe, referred by health practitioners), therapists (broad caseload, various levels of experience), and services (naturalistic community mental health clinic, Stewart & Chambless, 2009).”

Self-check

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

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Hedges LV, & Olkin I (1985). Statistical methods for meta-analysis. Orlando, FL: Academic Press.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Stewart, R. E., & Chambless, D. L.
Affiliations
University of Pennsylvania (US)
Venue
Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology
Published
2009
Volume
77
Issue
4
Pages
595-606
ISSN
  • 0022-006X (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-2117
OpenAlex
W2132989097
Cited by
483
References
98
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 15 · 2024: 24 · 2023: 28 · 2022: 25 · 2021: 41 · 2020: 32 · 2019: 28 · 2018: 35 · 2017: 27 · 2016: 24 · 2015: 32 · 2014: 37 · 2013: 41 · 2012: 40
FWCI
4.14
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
National Institute of Mental Health (F31MH084486)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychotherapy Techniques and Applications
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychological Treatments and Assessments
Keywords
cognitive behavioral therapy, efficacy versus effectiveness, generalized anxiety disorder, depression, symptom outcomes
MeSH terms
Adult, Aged, Anxiety Disorders, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Treatment Outcome, Benchmarking

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