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

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 98 of the 98 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

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.

Overview

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

98 of 98 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

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?

Self-check

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

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

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 98 references

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

Items 201–300 of 481

Metadata

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