Cited by 136Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive ProcessesPsychological Treatments and AssessmentsDigital Mental Health Interventions

Interpretation training in individuals with generalized social anxiety disorder: A randomized controlled trial.

Open access
Amir, Nader, Taylor, Charles T.·2012·Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To examine the efficacy of a multisession computerized interpretation modification program (IMP) in the treatment of generalized social anxiety disorder (GSAD). METHOD: The sample comprised 49 individuals meeting diagnostic criteria for GSAD who were enrolled in a randomized, double-blind placebo-controlled trial comparing IMP (n = 23) with an interpretation control condition (ICC; n = 26). The interpretation training procedures comprised a word-sentence association task in which participants decided whether a word implying a threatening or benign meaning was related to an ambiguous social scenario. In the IMP group, participants were reinforced for interpreting ambiguous social information in a nonthreatening and more benign manner. In the ICC group, participants were reinforced with equal frequency for interpreting ambiguous social information in either a threatening or benign manner. RESULTS: Intent-to-treat and completer analyses revealed that IMP significantly decreased threat interpretations and increased benign interpretations from pre- to post-assessment relative to the ICC group. Moreover, IMP participants displayed significantly larger reductions in clinician-rated social anxiety symptoms and functional impairment as well as self-reported trait anxiety and depression relative to ICC participants. Groups did not differ on change in self-rated social anxiety symptoms. Participants no longer meeting DSM-IV criteria for GSAD at post-assessment were 65% in IMP and 13% in ICC. CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that computerized interpretation training procedures may be beneficial for treating social anxiety disorder.

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/a0026928

Cites

55 of 55 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?

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

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

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. First MB Spitzer RL Gibbon M Williams JBW 1994 Structured Clinical Interview for Axis I DSM-IV Disorders-Patient Edition New York Biometrics Research Department

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Amir, N., & Taylor, C. T.
Affiliations
San Diego State University (US)
Venue
Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology
Published
2012-06
Volume
80
Issue
3
Pages
497-511
ISSN
  • 0022-006X (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-2117
OpenAlex
W2077437644
Cited by
136
References
56
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 16 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 10 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 9 · 2016: 11 · 2015: 16 · 2014: 17 · 2013: 8 · 2012: 5
FWCI
19.75
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 Institutes of Health (R34MH073004-01; R34MH077129-01; R01MH087623, K99MH090243-01)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychological Treatments and Assessments
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Digital Mental Health Interventions
Keywords
generalized social anxiety disorder, computerized cognitive training, threat interpretation, social anxiety symptoms, functional disability, trait anxiety, depression, treatment efficacy
MeSH terms
Adult, Anxiety Disorders, Attention, Double-Blind Method, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Therapy, Computer-Assisted, Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, Treatment Outcome

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