The DOI matches its Crossref record; 57 of the 61 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; 5 of the 36 sources its claims cite were checked for support.
Group CBT versus MBSR for social anxiety disorder: A randomized controlled trial.
Open accessPublished version of a preprint
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The goal of this study was to investigate treatment outcome and mediators of cognitive-behavioral group therapy (CBGT) versus mindfulness-based stress reduction (MBSR) versus waitlist (WL) in patients with generalized social anxiety disorder (SAD). METHOD: One hundred eight unmedicated patients (55.6% female; mean age = 32.7 years, SD = 8.0; 43.5% Caucasian, 39% Asian, 9.3% Hispanic, 8.3% other) were randomized to CBGT versus MBSR versus WL and completed assessments at baseline, posttreatment/WL, and at 1-year follow-up, including the Liebowitz Social Anxiety Scale-Self-Report (primary outcome; Liebowitz, 1987) as well as measures of treatment-related processes. RESULTS: Linear mixed model analysis showed that CBGT and MBSR both produced greater improvements on most measures compared with WL. Both treatments yielded similar improvements in social anxiety symptoms, cognitive reappraisal frequency and self-efficacy, cognitive distortions, mindfulness skills, attention focusing, and rumination. There were greater decreases in subtle avoidance behaviors following CBGT than MBSR. Mediation analyses revealed that increases in reappraisal frequency, mindfulness skills, attention focusing, and attention shifting, and decreases in subtle avoidance behaviors and cognitive distortions, mediated the impact of both CBGT and MBSR on social anxiety symptoms. However, increases in reappraisal self-efficacy and decreases in avoidance behaviors mediated the impact of CBGT (vs. MBSR) on social anxiety symptoms. CONCLUSIONS: CBGT and MBSR both appear to be efficacious for SAD. However, their effects may be a result of both shared and unique changes in underlying psychological processes.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
57 Own result · 16 Own method · 16 Own interpretation · 15 No full text of the sources · 5 Sources not found · 4 Supported · 3 Not checked yet · 3 No basis given · 1 Partly supported
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, increases in reappraisal self-efficacy and decreases in avoidance behaviors mediated the impact of CBGT (vs. MBSR) on social anxiety symptoms.”
§ Group CBT versus MBSR for Social Anxiety Disorder: A Randomized Controlled Trial > Abstract > Results
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: The CBGT and MBSR treatments were delivered with adequate fidelity to their respective protocols.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Linear mixed model analysis showed that CBGT and MBSR both produced greater improvements on most measures compared to WL.”
§ Group CBT versus MBSR for Social Anxiety Disorder: A Randomized Controlled Trial > Abstract > Results
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: The CBGT and MBSR treatments were delivered with adequate fidelity to their respective protocols.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“There were greater decreases in subtle avoidance behaviors following CBGT than MBSR.”
§ Group CBT versus MBSR for Social Anxiety Disorder: A Randomized Controlled Trial > Abstract > Results
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: The CBGT and MBSR treatments were delivered with adequate fidelity to their respective protocols.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Mediation analyses revealed that increases in reappraisal frequency, mindfulness skills, attention focusing and attention shifting, and decreases in subtle avoidance behaviors and cognitive distortions mediated the impact of both CBGT and MBSR on social anxiety symptoms.”
§ Group CBT versus MBSR for Social Anxiety Disorder: A Randomized Controlled Trial > Abstract > Results
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: The CBGT and MBSR treatments were delivered with adequate fidelity to their respective protocols.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For attention focusing, LMM demonstrated greater increases (all ts > 2.21, ps < .05) for CBGT (+1.0; 4.5%; d = 0.50) and for MBSR (+1.1; 5%; d = 0.62) compared to WL (-0.8; 3.5%), with no significant CBGT vs. MBSR differences (t = 0.02, df = 63, p = .99).”
§ Group CBT versus MBSR for Social Anxiety Disorder: A Randomized Controlled Trial > Results > CBGT and MBSR Related Psychological Processes
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“As shown in Table 3, increases in reappraisal frequency, mindfulness skills, attention focusing and attention shifting, as well as decreases in safety behaviors and cognitive distortions each mediated the effect of CBGT vs. WL and MBSR vs. WL on social anxiety symptoms.”
§ Group CBT versus MBSR for Social Anxiety Disorder: A Randomized Controlled Trial > Results > Mediators of CBGT and MBSR Effects
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For subtle avoidance behaviors, LMM demonstrated significantly greater decreases (all ts > 2.59, ps < .05) for CBGT (-20.1; 24%; d = 1.27) and for MBSR (-9.8; 12%; d = 0.64) compared to WL (-1; 1%), and significantly greater decreases for CBGT vs. MBSR (t = 2.30, df = 66, p = .025).”
§ Group CBT versus MBSR for Social Anxiety Disorder: A Randomized Controlled Trial > Results > CBGT and MBSR Related Psychological Processes
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For cognitive reappraisal self-efficacy, LMM demonstrated significantly greater increases (all ts > 2.24, ps < .05) for CBGT (+1.4; 40%; d = 1.05) and for MBSR (+0.8; 22%; d = 0.58) compared to WL (+0.2; 5%), with no significant CBGT vs. MBSR differences (t = 1.77, df = 56, p = .08).”
§ Group CBT versus MBSR for Social Anxiety Disorder: A Randomized Controlled Trial > Results > CBGT and MBSR Related Psychological Processes
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“As shown in Table 3, increases in reappraisal frequency, mindfulness skills, attention focusing and attention shifting, as well as decreases in safety behaviors and cognitive distortions each mediated the effect of CBGT vs. WL and MBSR vs. WL on social anxiety symptoms.”
§ Group CBT versus MBSR for Social Anxiety Disorder: A Randomized Controlled Trial > Results > Mediators of CBGT and MBSR Effects
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For attention focusing, LMM demonstrated greater increases (all ts > 2.21, ps < .05) for CBGT (+1.0; 4.5%; d = 0.50) and for MBSR (+1.1; 5%; d = 0.62) compared to WL (-0.8; 3.5%), with no significant CBGT vs. MBSR differences (t = 0.02, df = 63, p = .99).”
§ Group CBT versus MBSR for Social Anxiety Disorder: A Randomized Controlled Trial > Results > CBGT and MBSR Related Psychological Processes
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- It may state two separate claims as one. 31
- Probably not a substantial claim. 30
- The quote only partly states this claim. 5
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“a recent meta-analysis (Hofmann, Sawyer, Witt, & Oh, 2010) showed that mindfulness-based interventions reliably reduced anxiety symptoms across a variety of psychiatric and medical populations (Hedges's g = 0.63), and even more so in the subgroup of patients with anxiety and mood disorders (g = 0.97).”
§ Group CBT versus MBSR for Social Anxiety Disorder: A Randomized Controlled Trial > Introduction
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Hofmann, Sawyer, Witt, & Oh, 2010 source
The RESULTS report a pre-to-post reduction in anxiety symptoms across the overall clinical sample (Hedges’ g = 0.63) and a larger effect in patients with anxiety and mood disorders (g = 0.97). The REVIEW METHODS describe studies involving a range of psychiatric and medical conditions. (LLM, conf=0.94)
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“The instrument has good internal consistency in general (Baer et al., 2006)”
§ Group CBT versus MBSR for Social Anxiety Disorder: A Randomized Controlled Trial > Method > Measures
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Baer et al., 2006 source
In “Deriving Mindfulness Facets” (p. 10), the paper reports alpha coefficients of .75–.91 for the five FFMQ facet scales and concludes that all showed adequate to good internal consistency. That supports the citing sentence’s general characterization. (LLM, conf=0.93)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“The brooding subscale has been shown to have good reliability in other studies (α = .77; Treynor et al., 2003)”
§ Group CBT versus MBSR for Social Anxiety Disorder: A Randomized Controlled Trial > Method > Measures
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Treynor et al., 2003 source
In “Construction of a New Rumination Scale,” the paper reports a Time 1 coefficient alpha of .77 for the brooding (B) subscale and concludes that its subfactors are reliable. It qualifies that the alphas are relatively low because each subscale has only five items. (LLM, conf=0.92)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“The LSAS-SR has good reliability and construct validity (Rytwinski et al., 2009)”
§ Group CBT versus MBSR for Social Anxiety Disorder: A Randomized Controlled Trial > Method > Measures
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Rytwinski et al., 2009 source
The Introduction (page not available in our copy) says that research has found the LSAS-SR’s psychometric properties to be sound and reports high correlations with the clinician-administered scale. The Discussion also reports that the LSAS-SR distinguished patients with social anxiety disorder from nonanxious controls. Together, these support the broad claim about reliability and construct validity, although this paper does not report separate estimates for each. (LLM, conf=0.86)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Changes in mindfulness have been found to be a mediator of MBSR and MBCT across clinical samples (Gu et al., 2015), and specifically in patients with generalized anxiety disorder (Hoge et al., 2015).”
§ Group CBT versus MBSR for Social Anxiety Disorder: A Randomized Controlled Trial > Discussion
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Gu et al., 2015
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Supportedcites Hoge et al., 2015 source
The Results report that change in mindfulness mediated the effect of MBSR on anxiety when tested alone, and the Discussion reports that mindfulness mediated reductions in worry in patients with GAD. In the joint mediation model, however, decentering—not mindfulness—significantly mediated anxiety reduction. The MBCT and broader clinical-sample portion of the citing sentence is attributed to Gu et al., not Hoge et al. (LLM, conf=0.89)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Both treatments yielded similar improvements in social anxiety symptoms, cognitive reappraisal frequency and self-efficacy, cognitive distortions, mindfulness skills, attention focusing and rumination.”
§ Group CBT versus MBSR for Social Anxiety Disorder: A Randomized Controlled Trial > Abstract > Results
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: The CBGT and MBSR treatments were delivered with adequate fidelity to their respective protocols.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“It is important to note that the 56.5% of the patient sample were non-white (39% Asian American, 9% Latino American, 6.5% multiple ethnicities, 1% African American, 1% Native American).”
§ Group CBT versus MBSR for Social Anxiety Disorder: A Randomized Controlled Trial > Discussion > Limitations
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For cognitive reappraisal self-efficacy, LMM demonstrated significantly greater increases (all ts > 2.24, ps < .05) for CBGT (+1.4; 40%; d = 1.05) and for MBSR (+0.8; 22%; d = 0.58) compared to WL (+0.2; 5%), with no significant CBGT vs. MBSR differences (t = 1.77, df = 56, p = .08).”
§ Group CBT versus MBSR for Social Anxiety Disorder: A Randomized Controlled Trial > Results > CBGT and MBSR Related Psychological Processes
plaindirect- Asserted: fails — The authors may not put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The authors may not put it forward as true. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. The quote only partly states this claim.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For attention focusing, LMM demonstrated greater increases (all ts > 2.21, ps < .05) for CBGT (+1.0; 4.5%; d = 0.50) and for MBSR (+1.1; 5%; d = 0.62) compared to WL (-0.8; 3.5%), with no significant CBGT vs. MBSR differences (t = 0.02, df = 63, p = .99).”
§ Group CBT versus MBSR for Social Anxiety Disorder: A Randomized Controlled Trial > Results > CBGT and MBSR Related Psychological Processes
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The quote only partly states this claim.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For cognitive distortions, LMM demonstrated significantly greater decreases (all ts > 2.40, ps < .05) for CBGT (-9.1; 32%; d = 0.59) and for MBSR (-8.3; 27.5%; d = 0.67) compared to WL (-1; 3%), with no significant CBGT vs. MBSR differences (t = 0.20, df = 59, p = .84).”
§ Group CBT versus MBSR for Social Anxiety Disorder: A Randomized Controlled Trial > Results > CBGT and MBSR Related Psychological Processes
boosteddirect- Asserted: fails — The authors may not put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The authors may not put it forward as true. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. The quote only partly states this claim.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For subtle avoidance behaviors, LMM demonstrated significantly greater decreases (all ts > 2.59, ps < .05) for CBGT (-20.1; 24%; d = 1.27) and for MBSR (-9.8; 12%; d = 0.64) compared to WL (-1; 1%), and significantly greater decreases for CBGT vs. MBSR (t = 2.30, df = 66, p = .025).”
§ Group CBT versus MBSR for Social Anxiety Disorder: A Randomized Controlled Trial > Results > CBGT and MBSR Related Psychological Processes
boosteddirect- Asserted: fails — The authors may not put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The authors may not put it forward as true. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. The quote only partly states this claim.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For rumination, LMM revealed significantly greater decreases (all ts > 2.01, ps < .05) for CBGT (-2.9; 22%; d = 0.94) and for MBSR (-1.5; 11%; d = 0.46) compared to WL (+0.3; 2%), with no significant CBGT vs. MBSR differences (t = 1.27, df = 67, p = .21).”
§ Group CBT versus MBSR for Social Anxiety Disorder: A Randomized Controlled Trial > Results > CBGT and MBSR Related Psychological Processes
plaindirect- Asserted: fails — The authors may not put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The authors may not put it forward as true. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For mindfulness skills, LMM demonstrated significantly greater increases (all ts > 5.79, ps < .001) for CBGT (+14.4; 13%; d = 1.67) and for MBSR (+17.6; 17%; d = 1.44) compared to WL (-5.6, 5%), with no significant CBGT vs. MBSR differences (t = 0.78, df = 61, p = .44).”
§ Group CBT versus MBSR for Social Anxiety Disorder: A Randomized Controlled Trial > Results > CBGT and MBSR Related Psychological Processes
plaindirect- Asserted: fails — The authors may not put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The authors may not put it forward as true. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. The quote only partly states this claim.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For cognitive reappraisal frequency, LMM demonstrated significantly greater increases (all ts > 2.60, ps < .05) for CBGT (+1.1; 30%, d = 0.59) and for MBSR (+1.2; 33%, d = 0.71) compared to WL (+0.4; 10%), with no significant CBGT vs. MBSR differences (t = 0.04, df = 59, p = .97).”
§ Group CBT versus MBSR for Social Anxiety Disorder: A Randomized Controlled Trial > Results > CBGT and MBSR Related Psychological Processes
boosteddirect- Asserted: fails — The authors may not put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The authors may not put it forward as true. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“A different RCT compared individual CBT (n = 40) to individual ACT (n = 34) and to a waitlist control group (n = 26) and found a similar pattern of greater efficacy for both treatments than waitlist and no differential treatment effect on multiple indices of social anxiety (Craske et al., 2015).”
§ Group CBT versus MBSR for Social Anxiety Disorder: A Randomized Controlled Trial > Introduction
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Craske et al., 2015
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, potential confounds include permitting participants with concurrent use of psychotropic medications and alternative (i.e., non-cognitive or behavioral) psychotherapies.”
§ Group CBT versus MBSR for Social Anxiety Disorder: A Randomized Controlled Trial > Introduction
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, inferences from this study are somewhat constrained due to methodological issues, including no control group, inclusion of measurement of treatment adherence, or measurement of follow-up outcomes, and inclusion of patients with concurrent use of psychotropic medications, and unequal duration of treatment.”
§ Group CBT versus MBSR for Social Anxiety Disorder: A Randomized Controlled Trial > Introduction
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“CBGT and MBSR both appear to be efficacious for SAD.”
§ Group CBT versus MBSR for Social Anxiety Disorder: A Randomized Controlled Trial > Abstract > Conclusions
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: The sample of patients with generalized SAD is representative of the broader SAD population.
In the paper
“This analysis found strong evidence for cognitive and emotional reactivity (stress reactivation of negative thinking and emotional patterns), moderate evidence for mindfulness, rumination, and worry, and preliminary but insufficient evidence for self-compassion and psychological flexibility as mediators of outcome.”
§ Group CBT versus MBSR for Social Anxiety Disorder: A Randomized Controlled Trial > Introduction
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Gu, Strauss, Bond, & Cavanagh, 2015 source
boostedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“The ADIS has demonstrated excellent inter-rater reliability (Brown, Di Nardo, Lehman, & Campbell, 2001)”
§ Group CBT versus MBSR for Social Anxiety Disorder: A Randomized Controlled Trial > Method > Diagnostic Assessment
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Brown, Di Nardo, Lehman, & Campbell, 2001
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
In the paper
“CBGT and MBSR were comparable in improving mood, functioning, and quality of life, but CBGT produced significantly greater improvement in social anxiety symptoms, as well as greater response and remission rates (Koszycki et al., 2007).”
§ Group CBT versus MBSR for Social Anxiety Disorder: A Randomized Controlled Trial > Introduction
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Koszycki et al., 2007 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“The CD-Quest has shown good internal consistency (αs = .83 - .86) and convergent validity with self-report measures of depression, anxiety, and automatic thoughts (rs = .51 - .65; De Oliveira, 2015; Morrison et al., 2015).”
§ Group CBT versus MBSR for Social Anxiety Disorder: A Randomized Controlled Trial > Method > Measures
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites De Oliveira, 2015
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Morrison et al., 2015 source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“However, the authors state that most of the reviewed studies had key methodological shortcomings and highlight the need for more rigorous investigation of mediators of MBSR and MBCT”
§ Group CBT versus MBSR for Social Anxiety Disorder: A Randomized Controlled Trial > Introduction
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Gu, Strauss, Bond, & Cavanagh, 2015 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Other research has implicated rumination, specifically the brooding subtype, as an important predictor of changes in social anxiety during CBT for SAD (Brozovich et al., 2015).”
§ Group CBT versus MBSR for Social Anxiety Disorder: A Randomized Controlled Trial > Introduction
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Brozovich et al., 2015 source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Internal consistency is good for the focusing subscale (α = .82) and acceptable for the shifting subscale (α = .68; Olafsson et al., 2011).”
§ Group CBT versus MBSR for Social Anxiety Disorder: A Randomized Controlled Trial > Method > Measures
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Olafsson et al., 2011 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“A recent review (Norton, Abbott, Norberg, & Hunt, 2015) concluded that mindfulness and acceptance-based treatments significantly reduce social anxiety symptoms, but that methodological weaknesses strongly limit inferences and comparisons to gold-standard psychosocial interventions for SAD such as CBT.”
§ Group CBT versus MBSR for Social Anxiety Disorder: A Randomized Controlled Trial > Introduction
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Norton, Abbott, Norberg, & Hunt, 2015 source
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Both interventions were more efficacious than waitlist, but not different from each other in reducing social anxiety symptoms or scores on most of the secondary outcome variables.”
§ Group CBT versus MBSR for Social Anxiety Disorder: A Randomized Controlled Trial > Introduction
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Kocovski, Fleming, Hawley, Huta, & Antony, 2013 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“In adults with SAD, MBSR has demonstrated improvement in mood, functioning, social anxiety, and quality of life (Koszycki, Benger, Shlik, & Bradwejn, 2007), self-esteem, negative self-views, trait anxiety, negative emotional reactivity, and depression (Goldin, Ziv, Jazaieri, & Gross, 2012; Goldin, Ziv, Jazaieri, Hahn, & Gross, 2013; Goldin & Gross, 2010).”
§ Group CBT versus MBSR for Social Anxiety Disorder: A Randomized Controlled Trial > Introduction
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Koszycki et al., 2007 source
- Not matchedcites Goldin et al., 2012
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites Goldin et al., 2013
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“It has good discriminant and construct validity in patients with SAD”
§ Group CBT versus MBSR for Social Anxiety Disorder: A Randomized Controlled Trial > Method > Measures
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Cuming et al., 2009 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This pattern of results suggests that MBSR may be as efficacious as CBGT at reducing social anxiety symptoms and maintaining treatment gains.”
§ Group CBT versus MBSR for Social Anxiety Disorder: A Randomized Controlled Trial > Discussion
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This suggests that both CBT and MBSR may increases executive ability to direct attention albeit via different types of training methods.”
§ Group CBT versus MBSR for Social Anxiety Disorder: A Randomized Controlled Trial > Discussion
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“All results were analyzed using an intention-to-treat approach based on treatment assignments.”
§ Group CBT versus MBSR for Social Anxiety Disorder: A Randomized Controlled Trial > Method > Statistical Analyses
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In this study, internal consistency was good for both subscales (focusing α = .85; shifting α = .74).”
§ Group CBT versus MBSR for Social Anxiety Disorder: A Randomized Controlled Trial > Method > Measures
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Dropout from treatment was low and did not differ (χ2(2, N = 108) = 1.05, p = .59) across CBGT (n = 2; 6%), MBSR (n = 3; 8%) and WL (n = 1; 3%).”
§ Group CBT versus MBSR for Social Anxiety Disorder: A Randomized Controlled Trial > Method > Participants
plainn = 108- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“its internal consistency was excellent in this study (Cronbach's α = .92).”
§ Group CBT versus MBSR for Social Anxiety Disorder: A Randomized Controlled Trial > Method > Measures
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Adherence ratings indicated that the CBGT therapists and MBSR instructor were “in protocol” (rating > 4 of 5 for each session) with no between-group differences, t(11) = 0.83, p = .43, in adherence for CBGT, Mean ± SD: 4.92 ± 0.27, versus MBSR, 4.81 ± 0.17.”
§ Group CBT versus MBSR for Social Anxiety Disorder: A Randomized Controlled Trial > Method > Adherence and Treatment Completer Status
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Internal consistency for CR-F (α = .89) and CR-SE (α = .93) were good at baseline.”
§ Group CBT versus MBSR for Social Anxiety Disorder: A Randomized Controlled Trial > Method > Measures
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“the remaining 108 patients were randomly assigned to CBGT (n = 36), MBSR (n = 36), or WL (n = 36).”
§ Group CBT versus MBSR for Social Anxiety Disorder: A Randomized Controlled Trial > Method > Participants
plainn = 108- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The shift in metacognition, namely, awareness of and belief in one's ability to use reappraisal effectively when needed (i.e., reappraisal self-efficacy) is a fundamental learning lesson in CBT and likely contributes to social anxiety symptom reduction.”
§ Group CBT versus MBSR for Social Anxiety Disorder: A Randomized Controlled Trial > Discussion
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The three groups did not differ significantly (all ps > .05) in gender, age, education, ethnicity, marital status, income, current or past Axis I comorbidity, past psychotherapy or pharmacotherapy, age at SAD symptom onset, and years since symptom onset (Table 1).”
§ Group CBT versus MBSR for Social Anxiety Disorder: A Randomized Controlled Trial > Results > Preliminary Analyses
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Based on a criterion of 9 of 12 sessions attended for treatment completer status, 33 (92%) patients completed CBGT and 33 (92%) completed MBSR.”
§ Group CBT versus MBSR for Social Anxiety Disorder: A Randomized Controlled Trial > Method > Adherence and Treatment Completer Status
plainn = 33- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“it was excellent in this study at baseline (α = .91).”
§ Group CBT versus MBSR for Social Anxiety Disorder: A Randomized Controlled Trial > Method > Measures
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The clinical implications of this study are that both CBT and MBSR are efficacious treatments for adults with SAD.”
§ Group CBT versus MBSR for Social Anxiety Disorder: A Randomized Controlled Trial > Discussion
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“These results highlight the many shared underlying psychological processes that are modulated during CBT and MBSR and may help explain why both are equivalently effective for SAD.”
§ Group CBT versus MBSR for Social Anxiety Disorder: A Randomized Controlled Trial > Discussion
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“as well as in the current study (α = .76).”
§ Group CBT versus MBSR for Social Anxiety Disorder: A Randomized Controlled Trial > Method > Measures
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“internal consistency was good in this study at baseline (α = .91).”
§ Group CBT versus MBSR for Social Anxiety Disorder: A Randomized Controlled Trial > Method > Measures
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Internal consistency was excellent in this study at baseline (α = .91).”
§ Group CBT versus MBSR for Social Anxiety Disorder: A Randomized Controlled Trial > Method > Measures
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A claim is checked only against the cited paper’s full text, never its abstract, and none is available for its sources.
In the paper
“Across studies of mindfulness meditation, there is preliminary evidence for improvement in cognitive distortions (Sears & Kraus, 2009), and increases in mindfulness and emotion regulation, as well as decreases in avoidance of emotional experience (Chiesa, Anselmi, & Serretti, 2014).”
§ Group CBT versus MBSR for Social Anxiety Disorder: A Randomized Controlled Trial > Discussion
What the sources say
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“They have both shared and unique changes in underlying psychological processes that mediate or predict treatment outcome.”
§ Group CBT versus MBSR for Social Anxiety Disorder: A Randomized Controlled Trial > Discussion
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“To assure treatment adherence, a trained rater was present in every CBGT and MBSR session to conduct real-time rating of adherence using adherence scales developed for CBGT and for MBSR.”
§ Group CBT versus MBSR for Social Anxiety Disorder: A Randomized Controlled Trial > Method > Adherence and Treatment Completer Status
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
A claim is checked only against the cited paper’s full text, never its abstract, and none is available for its sources.
In the paper
“Avoidance and cognitive distortions have been found to be mediators of CBT for SAD (Hedman et al., 2013; Smits et al., 2006) and accords with cognitive behavioral models of SAD.”
§ Group CBT versus MBSR for Social Anxiety Disorder: A Randomized Controlled Trial > Discussion
What the sources say
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“While there is one study showing evidence for cognitive distortions as a mediator of mindfulness-based interventions (Gu et al., 2015), it is not yet clear whether CBT and MBSR arrive at reduction in cognitive distortions via different underlying mechanisms.”
§ Group CBT versus MBSR for Social Anxiety Disorder: A Randomized Controlled Trial > Discussion
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Gu et al., 2015
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Mean number of sessions attended for CBGT (Mean ± SD = 10.47 ± 1.56) and MBSR (10.37 ± 2.09) were not significantly different, t(71) = 0.22, p = .82.”
§ Group CBT versus MBSR for Social Anxiety Disorder: A Randomized Controlled Trial > Method > Adherence and Treatment Completer Status
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper relies on this without support.
The CBGT and MBSR treatments were delivered with adequate fidelity to their respective protocols.
“Cognitive behavioral group therapy (CBGT) was delivered by two Ph.D. clinical psychologists trained by Dr. Richard Heimberg to implement his CBGT for SAD protocol (Heimberg & Becker, 2002).”
The paper relies on this without support.
The sample of patients with generalized SAD is representative of the broader SAD population.
“108 unmedicated patients (55.6% female; mean age = 32.7, SD = 8.0; 43.5% Caucasian, 39% Asian, 9.3% Hispanic, 8.3% other) were randomized to CBGT vs. MBSR vs. WL”
The paper relies on this without support.
CBT openly addresses avoidance and trains patients to confront feared situations through exposures.
“CBT explicitly discusses the role of avoidance, as well as trains patients to counter avoidance by engaging in and vicariously learning from multiple exposures to feared situations.”
The paper relies on this without support.
MBSR does not directly target safety behaviors or avoidance behaviors.
“Unlike CBT, MBSR does not explicitly address safety behaviors and specifically avoidance behaviors.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Community MBSR groups tend to be larger and include people with a wider range of presenting problems.
“Furthermore, community-based MBSR groups are typically larger and include individuals with a more diverse set of presenting problems.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The demographic diversity of the sample is enough to make the results highly generalizable to adults with SAD.
“Thus, these results are highly generalizable.”
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?
The cited source doesn’t support the claim as written.
In the citing paper
“Comparisons of CBGT and MBSR have demonstrated decreased frequency of subtle avoidance behaviors during CBGT but not during MBSR 13 as one point of difference in mechanism.”
From Evaluation of Cognitive Behavioral Therapy vs Mindfulness Meditation in Brain Changes During Reappraisal and Acceptance Among Patients With Social Anxiety Disorder: A Randomized Clinical Trial (2021) · cites this paper as [13]
Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“When it does not, the capacity to notice and describe negative emotional experiences can predict positive clinical trajectories even in the presence of stressful emotions as defined by their mere form 92 .”
From “Third-wave” cognitive and behavioral therapies and the emergence of a process-based approach to intervention in psychiatry (2021) · cites this paper as [92]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“Alternatively, as previously reported using self-rated negative emotion data, 13,16 CBGT and MBSR both increased reappraisal and mindfulness skills, including acceptance, and the brain results in this study may reflect greater recruitment of a core domain-general cognitive control network that supports implementation of both emotion-regulation strategies.”
From Evaluation of Cognitive Behavioral Therapy vs Mindfulness Meditation in Brain Changes During Reappraisal and Acceptance Among Patients With Social Anxiety Disorder: A Randomized Clinical Trial (2021) · cites this paper as [13]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“Rigorous RCTs comparing mindfulness-based interventions and CBT have failed to show differential treatment effects on a whole range of mechanisms, including dispositional mindfulness, reappraisal, self-efficacy, acceptance, catastrophizing, and positive and negative affect [11,73,74].”
From Testing the mindfulness-to-meaning theory: Evidence for mindful positive emotion regulation from a reanalysis of longitudinal data (2017) · cites this paper as [11]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“A recent randomized controlled trial of cognitive-behavioral group therapy (CBGT) versus MBSR in patients with SAD found similar improvements in social anxiety symptoms (Goldin et al., 2016).”
From Trajectories of social anxiety, cognitive reappraisal, and mindfulness during an RCT of CBGT versus MBSR for social anxiety disorder (2017) · cites this paper as Goldin et al., 2016
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Thus, there is evidence that changes in specific cognitive and behavioral variables mediate the impact of CBT for SAD on social anxiety symptoms.”
From Trajectories of social anxiety, cognitive reappraisal, and mindfulness during an RCT of CBGT versus MBSR for social anxiety disorder (2017) · cites this paper as Goldin et al., 2016
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“If enhancement of emotion regulation ability is a reliable result of MBSR, then this may help explain the similar decrease and maintenance of social anxiety immediately and 1-year post-CBT and post-MBSR in this sample of patients with SAD (Goldin et al., 2016).”
From Trajectories of social anxiety, cognitive reappraisal, and mindfulness during an RCT of CBGT versus MBSR for social anxiety disorder (2017) · cites this paper as Goldin et al., 2016
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“CBGT and MBSR were associated with a similar reduction of social anxiety symp- toms from baseline to immediately posttreatment and 1 year posttreatment (eFigure 3 in Supplement 3)”
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“As reported previously, 13 CBGT, MBSR, and WL groups did not differ significantly in demographic and clinical characteristics (eTables 1 and 2 in Supplement 3).”
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Research has also demonstrated the efficacy of mindfulness-based stress reduction (MBSR) 12 in treating SAD. 13”
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“The finding that MBSR significantly increases reappraisal (without providing explicit reappraisal training) provides the strongest and most direct support for the mindful reappraisal hypothesis of MMT yet.”
From Testing the mindfulness-to-meaning theory: Evidence for mindful positive emotion regulation from a reanalysis of longitudinal data (2017) · cites this paper as [11]
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Evidence from a number of correlational [57], quasi-experimental [58,59], and experimental studies [11,60,61] suggests that mindfulness may support reappraisal.”
From Testing the mindfulness-to-meaning theory: Evidence for mindful positive emotion regulation from a reanalysis of longitudinal data (2017) · cites this paper as [11]
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“In the Goldin et al. trial [11], relative to a wait-list control, both CBT and MBSR significantly improved anxiety while increasing mindfulness and reappraisal”
From Testing the mindfulness-to-meaning theory: Evidence for mindful positive emotion regulation from a reanalysis of longitudinal data (2017) · cites this paper as [11]
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“and increases in mindfulness and reappraisal did not significantly differ between these two active interventions.”
From Testing the mindfulness-to-meaning theory: Evidence for mindful positive emotion regulation from a reanalysis of longitudinal data (2017) · cites this paper as [11]
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Goldin et al. [11] contend that the capacity for metacognitive awareness, reflected by enhanced attentional control coupled with a decentered stance towards the objects of attention, may reflect a central change mechanism encouraged by both CBT and MBSR–a contention supported by results from this study.”
From Testing the mindfulness-to-meaning theory: Evidence for mindful positive emotion regulation from a reanalysis of longitudinal data (2017) · cites this paper as [11]
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Empirically, studies point to a lack of specificity across several trials, finding similar mediating effects of mediators assumed to be specific to acceptance and mindfulness-based therapies in both contemporary acceptance and mindfulness-based therapies and traditional CBTs (e.g., Goldin et al., 2016; Hayes-Skelton et al., 2015; Kocovski et al., 2015).”
From Mediators of acceptance and mindfulness-based therapies for anxiety and depression: A systematic review and meta-analysis (2022) · cites this paper as Goldin et al., 2016
Statistics recomputed
Every reported test result, recomputed from its test statistic and degrees of freedom. A result shows as not adding up only once an independent check has confirmed it.
- Consistentχ²(2) = 1.05reported p = .59 · recomputed p = .592
“χ2(2, N = 108) = 1.05, p = .59”
- Consistentt(11) = 0.83reported p = .43 · recomputed p = .424
“t(11) = 0.83, p = .43”
- Consistentt(71) = 0.22reported p = .82 · recomputed p = .827
“t(71) = 0.22, p = .82”
- Consistentχ²(1) = 9.97reported p = .002 · recomputed p = .002
“χ2(1, N = 72) = 9.97, p = .002”
- Consistentχ²(1) = 7.41reported p = .006 · recomputed p = .006
“χ2(1, N = 72) = 7.41, p = .006”
- Consistentχ²(1) = 0.23reported p = .63 · recomputed p = .632
“χ2(1, N = 72) = 0.23, p = .63”
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ Group CBT versus MBSR for Social Anxiety Disorder: A Randomized Controlled Trial > Method > Adherence and Treatment Completer Status
“Mean number of sessions attended for CBGT (Mean ± SD = 10.47 ± 1.56) and MBSR (10.37 ± 2.09) were not significantly different, t(71) = 0.22, p = .82.”
§ Group CBT versus MBSR for Social Anxiety Disorder: A Randomized Controlled Trial > Method > Participants
“the remaining 108 patients were randomly assigned to CBGT (n = 36), MBSR (n = 36), or WL (n = 36).”
Citations
Cites
Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders
Williams, J. B. W., & First, M. B. (2013) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/acrefore/9780199975839.013.104 · Cited by 109,845
Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences
Muller, K. E., & Cohen, J. (1989) · Technometrics · doi:10.2307/1270020 · Cited by 99,603
Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences (2nd ed.).
Lachenbruch, P. A., & Cohen, J. (1989) · Journal of the American Statistical Association · doi:10.2307/2290095 · Cited by 37,421
Kessler, R. C., Berglund, P., Demler, O., Jin, R., Merikangas, K. R., & Walters, E. E. (2005) · Archives of General Psychiatry · doi:10.1001/archpsyc.62.6.593 · Cited by 20,391 · cited 1×
“…therapy, mindfulness, meditation, mediators Social anxiety disorder (SAD) is highly prevalent (lifetime prevalence rate of 12.1%; Kessler et al., 2005) and has an early onset that often precedes the onset of other anxiety disorders, substance use, and major depression (Otto et…”
InfluentialGross, J. J., & John, O. P. (2003) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.85.2.348 · Cited by 11,929 · cited 1×
“We measured cognitive reappraisal frequency and cognitive reappraisal self-efficacy with an extended version of the Emotion Regulation Questionnaire (Goldin, Manber-Ball, Werner, Heimberg, & Gross, 2009; Gross & John, 2003).”
Self-citationJacobson, N. S., & Truax, P. (1991) · Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-006x.59.1.12 · Cited by 7,770 · cited 1×
“Using Jacobson’s Method C (Jacobson, Roberts, Berns, & McGlinchey, 1999; Jacobson & Truax, 1991), the CSC criterion was determined by an LSAS-SR score lower than the halfway point (47.68) between two standard deviations above the mean of nonanxious healthy adults (M & SD !”
InfluentialUsing Self-Report Assessment Methods to Explore Facets of Mindfulness
Baer, R. A., Smith, G. T., Hopkins, J., Krietemeyer, J., & Toney, L. (2006) · Assessment · doi:10.1177/1073191105283504 · Cited by 7,511 · cited 2×
“The instrument has good internal consistency in general (Baer et al., 2006), and it was excellent in this study at baseline ($ !”
(1999) · Cited by 5,934
The effect of mindfulness based therapy on anxiety and depression: A meta analytic review
Hofmann, S. G., Sawyer, A. T., Witt, A. A., & Oh, D. (2010) · Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology · doi:10.1037/a0018555 · Cited by 3,846
Rumination reconsidered: a psychometric analysis.
Treynor, W., Gonzalez, R., & Nolen-Hoeksema, S. (2003) · Cognitive Therapy and Research · doi:10.1023/a:1023910315561 · Cited by 3,808 · cited 4×
“.77; Treynor et al., 2003), as well as in the current study ($ !”
Influential
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Creswell, J. D. (2017) · Annual Review of Psychology · doi:10.1146/annurev-psych-042716-051139 · Cited by 1,702
“Furthermore, current evidence that mindfulness interventions are any better for anxiety symptom reduction than CBT interventions (Goldin et al. 2016) is inconsistent, although some work suggests that MBSR may be more effective for participants with moderate-to-severe dysphoria whereas CBT may be…”
Van Dam, N. T., van Vugt, M. K., Vago, D. R., Schmalzl, L., Saron, C. D., Olendzki, A., Meissner, T., Lazar, S. W., Kerr, C. E., Gorchov, J., et al. (2018) · Perspectives on Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/1745691617709589 · Cited by 1,506
“…practices have resulted in mixed findings, some suggesting comparable outcomes, others suggesting MBIs might be superior in certain conditions, and others suggesting CBT is superior in certain conditions (e.g., Arch et al., 2013; Goldin et al., 2016; Manicavasgar, Parker, & Perich, 2011).”
Dryman, M. T., & Heimberg, R. G. (2018) · Clinical Psychology Review · doi:10.1016/j.cpr.2018.07.004 · Cited by 554
Self-citationMindfulness Meditation and Psychopathology
Wielgosz, J., Goldberg, S. B., Kral, T. R. A., Dunne, J. D., & Davidson, R. J. (2019) · Annual Review of Clinical Psychology · doi:10.1146/annurev-clinpsy-021815-093423 · Cited by 435
“No single MMBI has emerged as a dominant MM-based treatment approach for anxiety, although trials have evaluated both MBCT (e.g., Kocovski et al. 2013) and MBSR (e.g., Goldin et al. 2016) for this purpose.”
BackgroundHayes, S. C., & Hofmann, S. G. (2021) · World Psychiatry · doi:10.1002/wps.20884 · Cited by 260
Metadata
- Authors
- Goldin, P. R., Morrison, A., Jazaieri, H., Brozovich, F., Heimberg, R., & Gross, J. J.
- Affiliations
- University of California, Davis (US)
- Stanford University (US)
- University of California, Berkeley (US)
- Temple University (US)
- Corresponding author
- Goldin, Philippe R.
- Venue
- Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology
- Published
- 2016-05
- Volume
- 84
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 427-437
- ISSN
- 0022-006X (ISSN-L)
- 1939-2117
- PMC
- PMC4837056
- OpenAlex
- W2315453641
- Semantic Scholar
- fe5551ec11a29c4d5c791a5c7922e55c6f1fa0de
- Cited by
- 202
- References
- 61
- Citations by year
- 2026: 11 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 21 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 16 · 2021: 30 · 2020: 19 · 2019: 39 · 2018: 20 · 2017: 16 · 2016: 7
- FWCI
- 38.80
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Locations
- Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology (publishedVersion, other-oa)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
- eScholarship (California Digital Library) (submittedVersion)
- MindRxiv (OSF Preprints) (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- National Institute of Mental Health (R01 MH076074)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Mindfulness and Compassion Interventions
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychotherapy Techniques and Applications
- Keywords
- social anxiety disorder, group cognitive behavioral therapy, mindfulness-based stress reduction, treatment outcomes, mediation analysis, cognitive reappraisal, self-efficacy, cognitive distortions, mindfulness skills, attentional focus, rumination, avoidance behavior, unmedicated patients
- MeSH terms
- Phobia, Social, Adult, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Psychotherapy, Group, Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, Treatment Outcome, Self Efficacy, Mindfulness
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.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-09-28, under version 3 of the claim definition (prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-09-28 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
Cited sources are checked with a language model’s help (gpt-6-sol).
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
