Cited by 69Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive ProcessesPsychotherapy Techniques and ApplicationsPsychological Treatments and Assessments

Emotion-focused therapy for social anxiety disorder: results from a multiple-baseline study

Shahar, Ben, Bar-Kalifa, Eran, Alon, Eve·2017·Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of the present study was to evaluate the efficacy of emotion-focused therapy (EFT) for adults suffering from social anxiety disorder (SAD). METHOD: Using a nonconcurrent multiple-baseline design, 12 patients (mean age = 26.75 years, SD = 5.15; 7 males) meeting criteria for SAD were treated with up to 28 sessions of EFT. EFT was based on an empathic relationship, 2-chair work for self-criticism, empty-chair work for unresolved feelings, and focusing. Patients were randomized to wait 4, 8, or 12 weeks between the intake and the first therapy session. Intake assessment included the MINI International Neuropsychiatric Interview (MINI; Sheehan et al. 1998), the clinician-administered Liebowitz Social Anxiety Scale (LSAS; Liebowitz, 1987), and various self-report questionnaires. The LSAS was also administered at the end of the baseline period and at posttreatment. The MINI was administered again at posttreatment. Self-reports were administered throughout the baseline, before each therapy session, and at 6-month and 12-month follow-ups. RESULTS: One patient dropped out prematurely. Of the 11 completers, 7 did not meet criteria for SAD at the end of treatment. Intent-to-treat analysis showed that LSAS scores did not change during baseline, significantly improved during treatment (Cohen's d = -2.37), and remained improved during follow-up. Mixed regression models showed that SAD symptoms and self-criticism did not change during baseline, significantly improved during treatment, and remained improved during follow-up. Self-reassurance improved significantly during the follow-up phase. CONCLUSION: This study provides initial evidence supporting the efficacy of EFT for SAD. (PsycINFO Database Record

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/ccp0000166

Cites

68 of 68 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Shahar, B., Bar-Kalifa, E., & Alon, E.
Affiliations
Reichman University (IL)
Venue
Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology
Published
2017-03
Volume
85
Issue
3
Pages
238-249
ISSN
  • 0022-006X (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-2117
OpenAlex
W2590705946
Cited by
69
References
68
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 10 · 2018: 14 · 2017: 3
FWCI
12.02
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
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
emotion-focused therapy, social anxiety disorder, treatment efficacy, self-criticism, self-reassurance, Liebowitz Social Anxiety Scale, multiple baseline design
MeSH terms
Emotion-Focused Therapy, Phobia, Social, Adult, Female, Humans, Male, Surveys and Questionnaires, Treatment Outcome, Young Adult

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