Cited by 56Digital Mental Health InterventionsAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive ProcessesPsychological Treatments and Assessments

A comparison of two online cognitive‐behavioural interventions for symptoms of depression in a student population: The role of therapist responsiveness

Richards, Derek, Timulak, Ladislav, Hevey, David·2013·Counselling and Psychotherapy Research

Abstract

Objectives: The study aimed to compare the efficacy of eight weekly sessions of a self‐administered online CBT treatment (cCBT; n=51) to a therapist‐assisted email CBT treatment (eCBT; n=50) in University students. Design: The design was a randomised parallel group trial. The study randomised participants with symptoms of depression to one of two available treatments. Method: Participants were offered eight weekly sessions of either cCBT or eCBT. Participants completed the Beck Depression Inventory‐II (BDI‐II) and the Clinical Outcomes in Routine Evaluation – Outcome Measure (CORE‐OM) at pre‐and post‐treatment, at weeks 16 and 32 follow‐up. The Working Alliance Inventory‐Short Form (WAI‐SR) was completed at weeks 2, 4, and 6. Results: For both groups, pre‐post within group effect sizes reported were large for the BDI‐II and the CORE‐OM and these were maintained at follow‐up. Perceptions of working alliance were similar in each group, but Bond was significantly stronger for the eCBT condition. WAI scores correlated more positively with the outcome on BDI‐II for those in the eCBT condition than the cCBT condition, but not significantly. Conclusion: There were no significant differences between the two online treatments, both reduced depressive symptoms and improved general functioning. Similarly, at post‐treatment and follow‐up, clinical improvement and recovery was demonstrated for both groups equally. The study demonstrates the possibility for cCBT in a university setting that may contribute to addressing the shortcomings in meeting increasing demands that mental health services presently face.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/14733145.2012.733715

Cites

22 of 22 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

1 of the 23 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Richards, D., Timulak, L., & Hevey, D.
Affiliations
  • Trinity College Dublin (IE)
  • School of Psychology University of Dublin, Trinity College Dublin Dublin Ireland
Corresponding author
Richards, Derek
Venue
Counselling and Psychotherapy Research
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2013-08-16
Volume
13
Issue
3
Pages
184-193
ISSN
  • 1473-3145 (ISSN-L)
  • 1746-1405
OpenAlex
W2164153175
Cited by
55
References
23
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 6 · 2014: 2 · 2013: 3 · 2012: 2
FWCI
5.87
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Counselling and Psychotherapy Research (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Digital Mental Health Interventions
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychological Treatments and Assessments
Keywords
internet-based cognitive behavioral therapy, therapist responsiveness, therapeutic relationship, depressive symptoms, university students, student mental health, treatment efficacy, general functioning

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