Cited by 64Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive ProcessesChild and Adolescent Psychosocial and Emotional DevelopmentPsychological Treatments and Assessments

Efficacy of a Danish version of the cool kids program: a randomized wait-list controlled trial

Open access
Arendt, K., Thastum, M., Hougaard, E.·2016·Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of the study was to evaluate the efficacy of a Danish version of the Cool Kids program, a generic manualized group cognitive-behavioural therapy (CBT) program for anxiety disorders among children and adolescents. METHOD: Children and adolescents (age 7-16) with a primary anxiety disorder diagnosis (n = 109) were randomly allocated to group CBT or a wait-list (WL) control condition at a Danish university clinic. RESULTS: Results showed that the Danish version of the Cool Kids program was efficacious with 48.2% free of all anxiety diagnoses at post-treatment, compared with 5.7% in the WL condition, and large effect sizes on self-report measures of child anxiety symptoms rated by child, mother, and father (ηp2 range = 0.18-0.24). Children and adolescents improved further from post-treatment to 3-month follow-up, and this improvement was maintained at 12-month follow-up. Participants with a primary diagnosis of social phobia (SoP) showed less improvement compared with other anxiety diagnoses. CONCLUSION: The study contributes to the evidence base for the Cool Kids program, previously only evaluated by its developers in Australia. Generic group CBT programs may not be the most appropriate treatment for children and adolescents with primary SoP.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/acps.12448

Cites

45 of 45 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

The text we found for this paper looks like another document, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Self-check

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

The text we found for this paper looks like another document, so the self-check wasn’t run.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Arendt, K., Thastum, M., & Hougaard, E.
Affiliations
  • Aarhus University (DK)
  • Department of Psychology and Behavioural Sciences Aarhus University Aarhus C Denmark
Corresponding author
Arendt, K.
Venue
Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2015-05-27
Volume
133
Issue
2
Pages
109-121
ISSN
  • 0001-690X (ISSN-L)
  • 1600-0447
OpenAlex
W1859300971
Cited by
64
References
45
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 10 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 7
FWCI
11.08
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
TrygFonden (n10691)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Child and Adolescent Psychosocial and Emotional Development
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychological Treatments and Assessments
Keywords
group cognitive behavioral therapy, childhood anxiety disorders, adolescents, social anxiety disorder, treatment efficacy, waitlist control, maintenance of treatment effects

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