Cited by 83Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive ProcessesPsychotherapy Techniques and ApplicationsPsychological Treatments and Assessments

Expectancy/Credibility Change as a Mediator of Cognitive Behavioral Therapy for Generalized Anxiety Disorder: Mechanism of Action or Proxy for Symptom Change?

Open access
Newman, Michelle G., Fisher, Aaron J.·2010·International Journal of Cognitive Therapy

Abstract

Examined the mediating effect of changes in expectancy/credibility from sessions 4-7 of 14-session cognitive and behavioral therapy for generalized anxiety disorder (GAD). In 76 adults with primary GAD, we predicted that expectancy/credibility would change significantly from sessions 4-7, that degree of change in expectancy/credibility would predict degree of reliable change at posttreatment, and that changes in expectancy/credibility would mediate the relationship between pretreatment severity and change at posttreatment. In support of the hypotheses, a latent growth model revealed significant increases in expectancy/credibility over the critical period. In addition, baseline GAD severity, expectancy/credibility intercept, and rate of change in expectancy/credibility all positively predicted degree of reliable change at posttreatment. Rate of change in expectancy/credibility during the critical period partially mediated the effect of baseline GAD severity, accounting for 38% of the variance in this relationship. This effect was not accounted for by preceding or concurrently changing anxiety levels.

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 · 10.1521/ijct.2010.3.3.245

Cites

87 of 87 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

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Newman, M. G., & Fisher, A. J.
Affiliations
Pennsylvania State University (US)
Venue
International Journal of Cognitive Therapy
Published
2010-09
Volume
3
Issue
3
Pages
245-261
ISSN
1937-1209 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2124842786
Cited by
83
References
84
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 9 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 6 · 2013: 10 · 2012: 3
FWCI
7.07
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • International Journal of Cognitive Therapy (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • ScholarSphere (Penn State Libraries) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • SSRN Electronic Journal (submittedVersion)
Funders
National Institute of Mental Health (R01MH039172)
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
generalized anxiety disorder, cognitive behavioral therapy, treatment expectancy, treatment credibility, mechanism of action, reliable change, pretreatment severity, mediation, latent growth curve models

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