CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 17

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 6 of the 6 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Comparison of Group and Individual Cognitive-Behavioral Therapy in Reducing Fear of Negative Evaluation

Dogaheh, Ebrahim Rezaei, Mohammadkhani, Parvaneh, Dolatshahi, Behrooz·2011·Psychological Reports
DOI 10.2466/02.21.pr0.108.3.955-962
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Previous studies have established the efficacy of group and individual formats of cognitive-behavioral therapy in reducing fear of negative evaluation in social anxiety disorder, but the effectiveness of the group and individual therapies has not been widely assessed. This study was conducted to compare the effectiveness of cognitive-behavior group therapy to individual cognitive-behavioral therapy in social anxiety disorder. 28 patients were randomly allocated to two groups of 14. Each group participated in 12 weekly sessions. The final sample was 22 participants after drop-out. Pretest and posttest data were collected using the Brief Fear of Negative Evaluation Scale and the Beck Depression Inventory-II. Controlling for pretest fear of negative evaluation and depression, cognitive-behavioral group therapy was more effective than individual cognitive-behavioral therapy in reducing fear of negative evaluation, but the clinical significance and improvement rates of the two treatment formats were equivalent.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.2466/02.21.pr0.108.3.955-962

Cites

6 of 6 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Verification

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?

Citations

Cites

Show all 6 references

Research works printed but not linked: 22

  1. 10.1016/j.janxdis.2008.05.003 · DOI
  2. American Psychiatric Association, 2000, Diagnostic and Statistical manual of mental disorders (DSM-IV-TR).
  3. Barlow D. H., 2001, Clinical handbook of psychological disorders.
  4. 10.1016/S0005-7894(80)80001-3 · DOI
  5. Beck A. T., 1996, Manual for Beck Depression Inventory-II.
  6. Cohen J., 1988, Statistical power analysis for behavioral sciences.
  7. Dobson K. E., 2007, [Journal of Rehabilitation], 8, 82
  8. 10.1034/j.1600-0447.2002.1r103.x · DOI
  9. Heimberg R. G., 2001, Journal of Clinical Psychiatry, 62, 36
  10. 10.1016/S0006-3223(01)01183-0 · DOI · Paper page
  11. 10.1007/BF01173521 · DOI · Paper page
  12. 10.1007/BF01177658 · DOI · Paper page
  13. 10.1037/0022-006X.59.1.12 · DOI · Paper page
  14. Gil Moreno P. G., 2001, Psychology in Spain, 5, 17
  15. 10.1016/S0005-7967(97)00022-3 · DOI · Paper page
  16. 10.1177/0145445503027003002 · DOI
  17. 10.1016/S0005-7967(02)00176-6 · DOI · Paper page
  18. Stein M. B., 1999, Journal of Family Practice, 49, 514
  19. 10.1186/1471-244X-9-42 · DOI
  20. Turk C. L., 2001, Clinical handbook of psychological disorders., 114
  21. Turk C. L., 2008, Clinical handbook of psychological disorders., 123
  22. 10.1016/0005-7916(95)00058-5 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Dogaheh, E. R., Mohammadkhani, P., & Dolatshahi, B.
Affiliations
University of Social Welfare and Rehabilitation Sciences Tehran, Iran
Venue
Psychological Reports
Publisher
SAGE Publications
Published
2011-06
Volume
108
Issue
3
Pages
955-962
ISSN
  • 0033-2941
  • 1558-691X
DOI
10.2466/02.21.pr0.108.3.955-962
Cited by
17
References
6
Language
en
Licence
journals.sagepub.com/page/policies/text-and-data-mining-license (tdm)

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