ArticlePsychotherapy research : journal of the Society for Psychotherapy Research2018
A self-report version of the Ways of Responding: Reliability and validity in a clinical sample.
Article in Psychotherapy research : journal of the Society for Psychotherapy Research, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Mechanisms of change in cognitive therapy for major depressive disorder in the community mental health setting.Journal of consulting and clinical psychology · 2017Trial
- Use of cognitive techniques is associated with change in positive compensatory skills in the treatment of major depressive disorder in a community mental health setting.Psychotherapy research : journal of the Society for Psychotherapy Research · 2021Article
- Predictors of treatment attendance in cognitive and dynamic therapies for major depressive disorder delivered in a community mental health setting.Journal of consulting and clinical psychology · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveThe Ways of Responding (WOR) instrument measures compensatory skills, a central construct in some theories of the mechanism of cognitive therapy for depression. However, the instrument is time-consuming and expensive to use in community settings, because it requires trained independent judges to rate subjects' open-ended written responses to depressogenic scenarios. The present study evaluated the reliability and validity of a self-report version of the WOR (WOR-SR) in a community mental health sample with depressive symptoms (N = 467).
methodSubjects completed the WOR-SR, a modified version of the original WOR, and other measures of depressive symptoms, dysfunctional cognitions, functioning, quality of life, and interpersonal problems at multiple time points.
resultsAn exploratory factor analysis confirmed the two-factor structure of the WOR-SR. The positive and negative subscales both demonstrated excellent internal consistency (Cronbach's alphas = .91) and moderate convergent validity with other measures.
conclusionThe WOR-SR is a reliable and valid measure of compensatory skills in patients receiving treatment for depression at community mental health centers.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.