Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34305206›Full record

ArticleCognitive therapy and research2021

Which variations of a brief cognitive bias modification session for interpretations lead to the strongest effects?

Shari A Steinman, Nauder Namaky, Sarah L Toton, Emily E E Meissel, Austin T St John, Nha-Han Pham, Alexandra Werntz, Tara L Valladares, Eugenia I Gorlin, Sarai Arbus and 3 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cognitive therapy and research, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

13 authors.

Shari A SteinmanWest Virginia University.
Nauder NamakyUniversity of Virginia.
Sarah L TotonCaveon Test Security.
Emily E E MeisselSan Diego State University/University of California, San Diego Joint Doctoral Program in Clinical Psychology.
Austin T St JohnUniversity of Virginia.
Nha-Han PhamUniversity of Virginia.
Alexandra WerntzUniversity of Virginia.
Tara L ValladaresUniversity of Virginia.
Eugenia I GorlinYeshiva University.
Sarai ArbusUniversity of Virginia.
Miranda BeltzerUniversity of Virginia.
Alexandra SorokaUniversity of Virginia.
Bethany A TeachmanUniversity of Virginia.

Funding

Effectiveness of interpretation training to reduce anxiety: Evaluating technology-based delivery models and methods to reduce attritionR01MH113752 · NIMH · UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA · PI TEACHMAN, BETHANY A · 2017 to 2020
$2.5M
Testing Target Engagement and Effectiveness of Web-based Interpretation Training For AnxietyR34MH106770 · NIMH · UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA · PI TEACHMAN, BETHANY A · 2015 to 2016
$689k
NIMH NIH HHS R01 MH113752NIMH NIH HHS R34 MH106770
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundBrief computerized programs that train less threatening interpretations (termed Cognitive Bias Modification for Interpretations, or CBM-I) can shift interpretation biases and subsequent anxiety symptoms. However, results have been inconsistent, particularly for studies conducted over the Internet.

methodsThe current exploratory study tests 13 variations of a single brief session of CBM-I, a non-CBM-I cognitive flexibility condition, a neutral condition, and a no task control condition in an analogue sample with moderate to severe anxiety.

resultsResults suggest that all conditions, except the neutral scenarios condition and the alternative way to improve cognitive flexibility, led to changes in interpretations (when compared to the no task control condition). Only conditions geared toward increasing imagery during CBM-I and targeting flexibility related to emotional material differed from the no task control condition on other post-training measures.

conclusionsPresenting valenced interpretations of ambiguous information during brief CBM-I, regardless of the format, can lead to changes in interpretation bias. However, most conditions did not differ from the no task control condition on other post-training assessments (and differences that did occur may be due to chance). Future trials should consider further testing of CBM-I that targets flexibility related to emotional material, and should include an increased number of sessions and trials.

Indexed as

anxietycognitioncognitive bias modificationinformation processingInternet

Identifiers

PMID34305206
PMCPMC8297881

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.