Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42149920›Full record

ArticlePloS one2026

Assessing spider fear: Validity of a novel computerized behavioral avoidance test.

Alexander Karner, Cindy Sumaly Lor, Mengfan Zhang, Frank Scharnowski

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

4 authors.

Alexander KarnerDepartment of Cognition, Emotion, and Methods in Psychology, University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5000-3195
Cindy Sumaly LorDepartment of Cognition, Emotion, and Methods in Psychology, University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.
Mengfan ZhangDepartment of Cognition, Emotion, and Methods in Psychology, University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.
Frank ScharnowskiDepartment of Cognition, Emotion, and Methods in Psychology, University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Spider phobia is one of the most common specific phobias and can be highly detrimental to one's quality of life. To evaluate the efficacy of treatments, reliable pre- and post-treatment assessments are needed. Behavioral avoidance tests (BATs), where one is asked to approach a spider, are commonly used as such measures. With the increasing popularity of computerized interventions, there is a demand for quick assessments for fear of spiders, that can be completed using computers or smartphones. Here, we tested the validity of a novel computerized BAT (cBAT) that we introduced in our previous work. In this cBAT, participants unblurred three images of spiders up to a point where they still felt comfortable viewing them. We expected that the cBAT would be moderately to strongly correlated with established measures for fear of spiders. Our analysis revealed that the cBAT showed moderate convergent and concurrent validity through correlations with self-report questionnaires indicating spider fear, and with a real-life BAT, respectively. However, the latter was no longer observed in a follow-up. While the cBAT facilitates ease of application and has a quick, straightforward participant task, we conclude that the cBAT is a limited measure for fear of spiders and might not fully capture the complexity of spider-related avoidance behavior compared to tasks that simulate real-life scenarios more closely. We propose the development of a refined cBAT that maintains an easily applicable participant task.

Indexed as

Avoidance LearningFearPhobic DisordersSpidersAdultAnimalsFemaleHumansMaleReproducibility of ResultsSurveys and QuestionnairesYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID42149920
PMCPMC13183201

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.