ArticlePloS one2026
Assessing spider fear: Validity of a novel computerized behavioral avoidance test.
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.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- SpiderPhy dataset: A multimodal dataset of Physiological, Psychometric and Behavioral Responses to fear stimuli.Scientific data · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.