Using fuction-based CBT with parent involvement to treat OCD in two school-age children with high-functioning autism
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Obsessive Compulsive Disorder (OCD) involves excessive worry coupled with engaging \nin rituals that are believed to help alleviate the worry. Pervasive Developmental Disorders (PODs) \nare characterized by impairments in social interaction, communication, and the presence of \nrepetitive and/or restrictive behaviours (American Psychiatric Association, 2000). Research \nsuggests that as many as 81% of children with a POD also meet criteria for a diagnosis ofOCD. \nCurrently, only a handful of studies have investigated the use of Cognitive Behavioural Therapy \n(CBT) in treating OCD in children with autism (Reaven & Hepburn, 2003 ; Sze & Wood, 2007; \nLehmkuhl, Storch, Bodtish & Geflken, 2008). In these case studies. the use of a multi-modal \nCBT treatment package was successful in alleviating OCD behaviours. \nThe current study used function-based CBT with parent involvement and behavioural \nsupplements to treat 2 children with POD and OCD. Using a multiple baseline design across \nbehaviours and participants, parents reported that their child 's anxiety was alleviated and these \ngains were maintained at 6-month follow-up. According to results of the Children 's Yale-Brown \nObsessive Compulsive Scale (Goodman, Price, Rasmussen, Riddle, & Rapoport, 1986) from preto \npost-test, OCD behaviours of the children decreased II"om the severe to the mild range. In \naddition, the parents rated the family's level of interference related to their child 's OCD as \nsubstantially lower. Last, the CBT treatment received high ratings of consumer satisfaction.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".