MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The association between positive outcome expectancies and avoidance in predicting the outcome of cognitive behavioural therapy for major depressive disorder

2012· article· en· W1578225463 on OpenAlexaff
Jesse Renaud, Jennifer J. Russell, Gail Myhr

Bibliographic record

VenueBritish Journal of Clinical Psychology · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
Canadian institutionsMcGill University Health CentreMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyAssociation (psychology)Major depressive disorderClinical psychologyOutcome (game theory)Beck Depression InventoryDepression (economics)Cognitive therapyCognitionMultilevel modelDepressive symptomsPsychiatryPsychotherapistAnxiety

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objectives: Although cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) is an empirically supported treatment for major depressive disorder (MDD), individual differences in the effectiveness of CBT have been observed. Preliminary evidence suggests that positive outcome expectancies for treatment predict better therapy outcomes (); however, researchers have not examined whether avoidance, an important predictor of depressive symptoms (), may play an important role in this association. In the present study, we examined whether the association between positive outcome expectancies and therapy outcome is associated with patients' levels of avoidance. Design: Data were collected as part of a prospective, longitudinal study. Methods: The sample consisted of 51 patients diagnosed with MDD who underwent CBT. Prior to treatment, clinicians rated patients on their levels of avoidance and positive outcome expectancies. A self‐report rating of positive outcome expectancies was also obtained, and the Beck Depression Inventory (BDI‐II; ) was completed pre‐ and post‐treatment. A hierarchical regression analysis was conducted to examine the association between positive outcome expectancies and avoidance for predicting changes in depressive symptoms after CBT. Results: For patients with lower levels of positive outcome expectancies, lower levels of avoidance predicted greater improvement after CBT and higher levels of avoidance predicted poorer treatment outcomes. Conclusions: These findings suggest that the impact that lower positive outcome expectancies have on therapy outcome can be attenuated if patients do not avoid dealing with emotionally difficult material in session. Practitioner Points The detrimental effects of lower positive outcome expectancies for therapy may be lessened in patients who do not demonstrate avoidance at the outset of therapy. Clinicians’ early reinforcement of patient engagement in therapy may help patients increase their positive outcome expectancies for treatment. The importance of avoidance and lower positive outcome expectancies has only been examined in patients referred for cognitive behavioural therapy in a University Teaching Unit and the findings may not apply to other psychotherapies in other contexts. The interaction between avoidance and positive outcome expectancies has only been examined in patients with major depressive disorder and the findings may not extend to patients with other psychological disorders.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.208
Threshold uncertainty score0.995

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.150
GPT teacher head0.485
Teacher spread0.335 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations7
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBritish Journal of Clinical PsychologySame topicAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive ProcessesFrench-language works237,207