MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2073176958 · doi:10.4088/jcp.08m04822blu

Is Virtual Reality Effective to Motivate and Raise Interest in Phobic Children Toward Therapy?

2010· article· en· W2073176958 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Clinical Psychiatry · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicVirtual Reality Applications and Impacts
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsExposure therapyPsychologyClinical psychologySession (web analytics)AnxietyPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Article AbstractObjective: The first objective of this study was to assess if a combined treatment with mostly virtual reality-based (in virtuo) exposure increases phobic children's motivation toward therapy compared to children who only receive in vivo exposure. Another objective was the assessment of motivation as a predictor of treatment outcome.Method: Thirty-one DSM-IV-diagnosed arachnophobic participants aged from 8 to 15 years were randomly assigned to 1 of 2 treatment conditions: in vivo exposure alone or in virtuo plus in vivo exposure. Measures of motivation were taken at pretest and at the end of each part of the treatment; some other measures were taken at each session. The "Why Are You in Therapy?" questionnaire for children was the target measure of motivation and the main variable in the study. Outcome measures were taken at pretest, at the end of each part of the treatment, and at the 6-month follow-up. This study was conducted between September 2006 and March 2007.Results: The results showed that children who received in virtuo exposure did not show a higher level of motivation toward their treatment than those who received in vivo exposure, but statistically significant interactions were found for both parts of the treatment. Multiple regression analysis confirmed that motivation was a significant predictor of outcome (P†‰<†‰.01), especially extrinsic integrated motivation. Participants in the combined treatment were significantly more phobic before beginning treatment, but both treatments appeared successful (P†‰<†‰.001).Conclusions: In this study, the use of virtual reality did not increase motivation toward psychotherapy. At the end of the second part of therapy, all participants were comparably efficient in facing a live tarantula. These results bear important clinical implications concerning how to use virtual reality with children and concerning motivation of children toward therapy in general. They are discussed in the light of how to present in virtuo therapy to children.Trial Registration: controlled-trials.com Identifier: ISRCTN87716831J Clin Psychiatry 2010:71(7):924-931Submitted: October 26, 2008; accepted August 10, 2009.Online ahead of print: April 6, 2010 (doi:10.4088/JCP.08m04822blu).Corresponding author: Stéphane Bouchard, PhD, Université du Québec en Outaouais, Département de Psychoéducation et de psychologie, CP 1250, Succ Hull, Gatineau, Québec J8X 3X7, Canada (stephane.bouchard@uqo.ca).

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.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.745
Threshold uncertainty score0.457

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.085
GPT teacher head0.403
Teacher spread0.317 · 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