Evaluating a cognitive behavioral therapy group program for anxious five to seven year old children: a pilot study
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT) has demonstrated benefits for anxious school-aged children and adolescents; however, treatment programs have not been developed to teach CBT strategies to children under the age of eight. This pilot study examined a novel treatment program for children aged 5-7 years with anxiety disorders. METHODS: Thirty-two children (19 females) aged 5-7 years (mean age=6.51 years) with DSM-IV anxiety disorders and their families completed a 12-week, manualized CBT group program. Parent and child groups (5-8 children per group) were held separately but concurrently. Multiple measures of anxiety (Screen for Child Anxiety Related Emotional Disorders, Anxiety Disorders Interview Schedule for DSM-IV-Parent Version, and clinician Children's Global Assessment Scale ratings) were completed pre and post each treatment series. A subset of participants (n=11; 8 females; mean age=6.34 years) completed an initial assessment followed by a wait period of approximately 3.5 months (range 2.5-5 months) with a second assessment just before treatment start. No treatment was received during this wait time. RESULTS: With treatment, 43.8% of children no longer met criteria for any Axis 1 anxiety disorders whereas 71.9% had at least one anxiety disorder resolve. A series of paired, two-tailed t-tests revealed significant reduction in anxiety symptoms on standardized measures. Children who waited for treatment showed no significant change in anxiety symptoms during nontreatment but demonstrated improvement after program attendance. CONCLUSIONS: This pilot study suggests that CBT can be used effectively to treat anxious children as young as 5 years of age. Further research is warranted.
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 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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it