Evidence for the cognitive mediational model of cognitive behavioural therapy for depression
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Although empirical support for the efficacy of cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) as a treatment for major depressive disorder (MDD) is well established, its mechanism of action is uncertain. In this investigation, we examined evidence for the cognitive mediational model in a randomized control trial involving CBT, interpersonal therapy (IPT) and pharmacotherapy (PHT) in patients with MDD. METHOD: One hundred and thirty participants diagnosed with MDD were treated with CBT, IPT or PHT. Participants completed the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale, Beck Depression Inventory-II and Dysfunctional Attitudes Scale prior to and following treatment. RESULTS: The cognitive mediational model, in which dysfunctional attitudes are proposed to mediate depressive symptom reduction in response to treatment, provided a good fit to the data when contrasting CBT v. IPT, with results supporting a mediational role for dysfunctional attitude change in depressive symptom reduction. The complication model, in which dysfunctional attitudes are proposed to be a consequence of depressive symptom reduction, provided a good fit to the data when contrasting CBT v. PHT, with results supporting a mediational role for depressive symptom reduction in dysfunctional attitude change. CONCLUSIONS: There was no evidence for a mediational role for dysfunctional attitude change in IPT. Changes in dysfunctional attitudes accompanied both CBT and PHT; however, empirical evidence suggests that the role of attitudes in treatment outcome may differ between these two treatments.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".