MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2769239208 · doi:10.1017/s1754470x17000198

Effects of a parent training programme for the treatment of young children with separation anxiety disorder

2017· article· en· W2769239208 on OpenAlexafffund
Sandra Mayer-Brien, Lyse Turgeon, Marc J. Lanovaz

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Cognitive Behaviour Therapist · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicChild and Adolescent Psychosocial and Emotional Development
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
FundersFonds de Recherche du Québec - Santé
KeywordsSeparation anxiety disorderAnxietyPsychologySocial anxietyCognitive behaviour therapyClinical psychologyAnxiety disorderCognitionPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) has been shown to be an effective treatment for anxiety disorders in children. However, the majority of studies conducted to date have included heterogeneous samples of children combining social anxiety disorder, generalized anxiety disorder and separation anxiety disorder (SAD) together. Few studies have examined the efficacy of CBT to specifically treat SAD. Moreover, research on the impact of CBT for SAD in children younger than 7 years old has been very limited. To address these issues, we examined the effects of a CBT parent training programme with six children with SAD aged between 4 and 7 years using a non-concurrent multiple baseline design. Parents completed semi-structured interviews, questionnaires and daily diaries to assess their child's anxiety symptoms, parental practices and parental stress. Results indicated that five of six children no longer met the criteria for SAD diagnosis after treatment and at 3-month follow-up. Moreover, the daily diaries showed that four of six children presented a systematic favourable change of the total weekly frequency of SAD symptoms. Finally, four mothers reported a decrease in overprotection, but we observed no changes in parental stress.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.398
Threshold uncertainty score0.404

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.044
GPT teacher head0.338
Teacher spread0.294 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations4
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Cognitive Behaviour TherapistSame topicChild and Adolescent Psychosocial and Emotional DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207