Competing indirect effects in a comparative psychotherapy trial for generalized anxiety disorder.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In a randomized trial for generalized anxiety disorder, cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) and CBT integrated with motivational interviewing (MI) promoted comparable worry reduction at posttreatment, whereas MI-CBT outperformed CBT over 12-month follow-up (Westra, Constantino, & Antony, 2016). Secondary analyses revealed competing mediators of the long-term treatment effect: MI-CBT related to lower patient resistance to the treatment, which promoted lower follow-up worry, whereas CBT related to greater increases in patient friendly submissiveness (FS), or compliance, which also promoted lower follow-up worry (that suppressed an even greater long-term advantage of MI-CBT). In this study, we tested these competing, though theoretically consistent, variables as mediators of the nonsignificant treatment effect on posttreatment worry, as there could also be treatment-specific means to arriving to these comparable ends. Eighty-five patients received 15 sessions of MI-CBT or CBT. Therapists rated patient FS through treatment, observers rated resistance at midtreatment, and patients rated worry at posttreatment. Bootstrap analyses indicated that MI-CBT patients exhibited less resistance, which promoted lower posttreatment worry, whereas CBT patients had greater increases in FS, which also promoted lower worry. CBT and MI-CBT achieved comparable posttreatment outcomes through separate indirect paths that each conferred an advantage for one treatment over the other (and had canceled out a direct treatment effect immediately after therapy). The composite trial findings have significance for understanding different pathways to personal change in both the short- and long terms, and for the importance of testing indirect effects both when direct treatment effects do and do not emerge. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2019 APA, all rights reserved).
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.040 | 0.063 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".