Trajectories and predictors of response in youth anxiety CBT: Integrative data analysis.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: = 832) and identify trajectories of symptom change and predictors of trajectories. METHOD: Youth- and parent-reported anxiety symptoms were combined using item-response theory models. Growth mixture modeling assessed for trajectories of treatment response across pre-, mid-, and posttreatment and 1-year follow-up. Pretreatment client demographic and clinical traits and treatment modality (individual- and family-based CBT) were examined as predictors of trajectory classes. RESULTS: Growth mixture modeling supported three trajectory classes based on parent-reported symptoms: steady responders, rapid responders, and delayed improvement. A 4-class model was supported for youth-reported symptoms: steady responders, rapid responders, delayed improvement, and low-symptom responders. Delayed improvement classes were predicted by higher number of diagnoses (parent and youth report). Receiving family CBT predicted membership in the delayed improvement class compared to all other classes and membership in the steady responder class compared with rapid responders (youth report). Rapid responders were predicted by older age (parent report) and higher number of diagnoses (parent report). Low-symptom responders were more likely to be male (youth report). CONCLUSIONS: Integrative data analysis identified distinct patterns of symptom change. Diagnostic complexity, age, gender, and treatment modality differentiated response classes. (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 | 0.005 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".