When it's at: An examination of when cognitive change occurs during cognitive therapy for compulsive checking in obsessive-compulsive disorder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract \nBackground and objectives \nThe cognitive theory of compulsive checking in OCD proposes that checking behaviour is maintained by maladaptive beliefs, including those related to inflated responsibility and those related to reduced memory confidence. This study examined whether and when specific interventions (as part of a new cognitive therapy for compulsive checking) addressing these cognitive targets changed feelings of responsibility and memory confidence. \n \nMethods \nParticipants were nine adults with a primary or secondary diagnosis of OCD who reported significant checking symptoms (at least one hour per day) on the Yale-Brown Obsessive-Compulsive Scale. A single-case multiple baseline design was used, after which participants received 12 sessions of cognitive therapy. From the start of the baseline period through to the 1 month post-treatment follow-up assessment session, participants completed daily monitoring of feelings of responsibility, memory confidence, and their time spent engaging in compulsive checking. \n \nResults \nResults revealed that feelings of responsibility significantly reduced and memory confidence significantly increased from baseline to immediately post-treatment, with very high effect sizes. Multilevel modelling revealed significant linear changes in feelings of responsibility (i.e., reductions over time) and memory confidence (i.e., increases over time) occurred following the sessions when these were addressed. Finally, we found that improvements in these over the course of the treatment significantly predicted reduced time spent checking. \n \nLimitations \nThe small sample size limits our ability to generalize our results. \n \nConclusions \nResults are discussed in terms of a focus on the timing of change in cognitive therapy.
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 | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".