Group cognitive behaviour therapy for children with autism spectrum disorder and comorbid anxiety: Examining factors that impact outcomes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Anxiety is common in children with Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD; MacNeil, Lopes, & Minnes, 2009; Kim, Szatmari, Bryson, Streiner, & Wilson, 2000; White, Oswald, Ollendick, & Scahill, 2009) and can lead to significant impairment (Farrugia & Hudson, 2006; Kim et al., 2000; van Steensel, Bögels, & Dirksen, 2012). Implementing treatments in real-world environments has been identified as one of the top priorities for researchers in the area of anxiety in youth with ASD (Vasa, Keefer, Reaven, South & White, 2018). The current study examined the effectiveness of a manualized, group-based Cognitive Behaviour Therapy (CBT; Facing Your Fears (FYF); Reaven, Blakeley‐Smith, Culhane‐Shelburne, & Hepburn, 2012; Reaven, Blakeley-Smith, Nichols, & Hepburn, 2011) with children with ASD without intellectual disability (IQ>70) and their parents at BC Children’s Hospital. The primary goals of this research were to a) measure the effectiveness of the treatment protocol in a community setting with a complex population, and b) examine a selection of possible predictors of treatment outcomes (e.g., amount of homework completion, level of clinician-provided parent support during in vivo exposure practice, parent-child relationship variables, and parent personality variables), and thus contribute to the sparse literature in this regard. Significant decreases in child anxiety were observed from pre- to post-treatment at the levels of a) parent questionnaire ratings (ηp2 = .36), b) clinician severity ratings based on parent interview (d=.98), and c) parent ratings on primary individual exposure targets (last 7 weeks of group; d=1.50). After controlling for baseline child anxiety, variables that were found to significantly predict parent ratings of child anxiety symptoms at post-treatment were a) level of clinician support provided during in vivo exposure practice, b) parent-child communication, and c) self-reported parent trait anxiety. Overall, results from the current study are consistent with previous research demonstrating the effectiveness of the FYF treatment program for children with ASD.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".