Outcome of CBT for Problematic Hoarding in a Naturalistic Setting: Impact on Symptoms and Distress Tolerance
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) for problematic hoarding is an effective treatment, but further research in diverse, naturalistic settings is needed to see whether this treatment is effective across settings and in smaller doses. The current study investigated the outcome of a 12-session group CBT for hoarding offered in an outpatient hospital setting. Sixty-four participants completed therapy, and 38 participants completed posttreatment assessments. Results demonstrated statistically significant improvements in hoarding symptom severity, saving cognitions, and self-reported distress tolerance. Effect sizes for changes in saving cognitions were generally large. However, effect sizes were modest for most other outcome variables, and only 4 of 38 participants achieved clinically significant change in hoarding symptom severity. These results suggest that 12 sessions of group CBT for hoarding is associated with significant change in saving cognitions, but less meaningful change in other indicators of symptom severity.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it