Comprehensive Behavioral Therapy of Trichotillomania: A Multiple-Baseline Single-Case Experimental Design
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite rapidly increasing knowledge about Trichotillomania (TTM), no gold-standard evidence-based psychological intervention has been identified. In the current study, we evaluated the potential efficacy of an eight-session psychological intervention for TTM, namely the Comprehensive Behavioral Model (ComB) treatment, using a multiple-baseline single-case experimental design with three Italian women with TTM. The study included three phases: baseline, intervention, and 3-month follow-up. We assessed the intervention using daily self-monitoring of number of hair-pulling episodes, number of pulled hairs per episode, degree of resistance to pulling urges, and degree of associated distress. We also assessed for reliable improvement in general distress from baseline to post-intervention. All participants completed treatment and showed improvements on those symptom measures that were most relevant to their individualized case conceptualization. However, no participants recovered completely or demonstrated reliable improvement in general distress. Our results provide initial evidence for the utility of the ComB treatment for TTM in an Italian clinical setting. Furthermore, they support the delivery of individualized and flexible psychological treatments when treating TTM.
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 | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".