Change during cognitive and exposure phases of cognitive–behavioral therapy for autistic youth with anxiety disorders.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate improvement during the (a) cognitive and (b) exposure therapy phases of cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) for autistic youth with anxiety disorders. METHOD: Participants were 148 autistic youth (aged 7-13; 77% male; 64% White) with clinically significant anxiety who were randomized to standard or adapted CBT. Clinician-rated anxiety severity was recorded at each appointment. Trajectories of change during (a) the cognitive phase and (b) the exposure phase of treatment were analyzed using piecewise multilevel modeling. RESULTS: Compared to the psychoeducation and cognitive therapy phases, the exposure phase corresponded with significantly more rapid symptom reduction, b = -.11, 95% CI [-.13, -.071]. This finding was true for standard CBT, which included nine sessions prior to exposure initiation (on average), as well as for CBT personalized for autistic youth, which introduced exposure following the fifth session (on average). In contrast, compared with improvements during initial psychoeducation sessions, the introduction of cognitive skills corresponded with significantly slower symptom reduction, b = .066, 95% CI [.020, .11]. This finding was also true for both adapted and standard CBT. CONCLUSIONS: Results underscore the central role of exposure in the treatment of anxiety among autistic youth and question the utility of cognitive strategies without subsequent practice of these skills during exposure. Assuming a working relationship, therapists should consider moving through the preexposure coping phase of CBT quickly. Future research should evaluate the extent to which exposure can maintain its potency while minimizing coping skill preparation. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".