Cognitive-Behavioral Social Skills Training: Outcome of a Randomized Controlled Trial for Youth at Risk of Psychosis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aim: Difficulties in social functioning have been observed in youth at clinical high-risk (CHR) of psychosis even in those who do not go on to develop a psychotic illness. Few treatment studies have attempted to improve social functioning in this population. The aim of this study was to conduct a randomized trial comparing the effects of Cognitive-Behavioral Social Skills Training (CBSST) with a supportive therapy (ST). Methods: Both CBSST and ST were weekly group therapies, delivered over 18 weeks. This was a 2-arm trial with single-blinded ratings and intention-to-treat analyses. Assessments occurred at baseline, end-of-treatment, and 12 months after the baseline assessment. The primary outcome was social and role functioning and defeatist performance attitudes were the secondary outcome. Attenuated positive and negative symptoms, anxiety, depression, self-efficacy, and beliefs about self and others were examined as exploratory outcomes. Results: There were no significant differences between the 2 groups at baseline or either of the 2 follow-ups. However, at follow-ups, in each group there were significant improvements in clinical symptoms. These could not be attributed to group treatment since there was no control or wait-list group. Conclusions: Since poor social functioning is one of the most observed difficulties in CHR individuals, and a decline in social functioning may be a significant predictor of later transition to psychosis, future work will be needed to find effective treatments for this decline in functioning for CHR youth.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".