Cognitive Behavioral Art Therapy in Treating Adolescent Generalized Anxiety Disorder: A Narrative Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As Generalized Anxiety Disorder (GAD) continues to become a prevalent psychological disorder that creates profound impacts on adolescents, concerns regarding substantial variances in cognitive development between adults and adolescents have been raised. Due to such differences, current research suggests that the effectiveness of current GAD treatments has been less effective for adolescents. Thus, new therapeutic methods are emerging. This narrative review addresses and synthesizes existing theoretical frameworks and research for one newly developed therapeutic method - Cognitive Behavioral Art Therapy (CBAT). This narrative review is conducted through search engines and databases of Google Scholar, JSTOR, and ProQuest. Results indicated that CBAT holds high theoretical potential and although active researchers in this field have only conducted 3 clinical trials, all trials demonstrated positive results in addressing adolescent GAD. This paper further discusses the theoretical analysis, implementation, and limitations of CBAT. Overall, although CBAT is potentially highly beneficial to adolescent GAD, research done on this therapeutic method is still very limited, and future studies and clinical trials should be done to further explore its effectiveness on adolescent GAD.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".