Adaptive actions as a mechanism of change in transdiagnostic internet-delivered cognitive behavioral therapy: Comparison with homework engagement
Bibliographic record
Abstract
= 625) received a transdiagnostic ICBT program in routine care. Outcomes included depression, generalized anxiety, posttraumatic stress, panic, social anxiety, insomnia, functional impairment, and wellbeing. Adaptive actions were assessed with the Things You Do Questionnaire-15 Item (TYDQ-15) and homework engagement with the Homework Reflection Questionnaire (HWRQ). TYDQ-15 scores improved from pre- to post-treatment and were maintained at follow-up. Although correlated, mid-treatment TYDQ-15 scores more consistently predicted outcomes than homework engagement and partially mediated changes across all assessed outcomes. Reciprocal analyses revealed bidirectional relationships between adaptive actions and anxiety and wellbeing, and partially bidirectional associations with depression. Overall, mid-treatment adaptive actions emerged as a stronger and more consistent mechanism of change than homework engagement across diverse outcomes. Findings underscore the importance of research on the benefits of encouraging adaptive actions early in treatment.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".