Efficacy of Interpretation Bias Modification in Depressed Adolescents and Young Adults

This study evaluated the efficacy of a four-session Cognitive Bias Modification-Interpretation program for 45 depressed adolescents and young adults (14–21 years old; 12 males, 33 females; Beck Depressive Inventory, Second Edition ≥14) randomized to an active intervention condition (repeated exposur...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Cognitive therapy and research 2014-04, Vol.38 (2), p.89-102
Main Authors: Micco, Jamie A., Henin, Aude, Hirshfeld-Becker, Dina R.
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Ambiguity
Anxiety disorders
Behavior modification
Bias
Clinical Psychology
Cognitive Psychology
Intervention
Medicine
Medicine & Public Health
Mental depression
Original Article
Quality of Life Research
Self report
Social anxiety
Teenagers
Young adults
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:This study evaluated the efficacy of a four-session Cognitive Bias Modification-Interpretation program for 45 depressed adolescents and young adults (14–21 years old; 12 males, 33 females; Beck Depressive Inventory, Second Edition ≥14) randomized to an active intervention condition (repeated exposure to positive outcomes of depression-relevant ambiguous scenarios; n = 23) or a control condition (n = 22). Both conditions experienced reductions on a Test of Interpretation Bias at post-treatment, with no significant between-group differences. When limited to those with negative bias at baseline, the intervention group showed greater improvement in interpretation bias at mid- and post-treatment. In addition, the intervention group overall had greater improvements in self-reported negative cognitions than the control group at post-intervention and two-week follow-up. However, there were no differences between groups in depression or anxiety symptom change. Potential factors contributing to mixed findings are discussed.
ISSN:0147-5916
1573-2819
DOI:10.1007/s10608-013-9578-4