Incremental Validity of Cognitive-Behavioral Therapy and Acceptance and Commitment Therapy Mechanisms for Anxiety and Panic Symptomology.

IF 0.6 4区 心理学 Q4 PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL Journal of Cognitive Psychotherapy Pub Date : 2023-02-01 DOI:10.1891/JCPSY-D-20-00056
Joshua J Broman-Fulks, John J Bergquist, Christian A Hall, Kelsey Thomas, Kerry C Kelso
{"title":"Incremental Validity of Cognitive-Behavioral Therapy and Acceptance and Commitment Therapy Mechanisms for Anxiety and Panic Symptomology.","authors":"Joshua J Broman-Fulks,&nbsp;John J Bergquist,&nbsp;Christian A Hall,&nbsp;Kelsey Thomas,&nbsp;Kerry C Kelso","doi":"10.1891/JCPSY-D-20-00056","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Background:</b> acceptance and commitment therapy (ACT) and cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) are empirically supported treatments for anxiety and panic disorder (PD), though they differ in their putative vulnerability and maintenance processes. The present study examined the incremental validity of several of these models' proposed core processes, including anxiety sensitivity (AS), dispositional avoidance, experiential avoidance (EA), cognitive fusion (CF), and mindfulness, as well as the interaction of the processes within each model, in the prediction of anxiety and panic symptomology. <b>Methods:</b> a sample of US adults (<i>n</i> = 316) completed self-report measures of AS, dispositional avoidance, EA, CF, mindfulness, anxiety, and PD symptoms. A series of hierarchical multiple regression analyses were conducted. <b>Results:</b> hierarchical regression analyses indicated that AS, dispositional avoidance, and EA predicted anxiety and panic symptoms even after controlling for one another, CF, mindfulness, and demographic variables. Although mindfulness and CF was correlated with anxiety and panic at the univariate level, they did not predict either outcome above and beyond AS, dispositional avoidance, and EA. When interaction terms were added to the models, the interaction between AS and -dispositional avoidance was a significant predictor of panic and anxiety symptoms, whereas the interaction between EA and CF only predicted panic symptoms. None of the interactions that included mindfulness were significant predictors. <b>Conclusions:</b> these findings provide support the independent and interactive predictive value of traditional CBT (AS, dispositional avoidance, and AS-dispositional avoidance) and ACT (EA) processes for anxiety and panic symptoms, but raise questions about the incremental predictive utility of CF and mindfulness.</p>","PeriodicalId":47207,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Cognitive Psychotherapy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.6000,"publicationDate":"2023-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Cognitive Psychotherapy","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1891/JCPSY-D-20-00056","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: acceptance and commitment therapy (ACT) and cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) are empirically supported treatments for anxiety and panic disorder (PD), though they differ in their putative vulnerability and maintenance processes. The present study examined the incremental validity of several of these models' proposed core processes, including anxiety sensitivity (AS), dispositional avoidance, experiential avoidance (EA), cognitive fusion (CF), and mindfulness, as well as the interaction of the processes within each model, in the prediction of anxiety and panic symptomology. Methods: a sample of US adults (n = 316) completed self-report measures of AS, dispositional avoidance, EA, CF, mindfulness, anxiety, and PD symptoms. A series of hierarchical multiple regression analyses were conducted. Results: hierarchical regression analyses indicated that AS, dispositional avoidance, and EA predicted anxiety and panic symptoms even after controlling for one another, CF, mindfulness, and demographic variables. Although mindfulness and CF was correlated with anxiety and panic at the univariate level, they did not predict either outcome above and beyond AS, dispositional avoidance, and EA. When interaction terms were added to the models, the interaction between AS and -dispositional avoidance was a significant predictor of panic and anxiety symptoms, whereas the interaction between EA and CF only predicted panic symptoms. None of the interactions that included mindfulness were significant predictors. Conclusions: these findings provide support the independent and interactive predictive value of traditional CBT (AS, dispositional avoidance, and AS-dispositional avoidance) and ACT (EA) processes for anxiety and panic symptoms, but raise questions about the incremental predictive utility of CF and mindfulness.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
认知行为疗法和接受承诺治疗机制对焦虑和恐慌症状的增量有效性。
背景:接受与承诺疗法(ACT)和认知行为疗法(CBT)是经验支持的治疗焦虑和恐慌障碍(PD)的方法,尽管它们在假定的脆弱性和维持过程上有所不同。本研究检验了这些模型提出的几个核心过程的增量有效性,包括焦虑敏感性(AS),处置回避,经验回避(EA),认知融合(CF)和正念,以及每个模型中过程的相互作用,在预测焦虑和恐慌症状方面。方法:美国成人样本(n = 316)完成AS、处置回避、EA、CF、正念、焦虑和PD症状的自我报告测量。进行了一系列层次多元回归分析。结果:层次回归分析表明,即使在控制了彼此、CF、正念和人口变量之后,AS、禀性回避和EA也能预测焦虑和恐慌症状。虽然正念和CF在单变量水平上与焦虑和恐慌相关,但它们不能预测AS、性格回避和EA之外的任何结果。当模型中加入相互作用项时,AS和性格回避之间的相互作用是恐慌和焦虑症状的显著预测因子,而EA和CF之间的相互作用仅预测恐慌症状。包括正念在内的所有互动都不是显著的预测因素。结论:这些研究结果支持传统CBT (AS、处置回避和AS-处置回避)和ACT (EA)过程对焦虑和恐慌症状的独立和交互预测价值,但对CF和正念的增量预测效用提出了质疑。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Cognitive Psychotherapy
Journal of Cognitive Psychotherapy PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL-
CiteScore
1.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
47
期刊介绍: The Journal of Cognitive Psychotherapy is devoted to advancing the science and clinical practice of cognitive-behavior therapy. This includes a range of interventions including cognitive therapy, rational-emotive behavior therapy, dialectical behavior therapy, acceptance and commitment therapy, and mindfulness approaches. The journal publishes empirical papers, including case studies, along with review articles, papers that integrate cognitive-behavior therapy with other systems, and practical "how to" articles.
期刊最新文献
Comparing the Incremental Predictive Validity of Self-as-Context-Related Measures. Less Might Not Be More, but May Be Enough for Some. The Measurement of Reactions to Face Masks and the Relation to Social Anxiety. Further Examining Positive Affect in Relation to Worry: A Synergistic Effect Between Positive Affect Expressivity and Proneness to Positive Affect. The Role of Self-Compassion and Social Anxiety in the Relationship Between Cognitive Distortions and Emotional Eating.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1