Journal of behavior therapy and experimental psychiatry · 2025
Repetitive negative thinking in OCD: Evaluation of novel scenarios for cognitive bias modification training.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Bowles Chloe, White Rachel, Hirsch Colette R, Wahl Karina
Аннотация
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Evidence suggests that repetitive negative thinking (RNT) is underpinned by interpretation bias which is heightened among individuals with OCD. Cognitive bias modification for interpretation training (CBM-I) may reduce RNT by modifying interpretation bias which could reduce OCD symptoms. This study evaluated novel scenarios in terms of appropriateness and validity for use in a future CBM-I study targeting OCD-related RNT. This included analysis of the associations between interpretation bias and OCD symptoms, RNT, and OCD-specific rumination, respectively.
METHODS: Forty-four novel CBM-I scenarios targeting RNT in OCD were developed based on clinical expertise and interviews of people with lived experience. A general population sample (N = 167) completed the missing word at the end of each scenario to resolve ambiguity. This provided a measure of interpretation bias, and item-level data on the materials' ability to assess negative and benign interpretations. Participants also completed measures of OCD symptoms, general RNT and OCD-specific rumination.
RESULTS: Most scenarios displayed strong item discrimination coefficients, and well-balanced valence of interpretation responses, with minimal improvements required for future use. Interpretation bias was moderately positively correlated with OCD symptoms, RNT, and OCD-specific rumination, indicating good criterion validity.
LIMITATIONS: The order of CBM-I scenarios was not randomised which may have led to order effects, and some participants failed to adhere to instructions causing missing data.
CONCLUSIONS: The evaluation of the CBM-I scenarios yielded encouraging results for their use in a future CBM-I single session study. This may lead the way for future interventions for OCD-related RNT.
METHODS: Forty-four novel CBM-I scenarios targeting RNT in OCD were developed based on clinical expertise and interviews of people with lived experience. A general population sample (N = 167) completed the missing word at the end of each scenario to resolve ambiguity. This provided a measure of interpretation bias, and item-level data on the materials' ability to assess negative and benign interpretations. Participants also completed measures of OCD symptoms, general RNT and OCD-specific rumination.
RESULTS: Most scenarios displayed strong item discrimination coefficients, and well-balanced valence of interpretation responses, with minimal improvements required for future use. Interpretation bias was moderately positively correlated with OCD symptoms, RNT, and OCD-specific rumination, indicating good criterion validity.
LIMITATIONS: The order of CBM-I scenarios was not randomised which may have led to order effects, and some participants failed to adhere to instructions causing missing data.
CONCLUSIONS: The evaluation of the CBM-I scenarios yielded encouraging results for their use in a future CBM-I single session study. This may lead the way for future interventions for OCD-related RNT.