Skip to main content

Table 1 Baseline scores between groups: means and standard deviations reported unless stated otherwise

From: The influence of outcome expectancy on interpretation bias training in social anxiety: an experimental pilot study

 

Condition

CBM-I/E+ (n = 10)

CBM-I/E0 (n = 8)

Placebo/E+ (n = 11)

Placebo/E0 (n = 5)

P Value

ESa

Sociodemo-graphic variables

 Sex (% of females)

60%

75%

55%

80%

.687

.21

 Age (in years)

27.40 (8.21)

24.75 (3.96)

29.82 (7.61)

23.20 (4.15)

.241

.13

Pre-training measurements

 Social anxiety (SIAS t0)

49.50 (8.24)

53.88 (11.93)

51.09 (9.85)

57.40 (12.18)

.520

.07

Interpretation bias measures

 AST-R Neg. (t0)

20.20 (2.15)

19.38 (4.71)

19.45 (3.86)

19.40 (4.39)

.958

.01

 AST-R Pos. (t0)

14.40 (3.34)

15.38 (4.07)

13.64 (2.20)

14.60 (2.51)

.692

.05

 SST (t0)

65% (21%)

65% (34%)

63% (21%)

58% (23%)

.961

.01

  1. CBM-I Cognitive bias modification of interpretation, E+ Positive outcome expectation, E0 No outcome expectation, SIAS t0 Social Interaction Anxiety Scale [38] scores at pre-training assessment, AST-R Neg. (t0) Ambiguous scenarios recognition task [13] negative interpretation scores at pre-training assessment, AST-R Pos. (t0) Ambiguous scenarios recognition task [13] positive interpretation scores at pre-training assessment, SST (t0) Scrambled sentence task [37] at pre-training assessment, ES Effect size
  2. aFor the variable sex, a χ2 test was used and Cramer’s V was used to measure the effect size. For all other variables, a one-way ANOVA was used, and partial eta-squared was used to measure the effect size
Back to article page

Pilot and Feasibility Studies

ISSN: 2055-5784