We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
To save content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected]
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
Clinical trials are typically designed to test the effect of a specific treatment on a single diagnostic entity. However, because common internalizing disorders are highly correlated (‘co-morbid’), we sought to establish a practical and parsimonious method to characterize and quantify changes in a broad spectrum of internalizing psychopathology targeted for treatment in a clinical trial contrasting two transdiagnostic psychosocial interventions.
Method
Alcohol dependence treatment patients who had any of several common internalizing disorders were randomized to a six-session cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) experimental treatment condition or a progressive muscle relaxation training (PMRT) comparison treatment condition. Internalizing psychopathology was characterized at baseline and 4 months following treatment in terms of the latent structure of six distinct internalizing symptom domain surveys.
Results
Exploratory structural equation modeling (ESEM) identified a two-factor solution at both baseline and the 4-month follow-up: Distress (measures of depression, trait anxiety and worry) and Fear (measures of panic anxiety, social anxiety and agoraphobia). Although confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) demonstrated measurement invariance between the time-points, structural models showed that the latent means of Fear and Distress decreased substantially from baseline to follow-up for both groups, with a small but statistically significant advantage for the CBT group in terms of Distress (but not Fear) reduction.
Conclusions
The approach demonstrated in this study provides a practical solution to modeling co-morbidity in a clinical trial and is consistent with converging evidence pointing to the dimensional structure of internalizing psychopathology.
Recommend this
Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this to your organisation's collection.