Nicole B Gumport1, Joseph J Williams2, Allison G Harvey3. 1. Department of Psychology, University of California, Berkeley, 3210 Tolman Hall #1650, Berkeley, CA, 94720-1650, USA. Electronic address: ngumport@berkeley.edu. 2. Graduate School of Education, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, 94305, USA. Electronic address: josephjaywilliams@stanford.edu. 3. Department of Psychology, University of California, Berkeley, 3210 Tolman Hall #1650, Berkeley, CA, 94720-1650, USA. Electronic address: aharvey@berkeley.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Progress toward establishing treatments for mental disorders has been good, particularly for cognitive behavior therapy (CBT). However, there is considerable room for improvement. The goal of this study was to begin the process of investigating the potential for improving treatment outcome via improving our understanding of learning processes. METHODS: Individuals diagnosed with major depressive disorder (N = 20) participated in three computer-delivered CBT lessons for depression. Indices of learning were taken after each lesson, during three phone calls over the week following the lesson, and one week later. These were: (a) whether the participant thought about the lesson, (b) whether the participant applied the lesson, and (c) whether the participant generalized the lesson. Based on a predetermined list of therapy points (i.e., distinct ideas and principles), all participant responses were coded for the number of therapy points they thought about, applied, or generalized following each lesson. RESULTS: Less than half of the thoughts and applications were accurate. Generalization, but not thoughts nor application, was associated with improved depression scores one week later. LIMITATIONS: The follow up period was only one week later and there was no comparison group so we cannot speak to the long term outcome of these measures or generalize to other mental disorders. CONCLUSIONS: These results point to the importance of improving transfer of learning in CBT and represent a promising first step toward the development of methods to study and optimize learning of CBT so as to improve patient outcomes.
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Progress toward establishing treatments for mental disorders has been good, particularly for cognitive behavior therapy (CBT). However, there is considerable room for improvement. The goal of this study was to begin the process of investigating the potential for improving treatment outcome via improving our understanding of learning processes. METHODS: Individuals diagnosed with major depressive disorder (N = 20) participated in three computer-delivered CBT lessons for depression. Indices of learning were taken after each lesson, during three phone calls over the week following the lesson, and one week later. These were: (a) whether the participant thought about the lesson, (b) whether the participant applied the lesson, and (c) whether the participant generalized the lesson. Based on a predetermined list of therapy points (i.e., distinct ideas and principles), all participant responses were coded for the number of therapy points they thought about, applied, or generalized following each lesson. RESULTS: Less than half of the thoughts and applications were accurate. Generalization, but not thoughts nor application, was associated with improved depression scores one week later. LIMITATIONS: The follow up period was only one week later and there was no comparison group so we cannot speak to the long term outcome of these measures or generalize to other mental disorders. CONCLUSIONS: These results point to the importance of improving transfer of learning in CBT and represent a promising first step toward the development of methods to study and optimize learning of CBT so as to improve patient outcomes.
Authors: J B Williams; M Gibbon; M B First; R L Spitzer; M Davies; J Borus; M J Howes; J Kane; H G Pope; B Rounsaville Journal: Arch Gen Psychiatry Date: 1992-08
Authors: D A Solomon; M B Keller; A C Leon; T I Mueller; P W Lavori; M T Shea; W Coryell; M Warshaw; C Turvey; J D Maser; J Endicott Journal: Am J Psychiatry Date: 2000-02 Impact factor: 18.112
Authors: L L Judd; M J Paulus; P J Schettler; H S Akiskal; J Endicott; A C Leon; J D Maser; T Mueller; D A Solomon; M B Keller Journal: Am J Psychiatry Date: 2000-09 Impact factor: 18.112
Authors: Anna N A Tosteson; Margaret R Grove; Cristina S Hammond; Megan M Moncur; G Thomas Ray; Gwen M Hebert; Alice R Pressman; Bruce Ettinger Journal: Am J Med Date: 2003-08-15 Impact factor: 4.965
Authors: Allison G Harvey; Jason Lee; Rita L Smith; Nicole B Gumport; Steven D Hollon; Sophia Rabe-Hesketh; Kerrie Hein; Michael R Dolsen; Kirsten L Haman; Jennifer C Kanady; Monique A Thompson; Deidre Abrons Journal: Behav Res Ther Date: 2016-04-02
Authors: Allison G Harvey; Lu Dong; Jason Y Lee; Nicole B Gumport; Steven D Hollon; Sophia Rabe-Hesketh; Kerrie Hein; Kirsten Haman; Mary E McNamara; Claire Weaver; Armando Martinez; Haruka Notsu; Garret Zieve; Courtney C Armstrong Journal: Trials Date: 2017-11-14 Impact factor: 2.279
Authors: Colleen Stiles-Shields; Enid Montague; Emily G Lattie; Stephen M Schueller; Mary J Kwasny; David C Mohr Journal: JMIR Hum Factors Date: 2017-08-11
Authors: Matilda Berg; Alexander Rozental; Josefine de Brun Mangs; Maja Näsman; Karin Strömberg; Linn Viberg; Erik Wallner; Hanna Åhman; Kristin Silfvernagel; Maria Zetterqvist; Naira Topooco; Andrea Capusan; Gerhard Andersson Journal: Front Psychiatry Date: 2020-06-10 Impact factor: 4.157
Authors: Matilda Berg; Alexander Rozental; Sofie Johansson; Lina Liljethörn; Ella Radvogin; Naira Topooco; Gerhard Andersson Journal: Internet Interv Date: 2018-11-02