Reviewbronze2014

Clinical Efficacy of Attentional Bias Modification Procedures: An Updated Meta-Analysis

Cristina Mogoaşe · Daniel Ovidiu David · Ernst H. W. Koster

347 citations0/0 files storedJournal of Clinical Psychology

No readable copy stored yet — this record is metadata only.

No open-access location is known for this record yet.

Literature note Cite in a project Citation map

Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes Psychotherapy Techniques and Applications Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies

Abstract

CONTEXT: Attentional bias modification (ABM) treatment is a promising intervention tool for a variety of clinical conditions. OBJECTIVES: This study provides an updated review of the clinical effect of ABM by employing standard meta-analytic procedures to (a) estimate the average effect size of ABM in reducing both attention bias (AB) and symptoms, (b) estimate the average effect size for different conditions (e.g., anxiety, depression, and substance abuse), (c) test possible variables that may moderate the effect sizes, and (d) investigate the relationship between preexistent AB and the reduction in AB and symptoms. METHOD: We included 43 controlled trials with a total of 2,268 participants providing 47 group comparisons (i.e., training vs. control condition). Inclusion criteria were as follows: AB was specifically targeted to reduce symptomatology and emotional vulnerability; participants were randomized to the experimental conditions; a control condition (defined as sham training) existed; symptoms were assessed at least postintervention; sufficient data were provided to allow effect size estimation. RESULTS: We obtained a small overall effect size on symptoms postintervention, g = 0.160, 95% confidence interval (CI) = [0.055, 0.265], driven by anxiety studies, g = 0.260, 95% CI = [0.132, 0.388], and studies conducted in healthy participants, g = 0.211, 95% CI = [0.046, 0.375]; no significant effect sizes were found postintervention for other symptom categories. CONCLUSION: The therapeutic benefit of ABM is rather small for anxiety, while the amount of data for other symptom categories is limited. We argue that more efficient, psychometrically sound procedures are needed for assessing and modifying AB.

Paper brief

Loading…

Cite this work

Citation unavailable for this work.

BibTeX RIS CSL-JSON

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Citations in this library

Citation map →

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 347 citations exist upstream.

References

2009Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement 2009Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement 1983The Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale 2009Introduction to Meta‐Analysis 2000Trim and Fill: A Simple Funnel‐Plot–Based Method of Testing and Adjusting for Publication Bias in Meta‐Analysis 1986Statistical Methods for Meta-Analysis.1991Meta-Analytic Procedures for Social Research 2007Threat-related attentional bias in anxious and nonanxious individuals: A meta-analytic study.

Cited by

2017Cognitive bias modification: A review of meta-analyses 2015The Attentional Bias Modification Approach to Anxiety Intervention 2016Anxiety and attention to threat: Cognitive mechanisms and treatment with attention bias modification 2015Attention bias modification for social anxiety: A systematic review and meta-analysis 2015Positive Imagery-Based Cognitive Bias Modification as a Web-Based Treatment Tool for Depressed Adults

Explore the map →

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.

Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.