Centrality indices are a popular tool to analyze structural aspects of psychological networks. As centrality indices were originally developed in the context of social networks, it is unclear to what extent these indices are suitable in a psychological network context. In this paper we critically examine several issues with the use of the most popular centrality indices in psychological networks: degree, betweenness, and closeness centrality. We show that problems with centrality indices discussed in the social network literature also apply to the psychological networks. Assumptions underlying centrality indices, such as presence of a flow and shortest paths, may not correspond with a general theory of how psychological variables relate to one another. Furthermore, the assumptions of node distinctiveness and node exchangeability may not hold in psychological networks. We conclude that, for psychological networks, betweenness and closeness centrality seem especially unsuitable as measures of node importance. We therefore suggest three ways forward: (1) using centrality measures that are tailored to the psychological network context, (2) reconsidering existing measures of importance used in statistical models underlying psychological networks, and (3) discarding the concept of node centrality entirely. Foremost, we argue that one has to make explicit what one means when one states that a node is central, and what assumptions the centrality measure of choice entails, to make sure that there is a match between the process under study and the centrality measure that is used.

OBJECTIVEDepression is a common comorbidity of diabetes, undesirably affecting patients' physical and mental functioning. Psychological interventions are effective treatments for depression in the general population as well as in patients with a chronic disease. The aim of this study was to assess the efficacy of individual mindfulnessbased cognitive therapy (MBCT) and individual cognitive behavior therapy (CBT) in comparison with a waiting-list control condition for treating depressive symptoms in adults with type 1 or type 2 diabetes. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODSIn this randomized controlled trial, 94 outpatients with diabetes and comorbid depressive symptoms (i.e., Beck Depression Inventory-II [BDI-II] ‡14) were randomized to MBCT (n = 31), CBT (n = 32), or waiting list (n = 31). All participants completed written questionnaires and interviews at pre-and postmeasurement (3 months later). Primary outcome measure was severity of depressive symptoms (BDI-II and Toronto Hamilton Depression Rating Scale). Anxiety (Generalized Anxiety Disorder 7), well-being (Well-Being Index), diabetes-related distress (Problem Areas In Diabetes), and HbA 1c levels were assessed as secondary outcomes. RESULTSResults showed that participants receiving MBCT and CBT reported significantly greater reductions in depressive symptoms compared with patients in the waitinglist control condition (respectively, P = 0.004 and P < 0.001; d = 0.80 and 1.00; clinically relevant improvement 26% and 29% vs. 4%). Both interventions also had significant positive effects on anxiety, well-being, and diabetes-related distress. No significant effect was found on HbA 1c values. CONCLUSIONSBoth individual MBCT and CBT are effective in improving a range of psychological symptoms in individuals with type 1 and type 2 diabetes.

No abstract