No abstract

ObjectiveRational emotive behavior therapy (REBT), introduced by Albert Ellis in the late 1950s, is one of the main pillars of cognitive‐behavioral therapy. Existing reviews on REBT are overdue by 10 years or more. We aimed to summarize the effectiveness and efficacy of REBT since its beginnings and investigate the alleged mechanisms of change.MethodSystematic search identified 84 articles, out of which 68 provided data for between‐group analyses and 39 for within‐group analyses.ResultsWe found a medium effect size of REBT compared to other interventions on outcomes (d = 0.58) and on irrational beliefs (d = 0.70), at posttest. For the within‐group analyses, we obtained medium effects for both outcomes (d = 0.56) and irrational beliefs (d = 0.61). Several significant moderators emerged.ConclusionREBT is a sound psychological intervention. Directions for future studies are outlined, stemming from the limitations of existing ones.

In a meta-analysis, Johnsen and Friborg (2015) reported a significant negative relationship between publication year and the effect sizes (ESs) of cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) for depressive disorders, suggesting its effectiveness was falling. We identified a series of methodological and conceptual caveats and consequently redid the meta-analysis. We used the same inclusion criteria, but only included randomized controlled trials and searched for additional eligible trials. We computed both within-group and between-group ESs for the CBT arm for the Beck Depression Inventory (BDI) and the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HRSD). We assessed risk of bias, sample size, type of control group, and the study's country of origin and conducted subgroup, single, and multiple meta-regression analyses including publication year and other moderators. We identified 30 additional eligible trials. Within-group ESs presented huge heterogeneity estimates (I 2 around 90%). Year of publication was significant in some single meta-regression analyses on the BDI, but not significant in others, in most analyses on the HRSD, and in any of the analyses on between-group ESs. Multiple regression models indicated that either year was not significantly related or that both year and country were significantly related to outcomes, with a temporal trend present solely in US studies. Year of publication does not appear to be a reliable and independent moderator of the effectiveness of CBT for depression. The linear "fall" reported by Johnsen and Friborg (2015) is most likely a spurious finding. Keywords: cognitive behavioral therapy, depression, year of publication, meta-analysis, moderatorSupplemental materials: http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/bul0000062.supp A recent meta-analysis (Johnsen & Friborg, 2015) sent ripples through the psychotherapy community, when its results suggested that the effects of cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) for depression seem to "have declined linearly and steadily since its introduction" (p. 747). The authors conducted a meta-analysis of trials of CBT for depression and used metaregression procedures to examine the relationship between the year of publication and the effect sizes (ESs) in the CBT intervention arm, examining outcomes on two widely used depression scales: the Beck Depression Inventory (BDI) and the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HRSD). Their results showed a significant decrease of the ESs over time for both the

Background and AimsInternet-based cognitive-behavioral therapy (iCBT) for social anxiety disorder has been found effective, as attested by independently conducted randomized controlled trials in four languages. The study aim is to test the efficacy of an iCBT program in a culture where it was not tested before (i.e. Romania).MethodsParticipants (n = 76) were recruited, screened and randomized to either a nine-week guided iCBT or a wait-list control group in April and May 2012. Self-report measures were collected before (April 2012) and after the intervention (July 2012), as well as six months later (January 2013). Although social anxiety was assessed with multiple measures, the Liebowitz Social Anxiety Scale - Self Report version (LSAS-SR) and Social Phobia Inventory (SPIN) were used as the primary outcome measures.ResultsA significant difference with a large between-group effect size in favor of iCBT was found (Cohen´s d = 1.19 for LSAS-SR and d = 1.27 for SPIN). Recovery rates show that 36.8% (n = 14) in the treatment group score below the SPIN clinical cut-off compared to only 2.6% (n = 1) in the wait-list control group. Post-intervention clinical interviews also revealed that 34.2% (n = 13) of the treatment group was completely recovered (full remission) while additionally 36.8% (n = 14) retained some social anxiety symptoms (partial remission). However, an important study limitation is that post-intervention interviewers were not blinded to the study conditions. The program also effectively reduced depression and dysfunctional thinking (between-group Cohen´s d = 0.84 for depression and d = 0.63 for dysfunctional thinking). Moreover, the iCBT intervention appears to have a long-term impact for participants’ functioning, as the treatment gains were maintained six months later.ConclusionsInternet-delivered interventions display a high potential to quickly and widely disseminate effective evidence-based programs around the world. This study provides support for guided iCBT as a promising treatment approach in Romania.Trial RegistrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT01557894