View in EDS

Questioning the Distinction Between Active Elements and Mechanisms: Evidence From a Reanalysis in Cognitive Behavioral Therapy of Depression.

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Questioning the Distinction Between Active Elements and Mechanisms: Evidence From a Reanalysis in Cognitive Behavioral Therapy of Depression.
Authors: Ezawa, Iony D.1 (AUTHOR) ezawa@usc.edu, Strunk, Daniel R.2 (AUTHOR)
Source: Journal of Consulting & Clinical Psychology. Dec2025, Vol. 93 Issue 12, p829-834. 6p.
Subject Terms: *Cognitive therapy, *Mental depression, *Cognitive development, *Cognitive ability, *Evaluation methodology, Systems theory, Treatment effectiveness
Abstract: Objective: A new theoretical measurement framework for assessing active elements in cognitive behavioral therapies (CBT) emphasizes distinguishing various aspects of therapeutic components, and differentiating processes occurring within and between sessions. In this article, we apply the framework to data analyzed prior to its introduction. Method: In Study 1, a panel of CBT experts evaluated items from the Cognitive Change scales (immediate and sustained) to determine whether they assess CBT skills (active elements) or cognitive change (mechanisms). In Study 2, we applied the framework to data from 125 CBT clients undergoing treatment for depression. Using disaggregated within- and between-patient components, we tested mediation models using framework-informed scores. Results: In Study 1, experts achieved high interrater reliability and identified skill and cognitive change items using the framework. In Study 2, findings revealed that cognitive change mediated the relationship between skill use and symptom improvement. Results were similar using different subscales, consistent with the subscales being driven by a single underlying factor. Conclusions: Our results suggest that the pattern of findings was similar whether a distinction between skills and cognitive change was made or not. Considering previous factor analytic results and the present findings, we call into question whether the distinction between active elements and mechanisms is as essential or important as the framework suggests. What is the public health significance of this article?: This study challenges the separation of cognitive behavioral therapy skills and cognitive change, revealing that neither cognitive behavioral therapy professionals nor clients clearly distinguish these constructs. We encourage future research on measurement that is both informed by careful thinking and empirical support to advance our understanding of how cognitive behavioral therapy achieves its effects. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
Copyright of Journal of Consulting & Clinical Psychology is the property of American Psychological Association and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)
Database: Education Research Complete
Description
Abstract:Objective: A new theoretical measurement framework for assessing active elements in cognitive behavioral therapies (CBT) emphasizes distinguishing various aspects of therapeutic components, and differentiating processes occurring within and between sessions. In this article, we apply the framework to data analyzed prior to its introduction. Method: In Study 1, a panel of CBT experts evaluated items from the Cognitive Change scales (immediate and sustained) to determine whether they assess CBT skills (active elements) or cognitive change (mechanisms). In Study 2, we applied the framework to data from 125 CBT clients undergoing treatment for depression. Using disaggregated within- and between-patient components, we tested mediation models using framework-informed scores. Results: In Study 1, experts achieved high interrater reliability and identified skill and cognitive change items using the framework. In Study 2, findings revealed that cognitive change mediated the relationship between skill use and symptom improvement. Results were similar using different subscales, consistent with the subscales being driven by a single underlying factor. Conclusions: Our results suggest that the pattern of findings was similar whether a distinction between skills and cognitive change was made or not. Considering previous factor analytic results and the present findings, we call into question whether the distinction between active elements and mechanisms is as essential or important as the framework suggests. What is the public health significance of this article?: This study challenges the separation of cognitive behavioral therapy skills and cognitive change, revealing that neither cognitive behavioral therapy professionals nor clients clearly distinguish these constructs. We encourage future research on measurement that is both informed by careful thinking and empirical support to advance our understanding of how cognitive behavioral therapy achieves its effects. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
ISSN:0022006X
DOI:10.1037/ccp0000984