Good Nieves (airbuspeen67)

Objective Hostility is a transdiagnostic phenomenon that can have a profound negative impact on interpersonal functioning and psychopathological severity. Evidence suggests that cognitive bias modification for interpretation bias (CBM-I) potentially reduces hostility. However, stringent efficacy studies in people with clinical levels of hostility are currently lacking. Method The present study investigated the effects of CBM-I in two studies one feasibility study (Study 1) in a mixed clinical-community sample of men (N = 29), and one randomized clinical study (Study 2) in a mixed-gender sample with clinical levels of hostility (N = 135), pre-registered at https//osf.io/r46jn. We expected that CBM-I would relate to a larger increase in benign interpretation bias and larger reductions in hostile interpretation bias, hostility symptoms and traits, and general psychiatric symptoms at post-intervention compared to an active control (AC) condition. We also explored the beneficial carry-over effects of CBM-I on working alliance in subsequent psychotherapy 5 weeks after finishing CBM-I (n = 17). Results Results showed that CBM-I increased benign interpretation bias in both studies and partially reduced hostile interpretation bias in Study 2, but not in Study 1. Findings of Study 2 also showed greater reductions in behavioral (but not self-reported) aggression in CBM-I relative to control, but no condition differences were found in self-report hostility measures and general psychiatric symptoms. Conclusions Overall, we found modest support for CBM-I as an intervention for hostility, with some evidence of its efficacy for hostile interpretation bias and aggression. We discuss study limitations as well as directions for future research. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved).Objective Psychotherapy for depression is effective for many veterans, but the relationship between number of treatment sessions and symptom outcomes is not well established. The Dose-Effect model predicts that greater psychotherapeutic dose (total sessions) yields greater symptom improvement with each additional session resulting in smaller session-to-session improvement. In contrast, the Good-Enough Level (GEL) model predicts that rate of symptom improvement varies by total psychotherapeutic dose with faster improvement associated with earlier termination. This study compared the dose-effect and GEL model among veterans receiving psychotherapy for depression within the Veterans Health Administration. Method The sample included 13,647 veterans with ≥2 sessions of psychotherapy for depression with associated Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) scores in primary care (n = 7,502) and specialty mental health clinics (n = 6,145) between October 2014 and September 2018. Multilevel longitudinal modeling was used to compare the Dose-Effect and GEL models within each clinic type. Results The GEL model demonstrated greater fit for both clinic types relative to dose-effect models. In both treatment settings, veterans with fewer sessions improved faster than those with more sessions. In primary care clinics, veterans who received 4-8 total sessions achieved similar levels of symptom response. In specialty mental health clinics, increased psychotherapeutic dose was associated with greater treatment response up to 16 sessions. Veterans receiving 20 sessions demonstrated minimal treatment response. Conclusions These findings support the GEL model and suggest a flexible approach to determining length of psychotherapy for depression may be useful for optimizing treatment response and allocation of clinical resources. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved).Increased predictability effects in older compared to younger adults have been mostly observed in late eye-movement measures during reading. However, it is unclear whether and how these effects may be related to verbal ability, which typically improves with age. Past studies have sho