Contents of It's not All in Your Head by Asmundson and Taylor

More documents

Recommendations

Info

The Beck Anxiety Inventory (BAI; Beck et al., 1988) is a 21-item questionnaire that mainly assesses the somatic symptoms of anxiety (e.g., nervousness, inability to relax, dizziness, light-headedness, and heart pounding etc.; Beck, Epstein, Brown & Steer, 2000). Items are rated on a 4-point Likert scale ranging from 0 (not at all) to 3 (I could barely stand it) based on how much the respondent has been bothered by symptoms in the past week. Total scores on the BAI range from 0 - 63. Cut off scores are as follows: normal or no anxiety (0 - 9); mild to moderate anxiety (10 - 18); moderate to severe anxiety (19 - 29); and severe anxiety (30 - 63). The BAI has excellent consistency reliability (� = .90 - .94), moderate to excellent test-retest reliability over 1 week (r = .67- .93), and good convergent validity (r > .75). The BAI was used by several participants in the study but the use of the measure was discontinued due to study costs. The Depression Anxiety Stress Scales 21 (DASS21; Lovibond & Lovibond, 1995) is a 21-item self-report measure of depression, anxiety, and stress factors that has been supported by confirmatory factor analysis (CFA; Crawford & Henry, 2003). It is a shortened version of the original 42-item DASS (Lovibond & Lovibond, 1995). A sample item is ―I found it difficult to relax‖. Items are scored on a 4-point Likert scale ranging from 0 (did not apply to me at all) to 3 (applied to me very much, or most of the time). An anxiety score is calculated by summing the anxiety subscale items and doubling the sum. The reliability of the DASS anxiety scale is excellent (α = .90; Crawford & Henry, 2003). Cut off scores are as follows: normal (0 - 7), mild (8 - 9), moderate (10 - 14), 37
severe (15 - 19), and extremely severe (20 or more). The DASS is in the public domain and the anxiety subscale has a strong correlation with the BAI (r = .81) which made it a good replacement for the BAI in this study. The Short Form 36 Health Survey (SF-36; Ware et al., 1993) is a 36-item, self- report measure of perceived health status. An example question is, ―How does your health now limit you in lifting or carrying groceries‖ (Ware, 2000, p. 128). It provides insight into the perceived behavioural functioning (limitations, bodily pain, physical activities, social activities, etc.) and psychological well being of clients (feeling stated, general mental health, pain, fatigue, etc). The SF-36 contains eight subscales including, Physical Functioning, Physical Role Functioning, Bodily Pain, General Health, Vitality (energy vs. fatigue), Social Functioning, Emotional Role Functioning, and Mental Health. The items are answered either yes or no or on Likert scales. Scores on each subscale range from 0 - 100 with higher scores indicating better health status. The subscales have moderate to excellent internal validity (� = .62 - .94) and moderate to excellent two-week test-retest reliability (r = .60 - .81). A Physical Component Summary (PCS) score and a Mental Component Summary (MCS) score can be calculated from the individual subscales. A low PCS suggests limitations in self-care, physical, social, and role activities, pain, fatigue, and poor health. A low score on the MCS suggests psychological distress, limitations in social and role activities, emotional problems, and poor general 38
Page 1 and 2: RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED FEASIBILITY T
Page 3 and 4: Abstract The purpose of this feasib
Page 5 and 6: Acknowledgement This research was f
Page 7 and 8: Table of Contents Abstract………
Page 9 and 10: 3.2.1. Content analysis…………
Page 11 and 12: List of figures Figure 1. The cogni
Page 13 and 14: Table C7. Comparison of WLC pre- an
Page 15 and 16: this study will inform a future, la
Page 17 and 18: Disorders Draft (APA, 2010) propose
Page 19 and 20: The cognitive symptoms of health an
Page 21 and 22: somatosensory amplification have a
Page 23 and 24: clients with health anxiety from cl
Page 25 and 26: Interview Schedule [Robins, Helzer,
Page 27 and 28: Today, effective clinically-support
Page 29 and 30: decreased disease conviction, witho
Page 31 and 32: identification and reattribution of
Page 33 and 34: within treatment sessions and as ho
Page 35 and 36: more efficacious than wait-list con
Page 37 and 38: participants‘ functioning. The CB
Page 39 and 40: at follow-up (e.g., Bouman, 2002, a
Page 41 and 42: et al., 2003). Self-help treatments
Page 43 and 44: 1.2. Statement of purpose The purpo
Page 45 and 46: an Internet format because it was m
Page 47 and 48: � Do you carry things to use in t
Page 49: dimensional scales: (a) affective s
Page 53 and 54: 86 indicate a poor alliance. The HA
Page 55 and 56: included depression symptoms, gener
Page 57 and 58: mailed Part 1, Part 2, and Part 3 o
Page 59 and 60: equests were honored. All randomize
Page 61 and 62: literature; therefore, we had reaso
Page 63 and 64: 3. RESULTS 3.1. Quantitative data a
Page 65 and 66: Table 2 Demographic statistics Mean
Page 67 and 68: Table 3 Comparison of SHB pre- and
Page 69 and 70: was no significant change (t = 1.28
Page 71 and 72: subscale (n = 5); T1 M = 16.80 (SD
Page 73 and 74: treatment participants would have o
Page 75 and 76: At T2 there were significant differ
Page 77 and 78: Table 7 SHB and WLC effect size and
Page 79 and 80: sample size or greater effect size
Page 81 and 82: 3.2.1. Content analysis 3.2. Qualit
Page 83 and 84: analysis resulted in the descriptio
Page 85 and 86: During the creating subcategories a
Page 87 and 88: coded the entire data set. There we
Page 89 and 90: anxiety. After ethical clearance wa
Page 91 and 92: SHB group symptoms when compared to
Page 93 and 94: pain, fatigue, and poor health, tha
Page 95 and 96: 3.4. Limitations The results of thi
Page 97 and 98: usy schedules, worry about reading
Page 99 and 100: attery of tests is not recommended
Page 101 and 102:
ecommended that the program is exte
Page 103 and 104:
4. REFERENCES American Psychiatric
Page 105 and 106:
Barsky, A. J., Geringer, E., & Wool
Page 107 and 108:
Coull, G, & Morris, P. G. (2011). T
Page 109 and 110:
Furer, P., Walker, J. R., & Freesto
Page 111 and 112:
Lidbeck, J. (1997). Group therapy f
Page 113 and 114:
Nguyen, T. D., Attkisson, C. C., &
Page 115 and 116:
Salkovskis, P. M., Rimes, K. A., Wa
Page 117 and 118:
Taylor, S., Thordarson, D. S., Jang
Page 119 and 120:
5. APPENDICIES Appendix A Contents
Page 121 and 122:
o Week 4 o Week 5 o Things to Remem
Page 123 and 124:
Appendix B SELF-HELP PROGRAM FOR HE
Page 125 and 126:
Table C2 Comparison of SHB complete
Page 127 and 128:
Table C4 Comparison of SHB and WLC
Page 129 and 130:
Table C6 Comparison of WLC pre- and
Page 131 and 132:
Appendix D Draft of unconstrained c
Page 133 and 134:
Questionnaires the questionnaires T
show all

Contents of It's not All in Your Head by Asmundson and Taylor

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?