Abstract
The present qualitative and quantitative review examines the efficacy of CBT versus non-CBT treatments for anxiety disorders and suggests that a prior failure (Baardseth et al., 2013, p. 395) to detect differences in outcome can easily be attributed to excessive error variance in the analysis, essentially burying the “signal” under “noise.” Several sources of error variance are identified, including type of comparison therapy, diagnosis, what outcome is being measured, and study quality. It is suggested that the “signal” of CBT versus other psychotherapies can easily be seen or not seen, depending on what one chooses to analyze. Recommendations are made for further study about the relative efficacy of different psychological treatments.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
