CBM research needs more power: Commentary on the special issue on cognitive bias modification

Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry

Volumn 57, Issue , 2017, Pages 215-

  Rinck, Mike ^a  

^a RADBOUD UNIVERSITY NIJMEGEN   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Cognitive bias modification; Effect size; Statistical power

Indexed keywords

COGNITIVE BIAS; LETTER; MENTAL HEALTH RESEARCH; PUBLISHING; COGNITIVE BEHAVIORAL THERAPY; HUMAN; MEDICAL RESEARCH; METHODOLOGY; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; STANDARDS; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS;

BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH; COGNITIVE BEHAVIORAL THERAPY; DATA INTERPRETATION, STATISTICAL; HUMANS; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT (HEALTH CARE); RESEARCH DESIGN;

EID: 84960510150     PISSN: 00057916     EISSN: 18737943     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.jbtep.2016.03.001     Document Type: Letter

References (5)

1. Button, K.S., Ioannidis, J.P.A., Mokrysz, C., Nosek, B.A., Flint, J., Robinson, E.S.J., et al. Power failure: why small sample size undermines the reliability of neuroscience. Nature Reviews: Neuroscience 14 (2013), 365–376.
2. Cohen, J., Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. 1988, Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ.
3. Cristea, I.A., Kok, R.N., Cuijpers, P., Efficacy of cognitive bias modification interventions in anxiety and depression: meta-analysis. The British Journal of Psychiatry 206 (2015), 7–16.
4. Ioannidis, J.P.A., Contradicted and initially stronger effects in highly cited clinical research. Journal of the American Medical Association 294 (2005), 218–228.
5. Steinman, S.A., Teachman, B.A., Training less threatening interpretations over the Internet: does the number of missing letters matter?. Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry 49 (2015), 53–60.