OBJECTIVE Web-based cognitive bias modification for interpretation (CBM-I) can improve interpretation biases and anxiety symptoms but faces high rates of dropout. This study tested the effectiveness of web-based CBM-I relative to an active psychoeducation condition and the addition of low-intensity telecoaching for a subset of CBM-I participants. METHOD 1,234 anxious community adults (Mage = 35.09 years, 81.2% female, 72.1% white, 82.6% not Hispanic) were randomly assigned at Stage 1 of a sequential, multiple-assignment randomized trial to complete five weekly sessions of CBM-I or psychoeducation on our team's public research website. After the first session, for Stage 2, an algorithm attempted to classify CBM-I participants as higher (vs. lower) risk for dropping out; those classified as higher risk were then randomly assigned to complete four brief weekly telecoaching check-ins (vs. no coaching). RESULTS As hypothesized (https://doi.org/j2xr; Daniel, Eberle, & Teachman, 2020), CBM-I significantly outperformed psychoeducation at improving positive and negative interpretation biases (Recognition Ratings, Brief Body Sensations Interpretation Questionnaire) and anxiety symptoms (Overall Anxiety Severity and Impairment Scale, Anxiety Scale from Depression Anxiety Stress Scales-Short Form), with smaller treatment gains remaining significant at 2-month follow-up. Unexpectedly, CBM-I had significantly worse treatment dropout outcomes than psychoeducation, and adding coaching (vs. no coaching) did not significantly improve efficacy or dropout outcomes (notably, many participants chose not to interact with their coach). CONCLUSIONS Web-based CBM-I appears effective, but supplemental coaching may not mitigate the challenge of dropout. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).

中文翻译：

---

基于网络的解释偏倚训练以减少焦虑：一项序贯、多分配随机试验。


目的 基于 Web 的认知偏倚解释修改 （CBM-I） 可以改善解释偏倚和焦虑症状，但面临高退出率。本研究测试了基于网络的 CBM-I 相对于主动心理教育条件的有效性，并为一部分 CBM-I 参与者增加了低强度远程教练。方法 1,234 名焦虑的社区成年人（Mage = 35.09 岁，81.2% 女性，72.1% 白人，82.6% 非西班牙裔）被随机分配到序贯、多分配随机试验的第 1 阶段，以完成每周五次的 CBM-I 或心理教育在我们团队的公共研究网站上。在第一次会议之后，对于第 2 阶段，一种算法试图将 CBM-I 参与者分类为较高（相对于较低）的退出风险;然后，那些被归类为高风险的人被随机分配完成每周四次简短的远程教练签到（与没有教练相比）。结果 假设 （https://doi.org/j2xr;Daniel， Eberle， & Teachman， 2020），CBM-I在改善积极和消极的解释偏见（认可评级，简短的身体感觉解释问卷）和焦虑症状（总体焦虑严重程度和损伤量表，来自抑郁焦虑压力量表的焦虑量表-简表）方面显著优于心理教育，在2个月的随访中，较小的治疗收益仍然显著。出乎意料的是，CBM-I 的治疗退出结局明显比心理教育差，并且增加辅导（与无辅导相比）并没有显着改善疗效或退出结局（值得注意的是，许多参与者选择不与他们的教练互动）。结论 基于 Web 的 CBM-I 似乎有效，但补充辅导可能无法缓解辍学的挑战。 （PsycInfo 数据库记录 （c） 2024 APA，保留所有权利）。