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：

---

基于网络的解释偏见培训以减少焦虑：一项序贯、多任务随机试验。


目的 基于网络的解释认知偏差修正（CBM-I）可以改善解释偏差和焦虑症状，但面临很高的辍学率。这项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，以及对 CBM-I 参与者子集添加低强度远程辅导的有效性。方法 1,234 名焦虑的社区成年人（法师 = 35.09 岁，81.2% 为女性，72.1% 为白人，82.6% 非西班牙裔）在一项连续、多分配随机试验的第一阶段被随机分配，以完成每周五次的 CBM-I 或心理教育课程在我们团队的公共研究网站上。第一次会议结束后，在第二阶段，算法尝试将 CBM-I 参与者分类为较高（相对较低）的退出风险；然后，那些被归类为较高风险的人被随机分配，每周完成四次简短的远程辅导检查（相对于没有辅导）。结果 正如假设的那样（https://doi.org/j2xr；Daniel、Eberle 和 Teachman，2020），CBM-I 在改善积极和消极解释偏差（识别评级、简短身体感觉解释问卷）和焦虑症状方面显着优于心理教育（总体焦虑严重程度和损害量表、抑郁焦虑量表、焦虑压力量表简表），较小的治疗效果在 2 个月的随访中仍然显着。出乎意料的是，CBM-I 的治疗退出结果明显比心理教育差，并且添加辅导（与不辅导相比）并没有显着提高疗效或退出结果（值得注意的是，许多参与者选择不与教练互动）。结论 基于网络的 CBM-I 似乎有效，但补充辅导可能无法减轻辍学的挑战。 （PsycInfo 数据库记录 (c) 2024 APA，保留所有权利）。