Threat Interpretation Bias as Cognitive Marker and Treatment Target in Pediatric Anxiety

March 3, 2025 updated by: Michelle Rozenman, University of Denver
Anxiety is the most common mental health problem in children and adolescents. This two-phased study will test the effects of an experimental computerized intervention aimed at reducing threat-based thinking (i.e., interpretation bias) in anxious youth. Participants in both the R61 (N=46) and R33 (N=72) trials will be youth ages 10 to 17 with a primary anxiety disorder (Separation, Social, Generalized). In the R61 trial, youth will be randomly assigned to receive 16 sessions over 4 weeks of either a personalized cognitive bias modification program for interpretation bias (CBM-I) or a computerized control condition (ICC). If CBM-I reduces interpretation bias significantly more than the ICC, the R33 trial will commence. In the R33, youth will be randomly assigned to either CBM-I or an equal amount of time in a cognitive restructuring intervention, which also aims to reduce threat-based thinking in anxiety. Please note that only the R61 phase of the trial has been completed and currently this record summary only reflects the R61 phase.

Study Overview

Status

Status

Indicates the current recruitment status or the expanded access status.
Completed

Conditions

Conditions

The disease, disorder, syndrome, illness, or injury that is being studied. On ClinicalTrials.gov, conditions may also include other health-related issues, such as lifespan, quality of life, and health risks.

Intervention / Treatment

Intervention / Treatment

A process or action that is the focus of a clinical study. Interventions include drugs, medical devices, procedures, vaccines, and other products that are either investigational or already available. Interventions can also include noninvasive approaches, such as education or modifying diet and exercise.

Detailed Description

Anxiety is the most common mental health problem in youth, affecting one in four children and adolescents. Unfortunately, evidence-based treatments (pharmacotherapy, cognitive-behavioral therapy) are costly, not widely available, and ineffective for a substantial proportion of youth. In response, experts have called for novel treatments that directly target mechanisms underlying youth anxiety while simultaneously addressing barriers to care (i.e., cost, accessibility). One such promising mechanism is interpretation bias - the inaccurate interpretation of threat from ambiguity. The investigators have previously demonstrated that interpretation bias occurs in over 90% of anxious youth, is predictive of anxiety severity in clinical samples of youth, and differentiates between anxious and non-anxious youth. These data indicate that interpretation bias may be a ubiquitous phenomenon underlying anxiety expression in children and adolescents and therefore may be an ideal intervention target. Cognitive bias modification for interpretation bias (CBM-I) is a computerized intervention that attempts to reduce anxiety by directly modifying interpretation bias. CBM-I has demonstrated preliminary efficacy for reducing anxiety symptoms in adults. Yet extant CBM-I data in anxious youth are sparse, with little work addressing whether CBM-I significantly reduces interpretation bias, and whether this in turn reduces anxiety symptoms, as well as the dose necessary to reduce both bias and anxiety. This two-phased study tests personalized CBM-I in youth ages 10 to 17 who meet diagnostic criteria for a primary anxiety disorder (Separation, Social, Generalized). In the R61 Phase (N=46), a randomized clinical trial (RCT) examines whether CBM-I personalized to youth anxiety symptoms significantly reduces interpretation bias compared to a computerized interpretation control condition (ICC). The interpretation target will be measured at multiple time points (4, 8, 12, 16 sessions) to identify the optimal dose for reduction in interpretation bias. If the R61 trial results indicate that CBM-I outperforms ICC on interpretation bias reduction, the R33 phase will commence. In the R33 Phase, an RCT (N=72) will validate whether CBM-I significantly reduces interpretation bias, and conducts a mechanism test (i.e., does bias reduction precede and predict anxiety reduction?), by comparing CBM-I to cognitive restructuring, a clinically relevant psychosocial intervention that also targets anxious cognition. Please note that only the R61 phase of the trial has been completed and currently this record summary only reflects the R61 phase. If the R33 phase is funded, it will be registered as a separate NCT.

Study Type

Study Type

Describes the nature of a clinical study. Study types include interventional studies (also called clinical trials), observational studies (including patient registries), and expanded access.
Interventional

Enrollment (Actual)

Enrollment

The number of participants in a clinical study. The "anticipated" enrollment is the target number of participants that the researchers need for the study.
50

Phase

Phase

The stage of a clinical trial studying a drug or biological product, based on definitions developed by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The phase is based on the study's objective, the number of participants, and other characteristics. There are five phases: Early Phase 1 (formerly listed as Phase 0), Phase 1, Phase 2, Phase 3, and Phase 4. Not Applicable is used to describe trials without FDA-defined phases, including trials of devices or behavioral interventions.
  • Not Applicable

Contacts and Locations

This section provides the contact details for those conducting the study, and information on where this study is being conducted.

Study Contact

Study Contact

The name and contact information for the person who can answer enrollment questions for a clinical study. Each location where the study is being conducted may also have a specific contact, who may be better able to answer those questions.
  • Name: Anni R Subar, B.A.
  • Phone Number: 303-871-6448
  • Email: bravelab@du.edu

Study Locations

  • United States
    • Colorado
      • Denver, Colorado, United States, 80210
        • BRAVE Lab, Department of Psychology, University of Denver

Participation Criteria

Researchers look for people who fit a certain description, called eligibility criteria. Some examples of these criteria are a person's general health condition or prior treatments.

Eligibility Criteria

Eligibility Criteria

The key requirements that people who want to participate in a clinical study must meet or the characteristics they must have. Eligibility criteria consist of both inclusion criteria (which are required for a person to participate in the study) and exclusion criteria (which prevent a person from participating). Types of eligibility criteria include whether a study accepts healthy volunteers, has age or age group requirements, or is limited by sex.

Ages Eligible for Study

10 years to 17 years (Child)

Accepts Healthy Volunteers

No

Description

Inclusion Criteria:

  • youth aged 10 to 17
  • diagnosed at study baseline with a primary "big three" anxiety disorder (Separation, Social, Generalized)
  • standard score greater than or equal to 85 on the Wide Range Achievement Test - Word Reading Subtest (to ensure ability to read stimuli during interpretation bias assessment and CBM-I/ICC), and estimated IQ standard score of at least 80 on the Wechsler Abbreviated Scale of Intelligence
  • youth and consenting parent/legal guardian speak sufficient English to complete consent/assent and study procedures
  • no concurrent psychosocial services during study participation to reduce likelihood that other interventions are responsible for change in primary or secondary outcomes
  • no psychotropic medications with no plans to start medications during study, or six weeks stable on SSRI or psychostimulant medication and dose with no plans to change medication/dose during study

Exclusion Criteria:

  • severe anxiety indicting that youth requires higher level of care (e.g., intensive treatment such as psychiatric hospitalization), significant diagnostic comorbidity (e.g., presence of psychosis or significant mood disorder), or another primary diagnosis that warrants alternate intervention
  • significant uncorrected vision impairment (e.g., uncorrected blindness) that precludes participation in CBM-I/ICC
  • safety concerns due to recent or acute suicidality with plan, intent, and/or attempt that warrants alternate intervention

Study Plan

This section provides details of the study plan, including how the study is designed and what the study is measuring.

How is the study designed?

Design Details

  • Primary Purpose: Treatment
  • Allocation: Randomized
  • Interventional Model: Parallel Assignment
  • Masking: Double

Arms and Interventions

Participant Group / Arm

Participant Group / Arm

A group or subgroup of participants in a clinical trial that receives a specific intervention/treatment, or no intervention, according to the trial's protocol.
Intervention / Treatment

Intervention / Treatment

A process or action that is the focus of a clinical study. Interventions include drugs, medical devices, procedures, vaccines, and other products that are either investigational or already available. Interventions can also include noninvasive approaches, such as education or modifying diet and exercise.
Experimental: Cognitive Bias Modification for Interpretations (CBM-I)
Computerized 16-session intervention aimed at reducing interpretation bias. In this study, CBM-I is personalized to youth anxiety symptoms. During CBM-I sessions, youth indicate whether word-sentence pairs are related, and are provided with feedback aimed to reduce bias.
Other: Cognitive Bias Modification for Interpretations (CBM-I)
Computerized intervention in which youth see word-sentence pairs personalized to their anxiety symptoms, and indicate whether these are related. Youth receive feedback aimed to reduce interpretation bias.
Other Names:
  • Interpretation bias modification
  • Interpretation training
Placebo Comparator: Interpretation Control Condition (ICC)
Computerized 16-session intervention that is not believed to significantly modify bias. In this study, youth see stimuli personalized to their anxiety symptoms. During ICC sessions, youth see word-sentence pairs and are required to indicate whether word and sentence are related, but are not provided with feedback that aims to "train" a reduction in interpretation bias.
Other: Interpretation Control Condition (ICC)
Computerized control condition in which youth see word-sentence pairs personalized to their anxiety symptoms. Youth indicate whether these are related, but are not provided with feedback that aims to "train" a reduction in interpretation bias.

What is the study measuring?

Primary Outcome Measures

Primary Outcome Measures

In a clinical study's protocol, the planned outcome measure that is the most important for evaluating the effect of an intervention/treatment. Most clinical studies have one primary outcome measure, but some have more than one.
Outcome Measure
Measure Description
Time Frame
Change in Linguistic Interpretation Bias as Assessed by the Word-sentence Association Paradigm for Youth (WSAP-Y)
Time Frame: 6 weeks; post-intervention time point
The WSAP-Y is a computerized assessment of interpretation bias in which youth indicate whether word-sentence pairings are related. This measure provides information about the degree to which youth evidence interpretation bias, as well as a behavioral (reaction time) index for bias endorsement. For the primary outcome of percent threat interpretations endorsed, the possible range is 0 (zero) to 100%. Higher percentage indicates more threat interpretation bias (i.e., the youth endorsed a higher proportion of threat words as related to amiguous sentences); lower scores indicate lower threat interpretation bias. Greater decrease in the percent of threat interpretations endorsed and lower absolute scores indicate "better" outcome (i.e., more reduction in threat interpretation bias; less interpretation bias overall).
6 weeks; post-intervention time point
Change in Visual Interpretation Bias as Assessed by the Ambiguous Faces Task
Time Frame: 6 weeks; post-intervention time point
Youth view faces portraying neutral expressions or subtle emotional expressions (i.e., morphed faces ranging in intensity of emotional valence). Youth categorization of faces as neutral or threatening provides their sensitivity and bias for reporting presence of threat. The criterion mean value in outcomes below reflects a score from -1 to 1, with higher negative numbers reflecting greater bias toward angry faces, and higher positive values approaching one reflecting a bias toward happy faces. Theoretically, higher positive values indicate "better" outcome such that youth have more positive bias toward facial stimuli. H
6 weeks; post-intervention time point
Change in Self-reported Interpretation Bias as Measured by the Children's Automatic Thoughts Scale (CATS)
Time Frame: 6 weeks; post-intervention time point
The Children's Automatic Thoughts Scale is a youth self-report questionnaire which assesses presence and frequency of a variety of anxious thoughts from domains of: physical threat, social threat, personal failure, and anxious hostility. Total scores range from 0 to 160, with higher scores indicating more threat interpretation bias. Higher scores indicate "worse" outcome, or that youth self-report that they have more threatening thoughts and/or threatening thoughts at higher frequency; lower scores indicate "better" outcome or that youth self-report fewer threatening thoughts and/or threatening thoughts at lower frequency.
6 weeks; post-intervention time point

Secondary Outcome Measures

Secondary Outcome Measures

In a clinical study's protocol, a planned outcome measure that is not as important as the primary outcome measure for evaluating the effect of an intervention but is still of interest. Most clinical studies have more than one secondary outcome measure.
Outcome Measure
Measure Description
Time Frame
Number of Trainings Completed of 16 Intended Sessions
Time Frame: 6 weeks; post-intervention time point
This outcome is related to the "feasibility of CBM-I" aim. The number of CBM-I/ICC trainings completed of 16 intended sessions. Theoretically, completion of more training sessions is better and indicates that youth received a higher "dose" of training.
6 weeks; post-intervention time point
Participant/Parent Acceptability Questionnaire (PAQ)
Time Frame: 6 weeks
The Participant Acceptability Questionnaire is a 10-item youth and parent report questionnaire, accompanied by an exit interview, that assesses burden (travel, boredom), credibility of computerized intervention techniques, and youth comprehension of the intervention. Parents and youth completed the PAQ separately.
6 weeks

Collaborators and Investigators

This is where you will find people and organizations involved with this study.

Sponsor

Sponsor

The organization or person who initiates the study and who has authority and control over the study.
University of Denver

Collaborators

Collaborators

An organization other than the sponsor that provides support for a clinical study. This support may include activities related to funding, design, implementation, data analysis, or reporting.
National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH)
University of California, Los Angeles

Investigators

Investigators

A researcher involved in a clinical study. Related terms include site principal investigator, site sub-investigator, study chair, study director, and study principal investigator.
  • Principal Investigator: Michelle S Rozenman, Ph.D., University of Denver

Study record dates

These dates track the progress of study record and summary results submissions to ClinicalTrials.gov. Study records and reported results are reviewed by the National Library of Medicine (NLM) to make sure they meet specific quality control standards before being posted on the public website.

Study Major Dates

Study Start (Actual)

Study Start

The actual date on which the first participant was enrolled in a clinical study. The "anticipated" study start date is the date that the researchers think will be the study start date.
June 20, 2020

Primary Completion (Actual)

Primary Completion

The date on which the last participant in a clinical study was examined or received an intervention to collect final data for the primary outcome measure. Whether the clinical study ended according to the protocol or was terminated does not affect this date. For clinical studies with more than one primary outcome measure with different completion dates, this term refers to the date on which data collection is completed for all the primary outcome measures. The "anticipated" primary completion date is the date that the researchers think will be the primary completion date for the study.
November 15, 2023

Study Completion (Actual)

Study Completion

The date on which the last participant in a clinical study was examined or received an intervention/treatment to collect final data for the primary outcome measures, secondary outcome measures, and adverse events (that is, the last participant's last visit). The "anticipated" study completion date is the date that the researchers think will be the study completion date.
November 15, 2023

Study Registration Dates

First Submitted

First Submitted

The date on which the study sponsor or investigator first submitted a study record to ClinicalTrials.gov. There is typically a delay of a few days between the first submitted date and the record's availability on ClinicalTrials.gov (the first posted date).
January 12, 2020

First Submitted That Met QC Criteria

First Submitted That Met QC Criteria

The date on which the study sponsor or investigator first submits a study record that is consistent with National Library of Medicine (NLM) quality control (QC) review criteria. The sponsor or investigator may need to revise and submit a study record one or more times before NLM's QC review criteria are met. It is the responsibility of the sponsor or investigator to ensure that the study record is consistent with the NLM QC review criteria.
January 27, 2020

First Posted (Actual)

First Posted

The date on which the study record was first available on ClinicalTrials.gov after National Library of Medicine (NLM) quality control (QC) review has concluded. There is typically a delay of a few days between the date the study sponsor or investigator submitted the study record and the first posted date.
January 29, 2020

Study Record Updates

Last Update Posted (Actual)

Last Update Posted

The most recent date on which changes to a study record were made available on ClinicalTrials.gov. There may be a delay between when the changes were submitted to ClinicalTrials.gov by the study's sponsor or investigator (the last update submitted date) and the last update posted date.
March 25, 2025

Last Update Submitted That Met QC Criteria

Last Update Submitted That Met QC Criteria

The most recent date on which the study sponsor or investigator submitted changes to a study record that are consistent with National Library of Medicine (NLM) quality control (QC) review criteria. It is the responsibility of the sponsor or investigator to ensure that the study record is consistent with the NLM QC review criteria.
March 3, 2025

Last Verified

Last Verified

The most recent date on which the study sponsor or investigator confirmed the information about a clinical study on ClinicalTrials.gov as accurate and current. If a study with a recruitment status of recruiting; not yet recruiting; or active, not recruiting has not been confirmed within the past 2 years, the study's recruitment status is shown as unknown.
March 1, 2025

More Information

Terms related to this study

Keywords

Additional Relevant MeSH Terms

Other Study ID Numbers

Other Study ID Numbers

Identifiers or ID numbers other than the NCT number that are assigned to a clinical study by the study's sponsor, funders, or others. These numbers may include unique identifiers from other trial registries and National Institutes of Health grant numbers.
  • 1R61MH121552-01 (U.S. NIH Grant/Contract)
  • 1R61MH121552 (U.S. NIH Grant/Contract)

Plan for Individual participant data (IPD)

Plan to Share Individual Participant Data (IPD)?

YES

IPD Plan Description

Data resulting from this project will be de-identified and uploaded in a timely manner to the National Database for Clinical Trials Related to Mental Illness, including de-identified youth demographic and clinical characteristics, and summary scores from outcome measures, along with a data dictionary that provides variable definitions, value labels, and scoring of measures. The study protocol and dataset may be made available to other investigators based on successful completion of a data request form, following the conclusion of this study and publication of primary outcome papers.

IPD Sharing Time Frame

Data will become available following conclusion of the study and publication of primary outcome papers.

IPD Sharing Access Criteria

Researchers will be required to complete a request form that includes: research identifying information and institutional affiliation, description of research objectives, and IRB approval. Completed request forms will be reviewed by the PI and Co-Is to ensure that the research request will not duplicate work being conducted by the study team. The requesting researcher must provide signed data sharing agreements from all users on their team outlining the details of how information will be kept secure, consistent with NIMH and University of Denver data sharing guidelines. Requesting researchers will also provide the University of Denver's IRB with an IRB approval from their institution. The data will only be released after the proposed study has been completed and primary outcomes have been accepted for publication.

IPD Sharing Supporting Information Type

  • STUDY_PROTOCOL
  • SAP
  • ICF

Drug and device information, study documents

Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated drug product

No

Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated device product

No

This information was retrieved directly from the website clinicaltrials.gov without any changes. If you have any requests to change, remove or update your study details, please contact register@clinicaltrials.gov. As soon as a change is implemented on clinicaltrials.gov, this will be updated automatically on our website as well.

Cookie Settings

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. For more details carefully read our Privacy and Cookies Policy. ...>>>You can change your preferences or withdraw your consent at any time by deleting the cookies from your website or computer as described in the policy. Please accept it and choose your preferences by ticking the corresponding boxes in the "Manage Settings" section below. Please carefully read our Terms of Service before you proceed with using any part of this website.
«Manage Settings