Effectiveness of an AI-Integrated Proactive Thought Control Intervention for Young Adults With Social Anxiety Disorder
3. september 2026 opdateret af: Farah Shahzadi
The Objective is to Examine the Effectiveness of Ai Integrated Proactive Thought Control for Social Anxiety Disorder and Compare Its Effectiveness With Active Control Group and Cognitive Behavioral Therapy. Participants With SAD Will be Recruited From Educational Setting, Will Get 8 Therapy Sessions.
Participants with Social Anxiety Disorder will be recruited from educational settings .
After screening and informed consent, participants will be randomly assigned to PTC , ACG or CBT .The therapy session will be 8 session once a week, and data will be collected through psychological questionnaires in two phases at start and end of intervention.
Studieoversigt
Status
Afsluttet
Betingelser
Intervention / Behandling
Undersøgelsestype
Interventionel
Tilmelding (Faktiske)
75
Fase
- Ikke anvendelig
Kontakter og lokationer
Dette afsnit indeholder kontaktoplysninger for dem, der udfører undersøgelsen, og oplysninger om, hvor denne undersøgelse udføres.
Studiesteder
-
-
Punjab Province
-
Gujranwala, Punjab Province, Pakistan
- Farah Shahzadi
-
-
Deltagelseskriterier
Forskere leder efter personer, der passer til en bestemt beskrivelse, kaldet berettigelseskriterier. Nogle eksempler på disse kriterier er en persons generelle helbredstilstand eller tidligere behandlinger.
Berettigelseskriterier
Aldre berettiget til at studere
- Voksen
Tager imod sunde frivillige
Ingen
Beskrivelse
Inclusion Criteria:
- Were between 18 and 26 years of age, corresponding to the developmental period of emerging adulthood (Arnett, 2000).
- Met DSM-5 diagnostic criteria for Social Anxiety Disorder on the SCID-5-RV (First et al., 2015).
- Scored at or above the clinical cutoff of 30 on the LSAS-SR, indicating clinically significant social anxiety (Mennin et al., 2002).
- Were not receiving any other form of psychological intervention at the time of the study.
- Had sufficient English proficiency to understand instructions and complete the assessments (Flores, 2006).
- Provided written informed consent.
- Possessed basic computer literacy and typing skills required for the digital tasks.
Exclusion Criteria:
- Were younger than 18 or older than 26 years.
- Did not meet DSM-5 diagnostic criteria for Social Anxiety Disorder on the SCID-5-RV.
- Scored in the clinically significant range for general anxiety (BAI ≥ 16; Beck et al., 1988) or at or above the threshold for moderate depression (BDI-II ≥ 20; Beck et al., 1996).
- Were currently receiving psychological treatment for any psychiatric condition.
- Had a lifetime history of a severe psychiatric disorder other than Social Anxiety Disorder (e.g., psychosis, bipolar disorder).
- Had a medical or neurological condition that could interfere with task completion or valid responding.
- Were unable to complete the study procedures or assessments.
- Had no prior experience using a computer.
Studieplan
Dette afsnit indeholder detaljer om studieplanen, herunder hvordan undersøgelsen er designet, og hvad undersøgelsen måler.
Hvordan er undersøgelsen tilrettelagt?
Design detaljer
- Primært formål: Behandling
- Tildeling: Randomiseret
- Interventionel model: Parallel tildeling
- Maskning: Enkelt
Våben og indgreb
Deltagergruppe / Arm |
Intervention / Behandling |
|---|---|
|
Eksperimentel: proactive thought control
The PTC (Proactive Thought Control) arm an AI-integrated, computerized intervention that trains proactive thought control, the anticipatory maintenance of a positive goal representation used to override an automatically primed negative response before it is produced (Braver, 2012).
Across eight sessions, each pairing a Free Association Task (single-word cues) with a Sentence Completion Task (unfinished social-evaluative stems).
|
The two paired tasks Free Association Task (FAT) and Sentence Completion Task (SCT) form the core of the AI-integrated Proactive Thought Control (PTC) program.
FAT shows a social-threat word and the participant types the first associated word, training proactive control at the lexical level; SCT then gives unfinished social-evaluative stems to complete with a benign word, extending the override to the propositional level.
Both run three blocks of thirty self-paced trials per session (720 over two weeks), so every threat trial forces a positive, cue-relevant representation that overrides a primed negative associate before advancing.
AI integration relies on real-time validation: SiEBERT scores sentiment and MiniLM embedding confirm semantic relevance, enforcing a positive, cue-relevant construal each trial.
Feedback reinforces this accepted responses earn points, rejected one prompt revision, and the threshold relaxes after four failures and pass after eight.
|
|
Aktiv komparator: Cognitive Behavior Therapy
The CBT group served as the gold-standard comparison condition, receiving an eight-session, individually delivered cognitive-behavioral protocol adapted from the empirically supported treatment of Hope, Heimberg, and Turk (2019).
To fit the study's fixed eight-session frame, it followed the manual's accelerated outline, compressing the standard sixteen-to-twenty-session course while still covering most relevant workbook chapters in order.
|
8-session CBT protocol ( Hope, Heimberg & Turk, 2019 manual) The CBT arm received an eight-session protocol moving from psychoeducation and the three-component model of social anxiety with an individualized Fear and Avoidance Hierarchy (Sessions 1-2), through cognitive restructuring using disputing questions from automatic thought to rational response (Sessions 3-4), to repeated graded exposure using role-plays, distress ratings, and added cognitive tools, with the final session offering core-belief work and setting post-treatment maintenance goals (Sessions 5-8)
|
|
Aktiv komparator: Active Control Group
The Active Control group was a structurally and temporally matched, computerized active comparison condition that removed the intervention's active ingredient while preserving every non-specific feature.
Participants completed the same two tasks (Free Association and Sentence Completion), the same cue/stem material, same three blocks of 30 trials per session (720 across eight sessions), same self-paced presentation, practice trials, on-screen appearance, and time on task, so the two conditions were equated on stimuli, dose, feedback salience, and engagement.
The key difference was the omission of the proactive-thought-control contingency.
|
Participants did the same two tasks as the experimental group.
The Free Association Task and the Sentence Completion Task , matched on stimuli, format, and time.
The key difference was that the control removed the core training element: responses were not checked for meaning against the cue, and about half of the negative answers were accepted without correction, so the link between a threat cue and forcing a positive response was broken.
In short, the control group did the same tasks and got the same exposure, but without the active thinking-training component.
|
Hvad måler undersøgelsen?
Primære resultatmål
Resultatmål |
Foranstaltningsbeskrivelse |
Tidsramme |
|---|---|---|
|
Liebowitz Social Anxiety Scale-Self Report
Tidsramme: Baseline (Day 1, before the first session) and Post-Intervention (within 7 days after the eighth session; the 8 sessions are delivered a weekly over a 8-week period
|
Liebowitz Social Anxiety Scale-Self-Report; range 0-144; higher = worse (greater social anxiety severity)
|
Baseline (Day 1, before the first session) and Post-Intervention (within 7 days after the eighth session; the 8 sessions are delivered a weekly over a 8-week period
|
|
Core Belief Questionnaire (CBQ)
Tidsramme: Baseline (Day 1, before the first session) and Post-Intervention (within 7 days after the eighth session; the 8 sessions are delivered a weekly over a 8-week period
|
Core Belief Questionnaire-Self-Trait and -Other (17 items each, 6-point Likert); range 17-102 if items are scored 1-6; higher = more strongly endorsed negative core beliefs (worse)".
|
Baseline (Day 1, before the first session) and Post-Intervention (within 7 days after the eighth session; the 8 sessions are delivered a weekly over a 8-week period
|
|
Dot Probe task
Tidsramme: Baseline (Day 1, before the first session) and Post-Intervention (within 7 days after the eighth session; the 8 sessions are delivered a weekly over a 8-week period
|
milliseconds; more positive = stronger bias toward social threat
|
Baseline (Day 1, before the first session) and Post-Intervention (within 7 days after the eighth session; the 8 sessions are delivered a weekly over a 8-week period
|
|
word sentence association paradigm
Tidsramme: Baseline (Day 1, before the first session) and Post-Intervention (within 7 days after the eighth session; the 8 sessions are delivered a weekly over a 8-week period
|
higher = more threat-relevant interpretation bias
|
Baseline (Day 1, before the first session) and Post-Intervention (within 7 days after the eighth session; the 8 sessions are delivered a weekly over a 8-week period
|
|
Behavioral Avoidance Task
Tidsramme: Baseline (Day 1, before the first session) and Post-Intervention (within 7 days after the eighth session; the 8 sessions are delivered a weekly over a 8-week period
|
SUDS 0-100; higher = more subjective distress
|
Baseline (Day 1, before the first session) and Post-Intervention (within 7 days after the eighth session; the 8 sessions are delivered a weekly over a 8-week period
|
Sekundære resultatmål
Resultatmål |
Foranstaltningsbeskrivelse |
Tidsramme |
|---|---|---|
|
beck depression inventory II
Tidsramme: Baseline (Day 1, before the first session) and Post-Intervention (within 7 days after the eighth session; the 8 sessions are delivered a weekly over a 8-week period
|
range 0-63; higher = worse
|
Baseline (Day 1, before the first session) and Post-Intervention (within 7 days after the eighth session; the 8 sessions are delivered a weekly over a 8-week period
|
Samarbejdspartnere og efterforskere
Det er her, du vil finde personer og organisationer, der er involveret i denne undersøgelse.
Sponsor
Datoer for undersøgelser
Disse datoer sporer fremskridtene for indsendelser af undersøgelsesrekord og resumeresultater til ClinicalTrials.gov. Studieregistreringer og rapporterede resultater gennemgås af National Library of Medicine (NLM) for at sikre, at de opfylder specifikke kvalitetskontrolstandarder, før de offentliggøres på den offentlige hjemmeside.
Studer store datoer
Studiestart (Faktiske)
14. marts 2026
Primær færdiggørelse (Faktiske)
12. august 2026
Studieafslutning (Faktiske)
14. august 2026
Datoer for studieregistrering
Først indsendt
29. august 2026
Først indsendt, der opfyldte QC-kriterier
3. september 2026
Først opslået (Faktiske)
9. september 2026
Opdateringer af undersøgelsesjournaler
Sidste opdatering sendt (Faktiske)
9. september 2026
Sidste opdatering indsendt, der opfyldte kvalitetskontrolkriterier
3. september 2026
Sidst verificeret
1. september 2026
Mere information
Begreber relateret til denne undersøgelse
Yderligere relevante MeSH-vilkår
Andre undersøgelses-id-numre
- GIFT/PSY/MS/2025/004
Plan for individuelle deltagerdata (IPD)
Planlægger du at dele individuelle deltagerdata (IPD)?
UBESLUTET
Lægemiddel- og udstyrsoplysninger, undersøgelsesdokumenter
Studerer et amerikansk FDA-reguleret lægemiddelprodukt
Ingen
Studerer et amerikansk FDA-reguleret enhedsprodukt
Ingen
Disse oplysninger blev hentet direkte fra webstedet clinicaltrials.gov uden ændringer. Hvis du har nogen anmodninger om at ændre, fjerne eller opdatere dine undersøgelsesoplysninger, bedes du kontakte register@clinicaltrials.gov. Så snart en ændring er implementeret på clinicaltrials.gov, vil denne også blive opdateret automatisk på vores hjemmeside .