In this literature review, the literature that focuses on the effectiveness of cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) as a treatment for depression and anxiety will be examined and evaluated. . First, it is important that CBT is defined and understood as a “structured, goal-oriented and collaborative intervention strategy” (Clark, 2014 cited by Mothersill, 2016) aimed at exploring and understanding a person's psychological disorders. individual (Mothersill, 2016). This is important because it must be recognized individually compared to other therapeutic methods in counseling. It is also important that when evaluating the effectiveness of CBT, you are specific about what you hope to achieve through the use of this therapy. For example, CBT may treat a certain disorder but not another. This means it is important to be clear about what you want to treat with CBT. As part of this literature review, research on the effectiveness of CBT in the treatment of depression and anxiety will be critically examined. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”? Get an Original Essay Many forms of research use self-report as an experimental design, this can be seen as a strength or weakness. A weakness of research using self-report is that people may not answer honestly and the results would therefore become invalid, which can also affect the establishment of cause and effect within the research. For example, Norell-Clarke et al (2015) investigated the effectiveness of CBT and relaxation training (RT) with participants suffering from depression. Norell-Clarke et al (2015) recruited 64 participants via advertisement to receive CBT or RT to help treat their insomnia and depression, as the two diagnoses are closely related. Norell-Clarke et al (2015) then assessed their participants using the Insomnia Severity Index and the BDI-11, before treatment, after treatment and at a follow-up self-report. of six months. They also asked participants to keep a sleep diary one week before treatment and throughout treatment. Norell-Clarke et al (2015) found that CBT was more effective than RT in treating insomnia and depression. However, CBT had a higher readmission rate than RT. Norell-Clarke et al (2015) rely entirely on self-report methods to confirm their findings. Therefore, the results may be biased and invalid because participants may fabricate their answers. Norell-Clarke et al. (2015) should have used a more reliable data collection method to improve the credibility of their research. Therefore, this literature is not very useful in predicting the effectiveness of CBT as a treatment for depression. On the other hand, self-assessment can be a useful method of data collection. This is because self-report allows researchers to examine a large number of variables and can ask participants to reveal information about their behavior in a specific real-world situation. Additionally, this self-assessment is a much less expensive way to collect data than many other methods. Anderson, Watson, and Davidson (2008) evaluated whether the use of CBT was effective in reducing anxiety symptoms in a hospital setting. They collected data from structured interviews with patients and analyzed anxiety and depression scores before and afterthe intervention. Anderson, Watson, and Davidson (2008) concluded that CBT was effective in hospitals for patients with mild to moderate anxiety or depression. The use of self-assessment allowed Anderson, Watson and Davidson (2008) to draw this conclusion. Also through self-assessment, if the group of participants is randomly selected and large enough, it is possible to generalize the results of the findings, which increases the value of this research. The research of Anderson, Watson and Davidson (2008) can therefore be considered a useful work on research into the effectiveness of CBT as a treatment for anxiety and depression. Another strength of the literature evaluating the effectiveness of CBT for treating depression and anxiety is that researchers use meta-analyses. This is a strength because it brings together multiple research to create a larger participant pool and allow for greater accuracy. Research by Twomey, O'Reilly, and Byrne (2014) used a CBT-focused meta-analysis and randomized controlled trials to evaluate the effect of CBT on relieving symptoms of anxiety and depression. Twomey, O'Reilly, and Byrne (2014) reviewed 29 randomized controlled trials and found that multimodal CBT is effective for reliving symptoms of anxiety and depression, in a primary care setting. Using such a large body of research means that a more precise conclusion can be drawn, often the results of individual research are inconclusive and meta-analysis helps to resolve this problem. On the other hand, the use of meta-analyses can be considered. as a major problem because it simply uses other people's research and reanalyzes it to determine results. The research analyzed may be biased and unreliable. An example of an article using meta-analysis and constituting a systematic review is the article by Bird et al (2010) which reviewed previous research to determine the effectiveness of early intervention and CBT on early psychoses such as depressive psychosis. Bird et al (2010) performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. They found that CBT was helpful in reducing symptom severity, but did not prevent hospitalization or reduce relapse rates. Although this may seem like a useful finding, there is no certainty that the research evaluated by Bird et al (2010) is valid and therefore may mean that the literature by Bird et al (2010) is not measuring what it is. was initially intended. One of the literature on the effectiveness of CBT as a treatment for depression and anxiety is that researchers in this area often conduct follow-up evaluations. Follow-up evaluations are beneficial to research because they allow the researcher to see whether CBT was effective in the long term, not just immediately after participants received the therapy. If the researcher finds that CBT is effective in the long term, it is worth investing money in the future use of the therapy. Troeung, Egan, and Gasson (2014) are an example of research that systematically tracks depression and anxiety in participants with Parkinson's disease. This research involved a group of 18 adults suffering from Parkinson's disease, depression and/or anxiety. Participants were randomly assigned to the eight-week CBT intervention or the waitlist. Troeung, Egan, and Gasson (2014) then tracked CBT progress before and after treatment, one month, and six months after treatment. This is useful in research because they can find out if adultsfound CBT beneficial, they also had a control group they could use to compare the effectiveness of CBT for this type of mental health disorder. The use of follow-up assessments reinforces the value of research into the effectiveness of CBT as a treatment for depression and anxiety. In contrast, a weakness in the literature evaluating the effectiveness of CBT as a treatment for anxiety and depression is that much research struggles to find a sufficient sample size. This is because participant requirements are rather specific, which limits the individuals that researchers can use in their experiments. Urao et al. (2016), conducted a quasi-experiment in Japan, with a CBT intervention group for anxiety composed of thirteen participants, recruited using advertising posters and a control group of sixteen participants. In the research, both child and parent reported symptoms of anxiety according to the Spence Children's Anxiety Scale. Urao et al. (2016) found that CBT was partially effective based on parent ratings. The use of 29 participants represents an extremely small sample and means that the researchers were unable to generalize their results to all children in Japan. The small sample size may also be the reason why the research results were relatively inconclusive, stating that CBT was only "partially" effective. Therefore, the use of a small group of participants has little impact on the usefulness of research on the effectiveness of CBT research as a treatment for anxiety and depression. The literature evaluating the effectiveness of CBT as a treatment for anxiety and depression is extremely specific in the field. participant selection process. This is beneficial for the validity of the research because it means that the results and conclusions can be more easily generalized to the entire population of that specific group. For example, Chorpita et al. (2004) selected eleven participants, all had to be between the ages of seven and seventeen, all had been referred for CBT at the University of Hawaii, and all had to have a DSM anxiety diagnosis. The specific needs of the participants in this research mean that in general they all experience the same situations, i.e. school, homework, learning new skills, etc. This meant that the researchers were able to more easily generalize the results to children aged seven to seventeen. Chorpita et al. (2004) found that at post-CBT assessment, all children showed no symptoms of anxiety. The same was true for the six-month follow-up assessment. Therefore, Chorpita et al. (2004) concluded that “there is initial support for the use of…CBT for anxiety disorders in young people.” This ability to generalize to “young people” is only possible because of the restricted sample, whereas eleven individuals of all ages would not have been as generalizable. . This benefits the research literature on the effectiveness of CBT as a treatment for anxiety and depression. Most research conducted in this area does not recognize any confounding and extraneous variables. Extraneous variables can have a considerable effect on the results collected and therefore must be controlled. For example, Scott (1992) took eight patients meeting diagnostic criteria for depression and prescribed them CBT for twelve weeks. Every three weeks, Scott (1992) measured patients using the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale, Beck Depression Inventory, self-report of mood, and of.