Effectiveness of Video-Feedback with Cognitive Preparation in Improving Social Performance and Anxiety through Super Skills for Life Programme Implemented in a School Setting
Abstract
1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Participants
2.2. Measures
2.3. Procedure
2.4. Super Skills for Life (SSL) Programme
2.5. Statistical Analyses
3. Results
3.1. Attrition
3.2. Inter-Judge Reliability
3.3. Behavioural Changes in the Speech Task
3.4. Gender Differences
3.5. Mediators of Change
4. Discussion
Limitations
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Essau, C.A.; Gabbidon, J. Epidemiology, comorbidity and mental health services utilization. In The Wiley-Blackwell Handbook of the Treatment of Childhood and Adolescent Anxiety; Essau, C.A., Ollendick, T.H., Eds.; Wiley Blackwell: Chichester, UK, 2013; pp. 23–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Orgilés, M.; Méndez, X.; Espada, J.P.; Carballo, J.L.; Piqueras, J.A. Síntomas de trastornos de ansiedad en niños y adolescentes: Diferencias en función de la edad y el sexo en una muestra comunitaria. Revista de Psiquiatría y Salud Mental 2012, 5, 115–120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Voltas, N.; Hernández-Martínez, C.; Arija, V.; Canals, J. The natural course of anxiety symptoms in early adolescence: Factors related to persistence. Anxiety Stress Coping 2017, 30, 671–686. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Broeren, S.; Muris, P.; Diamantopoulou, S.; Baker, J. The course of childhood anxiety symptoms: Developmental trajectories and child-related factors in normal children. J. Abnorm. Child Psychol. 2013, 41, 81–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Roza, S.J.; Hofstra, M.B.; van der Ende, J.; Verhulst, F.C. Stable prediction of mood and anxiety disorders based on behavioral and emotional problems in childhood: A 14-year follow-up during childhood, adolescence, and young adulthood. Am. J. Psychiatry 2003, 160, 2116–2121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Benjamin, C.L.; Harrison, J.P.; Settipani, C.A.; Brodman, D.M.; Kendall, P.C. Anxiety and related outcomes in young adults 7 to 19 years after receiving treatment for child anxiety. J. Consult. Clin. Psychol. 2013, 81, 865–876. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Essau, C.A. Frequency and patterns of mental health services utilization among adolescents with anxiety and depressive disorders. Depress Anxiety 2005, 22, 130–137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Snell, T.; Knapp, M.; Healey, A.; Guglani, S.; Evans-Lacko, S.; Fernandez, J.; Meltzer, H.; Ford, T. Economic impact of childhood psychiatric disorder on public sector services in Britain: Estimates from national survey data. J. Child Psychol. Psychiatry 2013, 54, 977–985. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Huberty, T.J. Test and performance anxiety. Princ. Leadersh. 2009, 10, 12–16. [Google Scholar]
- Albano, A.M.; Hayward, C. Social anxiety disorder. In Phobic and Anxiety Disorders in Children and Adolescents: A clinician’s Guide to Effective Psychosocial and Pharmacological Interventions; Ollendick, T.H., March, J.S., Eds.; Oxford University Press: New York, NY, USA, 2004; pp. 198–235. [Google Scholar]
- Ramos, V.; Piqueras, J.A.; García-López, L. Efficacy and efficiency of the use of video-feedback in the cognitive-behavioral treatment of young people with social anxiety disorder. Clin. Salud 2008, 19, 249–264. [Google Scholar]
- Cartwright-Hatton, S.; Hodges, L.; Porter, J. Social anxiety in childhood: The relationship with self and observer rated social skills. J. Child Psychol. Psychiatry 2003, 44, 737–742. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Beidel, D.C.; Turner, S.M.; Morris, T.L. Behavioral treatment of childhood social phobia. J. Consult. Clin. Psychol. 2000, 68, 1072–1080. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Spence, S.H.; Donovan, C.; Brechman-Toussaint, M. Social skills, social outcomes, and cognitive features of childhood social phobia. J. Abnorm. Psychol. 1999, 108, 211–221. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Beidel, D.C.; Ferrell, C.; Alfano, C.A.; Yeganeh, R. The treatment of childhood social anxiety disorder. Psychiatr. Clin. N. Am. 2001, 24, 831–846. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Coplan, R.J.; Prakash, K.; O’Neil, K.; Armer, M. Do You “Want” to Play? Distinguishing Between Conflicted Shyness and Social Disinterest in Early Childhood. Dev. Psychol. 2004, 40, 244–258. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- La Greca, A.M.; Harrison, H.M. Adolescent peer relations, friendships, and romantic relationships: Do they predict social anxiety and depression? J. Clin. Child Adolesc. Psychol. 2005, 34, 49–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Rodríguez, J.O.; Rosa-Alcázar, A.I.; Caballo, V.E.; García-López, L.J.; Orgilés, M.; López-Gollonet, C. Treatment of social phobia in children and adolescents: A meta-analytic review. Behav. Psychol. 2003, 11, 599–622. [Google Scholar]
- Borowski, S.K.; Zeman, J.; Braunstein, K. Social Anxiety and Socioemotional Functioning During Early Adolescence: The Mediating Role of Best Friend Emotion Socialization. J. Early Adolesc. 2018, 38, 238–260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Essau, C.A.; Olaya, B.; Sasagawa, S.; Pithia, J.; Bray, D.; Ollendick, T.H. Integrating video-feedback and cognitive preparation, social skills training and behavioural activation in a cognitive behavioural therapy in the treatment of childhood anxiety. J. Affect. Disord. 2014, 167, 261–267. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pilkonis, P.A. The behavioral consequences of shyness 1. J. Personal. 1977, 45, 596–611. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Essau, C.A.; Conradt, J.; Sasagawa, S.; Ollendick, T.H. Prevention of Anxiety Symptoms in Children: Results from a Universal School-Based Trial. Behav. Ther. 2012, 43, 450–464. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- James, A.C.; James, G.; Cowdrey, F.A.; Soler, A.; Choke, A. Cognitive behavioural therapy for anxiety disorders in children and adolescents. In Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews; John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2015. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Weisz, J.R.; Weiss, B.; Han, S.S.; Granger, D.A.; Morton, T. Effects of psychotherapy with children and adolescents revisited: A meta-analysis of treatment outcome studies. Psychol. Bull. 1995, 117, 450–468. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Masia-Warner, C.; Nangle, D.W.; Hansen, D.J. Bringing evidence-based child mental health services to the schools: General issues and specific populations. Educ. Treat. Children 2006, 29, 165–172. [Google Scholar]
- Essau, C.A.; Sasagawa, S.; Jones, G.; Fernandes, B.; Ollendick, T.H. Evaluating the real-world effectiveness of a cognitive behavior therapy-based transdiagnostic programme for emotional problems in children in a regular school setting. J. Affect. Disord. 2019, 253, 357–365. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Essau, C.; Ollendick, T.H. The Super Skills for Life programme; University of Roehampton: London, UK, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Clark, D.M.; Wells, A. A cognitive model of social phobia. In Social Phobia: Diagnosis, Assessment, and Treatment; Heimberg, R.G., Liebowitz, M.R., Hope, D.A., Schneier, F.R., Eds.; Guilford Press: New York, NY, USA, 1995; pp. 69–93. [Google Scholar]
- Harvey, A.G.; Clark, D.M.; Ehlers, A.; Rapee, R.M. Social anxiety and self-impression: Cognitive preparation enhances the beneficial effects of video feedback following a stressful social task. Behav. Res. Ther. 2000, 38, 1183–1192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rapee, R.M.; Hayman, K. The effects of video feedback on the self-evaluation of performance in socially anxious subjects. Behav. Res. Ther. 1996, 34, 315–322. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rodebaugh, T.L. I might look OK, but I’m still doubtful, anxious, and avoidant: The mixed effects of enhanced video feedback on social anxiety symptoms. Behav. Res. Ther. 2004, 42, 1435–1451. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Parr, C.J.; Cartwright-Hatton, S. Social anxiety in adolescents: The effect of video feedback on anxiety and the self-evaluation of performance. Clin. Psychol. Psychother. 2009, 16, 46–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Morgan, J.; Banerjee, R. Social Anxiety and Self-Evaluation of Social Performance in a Nonclinical Sample of Children. J. Clin. Child Adolesc. Psychol. 2006, 35, 292–301. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Orgilés, M.; Fernández-Martínez, I.; Espada, J.P.; Morales, A. Spanish version of Super Skills for Life: The short- and long-term effectiveness of a transdiagnostic prevention protocol for Spanish children. Anxiety Stress Coping 2019, 36, 694–710. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- De la Torre-Luque, A.; Fiol-Veny, A.; Essau, C.A.; Balle, M.; Bornas, X. Effects of a transdiagnostic cognitive behaviour therapy-based programme on the natural course of anxiety symptoms in adolescence. J. Affect. Disord. 2020, 264, 474–482. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fernández-Martínez, I.; Morales, A.; Espada, J.P.; Essau, C.A.; Orgilés, M. Effectiveness of the program Super Skills For Life in reducing symptoms of anxiety and depression in young Spanish children. Psicothema 2019, 31, 298–304. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Michels, N.; Vanaelst, B.; Stoppie, E.; Huybrechts, I.; Bammann, K.; De Henauw, S.; Sioen, I. Parental and children’s report of emotional problems: Agreement, explanatory factors and event-emotion correlation. Child Adolesc. Ment. Health 2013, 18, 180–186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Goodman, R. Psychometric Properties of the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire. J. Am. Acad. Child Adolesc. Psychiatry 2001, 40, 1337–1345. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- García, F.; Musitu, G. (Eds.) In AF-5. Autoconcepto forma 5. Versión revisada y ampliada; TEA Ediciones: Madrid, Spain, 2014. [Google Scholar]
- Birmaher, B.; Brent, D.A.; Chiappetta, L.; Bridge, J.; Monga, S.; Baugher, M. Psychometric properties of the screen for child anxiety related emotional disorders (SCARED): A replication study. J. Am. Acad. Child Adolesc. Psychiatry 1999, 38, 1230–1236. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Fydrich, T.; Chambless, D.L.; Perry, K.J.; Buergener, F.; Beazley, M.B. Behavioral assessment of social performance: A rating system for social phobia. Behav. Res. Ther. 1998, 36, 995–1010. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rosenthal, R.; Rosnow, R.L. Contrast Analysis: Focused Comparisons in the Analysis of Variance; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 1985. [Google Scholar]
- Fitzmaurice, G.M.; Laird, N.M.; Ware, J.H. Applied Longitudinal Analysis; John Wiley & Sons: Boston, MA, USA, 2012. [Google Scholar]
- Liang, K.; Zeger, S.L. Longitudinal data analysis using generalized linear models. Biometrika 1986, 73, 13–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hayes, A.F. Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process. Analysis: A Regression-Based Approach; Guilford Press: New York, NY, USA, 2013. [Google Scholar]
Outcomes | Pre-Test | Post-Test |
---|---|---|
SPRS 1 | ||
Gaze | 0.99 | 0.99 |
Vocal quality | 0.96 | 0.95 |
Length | 0.98 | 0.97 |
Discomfort | 0.95 | 0.95 |
Conversation flow | 0.90 | 1 |
Total | 0.95 | 0.99 |
OPQ-C 2 | ||
Micro-behaviours | 0.98 | 0.97 |
1. How loud and clear was the child’s voice? | 0.99 | 0.96 |
2. How much did the child look at the camera? | 0.97 | 0.97 |
3. How much did the child smile | 0.97 | 0.98 |
Nervous | 0.98 | 0.99 |
4. How nervous did the child look? | 0.98 | 0.97 |
5. Did the child stumble over the child’s words? | 1 | 1 |
Global | 0.97 | 0.98 |
6. How clever did the child look? | 0.93 | 0.98 |
7. How friendly did the child look? | 0.99 | 0.97 |
8. How good was the child’s speech? | 0.95 | 0.98 |
Outcomes | Sample | Pre-Treatment | Post-Treatment |
---|---|---|---|
SPRS 1 | |||
Gaze | Girls | 3.48 (3.39, 3.57) | 4.04 (3.69, 4.39) |
Boys | 3.54 (3.47, 3.61) | 3.87 (3.61, 4.13) | |
Total | 3.51 (3.45, 3.57) | 3.96 (3.74, 4.17) | |
Vocal quality | Girls | 3.67 (3.53, 3.80) | 4.05 (3.77, 4.34) |
Boys | 3.61 (3.51, 3.71) | 4.25 (4.06, 4.44) | |
Total | 3.64 (3.55, 3.72) | 4.15 (3.98, 4.32) | |
Length | Girls | 3.78 (3.69, 3.87) | 4.11 (3.88, 4.34) |
Boys | 3.71 (3.64, 3.78) | 3.81 (3.55, 4.08) | |
Total | 3.74 (3.69, 3.80) | 3.96 (3.79, 4.14) | |
Discomfort | Girls | 3.50 (3.37, 3.63) | 4 (3.70, 4.31) |
Boys | 3.32 (3.24, 3.41) | 4.30 (4.03, 4.56) | |
Total | 3.41 (3.33, 3.49) | 4.15 (3.96, 4.34) | |
Conversation flow | Girls | 3.83 (3.73, 3.94) | 4 (3.68, 4.33) |
Boys | 3.66 (3.58, 3.74) | 3.99 (3.75, 4.23) | |
Total | 3.75 (3.68, 3.81) | 4 (3.80, 4.20) | |
Total | Girls | 18.21 (17.90, 18.51) | 20.15 (19.20, 21.10) |
Boys | 17.90 (17.67, 18.13) | 20.28 (19.42, 21.14) | |
Total | 18.05 (17.87, 18.24) | 20.22 (19.60, 20.83) | |
OPQ-C 2 | |||
Micro-behaviours | Girls | 8.18 (7.96, 8.39) | 9.84 (9.14, 10.55) |
Boys | 8.22 (8.11, 8.33) | 9.32 (8.93, 9.72) | |
Total | 8.21 (8.10, 8.31) | 9.49 (9.14, 9.38) | |
1. How loud and clear was the child’s voice? | Girls | 2.88 (2.78, 2.98) | 3.61 (3.33, 3.88) |
Boys | 2.87 (2.79, 2.95) | 3.59 (3.43, 3.74) | |
Total | 2.88 (2.81, 2.94) | 3.60 (3.44, 3.75) | |
2. How much did the child look at the camera? | Girls | 2.68 (2.59, 2.77) | 3.12 (2.81, 3.43) |
Boys | 2.71 (2.65, 2.76) | 2.94 (2.70, 3.17) | |
Total | 2.69 (2.64, 2.74) | 3.03 (2.83, 3.22) | |
3. How much did the child smile? | Girls | 2.61 (2.50, 2.71) | 3.11 (2.74, 3.48) |
Boys | 2.64 (2.56, 2.71) | 2.79 (2.58, 3) | |
Total | 2.62 (2.56, 2.68) | 2.95 (2.74, 3.16) | |
Nervous behaviours | Girls | 2.95 (2.83, 3.08) | 2.62 (2.38, 2.86) |
Boys | 3.01 (2.91, 3.11) | 2.55 (2.34, 2.76) | |
Total | 2.98 (2.90, 3.06) | 2.59 (2.43, 2.75) | |
4. How nervous did the child look? | Girls | 2.02 (1.92, 2.13) | 1.63 (1.39, 1.88) |
Boys | 2.16 (2.10, 2.23) | 1.29 (1.13, 1.46) | |
Total | 2.12 (2.06, 2.18) | 1.40 (1.26, 1.54) | |
5. Did the child stumble over the child’s words? | Girls | 1.18 (1.11, 1.26) | 1.02 (0.92, 1.11) |
Boys | 1.22 (1.15, 1.28) | 1.01 (0.94, 1.08) | |
Total | 1.21 (1.16, 1.25) | 1.01 (0.95, 1.07) | |
Global impression | Girls | 8.62 (8.42, 8.81) | 10.06 (9.58,10.55) |
Boys | 8.45 (8.28, 8.62) | 9.58 (9.04, 10.12) | |
Total | 8.54 (8.41, 8.66) | 9.82 (9.46, 10.18) | |
6. How clever did the child look? | Girls | 2.94 (2.85, 3.03) | 3.33 (3.11, 3.54) |
Boys | 2.84 (2.77, 2.91) | 3.23 (3.02, 3.43) | |
Total | 2.89 (2.83, 2.95) | 3.28 (3.13, 3.43) | |
7. How friendly did the child look? | Girls | 2.88 (2.77, 2.99) | 3.20 (2.99, 3.42) |
Boys | 2.87 (2.78, 2.96) | 3.43 (3.22, 3.65) | |
Total | 2.87 (2.80, 2.95) | 3.32 (3.17, 3.47) | |
8. How good was the child’s speech? | Girls | 2.80 (2.73, 2.87) | 3.30 (3.07, 3.53) |
Boys | 2.73 (2.66, 2.80) | 3.14 (2.93, 3.35) | |
Total | 2.76 (2.72, 2.81) | 3.22 (3.06, 3.37) |
Outcomes | Sample | Post-Treatment | |
---|---|---|---|
AOR 1 (95% CI 2) | p Value | ||
SPRS 3 | |||
Gaze | Girls | 1.74 (1.18, 2.55) | 0.005 |
Boys | 1.39 (1.04, 1.86) | 0.02 | |
Total | 1.49 (1.18, 1.88) | 0.001 | |
Vocal quality | Girls | 1.47 (1.01, 2.16) | 0.04 |
Boys | 1.89 (1.47, 2.44) | <0.001 | |
Total | 1.75 (1.41, 2.16) | <0.001 | |
Length | Girls | 1.39 (1.06, 1.82) | 0.01 |
Boys | 1.10 (8.82, 1.48) | 0.49 | |
Total | 1.19 (0.95, 1.48) | 0.11 | |
Discomfort | Girls | 1.64 (1.15, 2.34) | 0.005 |
Boys | 2.64 (1.98, 3.56) | <0.001 | |
Total | 2.28 (1.79, 2.89) | <0.001 | |
Conversation flow | Girls | 1.18 (0.80, 1.73) | 0.39 |
Boys | 1.39 (1.06, 1.82) | 0.01 | |
Total | 1.32 (1.06, 1.65) | 0.01 | |
Total | Girls | 6.99 (2.53, 19.29) | <0.001 |
Boys | 10.85 (4.30, 27.39) | <0.001 | |
Total | 9.44 (4.63, 19.24) | <0.001 | |
OPQ-C 4 | |||
Micro-behaviours | Girls | 5.29 (2.37, 11.78) | <0.001 |
Boys | 3.01 (1.96, 4.60) | <0.001 | |
Total | 3.59 (2.43, 5.32) | <0.001 | |
1. How loud and clear was the child’s voice? | Girls | 2.05 (1.46, 2.88) | <0.001 |
Boys | 2.05 (1.67, 2.50) | <0.001 | |
Total | 2.05 (1.72, 2.44) | <0.001 | |
2. How much did the child look at the camera? | Girls | 1.56 (1.09, 2.21) | 0.01 |
Boys | 1.26 (0.98, 1.61) | 0.07 | |
Total | 1.34 (1.09, 1.65) | 0.005 | |
3. How much did the child smile? | Girls | 1.64 (1.08, 2.49) | 0.01 |
Boys | 1.16 (0.91, 1.48) | 0.21 | |
Total | 1.30 (1.04, 1.61) | 0.01 | |
Nervous behaviours | Girls | 0.71 (0.52, 0.97) | 0.03 |
Boys | 0.63 (0.47, 0.82) | 0.001 | |
Total | 0.65 (0.53, 0.81) | <0.001 | |
4. How nervous did the child look? | Girls | 0.67 (0.51, 0.89) | 0.005 |
Boys | 0.41 (0.34, 0.51) | <0.001 | |
Total | 0.48 (0.40, 0.57) | <0.001 | |
5. Did the child stumble over the child’s words? | Girls | 1.18 (1, 1.40) | 0.05 |
Boys | 0.81 (0.71, 0.92) | 0.002 | |
Total | 0.82 (0.74, 0.91) | <0.001 | |
Global impression | Girls | 4.23 (2.80, 6.41) | <0.001 |
Boys | 3.09 (1.62, 5.86) | 0.001 | |
Total | 3.41 (2.15, 5.40) | <0.001 | |
6. How clever did the child look? | Girls | 1.47 (1.17, 1.84) | 0.001 |
Boys | 1.46 (1.14, 1.89) | 0.003 | |
Total | 1.47 (1.22, 1.77) | <0.001 | |
7. How friendly did the child look? | Girls | 1.74 (1.38, 2.19) | <0.001 |
Boys | 1.39 (1.05, 1.84) | 0.01 | |
Total | 1.49 (1.21, 1.83) | <0.001 | |
8. How good was the child’s speech? | Girls | 1.64 (1.30, 2.07) | <0.001 |
Boys | 1.50 (1.18, 1.92) | 0.001 | |
Total | 1.55 (1.29, 1.86) | <0.001 |
M1 | SE2 | Lower Limit | Higher Limit | |
---|---|---|---|---|
Social performance (OPQ-C) | ||||
(change in social anxiety scores) | 0.01 | 0.04 | −0.04 | 0.12 |
(change in generalised anxiety scores) | −0.0007 | 0.01 | −0.03 | 0.02 |
Academic self-concept | ||||
(change in social anxiety scores) | −0.09 | 0.08 | −0.29 | 0.03 |
(change in generalised anxiety scores) | 0.002 | 0.01 | −0.04 | 0.02 |
Social self-concept | ||||
(change in social anxiety scores) | −0.36 | 0.15 | −0.65 | −0.08 |
(change in generalised anxiety scores) | 0.02 | 0.02 | −0.01 | 0.07 |
Emotional self-concept | ||||
(change in social anxiety scores) | 0.004 | 0.02 | −0.01 | 0.01 |
(change in generalised anxiety scores) | 0.003 | 0.01 | −0.02 | 0.03 |
Familiar self-concept | ||||
(change in social anxiety scores) | −0.05 | 0.08 | −0.23 | 0.07 |
(change in generalised anxiety scores) | 0.002 | 0.01 | −0.02 | 0.03 |
Physical self-concept | ||||
(change in social anxiety scores) | −0.10 | 0.11 | −0.34 | 0.10 |
(change in generalised anxiety scores) | −0.006 | 0.02 | −0.04 | 0.04 |
© 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Orgilés, M.; Melero, S.; Fernández-Martínez, I.; Espada, J.P.; Morales, A. Effectiveness of Video-Feedback with Cognitive Preparation in Improving Social Performance and Anxiety through Super Skills for Life Programme Implemented in a School Setting. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 2805. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17082805
Orgilés M, Melero S, Fernández-Martínez I, Espada JP, Morales A. Effectiveness of Video-Feedback with Cognitive Preparation in Improving Social Performance and Anxiety through Super Skills for Life Programme Implemented in a School Setting. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2020; 17(8):2805. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17082805
Chicago/Turabian StyleOrgilés, Mireia, Silvia Melero, Iván Fernández-Martínez, José Pedro Espada, and Alexandra Morales. 2020. "Effectiveness of Video-Feedback with Cognitive Preparation in Improving Social Performance and Anxiety through Super Skills for Life Programme Implemented in a School Setting" International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 17, no. 8: 2805. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17082805
APA StyleOrgilés, M., Melero, S., Fernández-Martínez, I., Espada, J. P., & Morales, A. (2020). Effectiveness of Video-Feedback with Cognitive Preparation in Improving Social Performance and Anxiety through Super Skills for Life Programme Implemented in a School Setting. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17(8), 2805. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17082805