Error in Tables
In the original publication [1], there was a mistake in Table 1 as published. The probabilities for the Chi-Square for the variable “Taking medication” of 3.38, p > 0.95. The corrected Table 1 appears below. The probabilities for the Chi-Square for the variable “Taking medication” of 3.38, p > 0.05.
Table 1.
Descriptive statistics of the intent-to-treat sample of participants diagnosed with generalized anxiety disorder who received cognitive-behavior therapy either by videoconference (VCP) or face-to-face (FF).
There was a mistake in Table 2 as published. The abbreviation for standard deviation for means reported in the column for the 6-month follow-up is D. The corrected Table 2 appears below. The abbreviation for standard deviation for means reported in the column for the 6-month follow-up is SD.
Table 2.
Descriptive statistics for variables used in the non-inferiority analyses (intent-to-treat) (n = 148).
There are five errors in Table 5. In the IUS Residualized change line, std Beta should be 0.56, t should be 6.44, Simple corr. should be 0.54, Partial corr. should be 0.52, Semi-Partial corr. should be 0.51.
Table 5.
Contribution of non-specific and specific factors of CBT for GAD when delivered by videoconference or face-to-face at the second step of a hierarchical regression predicting improvements in ADIS-IV ratings.
Table 5.
Contribution of non-specific and specific factors of CBT for GAD when delivered by videoconference or face-to-face at the second step of a hierarchical regression predicting improvements in ADIS-IV ratings.
| std Beta | t | sig. p | Simple corr. | Partial corr. | Semi-Partial corr. | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Treatment condition | −0.12 | −1.6 | 0.118 | −0.11 | −0.15 | −0.12 |
| Center providing psychotherapy | −0.03 | −0.45 | 0.657 | 0.04 | −0.04 | −0.03 |
| Motivation (Session 1) | −0.05 | −0.67 | 0.502 | −0.07 | −0.06 | −0.05 |
| Working alliance (Session 7) | 0.21 | 1.71 | 0.087 | −0.07 | 0.16 | 0.13 |
| Perceived therapists’ competence (Session 7) | −0.06 | −0.65 | 0.52 | −0.08 | −0.06 | −0.05 |
| Client satisfaction (at post) | −0.07 | −0.64 | 0.522 | −0.19 | −0.06 | −0.05 |
| IUS Residualized change | 0.56 | 6.44 | <0.001 | 0.54 | 0.52 | 0.51 |
Note. ADIS-IV = Anxiety Disorders Interview Schedule-IV, IUS = Intolerance of Uncertainty Scale.
There are four errors in Table 6. In the IUS Residualized Change row, ADIS-IV Residualized change should be 0.54, Working alliance (Session 7) should be −0.31, Perceived therapists’ competence (Session 7) should be −0.16, Client satisfaction (at post) should be −0.38.
Table 6.
Pearson correlations among the psychological variables used in the hierarchical regression.
Table 6.
Pearson correlations among the psychological variables used in the hierarchical regression.
| Motivation (Session 1) | Working Alliance (Session 7) | Perceived Therapists’ Competence (Session 7) | Client Satisfaction (at Post) | IUS Residualized Change | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ADIS-IV Residualized change | −0.07 | −0.07 | −0.08 | −0.19 * | 0.54 *** |
| Motivation (Session 1) | 0.23 ** | 0.09 | 0.16 * | −0.08 | |
| Working alliance (Session 7) | 0.66 *** | 0.67 *** | −0.31 ** | ||
| Perceived therapists’ competence (Session 7) | 0.44 *** | −0.16 | |||
| Client satisfaction (at post) | −0.38 *** |
Note. ADIS-IV = Anxiety Disorders Interview Schedule-IV; IUS = Intolerance of Uncertainty Scale. * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001.
Text Correction
There was an error in the original publication [1]. When reporting results from the regression in Section 3.4, the information was based on the wrong section in the output from our statistical analyses. The final regression model was statistically significant (F(7,112) = 10.05, p < 0.001, R2 = 0.62, Adjusted R2 = 0.35). The second step in the hierarchical regression significantly contributed to the final model (F change (1,113) = 59.4, p < 0.001, change in R2 = 0.32). A correction has been made to Section 3.4, end of the first paragraph: The final regression model was statistically significant (F(7,113) = 7.33, p < 0.001, R2 = 0.32, Adjusted R2 = 0.27). The second step in the hierarchical regression significantly contributed to the final model (F change (1,113) = 41.48, p < 0.001, change in R2 = 0.25).
3.4. Predictors Change in GAD Severity at Posttreatment
Factors potentially associated with treatment efficacy, as measured by the residualized change in ADIS-IV scores from pre to post-treatment, were examined in a hierarchical regression analysis. The common therapy factors (i.e., motivation, working alliance, perceived therapist competence and client satisfaction) were entered in the first step of the regression. Treatment condition (VCP or face-to-face therapy) and psychotherapist treatment site were also entered as methodological controls. The factor specific to CBT-IU, change in intolerance of uncertainty, was entered in the second step to test its contribution to the regression model over and above the factors entered in the first step. The final regression model was statistically significant (F(7,113) = 7.33, p < 0.001, R2 = 0.32, Adjusted R2 = 0.27). The second step in the hierarchical regression significantly contributed to the final model (F change (1,113) = 41.48, p < 0.001, change in R2 = 0.25). Table 5 details the contribution of each variable to the final model. Consistent with the non-inferiority finding for the Time by Condition interaction with the IUS, testing the direct impact of treatment conditions on the residualized change in intolerance of uncertainty was not statistically significant (F change (1,112) = 0.031, p = 0.86, change in R2 = 0.00) and did not reduce the significant role of intolerance of uncertainty in the regression (t = 6.99, p < 0.001, semi-partial correlation = 0.52). To support the discussion of the findings, Table 6 shows the correlation among the various measures used in the regression. In the hierarchical regression, the role of sex, age, income, education, living alone, medication use, previous psychotherapy and the presence of at least one comorbid disorder were also explored. None of the aforementioned variables significantly predicted outcome or changed the conclusions of the regression analysis.
In addition, in the last paragraph of Section 1, “[54], p.16” should be changed to “[53], p.16”. The authors state that the scientific conclusions are unaffected. This Correction was approved by the Academic Editor. The original publication has also been updated.
Reference
- Bouchard, S.; Dugas, M.J.; Belleville, G.; Langlois, F.; Gosselin, P.; Robillard, G.; Corno, G.; Marchand, A. A Multisite Non-Inferiority Randomized Controlled Trial of the Efficacy of Cognitive-Behavior Therapy for Generalized Anxiety Disorder Delivered by Videoconference. J. Clin. Med. 2022, 11, 5924. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2025 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 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).