Implementation of Approach Bias Re-Training in Alcoholism—How Many Sessions are Needed?
Article first published online: 24 OCT 2013
Copyright © 2013 by the Research Society on Alcoholism
Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research
Volume 38, Issue 2, pages 587–594, February 2014
How to Cite
Eberl, C., Wiers, R. W., Pawelczack, S., Rinck, M., Becker, E. S. and Lindenmeyer, J. (2014), Implementation of Approach Bias Re-Training in Alcoholism—How Many Sessions are Needed?. Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research, 38: 587–594. doi: 10.1111/acer.12281
- Issue published online: 28 JAN 2014
- Article first published online: 24 OCT 2013
- Manuscript Accepted: 9 AUG 2013
- Manuscript Received: 17 FEB 2013
- Deutsche Rentenversicherung Bund
- Behavioural Science Institute, Nijmegen
- VICI. Grant Number: 453.08.001
- Cognitive Bias Modification;
- Alcohol Dependence;
- Approach Bias;
- Implicit Cognitions;
- Approach–Avoidance Task
Computerized cognitive bias modification (CBM) programs have generated promising results regarding the treatment of alcohol dependence and anxiety disorders. However, there is hardly any research yet on the implementation of alcohol-CBM into clinical practice. This article addresses the question of the optimal number of training sessions for a specific form of CBM: approach bias re-training in alcohol-dependent patients.
Participants were 111 alcohol-dependent patients of an inpatient rehabilitation clinic. In addition to treatment as usual, they took part in a 12-session CBM protocol, aimed at re-training alcohol approach tendencies, with an adapted Alcohol Approach–Avoidance Task. Learning curves and 2-level fitted mean trends were analyzed. Furthermore, parameters of the fitted mean trend and information on the most effective number of training sessions were used to predict 1-year follow-up data.
Two-level analyses revealed 6 training sessions to be the mean optimum, yet many patients improve further after that. Prediction of the individual optimum (speed of response) and parameters of the fitted mean trends failed. The linear term of the graph describing the mean trend of training effects, but not the speed of response, predicted 1-year follow-up data.
Suggestions for practical implementations of CBM are discussed.