Evaluating CBT

Question 1

A03 - Supporting evidence?

Answer 1

P - Ladoucer’s et al (2001) CBT and gamling randolmly allocated 66 pathological gamblers to either CBT or a waiting list. The CBT invloved both cognitive correction and relapse prevention of those that completed the CBT criteria as patholgical gamblers. Also, it was found that after treatment gamblers had a better perception of control over their gambling problem, and increased self-efficieny. Those effects were long lasting and remained after 6 months and a 1 year follow up.

L - Therefore, we can use this evidence to support the effectivness of CBT as an effective treatment for addiction.

• Ladoucer’s et al (2001)
• Gambling
• 66
• cognitive correction
• relapse prevention
• better perception of control
• 6 moths and a 1 year follow up

Question 2

A03 - Longterm effectivness?

Answer 2

P - Short vs Longterm effects?

E - Coulishaw (2012) found that CBT had a large effect on gambling behavoir for up to 3 months, however, after 9-12 months, the effect of CBT was equal to that of those who did not revieve CBT.

E - Suggesting that CBT only has short term impacts upon gambling addiction. It limits the usefulness that CBT has. IF patients lose inital gainsin reducing their addiction, they may not want to keep having to return to CBT.

L - Thus more effective ways are needed of sustainong gambling recovery and it appears CBT alone will not suffice on continuing this recovery.

• Short/long term
• Coulishaw (2012)
• 3 months
• 9 - 12 months