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] [Green Version]
- 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] [Green Version]
- 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] [Green Version]
- 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] [Green Version]
- 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