Reward Sensitivity Predicts the Response to Cognitive Behavioral Therapy for Children with Autism and Anxiety

Figures & data

Figure 1. Interaction between Gambling Task Performance and Intervention Group on PARS outcome.

IGT – Iowa Gambling Task; PARS = Pediatric Anxiety Rating Scale.

Table 1. Descriptive statistics.

	Mean (SD)
	Whole sample	BIACA	Coping Cat
Age	9.89 (1.8)	9.75 (1.9)	10.04 (1.7)	n.s
Gender (F:M)	113:34	21:55	13:58	n.s
PARS pre	3.45 (0.47)	3.43 (0.48)	3.47 (0.47)	n.s
PARS post	2.27 (0.82)	2.14 (0.91)	2.43 (0.69)	p = .045
IGT adv. deck selection	45.14 (9.3)	45.7 (8.6)	44.5 (9.9)	n.s
IGT awareness (0−8)	6.3 (1.9)	6.0 (2.0)	6.6 (1.9)	p = .08
Strange Stories (0−8)	3.9 (1.6)	3.9 (1.6)	3.9 (1.7)	n.s
WISC-FSIQ	102 (15.1)	102 (14.6)	101 (15.5)	n.s

PARS = Pediatric Anxiety Rating Scale; IGT = Iowa Gambling Task; WISC-FSIQ = Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children-Full-scale IQ.

Table 2. Results of regression analyses of the associations between neuro-psychological variables and post-treatment anxiety scores.

Model	b	SE	95% Confidence interval	t	P
Model 1: IGT performance
Intervention	−0.24	0.13	−0.49 to 0.017	−1.85	.066
IGT adv. deck selection	0.01	0.01	−0.01 to 0.02	1.06	.29
Intervention*IGT adv. deck	−0.03	0.01	−0.06 to 0.002	−1.87	.065
Bootstrap estimation			−0.05 to 0.003	z = −2.2	.029
PARS baseline	0.59	0.15	0.31−0.89	4.12	<.01
Model 2: IGT awareness
Intervention	−0.28	0.13	−0.54 to 0.019	−2.12	.036
IGT awareness	−0.05	0.04	−0.12 to 0.02	−1.40	.17
Intervention*awareness	−0.06	0.07	−0.21 to 0.08	−0.88	.38
PARS baseline	0.59	0.15	0.31−0.88	4.09	<.01
Model 2: SST
Intervention	−0.25	0.13	−0.51 to 0.01	−1.92	.057
SST	−0.001	0.05	−0.09 to 0.09	−0.01	.99
Intervention*SST	−0.05	0.08	−0.21 to 0.12	−0.57	.57
PARS baseline	0.61	0.15	0.31 to 0.90	4.14	<.01

IGT – Iowa Gambling Task; SST = Strange Stories Task; PARS = Pediatric Anxiety Rating Scale; FSIQ is included in all models as a covariate.