Is Less More? Dosing and Sequencing Effect

Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (Kroenke et al., 2001; Spitzer et al., 1999; Spitzer et al., 2000; PHQ-9). 9 items are rated on a scale from 0 to 3, with a potential total range from 0 to 27. Larger scores mean more depressive symptoms (i.e., a negative outcome).

Beck's Anxiety Inventory (Beck et al., 1988; Beck & Steer, 1991; BAI). 21 items are rated on a scale from 0 to 3 with a total score thus ranging from 0 to 63. A higher score is indicative of more anxiety symptoms (i.e., a negative outcome).

PHQ-9

BAI

General Anxiety Disorder-7 (Spitzer et al., 2006; GAD-7). 7 items are rated on scale from 0 to 7 with total scores ranging from 0 to 21. Higher scores are indicative of more symptoms of GAD (i.e., a negative outcome).

The Panic Disorder Severity Scale - Self-Report Version (Houck et al., 2002; PDSS-SR). 7 items are rated on a scale form 0 to 4, with total scores ranging from 0 to 28. Higher scores are indicative of more symptoms of panic disorder (i.e., a negative outcome).

The Social Interaction Anxiety Scale (Mattick & Clarke, 1998, SIAS). 20 items are rated on a scale from 0 to 4 with total scores ranging form 0 to 80. Higher scores are indicative of more symptoms of social anxiety disorder (i.e., a negative outcome).

The Penn State Worry Questionnaire (Meyer et al., 1990; PSWQ). 16 items are rated on a 5-point scale, with total scores ranging from 16 to 75. Higher scores indicate more worry (i.e., a negative outcome).

The Experiences Questionnaire (Fresco et al., 2007; EQ), decentering subscale. 11 items are rated on a scale from 1 to 5, with total scores ranging from 11 to 55. Higher scores mean better ability to decenter (i.e., a positive outcome).

The Cognitive Change - sustained scale (Schmidt et al., 2019; CC). 9 items rated on a scale from 0 to 6 with total scores ranging from 0 to 63. Higher scores mean better ability to employ cognitive change (i.e., a positive outcome).

ERQ-reappraisal = Emotion Regulation Questionnaire - reappraisal subscale (Gross & John, 2003; ERQ-r). 6 items are rated on a scale from 1 to 7 with total scores ranging from 6 to 42. Higher scores mean better ability to employ cognitive reappraisal (i.e., a positive outcome).

Five Facet Mindfulness Questionnaire-15 (Baer et al., 2006; FFMQ-15). 15 items are rated on a scale from 1 to 5 with total scores ranging from 15 to 75. Higher scores mean higher levels of mindfulness (i.e., a positive outcome).

The Attention Control Scale (Derryberry & Reed, 2002; ATQ-short form. 10 items are rated on a scale from 1 to 4 with total scores ranging from 10 to 40. Higher scores are indicative of better attention control (i.e., a positive outcome).

Valuing Questionnaire (Smout et al., 2014; VQ). 10 items are rated on a scale from 0 to 6 with total scores ranging from 0 to 60. Higher scores a indicative of actions/life being guided by personally held values (i.e., a positive outcome).

the World Health Organization-5 questionnaire (Bech, 1999; Topp et al., 2015; WHO-5). 5 items are rated on a scale from 0 to 5 with total scores ranging from 0 to 25. Higher scores are indicative of higher levels of life quality (i.e., a positive outcome).

Level of Personality Function Scale-Brief Form 2.0 (Weekers et al., 2019; LPFS-BF). 12 items are rated from 1 to 4 with total scores ranging from 12 to 48. Higher scores are indicative of better personality functioning (i.e., a positive outcome).

The Negative Effects Questionnaire (Rozental et al., 2019; NEQ). 32 questions are answered yes/no. If yes, items are rated on a scale from 1 to 5 and participants are asked if the negative effect experience can be attrubuted to the treatment or other crcumstances. Total scores range from 32 to 160 with higher scores indicating more negative effects (i.e., a negative outcome).

Information Overload scale (adapted from Jensen et al., 2014; IO). 8 items are rated from 1 to 4 with total scores ranging from 8 to 32. Higher scores are indicative of more information overload (i.e., a negative outcome).

PHQ-9, rated as noted above.

BAI, rated as noted above.

EQ, rated as noted above.

CC (5 items), rated as noted above but only five items are evaluated on a session-by-session basis.

ERQ-r, rated as noted above.

FFMQ-15, rated as noted above.

ATQ-short, rated as noted above.

Description [free text] of a situation in the past week where participants used or could have used the treatment component (CR or AA). Individuals in the combined arms (receiving both components) will also describe [free text] how they see themselves using the two strategies.

The participant will report on 1) the extent to which the individual understands the treatment component, 2) how competent they feel about being able to apply the treatment component in everyday life, 3) how useful they consider the treatment component to be, 4) how much they want to use the component, and 5) how often they actually used the treatment component in everyday life.

They will do so retro and prospectively and for both components when relevant.

Working Alliance Inventory - Short Revised (Munder et al., 2010; WAI-SR). 12 items rated on a scale from 1 to 5 with total scores ranging from 12 to 60. Higher scores indicate better working alliance (i.e., a positive outcome).