Cognitive assessment of social anxiety: a comparison of self-report and thought listing methods

The goal of the present study was to compare 2 cognitive assessment methods for social anxiety: a thought listing and a self-report method. The focus of this study was on the convergent and divergent validity of these methods using a multi-trait multi-method approach. Furthermore, treatment sensitivity was explored. Fifty-eight patients with social phobia completed thought listings followed by 2 different social stress tasks before and after an exposure group treatment (n = 33), or following a waiting period (n = 25). One task consisted of speaking in front of 2 confederates while the other task involved initiating a conversation with an opposite-sex confederate. Two questionnaires measuring positive and negative self-statements regarding public speaking and social interactions were also completed. To compare the balance of positive and negative thoughts, the State of Mind ratio [positive thoughts/(positive+negative thoughts)] was calculated for both cognitive assessment methods. Results demonstrate that methods related to social interaction anxiety showed better convergent validity than methods related to public speaking anxiety; however, public speaking methods captured treatment effects better than methods related to social interaction anxiety. This study questions the common assumption that different cognitive assessment methods measure the same construct.