Table 2 Summary of follow-up analyses for the secondary outcomes.

From: Exploring the efficacy of memory specificity training on depression among Iranian adolescents: a comparative analysis of online vs. in-person delivery

Variable	Group comparison	Statistics	Summary
Autobiographical memory specificity
Post-intervention
Between Group	c-MeST vs Control	t(57) = 4.55, p < 0.001, d = 1.19	c-MeST > Control
	MeST vs Control	t (57) = 6.50, p < 0.001, d = 1.70	MeST > Control
	c-MeST vs MeST^a	t (56) = 1.99, p = 0.05, d = 0.53	MeST > c-MeST
Within Group	c-MeST	t (28) = 5.77, p < 0.001, d = 1.06	Improvement
	MeST	t (28) = 10.14, p < 0.001, d = 2.39	Improvement
	Control	t (29) < 0.001, ns	No change
Follow-up
Between Group	c-MeST vs Control	t (57) = 7.50, p < 0.001, d = 1.96	c-MeST > Control
	MeST vs Control	t (57) = 9.93, p < 0.001, d = 2.60	MeST > Control
	c-MeST vs MeST^a	t (56) = 2.14, p < 0.05, d = 0.57	MeST > c-MeST
Within Group	c-MeST	t (28) = 9.15, p < 0.001, d = 1.96	Improvement
	MeST	t (28) = 15.14, p < 0.001, d = 3.89	Improvement
	Control	t (29) = 2.84, ns	No change
Adaptive emotion regulation
Post-intervention
Between Group	c-MeST vs Control	t (57) = 13.61, p < 0.001, d = 3.57	c-MeST > Control
	MeST vs Control	t (57) = 11.73, p < 0.001, d = 3.07	MeST > Control
	c-MeST vs MeST	t (56) = 0.36, ns	c-MeST = MeST
Within Group	c-MeST	t (28) = 37.55, p < 0.001, d = 6.92	Improvement
	MeST	t (28) = 26.76, p < 0.001, d = 4.57	Improvement
	Control	t (29) = 3.30, ns	No change
Follow-up
Between Group	c-MeST vs Control	t (57) = 19.29, p < 0.001, d = 5.06	c-MeST > Control
	MeST vs Control	t (57) = 19.61, p < 0.001, d = 5.14	MeST > Control
	c-MeST vs MeST	t (56) = 1.22, ns	MeST > c-MeST
Within Group	c-MeST	t (28) = 7.57, p < 0.001, d = 1.40	Improvement
	MeST	t (29) = 9.19, p < 0.001, d = 1.51	Improvement
	Control	t (29) = 3.08, ns	No change
Maladaptive emotion regulation
Post-intervention
Between Group	c-MeST vs Control	t (57) = 5.61, p < 0.001, d = 1.47	c-MeST < Control
	MeST vs Control	t (57) = 5.07, p < 0.001, d = 1.33	MeST < Control
	c-MeST vs MeST	t (56) = 0.36, ns	c-MeST = MeST
Within Group	c-MeST	t (28) = 24.80, p < 0.001, d = 5.13	Improvement
	MeST	t (28) = 20.97, p < 0.001, d = 3.51	Improvement
	Control	t (29) = 1.47, ns	No change
Follow-up
Between Group	c-MeST vs Control	t (57) = 12.69, p < 0.001, d = 3.33	c-MeST < Control
	MeST vs Control	t (57) = 12.49, p < 0.001, d = 3.28	MeST < Control
	c-MeST vs MeST	t (56) = 0.41, ns	MeST = c-MeST
Within Group	c-MeST	t (28) = 6.25, p < 0.001, d = 1.35	Improvement
	MeST	t (29) = 7.98, p < 0.001, d = 1.12	Improvement
	Control	t (29) = 5.45, p < 0.001, d = 0.53	Improvement
Cognitive control
Perseverative errors
Post-intervention
Between Group	c-MeST vs Control	t (57) = 12.01, p < 0.001, d = 3.17	c-MeST < Control
	MeST vs Control	t (57) = 12.85, p < 0.001, d = 2.27	MeST < Control
	c-MeST vs MeST^a	t (56) = 2.26, p < 0.05, d = 0.60	c-MeST > MeST
Within Group	c-MeST	t (28) = 26.12, p < 0.001, d = 5.93	Improvement
	MeST	t (28) = 34.03, p < 0.001, d = 7.50	Improvement
	Control	t (29) = 4.23, p < 0.001, d = 0.95	Improvement
Follow-up
Between Group	c-MeST vs Control	t (57) = 11.69, p < 0.001, d = 3.08	c-MeST < Control
	MeST vs Control	t (57) = 13.33, p < 0.001, d = 3.51	MeST < Control
	c-MeST vs MeST^a	t (56) = 5.13, p < 0.05, d = 1.35	c-MeST > MeST
Within Group	c-MeST	t (28) = 3.86, p < 0.001, d = 1.13	Improvement
	MeST	t (28) = 4.42, p < 0.001, d = 1.14	Improvement
	Control	t (29) = 11.50, p < 0.001, d = 0.93	Improvement
Non-perseverative errors
Post-intervention
Between Group	c-MeST vs Control	t (57) = 9.25, p < 0.001, d = 2.42	c-MeST < Control
	MeST vs Control	t (57) = 13.69, p < 0.001, d = 3.59	MeST < Control
	c-MeST vs MeST^a	t (56) = 5.01, p < 0.05, d = 1.32	c-MeST > MeST
Within Group	c-MeST	t (28) = 30.36, p < 0.001, d = 4.42	Improvement
	MeST	t (28) = 32.40, p < 0.001, d = 7.28	Improvement
	Control	t (29) = 5.37, p < 0.001, d = 1.10	Improvement
Follow-up
Between Group	c-MeST vs Control	t (57) = 14.78, p < 0.001, d = 3.89	c-MeST < Control
	MeST vs Control	t (57) = 15.37, p < 0.001, d = 4.04	MeST < Control
	c-MeST vs MeST^a	t (56) = 2.70, p < 0.05, d = 0.71	MeST < c-MeST
Within Group	c-MeST	t (28) = 10.52, p < 0.001, d = 2.62	Improvement
	MeST	t (28) = 7.75, p < 0.001, d = 1.93	Improvement
	Control	t (29) = 9.76, p < 0.001, d = 0.93	Improvement
Stroop—errors
Post-intervention
Between Group	c-MeST vs Control	t (57) = 5.52, p < 0.001, d = 1.45	c-MeST < Control
	MeST vs Control	t (57) = 4.45, p < 0.001, d = 1.17	MeST < Control
	c-MeST vs MeST	t (56) = 1.76, ns	c-MeST = MeST
Within Group	c-MeST	t (28) = 7.29, p < 0.001, d = 1.54	Improvement
	MeST	t (28) = 11.89, p < 0.001, d = 2.30	Improvement
	Control	t (29) = 1.65, ns	No change
Follow-up
Between Group	c-MeST vs Control	t (57) = 10.43, p < 0.001, d = 2.75	c-MeST < Control
	MeST vs Control	t (57) = 10.50, p < 0.001, d = 2.77	MeST < Control
	c-MeST vs MeST	t (56) = 0.32, p ns	c-MeST = MeST
Within Group	c-MeST	t (28) = 2.76, p = 0.01, d = 0.53	Improvement
	MeST	t (28) = 4.82, p < 0.001, d = 1.07	Improvement
	Control	t (29) = 1.01, ns	Improvement
Stroop—interference time
Post-intervention
Between Group	c-MeST vs Control	t (57) = 0.48, ns	c-MeST = Control
	MeST vs Control	t (57) = 1.77, ns	MeST = Control
	c-MeST vs MeST	t (56) = 1.00, ns	c-MeST = MeST
Within Group	c-MeST	t (28) = 6.55, p < 0.001, d = 0.47	Improvement
	MeST	t (28) = 5.06, p < 0.001, d = 0.64	Improvement
	Control	t (29) = 13.25, p < 0.001, d = 1.05	Improvement
Follow-up
Between Group	c-MeST vs Control	t (57) = 0.01, ns	c-MeST = Control
	MeST vs Control	t (57) = 0.01, ns	MeST = Control
	c-MeST vs MeST	t (56) < 0.001, ns	c-MeST = MeST
Within Group	c-MeST	t (28) = 8.33, p < 0.001, d = 0.32	Improvement
	MeST	t (28) = 11.87, p < 0.001, d = 0.79	Improvement
	Control	t (29) = 4.32, p < 0.001, d = 0.25	Improvement

^aNot significant when Bonferroni correction applied.

Back to article page

Table 2 Summary of follow-up analyses for the secondary outcomes.

Search

Quick links