Randi McCabe

Dr. Randi McCabe


Research Focus & Metrics

Academic Career Length

28Years (1999-Present)

(Calculated once Scilit publication data is synced: current year − year of first publication + 1)

Representative Publications

View All Publications
1 April 2012 in Journal of Anxiety Disorders
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
RCR. Nicholas Carleton
R. Nicholas Carleton
MMMyriah K. Mulvogue
Myriah K. Mulvogue
MTMichel A. Thibodeau
Michel A. Thibodeau
RMRandi McCabe
Randi McCabe
MAMartin M. Antony
Martin M. Antony
GAGordon J.G. Asmundson
Gordon J.G. Asmundson

1 January 2007 in Psychological Assessment
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
DGDaniel F. Grös
Daniel F. Grös
MAMartin M. Antony
Martin M. Antony
LSLeonard J. Simms
Leonard J. Simms
RMRandi McCabe
Randi McCabe
The State-Trait Inventory for Cognitive and Somatic Anxiety (STICSA; M. J. Ree, C. MacLeod, D. French, & V. Locke, 2000) was designed to assess cognitive and somatic symptoms of anxiety as they pertain to one's mood in the moment (state) and in general (trait). This study extended the previous psychometric findings to a clinical sample and validated the STICSA against a well-published measure of anxiety, the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI; C. D. Spielberger, 1983). Patients (N=567) at an anxiety disorders clinic were administered a battery of questionnaires. The results of confirmatory factor analyses (Bentler-Bonnett nonnormed fit index, comparative fit index, and Bollen fit index>.90; root-mean-square error of approximation<.05); convergent and discriminant validity analyses; and group comparisons supported the reliability and validity of the STICSA as a measure of state and trait cognitive and somatic anxiety. In addition, compared with the STAI (anxiety: rs/=.64), the STICSA was more strongly correlated with another measure of anxiety (rs>/=.67) and was less strongly correlated with a measure of depression (rs

1 November 2019 in JAMA Psychiatry
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
MAMichael Amlung
Michael Amlung
EMEmma Marsden
Emma Marsden
KHKatherine Holshausen
Katherine Holshausen
VMVanessa Morris
Vanessa Morris
HPHerry Patel
Herry Patel
RMRandi McCabe
Randi McCabe
Importance: Delay discounting is a behavioral economic index of impulsive preferences for smaller-immediate or larger-delayed rewards that is argued to be a transdiagnostic process across health conditions. Studies suggest some psychiatric disorders are associated with differences in discounting compared with controls, but null findings have also been reported.Objective: To conduct a meta-analysis of the published literature on delay discounting in people with psychiatric disorders.Data Sources: PubMed, MEDLINE, PsycInfo, Embase, and Web of Science databases were searched through December 10, 2018. The psychiatric keywords used were based on DSM-IV or DSM-5 diagnostic categories. Collected data were analyzed from December 10, 2018, through June 1, 2019.Study Selection: Following a preregistered Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) protocol, 2 independent raters reviewed titles, abstracts, and full-text articles. English-language articles comparing monetary delay discounting between participants with psychiatric disorders and controls were included.Data Extraction and Synthesis: Hedges g effect sizes were computed and random-effects models were used for all analyses. Heterogeneity statistics, one-study-removed analyses, and publication bias indices were also examined.Main Outcomes and Measures: Categorical comparisons of delay discounting between a psychiatric group and a control group.Results: The sample included 57 effect sizes from 43 studies across 8 diagnostic categories. Significantly steeper discounting for individuals with a psychiatric disorder compared with controls was observed for major depressive disorder (Hedges g = 0.37; P = .002; k = 7), borderline personality disorder (Hedges g = 0.60; P < .001; k = 8), bipolar disorder (Hedges g = 0.68; P < .001; k = 4), bulimia nervosa (Hedges g = 0.41; P = .001; k = 4), and binge-eating disorder (Hedges g = 0.34; P = .001; k = 7). In contrast, anorexia nervosa exhibited statistically significantly shallower discounting (Hedges g = –0.30; P < .001; k = 10). The schizophrenia category was not statistically significant (Hedges g = 0.18; P = .77; k = 12). Evidence of publication bias at the aggregate level was not statistically significant (Egger test [SE], 1.43 [0.92]; P = .06).Conclusions and Relevance: Results of this study appear to provide empirical support for delay discounting as a transdiagnostic process across most of the psychiatric disorders examined; the literature search also revealed limited studies in some disorders, notably posttraumatic stress disorder, which is a priority area for research.

1 August 2006 in Behaviour Research and Therapy
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
MAMartin M. Antony
Martin M. Antony
MCMichael J. Coons
Michael J. Coons
RMRandi McCabe
Randi McCabe
AAAndrea Ashbaugh
Andrea Ashbaugh
RSRichard P. Swinson
Richard P. Swinson

1 January 2003 in Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
SCShim Ching
Shim Ching
ATAchilleas Thoma
Achilleas Thoma
RMRandi McCabe
Randi McCabe
MAMartin M. Antony
Martin M. Antony

1 February 2009 in Depression and Anxiety
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
PDF file
RCR. Nicholas Carleton
R. Nicholas Carleton
KCKelsey C. Collimore
Kelsey C. Collimore
GAGordon J. G. Asmundson
Gordon J. G. Asmundson
RMRandi McCabe
Randi McCabe
KRKaren Rowa
Karen Rowa
MAMartin M. Antony
Martin M. Antony
Background: The Social Interaction Anxiety Scale and Social Phobia Scale6 are companion measures for assessing symptoms of social anxiety and social phobia. The scales have good reliability and validity across several samples,3, 6 however, exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses have yielded solutions comprising substantially different item content and factor structures. These discrepancies are likely the result of analyzing items from each scale separately or simultaneously. The current investigation sets out to assess items from those scales, both simultaneously and separately, using exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses in an effort to resolve the factor structure. Methods: Participants consisted of a clinical sample (n5353; 54% women) and an undergraduate sample (n5317; 75% women) who completed the Social Interaction Anxiety Scale and Social Phobia Scale, along with additional fear‐related measures to assess convergent and discriminant validity. Results: A three‐factor solution with a reduced set of items was found to be most stable, irrespective of whether the items from each scale are assessed together or separately. Items from the Social Interaction Anxiety Scale represented one factor, whereas items from the Social Phobia Scale represented two other factors. Conclusion: Initial support for scale and factor validity, along with implications and recommendations for future research, is provided. Depression and Anxiety, 2009.