Tipo Disturbo	ARTICOLO	LINK ARTICOLO			Frequency	Other
			Rating scale/Likert-type scale	VAS
Anxiety	Brake, C. A., Sauer-Zavala, S., Boswell, J. F., Gallagher, M. W., Farchione, T. J., & Barlow, D. H. (2016). Mindfulness-based exposure strategies as a transdiagnostic mechanism of change: an exploratory alternating treatment design. Behavior therapy, 47(2), 225-238.	LINK	SELF-REPORT                                                                                                  The Subjective Units of Distress Scale (SUDS; Wolpe, 1969) is an intersession rating scale designed to measure subjective distress severity during and across exposure sessions. Participants rate subjective feelings of distress on a 0- to 10-point scale. In the present study, averages of participants’ SUDS ratings were recorded for each exposure.                                                                                                                            The Overall Anxiety Severity and Impairment Scale (OASIS; Norman, Hami-Cissell, Means-Christensen, & Stein, 2006) is a brief five-item questionnaire that was developed as a continuous measure of anxiety-related symptom severity and impairment that may be used across anxiety disorders, with multiple anxiety disorders, and with subthreshold anxiety symptoms.
	Boyle, S., Allan, C., & Millar, K. (2004). Cognitive-behavioural interventions in a patient with an anxiety disorder related to diabetes. Behaviour research and therapy, 42(3), 357-366.	LINK	SELF REPORT                                                                                                                         (Daily diary) the frequency and severity of daily panic attacks were recorded on a scale of 1–10 (1 = mild symptoms, 10 = severe symptoms)                                                Two main beliefs which were selected as cognitive dependent variables based on her worst fears and were assessed on two rating scales at weekly intervals. These were determined by asking the patient about the worst catastrophe that could occur during an anxious episode and if this did happen what would be the meaning of it for her. How much she believed each ‘fear’ was rated in each session. The beliefs were: ‘‘These symptoms are due to imminent hypoglycaemia’’ and ‘‘Hypoglycaemia will lead to loss of behavioural control’’ recorded on a scale of 1 = ‘‘Do not believe the thought at all’’; 10 = ‘‘Completely convinced the thought is true’’.
Anxiety and other	Hurley, J., Hodgekins, J., Coker, S., & Fowler, D. (2018). Persecutory delusions: Effects of cognitive bias modification for interpretation and the Maudsley Review Training Programme on social anxiety, jumping to conclusions, belief inflexibility and paranoia. Journal of behavior therapy and experimental psychiatry, 61, 14-23.	LINK	SELF REPORT                                                                                                  Idiographic ratings of social anxiety, conviction and paranoia: Social anxiety, delusional conviction and paranoia were measured using daily idiographic ratings, ranging from 0 to 100%. Anchor points were provided, e.g., 0% = not at all, 25% = somewhat, 50% = moderately, 75% = very, 100% = extremely. Similar anchor points were used for delusional conviction and paranoia. The wording for each measure was as follows; ‘today I am feeling __% socially anxious,’ ‘today, I am feeling under threat by others___%,’ and ‘thinking about your main worry, how much do you believe it is true?___%.’
Autism	Vuijk, R., & Arntz, A. (2017). Schema therapy as treatment for adults with autism spectrum disorder and comorbid personality disorder: Protocol of a multiple-baseline case series study testing cognitive-behavioral and experiential interventions. Contemporary Clinical Trials Communications, 5, 80-85.	LINK		SELF REPORT                                                                           Three to five idiosyncratic beliefs are formulated that are central to the participant's problems. Participants will rate the degree to which they believe in each statement on 100 mm visual analogue scales every week during treatment and monthly at follow-up. The average score constitutes the primary outcome
	Dunstan, D. A., & Tooth, S. M. (2012). Treatment via videoconferencing: a pilot study of delivery by clinical psychology trainees. Australian journal of rural health, 20(2), 88-94.	LINK	SELF REPORT                                                                                                  Subjective Units of Disturbance Scale (SUDS; Wolpe, 1969) to assess anxiety/distress level on a scale anchored between 0 = no emotional distress to 10 = worst emotional distress
	Moras, K., Telfer, L. A., & Barlow, D. H. (1993). Efficacy and specific effects data on new treatments: A case study strategy with mixed anxiety-depression. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 61(3), 412.	LINK	SELF-REPORT:                                                                                                 Weekly Record of Anxiety and Depression (WRAD, Barlow, 1988): 4 item (average level of anxiety, maximum level of anxiety, average level of depression, average of pleasantness) assessed on a  percentage of worry on a 9 point scale (0 = none to 8 = as much as you can imagine) and 1 item percentage of day the patient felt worry.
	Wurm, M., Strandberg, E. K., Lorenz, C., Tillfors, M., Buhrman, M., Holländare, F., & Boersma, K. (2017). Internet delivered transdiagnostic treatment with telephone support for pain patients with emotional comorbidity: a replicated single case study. Internet Interventions, 10, 54-64.	LINK	SELF-REPORT                                                                                                                          The Overall Anxiety Severity and Impairment Scale (OASIS; Norman, Hami-Cissell, Means-Christensen, & Stein, 2006): 5 item, 5 point scale;                                                       Overall Depressive Symptoms and Impairment Scale (ODSIS, Bentley et al., 2014): 5 items, 5 points scale
Bipolar Disorder	Searson, R., Mansell, W., Lowens, I., & Tai, S. (2012). Think Effectively About Mood Swings (TEAMS): A case series of cognitive–behavioural therapy for bipolar disorders. Journal of behavior therapy and experimental psychiatry, 43(2), 770-779.	LINK	SELF REPORT                                                                                                                         Work and Social Adjustment Scale (WSAS; Marks, 1986): 5 item to assesses perceived level of impairment in five areas: Work, Home management, Social life, Private leisure and Relationships. Each item is scored from 0 = no impairment to 8 = very severe impairment
Body Dismorphic Disorder	Willson, R., Veale, D., & Freeston, M. (2016). Imagery rescripting for body dysmorphic disorder: a multiple-baseline single-case experimental design. Behavior therapy, 47(2), 248-261.	LINK	SELF REPORT                                                                                                  Daily record of:                                                                                                                         - Degree of preoccupation about BDD (0 - 100 = not at all - totally preoccupied/on my mind all day);                                                                                                                           - Distress (0 - 100 = not distressed - completely distressed)	A single item included on the daily record sheet assessed the degree to which participants accepted a psychological model of their problem. Participants were asked to mark on a visual analogue scale (VAS) from 0 (“My main problemis the way I look”) to100 (“My main problem is one of worrying excessively about the way I look”).
Clinical perfectionism	Glover, D. S., Brown, G. P., Fairburn, C. G., & Shafran, R. (2007). A preliminary evaluation of cognitive_behaviour therapy for clinical perfectionism: A case series. British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 46(1), 85-94.	LINK		SELF REPORT                                                                                VAS to assess 7 maintaining mechanisms of clinical perfectionism: striving, fear of failure, overevaluation of performance, checking/avoidance, narrow interests, all-ornothing thinking and selective attention. Participants rated each factor by placing a cross on a 10-cm horizontal scale anchored:  not at all to totally.
Depression	Blackwell, S. E., & Holmes, E. A. (2010). Modifying interpretation and imagination in clinical depression: A single case series using cognitive bias modification. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 24(3), 338-350.	LINK		Visual Analogue Scales-Bias (VAS-Bias) to assess depressive biases: 4 to 6 items (e. g. I find it difficult to imagine anything other than negative outcomes for events) rated on a 10 cm VAS anchored 'not at all true - extremely true'
	Bottonari, K. A., Roberts, J. E., Thomas, S. N., & Read, J. P. (2008). Stop thinking and start doing: Switching from cognitive therapy to behavioral activation in a case of chronic treatment-resistant depression. Cognitive and Behavioral Practice, 15(4), 376-386.	LINK	SELF REPORT                                                                                                                           Single-item rating of the average daily mood (0 = worst mood ever to 10 = best mood ever).
	Brewin, C. R., Wheatley, J., Patel, T., Fearon, P., Hackmann, A., Wells, A., ... & Myers, S. (2009). Imagery rescripting as a brief stand-alone treatment for depressed patients with intrusive memories. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 47(7), 569-576.	LINK		SELF REPORT                                                                 Intrusive memories and ruminative thoughts were rated on four visual analogue scales assessing frequency (0 ‘‘none of the time’’ – 100 ‘‘all the time’’), distress (0 ‘‘not at all’’ – 100 ‘‘severely’’), uncontrollability (0 ‘‘not at all’’ – 100 ‘‘completely’’), and degree of interference with daily life (0 ‘‘not at all’’ – 100 ‘‘severely’’)
	Donohue, B., Acierno, R., Van Hasselt, V. B., & Hersen, M. (1995). Social skills training in a depressed, visually impaired older adult. Journal of behavior therapy and experimental psychiatry, 26(1), 65-75.	LINK	SELF REPORT                                                                                                  Overall happiness ratings. Self-reported daily ratings of "Overall Happiness" (0 = completely unhappy, 100 = completely happy).  Daily scores were averaged each week.
	Folke, F., Hursti, T., Tungström, S., Söderberg, P., Kanter, J. W., Kuutmann, K., ... & Ekselius, L. (2015). Behavioral activation in acute inpatient psychiatry: A multiple baseline evaluation. Journal of behavior therapy and experimental psychiatry, 46, 170-181.	LINK	SELF REPORT                                                                                                                          The momentary level of depression was measured using an hourly diary to be completed from 7 am to 11 pm (if awake). Participants were asked to rate how depressed they had felt the last hour on a scale ranging from 1 (not at all) to 10 (very much).                                                                                                                       CLINICIAN REPORT                                                                                          Clinical Global Impression (CGI-S and I; Guy 1976): CGI-S rating of the severity of the disturb (1-7 = normal-amongst the most severely ill patients), CGI-I rating of the clinical improvement (1 - 7 = very much improved - very much worse)
	Kanter, J. W., Landes, S. J., Busch, A. M., Rusch, L. C., Brown, K. R., Baruch, D. E., & Holman, G. I. (2006). The effect of contingent reinforcement on target variables in outpatient psychotherapy for depression: A successful and unsuccessful case using functional analytic psychotherapy. Journal of applied behavior analysis, 39(4), 463-467.	LINK			frequency of occurrence of problem behaviors
	Lévesque, M., Savard, J., Simard, S., Gauthier, J. G., & Ivers, H. (2004). Efficacy of cognitive therapy for depression among women with metastatic cancer: a single-case experimental study. Journal of behavior therapy and experimental psychiatry, 35(4), 287-305.	LINK	SELF REPORT                                                                                                  Daily mood diary: 4 item symptoms of depression were evaluated using the following items: (1) ‘‘Today, what was the highest intensity of my depressed mood?’’; and (2) ‘‘Today, to what extent did I feel like doing my activities?’’. Two other items evaluated anxious mood and fatigue, two symptoms frequently associated with depression: (1) ‘‘Today, what was the highest intensity of my anxiety?’’; and (2) ‘‘Today, how tired did I feel?’’. scale ranging from ‘‘0’’ (not at all) to ‘‘100’’ (extremely)
	Rasquin, S. M. C., Van De Sande, P., Praamstra, A. J., & Van Heugten, C. M. (2009). Cognitive-behavioural intervention for depression after stroke: five single case studies on effects and feasibility. Neuropsychological Rehabilitation, 19(2), 208-222.	LINK		Visual Analogue Scale (VAS; Arruda, Stern, & Legendre, 1996 to assess the degree of positive mood: 10 cm vertical VAS anchored: "I feel very happy"/"I feel very unhappy"
	Renner, F., Arntz, A., Peeters, F. P., Lobbestael, J., & Huibers, M. J. (2016). Schema therapy for chronic depression: results of a multiple single case series. Journal of behavior therapy and experimental psychiatry, 51, 66-73.	LINK		SELF REPORT                                                                 Outcome Rating Scale (ORS; Miller, Duncan, Brown, Sparks, & Claud, 2003): 4 item about wellbeing in 4 domain (Overall, Individually, Interpersonally, Socially)
	Stalder, T., Evans, P., Hucklebridge, F., & Clow, A. (2010). Associations between psychosocial state variables and the cortisol awakening response in a single case study. Psychoneuroendocrinology, 35(2), 209-214.	LINK		SELF REPORT                                                           daily diary 5 item on vas:                                                            the same five items were applied with reference to different time periods. In the evening diary, the participant rated the five items retro- spectively for the day prior to the study day (‘Feelings about today’). In the morning diary, the participant rated the same variables as both momentary state measures at 45 min post- awakening (‘Feelings now’) and anticipations about the day ahead (‘Feelings about the coming day’). Of the five used items, two items were adapted from the Pittsburgh Sleep Diary (PSD; Monk et al., 1994): Mood (very tense vs. very calm; reported in the direction of tension), Alertness (very sleepy vs. very alert). These are assessed via 100 mm visual analogues scales (VAS) and have been validated for use in healthy participants (Monk et al., 1994, 2000). Three more items were designed to cover further variables of interest: sadness/happiness, obligations and leisure activities. For consistency and ease of repeated use over 50 days the same VAS paradigm as in the PSD items was used. The items were: ‘Happiness’ (very sad vs. very happy), ‘Time spent fulfilling obligations’ (work or other) (nothing at all vs. very much) and ‘Time spent doing leisure activities’ (nothing at all vs. very much).
	Wells, A., Fisher, P., Myers, S., Wheatley, J., Patel, T., & Brewin, C. R. (2009). Metacognitive therapy in recurrent and persistent depression: A multiple-baseline study of a new treatment. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 33(3), 291-300.	LINK	SELF REPORT                                                                                                  Weekly Measure of Rumination:  Self report, 4 item (time spent ruminating, degree of life interference from rumination, perceived levels of uncontrollability of rumination, distress associated with rumination), All dimensions were rated for the past week on 0–100 scales.
Hypochondriasis	Langlois, F., & Ladouceur, R. (2004). Adaptation of a GAD treatment for hypochondriasis. Cognitive and Behavioral Practice, 11(4), 393-404.	LINK	SELF REPORT                                                                                                  Daily Self-Monitoring two questions on a daily basis. (1) the time spent worrying about illness and (2) the intensity of the need for reassurance-seeking behaviors. Participants rated each question on a 100-point scale. For the first question (time spent worrying), 0 indicated a complete absence of worry and 100 represented their most worrisome days.
OCD	Duncko, R., & Veale, D. (2016). Changes in disgust and heart rate during exposure for obsessive compulsive disorder: a case series. Journal of behavior therapy and experimental psychiatry, 51, 92-99.	LINK	SELF REPORT                                                                                                  State anxiety. The state anxiety was measured on a 0 to 10 Likert rating scale where 0 represented “no anxiety at all” and 10 was “the worst possible anxiety”. State disgust. The state disgust was measured by using 10-point Likert rating scales where 0 represented “no disgust at all” and 10 was “the worst possible disgust”.
	Himle, J. A., Fischer, D. J., Muroff, J. R., Van Etten, M. L., Lokers, L. M., Abelson, J. L., & Hanna, G. L. (2006). Videoconferencing-based cognitive-behavioral therapy for obsessive-compulsive disorder. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 44(12), 1821-1829.	LINK	CLINICIAN RATINGS                                                                                         Overall improvement with treatment was measured using the Clinical Global Improvement scale (NIMH, 1985) single-item, 7-point scale.                                               SELF REPORT                                                                                               Patient functioning was measured using the Work and Social Adjustment Scale (WSAS; Marks, 1986) to assess the perceived level of impairment in five areas: Work, Home management, Social life, Private leisure and Relationships. Each item is scored from 0 = no impairment to 8 = very severe impairment
	Krochmalik, A., Jones, M. K., & Menzies, R. G. (2001). Danger Ideation Reduction Therapy (DIRT) for treatment-resistant compulsive washing. Behaviour research and Therapy, 39(8), 897-912.	LINK	SELF REPORT                                                                                                                           Self-rating of severity (SRS) This 9-point self-rating of severity was adapted from the measure developed by Marks and Matthews (1979) for use with phobic clients. As used by Jones and Menzies (1998a), subjects respond to the following question: “How would you rate the present state of your obsessive–compulsive symptoms on the scale below?” On the scale, 0 represents no OCD present, while the maximum score of 8 represents a very severe, disturbing or disabling OCD present                                                             CLINICIAN RATINGS                                                                                         Global-rating of severity This 5-point scale was used in the manner described by Michelson (1986) and Menzies and Clarke (1995). The clinician rated the severity of each subject’s condition from 1, representing no complaints and normal activity, up to a maximum of 5, representing severe dysfunction with work, role or social activities either radically changed or prevented
	Ladouceur, R., Léger, E., Rhéaume, J., & Dubé, D. (1996). Correction of inflated responsibility in the treatment of obsessive-compulsive disorder. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 34(10), 767-774.	LINK	SELF REPORT                                                                                                                       Daily self-monitoring of interference caused by the main rituals was completed by each S. Patients used an adaptation of the self-rating scale 'the four target rituals' developed by Marks, Stern, Mawson, Cobb and McDonald (1980): «...rated these 4 target problems on 0-8 scales for 'discomfort'and for 'time taken by ritual per day' (see Marks et al, 1977, pp. 76-7).Scores for the 4 targets were pooled for all analyses.» (Marks et al. 1980, p 5)
	Wilson, K. A., & Chambless, D. L. (2005). Cognitive therapy for obsessive–compulsive disorder. Behaviour research and therapy, 43(12), 1645-1654.	LINK	SELF REPORT:                                                                                                 Target Symptom Ratings: Single item to evaluate the frequency of a chosen compulsion on a 7 point scale (0 = absent to 6 = extreme)
	Zysk, E., Shafran, R., & Williams, T. I. (2017). A single-subject evaluation of the treatment of morphing fear. Cognitive and Behavioral Practice.	LINK		SELF REPORT                                                                              A series of 10 cm VASs were used to measure self-report current ratings of internal dirtiness, general dirtiness, washing/neutralizing urges, and anxiety. Each scale was anchored with the labels "Not at all" to "Extremely"
Paranoia	Chadwick, P., & Trower, P. (1996). Cognitive therapy for punishment paranoia: a single case experiment. Behaviour research and therapy, 34(4), 351-356.	LINK	SELF REPORT                                                                                                  Belief conviction & preoccupation. Following Hole, Rush and Beck (1979) conviction, certainty that a belief is true, was measured using a percentage rating, 0% implying a belief to be definitely false, 100% that it is definitely true. Preoccupation was rated retrospectively using a simple 3-point scale; this was that in the past week Bill had thought about a particular belief 'Not at all', 'Occasionally' (fewer than four times), and 'Often' (four or more Times)
Phobia	Boersma, K., Linton, S., Overmeer, T., Jansson, M., Vlaeyen, J., & de Jong, J. (2004). Lowering fear-avoidance and enhancing function through exposure in vivo: a multiple baseline study across six patients with back pain. Pain, 108(1-2), 8-16.	Link	SELF REPORT                                                                                                  Daily ratings 4 item from validated questionnaires and traslated in swedish: "Physical activity makes my pain worse" (FABQ, Waddel et al., 1993), "To what degree are you worried that physical activity can worsen your pain?" (created by authors), "How worried are you about your back problem? (back pain worry questions, Von Korff et al., 1998), "An increase in pain is an indication that I should stop what Iam doing until the pain decreases (PAIRS, Riley et al., 1988) scored on ab 10 point scale (high scores = high levels of fear);                                                                                                               Weekly ratings  function (avoidance behavior) (item 20-25 OMPSQ, Linton, 1999), fear and avoidance beliefs (item 20 OMPS, item 8 PAIRS Riley et al., 1988, item 4 FABQ, Waddell et al., 1993) + 1 item created ad hoc "With the pain I experience it is better to keep a low profile and to avoid movements that provoke pain") rated on a 0-10 scale (scoring alternatives depending on the question)
	Botella, C., Baños, R. M., Villa, H., Perpiñá, C., & García-Palacios, A. (2000). Virtual reality in the treatment of claustrophobic fear: A controlled, multiple-baseline design. Behavior therapy, 31(3), 583-595.	LINK	SELF REPORT                                                                                                  Subjective Units of Disturbance Scale (SUDS; Wolpe, 1969) to assess anxiety/distress level on a scale anchored between 0 = no anxiety to 10 = high anxiety    Fear Record (FR). 1 item for a daily rate of degree of fear of the target behavior: rated on a scale ranging from 0 = no fear to 10 = extreme fear
	Botella, C., Bretón-López, J., Quero, S., Baños, R., & García-Palacios, A. (2010). Treating cockroach phobia with augmented reality. Behavior Therapy, 41(3), 401-413.	LINK	CLINICIAN RATINGS                                                                                         Clinician's severity rating (wherein the clinician rates the severity and interference of the problem on a scale from 0 to 8 where 0=“Absent/none” and 8=“Very severely disturbing/disabling”) (retrieved from: The Anxiety Disorders Interview Schedule (ADIS-IV; DiNardo et al., 1994))                                                                                                        SELF REPORT                                                                                                                  Target Behaviors (adapted from Marks & Mathews, 1979): fear and avoidance on a scale ranging from 0 (“No fear at all,” “I never avoid”) to 10 (“Severe fear,” “I always avoid”) for the most significant target behavior chosen by each participant.                        Interference and distress as perceived by the participant on a scale from 0 to 8 (wherein 0=“Not at all” and 8=“Very severe”) (retrieved from: The Anxiety Disorders Interview Schedule (ADIS-IV; DiNardo et al., 1994) The degree of belief in catastrophic thought was also assessed on a scale of 0 to 10.   Subjective Units of Disturbance Scale (SUDS; Wolpe, 1969) to assess anxiety/distress level on a scale anchored between 0 = no anxiety to 10 = extreme anxiety
	Botella, C., Breton-Lopez, J., Quero, S., Baños, R. M., Garcia-Palacios, A., Zaragoza, I., & Alcañiz, M. (2011). Treating cockroach phobia using a serious game on a mobile phone and augmented reality exposure: A single case study. Computers in Human Behavior, 27(1), 217-227.	LINK	SELF REPORT                                                                                                  Fear: 1 item to assess fear on a 0-10 scale (0 = No fear at all; 10 = Severe fear);               Avoidance: 1 item to assess avoidance on a 0-10 scale (0 = I never avoid; 10 = I always avoid)                                                                                                                                    Belief in catastrophic thoughts rated on a 1 - 10 scale
	Botella, C., Osma, J., Garcia_Palacios, A., Quero, S., & Baños, R. M. (2004). Treatment of flying phobia using virtual reality: data from a 1_year follow_up using a multiple baseline design. Clinical Psychology & Psychotherapy, 11(5), 311-323.	LINK	SELF REPORT                                                                                                  Avoidance and Fear Scale (AFS; adapted from Marks & Mathews, 1979): 2 item, 1 to assess level of avoidance of 4 behavior/situation decided with the therapist on a scale 0 = I never avoid it to 10 = I always avoid it, and 1 to assess the level of fear on scale  0 = no fear to 10 = estreme fear                                                                                    Subjective Units of Disturbance Scale (SUDS; Wolpe, 1969) to assess anxiety/distress level on a scale anchored between 0 = no anxiety to 10 = extreme anxiety
	Chorpita, B. F., Vitali, A. E., & Barlow, D. H. (1997). Behavioral treatment of choking phobia in an adolescent: An experimental analysis. Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry, 28(4), 307-315.	LINK	CLINICIAN REPORT                                                                                                              Clinicians also rated the severity of the disorders on a 9-point scale (Clinical Severity  Ratings; CSRs) ranging from 0 to 8, with higher scores reflecting greater severity. Anchors for the scale were: 0 = "no features;" 4 = "definitely disturbing, disabling:" 8 = "very severely disturbing, disabling."
	Frets, P. G., Kevenaar, C., & van der Heiden, C. (2014). Imagery rescripting as a stand-alone treatment for patients with social phobia: A case series. Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry, 45(1), 160-169.	LINK		SELF REPORT                                                                             Five situations leading to high levels of anxiety and/or avoidance were identified. For each situation, the degrees of anxiety and avoidance are rated on a visual analogue scale, ranging from 0 to 8 (8 = the highest level of anxiety/ avoidance).
	Ollendick, T. H. (1995). Cognitive behavioral treatment of panic disorder with agoraphobia in adolescents: A multiple baseline design analysis. Behavior Therapy, 26(3), 517-531.	LINK	SELF REPORT                                                                                                                         self-efficacy ratings for coping with panic: 3 item for each agoraphobic situation previously identified on a scale ranging from 1 to 5 (1 = not at all sure; 2 = maybe; 3 = probably; 4 = very sure; and 5 = definitely sure).  (a) "simply being in the [agoraphobic] situation"; (b) "first noticing the symptoms of an attack like the ones you usually have"; and (c) "experiencing more intense symptoms that continue to worsen and intensify." Scores on this scale ranged from 1 to 15 for each of the three agoraphobic situations; the three situations were averaged to obtain a weekly measure of self-efficacy.        Agoraphobic situation avoidance: rate the extent to which they had actually avoided the three agoraphobic situations. on a 5-point scale (1 = did not avoid/escape; 2 - occasionally avoided/escaped; 3 = sometimes avoided/escaped, but was able to enter alone; 4 = usually avoided, rarely entered alone; and 5 = always avoided, did not enter even with a safe person).
	Wald, J. (2004). Efficacy of virtual reality exposure therapy for driving phobia: A multiple baseline across-subjects design. Behavior Therapy, 35(3), 621-635.	LINK	SELF REPORT                                                                                                                   Driving Diary. The Main Target Phobia and Global Phobia items were taken from the Fear Questionnaire (Marks & Mathews, 1979). For Main Target Phobia (the phobia the individual wants treated), participants rated their degree of driving avoidance because of fear or unpleasant feelings (0 = would not avoid it; 8 = always avoid it). For General Phobia, participants rated the present overall severity of driving phobia symptoms (0 = no phobia present; 8 = very severely disturbing~disabling phobia present).  For Driving Frequency, participants recorded the number of minutes of driving they completed each day
	Wells, A., Clark, D. M., Salkovskis, P., Ludgate, J., Hackmann, A., & Gelder, M. (1995). Social phobia: The role of in-situation safety behaviors in maintaining anxiety and negative beliefs. Behavior Therapy, 26(1), 153-161.	LINK		SELF REPORT                                                                            Belief VAS: 1 item to rate the belief in a thought on a 0-100 VAS (0 = Don't  believe the thought at all; 100 = Completely convinced the thought is true);                                                       Anxiety VAS: 1 item to rate anxiety toward a social situation on a 0-100 VAS (0 = Not at all anxious; 100 = The most anxious I have ever been)
	Wells, A., & Papageorgiou, C. (1998). Social phobia: Effects of external attention on anxiety, negative beliefs, and perspective taking. Behavior therapy, 29(3), 357-370.	LINK	SELF REPORT                                                                                                                          1 Item to assess anxiety level rated on a 0-100 scale (0 = "not at all anxious" - 100 ="the most anxious I have ever been"). 1 item to assess the level of belief rated on a 0-100 scale (0 = "do not believe the thought at all" - 100 = "completely convinced the thought is true). 1 item to assess the extent to which patients' images of the feared social situation were from a field perspective (inside own body looking out) or an observer perspective (outside of self, seeing oneself from another person's point of view) rated on a bipolar scale (7-point) ranging from -3 to +3 (-3 = "field perspective, one of viewing the situation as if looking out through your own eyes, observing the details of what is going on around you" - +3 = "observer perspective, one in which you are observing yourself, that is, as if you were outside of yourself, looking at yourself from an external point of view). 1 item was used to assess the efficacy of each condition rated on a a 0-100 rating scale ranging from "not at all effective" to "entirely effective."
	Wells, A., White, J., & Carter, K. (1997). Attention training: Effects on anxiety and beliefs in panic and social phobia. Clinical Psychology & Psychotherapy, 4(4), 226-232.	LINK	SELF REPORT                                                                                                                               1 Main belief based on patient's worst fear and rated on a 0 - 100 rating scale ( 0 = Do not believe the thought at all; 100 = Completely convinced the thought is true) (2 times: current status and anxious status)
PTSD	Pantalon, M. V., & Motta, R. W. (1998). Effectiveness of anxiety management training in the treatment of posttraumatic stress disorder: A preliminary report. Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry, 29(1), 21-29.	LINK	SELF REPORT form which measured the intensity of intrusions and avoidance (Weathers et al., 1991). Each of the behaviors was rated on a 5-point Likert-type scale, where 1 indicated absence of the behavior and 5 indicated extreme intensity of the behavior
Rumination	Ruiz, F. J., Riaño Hernández, D., Suárez Falcón, J. C., & Luciano, C. (2016). Effect of a one-session ACT protocol in disrupting repetitive negative thinking: A randomized multiple-baseline design. International Journal of Psychology and Psychological Therapy, 16(3).	LINK		SELF REPORT                                                                 Self-monitoring of worry/rumination: 1 item "Have you been entangled with your thoughts, memories and worries about the future along the day?" rated on a 0-10 VAS (0 = not at all entangled; 5= moderately entangled; 10= completely entangled)
Schizoaffective Disorder / Paranoid Schizophrenia	Key, F. A., Craske, M. G., & Reno, R. M. (2003). Anxiety-based cognitive-behavioral therapy for paranoid beliefs. Behavior Therapy, 34(1), 97-115.	LINK		SELF REPORT                                                                     Conviction in paranoid beliefs and associated anxiety. Each patient's paranoid belief(s) were identified at the study's start. We obtained direct ratings of the strength of conviction in these beliefs on a 0% to 100% scale (Hole, Rush, & Beck, 1979). In addition, on the same scale, subjects rated the intensity of their fear responses to the paranoid situations (0% = not at all anxious; 100% = could not be worse). The number of beliefs monitored ranged from one to three per participant.
Sexual orientation self-stigma	Yadavaia, J. E., & Hayes, S. C. (2012). Acceptance and commitment therapy for self-stigma around sexual orientation: A multiple baseline evaluation. Cognitive and Behavioral Practice, 19(4), 545-559.	LINK	SELF REPORT                                                                                                                          Daily Ratings of Thoughts About Sexual Orientation: Participants were asked to make daily ratings on a 0–100 scale of four items: (a) the degree to which negative thoughts about sexual orientation interfered in the participant's life, (b) the distress associated with those thoughts, (c) the believability of the thoughts, and (d) their frequency.
NS	Ba_o_lu, M., Ekblad, S., Bäärnhielm, S., & Livanou, M. (2004). Cognitive-behavioral treatment of tortured asylum seekers: a case study. Journal of anxiety disorders, 18(3), 357-369.	LINK	CLINICIAN RATINGS AND SELF REPORT                                                            Clinician’s Global Impression–Improvement (CGI) and Patient’s Global Impression–Improvement (PGI) were used to measure overall clinical improvement. These measures (Marks, Lovell, Noshirvani, Livanou, & Thrasher, 1998) ranged from 1 (very much improved), through 4 (no change) to 7 (very much worse).                                                                                                                              SELF REPORT                                                                                                                          A measure of Main Problems (Marks, 1986) was used to monitor progress in the patient’s problems. This was a single item that measured the patient’s overall presenting problems on a 0–8 scale (0 = not at all a problem/does not interfere with my life, and 8 = extremely severe problem/interferes with my life all the time)
	Masuda, A., Hayes, S. C., Sackett, C. F., & Twohig, M. P. (2004). Cognitive defusion and self-relevant negative thoughts: Examining the impact of a ninety year old technique. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 42(4), 477-485.	LINK		SELF REPORT                                                                        Participants were asked to generate two self-relevant negative thoughts Participants were then asked to restate each thought in one word (e.g. ‘‘fat’’). each thought were then rated using a 100-mm Likert-style visual analog scale to assess he degree of discomfort (0  = not at all uncomfortable to 100 = very uncomfortable) and the believability (0 = not at all believable to 100  = very believable) of thoughts
	Scott, W. O., Baer, G., Christoff, K. A., & Kelly, J. A. (1984). The use of skills training procedures in the treatment of a child-abusive parent. Journal of behavior therapy and experimental psychiatry, 15(4), 329-336.	LINK	SELF REPORT                                                                                                  Anger assessment. … each day monitored her highest level of anger from 1 =completely calm to 9 = extremely angered.
	Villatte, J. L., Vilardaga, R., Villatte, M., Vilardaga, J. C. P., Atkins, D. C., & Hayes, S. C. (2016). Acceptance and Commitment Therapy modules: Differential impact on treatment processes and outcomes. Behaviour research and therapy, 77, 52-61.	LINK		SELF REPORT                                                                 The Values Bullseye (Lundgren, Luoma, Dahl, Strosahl, & Melin, 2012) is a visual analogue scale that measures congruence between behaviors and personally chosen values in four domain
	Wittkowski, A., & Richards, H. L. (2007). How beneficial is cognitive behaviour therapy in the treatment of atopic dermatitis? A single-case study. Psychology, health & medicine, 12(4), 445-449.	LINK		SELF REPORT                                                                                 Prior to each session, patients were asked to rate their perceived ATOPIC Dermatitis severity, perceived stigmatization, anxiety in social situations and avoidance behaviours on a visual analogue scale, ranging from 0 (not at all) to 100 (a great deal). These scales were used as indicators for self-rated degree of conviction and strength of beliefs throughout therapy