Cognitive-behavioral treatment for adolescent pathological gamblers.

Johnson et al. (1994) tested CBT on four teens who could not stop gambling. The kids were 14 to 18 years old.

The team used a multiple-baseline design. Each teen started treatment at a different time. This let the researchers show the change came from CBT, not luck.

All four teens quit gambling. They stayed clean for six months. No one dropped out.

Parents and the teens both said the urge to bet was gone. The kids also got better grades and slept more.

Ellingsen et al. (2014) used the same design with seven teens who had trauma stress. Both studies show a multiple-baseline across kids can work for high-school age clients.

Kellett et al. (2015) later gave home-based CBT to adults with mild ID and hoarding. Both papers kept gains for six months, showing CBT can stick even when you change the setting or diagnosis.

Wanchisen et al. (1989) ran an uncontrolled CBT study for adults with bulimia. They saw faster gains in the hospital but more relapse later. Johnson et al. (1994) kept the kids outpatient and saw no relapse, hinting that slower, real-life practice may beat a quick inpatient fix.

If you treat teens with risky behavior, use a staggered-start baseline. It gives clear proof without a no-treatment control. Add real-world practice like tracking pocket money or deleting betting apps. The 1994 paper shows four cases are enough to judge change when the design is tight.