Liebowitz Social Anxiety Scale: What It Measures and Its Limitations
Updated: Oct 8
Author: Ukrainian Psychological Hub · Published: October 1, 2026 · Editorial Policy
The Liebowitz Social Anxiety Scale (LSAS) is a standardized measure of social anxiety severity. It asks about fear or anxiety and avoidance across 24 social and performance situations, producing a total score that can be used to describe symptom burden and, when repeated, to track change. The original scale was introduced by Michael R. Liebowitz in 1987 and was developed as a clinician-administered instrument for what was then called social phobia. Liebowitz, 1987
The most important boundary is simple: an LSAS score is not a diagnosis. A high score can support concern about clinically important social anxiety, and certain thresholds have performed reasonably well as screening cut points in specific studies, but diagnosis of social anxiety disorder requires a broader clinical assessment. The NICE guideline for social anxiety disorder recommends validated measures such as the LSAS to inform assessment and support evaluation of intervention, while the assessment itself must also examine fear, avoidance, distress, functional impairment, comorbidity, safety behaviors, and the broader clinical context.
That distinction is especially important online, where the LSAS is often presented as a “social anxiety test” and numerical cutoffs are sometimes treated as if they were diagnostic rules. The research supports a more precise interpretation. The LSAS is a well-studied severity and assessment instrument with useful screening properties; it does not replace diagnostic interviewing, differential diagnosis, or clinical judgment.
Quick Answer: What Does the Liebowitz Social Anxiety Scale Measure?
The LSAS measures two related dimensions of social anxiety: fear or anxiety in social and performance situations, and avoidance of those situations. It covers 24 situations, traditionally grouped into 11 social-interaction situations and 13 performance or observation situations. Each situation receives one fear/anxiety rating and one avoidance rating. A detailed psychometric account of the self-report version describes this 24-situation structure and the paired fear and avoidance ratings. Baker et al., 2002
The result is primarily a dimensional severity score. Higher scores generally indicate greater reported social fear and avoidance. The scale can therefore answer questions such as “How broad and intense is this person’s social anxiety?” or “Has measured social anxiety changed over time?” It cannot, by itself, answer “Does this person have social anxiety disorder?” or “What caused these symptoms?”
Social anxiety disorder itself is a clinical condition defined by persistent fear or anxiety in situations involving possible scrutiny or evaluation, along with avoidance or intense distress and meaningful interference with life. The National Institute of Mental Health emphasizes duration, interference, and clinical evaluation rather than a questionnaire score alone.
How the LSAS Is Structured
Twenty-four situations, rated twice
The LSAS presents 24 types of social or performance situations. Rather than asking only how anxious a person feels in general, it samples anxiety across a range of contexts in which a person may interact with others, perform while being observed, speak, eat or drink in public, or otherwise face possible evaluation. This situation-based design is one of the instrument’s defining features.
Each situation is rated for fear or anxiety and for avoidance. In the standard scoring framework, each dimension is rated from 0 to 3. That means the 24 fear/anxiety ratings can sum to 0–72, the 24 avoidance ratings can sum to 0–72, and the combined total can range from 0 to 144. The exact wording and administration instructions matter, so formal use should follow the validated version and scoring guidance rather than an improvised online copy. Baker et al., 2002
Fear and avoidance are related but not identical
Fear and avoidance capture different aspects of the same clinical territory. A person may experience intense fear but continue entering social situations because work, school, family, or personal goals require it. Another person may report less frequent acute anxiety precisely because life has been reorganized around avoiding feared situations. Measuring both dimensions can therefore reveal information that a single “how anxious are you?” rating could miss.
At the same time, psychometric studies have repeatedly found strong correlations between fear and avoidance scores. In a large clinical sample, Heimberg et al. (1999) found excellent internal consistency and good convergent validity, but also reported that fear and avoidance subscales might not be sufficiently distinct in clinical samples. This is one reason to avoid over-interpreting every LSAS subscore as a separate psychological construct.
What Scores Can Be Calculated?
The most commonly used summary is the LSAS total score, which combines all fear/anxiety and avoidance ratings. Depending on the version and scoring convention, clinicians and researchers may also examine total fear, total avoidance, social-interaction components, performance components, or factor-derived subscales.
Those component scores can be useful descriptively, but they are not equally established as independent dimensions. A known-groups study found that the LSAS total score discriminated among diagnostic groups, while the original subscales were extremely highly correlated with one another and with the total score, suggesting limited unique information from some of those subscales. Heimberg & Holaway, 2007
The practical implication is that the total score is usually easier to interpret than a fine-grained profile of original subscales. If a clinician does examine subscores, they should be treated as contextual information rather than as separate diagnoses or fixed “types” of social anxiety.
Clinician-Administered LSAS vs Self-Report LSAS
The original LSAS was clinician administered. A trained interviewer asks about the situations and assigns ratings with the respondent, using the scale’s definitions and clinical judgment. A self-report adaptation, usually called the LSAS-SR, later became widely used because it can be completed without clinician administration.
A direct comparison of the two formats in 99 people with social anxiety disorder and 53 people without a current psychiatric disorder found little difference between clinician-administered and self-report scores. Both versions showed strong internal consistency, and corresponding scores were highly correlated. Fresco et al., 2001
A separate study of 175 participants with social phobia found that the LSAS-SR showed good test-retest reliability, internal consistency, convergent and discriminant validity, and sensitivity to treatment change, while also noting that construct validity required further investigation. Baker et al., 2002
These findings support the LSAS-SR as a useful self-report measure, but “self-report” does not make the score self-diagnosing. The format changes who provides the ratings; it does not change the conceptual boundary between measurement and diagnosis.
How to Interpret an LSAS Total Score
An LSAS total score is best interpreted as a dimensional estimate of social anxiety severity within the specific version, language, population, and purpose for which it is being used. The number becomes more informative when it is combined with the pattern of feared situations, degree of avoidance, functional impairment, clinical history, and repeated measurements over time.
A single score is less informative than many online charts imply. Two people can have the same total for very different reasons. One may report moderate fear across many situations. Another may have intense anxiety in a narrower set of situations plus heavy avoidance. A total score compresses those patterns into one number.
The score also does not establish why social fear or avoidance is occurring. Similar behavioral patterns can appear alongside depression, other anxiety disorders, autism, trauma-related conditions, obsessive-compulsive phenomena, substance use, psychosis, speech or language difficulties, or medical and developmental factors. The NICE assessment recommendations explicitly direct clinicians to consider comorbidity and broader circumstances during assessment.
What Do the Common 30 and 60 Cutoffs Mean?
Two numbers appear frequently in discussions of the LSAS: 30 and 60. They come from screening studies, not from diagnostic criteria.
In a 2002 study of 364 people with clinician-assessed social anxiety disorder and 34 control participants without current Axis I disorders, an LSAS total score of 30 provided the best balance of sensitivity and specificity for identifying social anxiety disorder in that sample. A score of 60 was the best cutoff for identifying what the study called the generalized subtype. Mennin et al., 2002
A later study of the self-report LSAS examined 291 people with clinician-assessed social anxiety disorder and 53 control participants. It again found that cutoffs of 30 and 60 performed well for the same two classification tasks. Rytwinski et al., 2009
These numbers should not be converted into a universal rule such as “30 means you have social anxiety disorder” or “60 proves severe social anxiety disorder.” Screening cutoffs depend on the population, comparison group, version of the scale, purpose of measurement, and diagnostic framework used by the validation study. Rytwinski and colleagues noted an especially important limitation: their control group had no current mental disorder, which may have made the scale appear better at separating groups than it would in a diagnostically mixed real-world clinic. Rytwinski et al., 2009
The 60-point threshold also belongs to older studies that tried to identify the DSM-IV-era generalized subtype of social anxiety disorder. The American Psychiatric Association later deleted the generalized specifier and replaced it with a performance-only specifier in DSM-5. American Psychiatric Association, Highlights of Changes from DSM-IV-TR to DSM-5 That historical shift is another reason not to treat a 60-point cutoff as a current diagnostic subtype boundary.
Why the LSAS Cannot Diagnose Social Anxiety Disorder
A diagnostic assessment answers a broader set of questions than the LSAS was designed to answer. It asks whether the feared situations involve scrutiny or negative evaluation in the characteristic way, whether the pattern is persistent, whether the fear is out of proportion to actual threat in context, whether the person avoids the situations or endures them with intense distress, and whether symptoms cause clinically significant impairment. It also asks whether another condition, substance, medication, or medical problem better explains the presentation.
The LSAS measures important pieces of that picture—especially fear and avoidance—but it does not independently establish all of those criteria. It also does not perform a medical differential diagnosis or a structured psychiatric differential diagnosis. For a broader explanation of that process, see How Is Anxiety Diagnosed? Assessment, History, and Differential Diagnosis.
This is why clinical guidelines use wording such as “inform the assessment.” NICE specifically recommends considering validated measures such as SPIN or the LSAS to inform assessment and support evaluation of intervention, while requiring a fuller examination of fear, avoidance, distress, impairment, comorbidity, and context. NICE CG159
How Strong Is the Evidence for the LSAS?
Reliability and convergent validity
The LSAS has a substantial psychometric literature. In the influential 1999 study of 382 treatment-seeking patients, the clinician-administered LSAS and its subscales showed excellent internal consistency. Scores correlated with other measures of social anxiety and avoidance, supporting convergent validity, and the scale was sensitive to pharmacological treatment effects. Heimberg et al., 1999
The self-report version has also shown good reliability and validity across several studies. Fresco and colleagues found strong correspondence with clinician-administered ratings, while Baker and colleagues reported good test-retest reliability, internal consistency, convergent validity, discriminant validity, and treatment sensitivity. Fresco et al., 2001 Baker et al., 2002
Known-groups and screening validity
Known-groups research suggests that the LSAS total score can meaningfully distinguish groups with different levels and patterns of social anxiety. Heimberg & Holaway (2007) found that total scores differed across groups with social anxiety disorder, generalized anxiety disorder with or without co-occurring social anxiety disorder, and nonanxious controls. Screening studies likewise found useful discrimination in their study samples.
That evidence supports the scale as an assessment tool; it does not turn the LSAS into a definitive diagnostic classifier. Diagnostic accuracy depends heavily on who is being tested. A threshold that separates a clearly diagnosed social-anxiety group from unusually healthy controls may perform differently in primary care, university counseling, mixed psychiatric services, or populations with high rates of overlapping conditions.
Sensitivity to change
The LSAS is widely used as an outcome measure because scores can change when social anxiety changes. The 1999 psychometric study found treatment sensitivity, and later clinical trials and meta-analyses have repeatedly used LSAS change as an outcome. A 2023 systematic review and individual-patient-data meta-analysis of 12 randomized studies involving 1,246 adults with social anxiety disorder used baseline-to-posttreatment LSAS change as its main symptom-severity outcome. Scholten et al., 2023
This makes repeated LSAS measurement useful for monitoring, but a change score still needs context. Improvement in the total should be interpreted alongside functioning, avoidance patterns, goals, adverse effects, treatment adherence, and the person’s own experience of recovery. A lower number is evidence of less measured social anxiety on the scale, not a complete definition of remission.
The Factor Structure Is a Real Limitation
The simple scoring story—social interaction versus performance, fear versus avoidance—is clinically intuitive, but psychometric research has not produced one universally stable factor model.
Safren and colleagues tested the original two-factor social-interaction/performance model separately for fear and avoidance ratings and found that it did not fit adequately. Exploratory analyses instead suggested four areas: social interaction, public speaking, observation by others, and eating or drinking in public. Safren et al., 1999
Later cross-cultural work has produced other structures. In a very large Spanish- and Portuguese-speaking sample—31,243 community participants and 529 participants with social anxiety disorder—researchers found a five-factor solution and concluded that the LSAS-SR had good internal consistency and convergent validity, while also noting that some culturally relevant feared situations appeared underrepresented. Caballo et al., 2019
A 2026 study of a Lithuanian LSAS-SR translation in 452 young adults found excellent internal consistency and acceptable fit for tested factor models, but correlations above .80 among several scale and subscale scores suggested that the subscores may provide limited additional information in some cross-sectional uses. Zamalijeva et al., 2026
These findings do not invalidate the LSAS. They define one of its most important limitations: the total score is well established as a broad severity indicator, while fine-grained interpretation of particular subscores is more dependent on the psychometric model, population, language, and purpose.
Cross-Cultural and Population Limitations
A psychological scale does not become culture-free because it uses numbers. Which social situations feel threatening, how avoidance is expressed, what counts as socially expected behavior, and how people use response scales can vary across languages, cultures, age groups, and clinical contexts.
The large cross-cultural study by Caballo and colleagues supports use of the LSAS-SR across Spanish- and Portuguese-speaking populations but also found a factor pattern that differed from some earlier models and suggested that the instrument may omit certain socially feared situations relevant in those settings. Caballo et al., 2019
Measurement-invariance research adds another layer. An Italian study of 257 adults with diagnosed social anxiety disorder and 356 community adults found evidence supporting a largely common underlying trait across clinical and community samples and strong invariance across sex, while also identifying partial measurement invariance and differential item functioning across clinical status. Baroni et al., 2023
The practical rule is to use a validated language/version and interpret the score with norms and evidence that match the intended population whenever possible. A cutoff derived in one clinical sample should not automatically be treated as equally accurate in another country, age group, health condition, or service setting.
Can the LSAS Be Used to Track Treatment Response?
Yes. Repeated LSAS scores are commonly used to quantify change in social anxiety severity. Because the same person can be measured before, during, and after treatment, the scale can provide a standardized trajectory rather than relying only on memory of how severe symptoms used to feel.
However, the amount of change that counts as “response” or the score that counts as “remission” is not a universal biological boundary. A German psychotherapy study of 311 people with social anxiety disorder estimated remission cutoffs of 35 for the self-report LSAS and 30 for the clinician-administered LSAS, and estimated treatment-response thresholds around a 28% to 29% reduction, depending on version. von Glischinski et al., 2018
Those estimates are useful evidence, but they came from a particular treatment sample and used specific reference criteria. They should not be converted into a rule that every person below 35 is “in remission” or every person who improves by 28% has achieved a complete clinical recovery. Treatment outcome includes functioning, remaining avoidance, quality of life, comorbidity, and the goals that matter to the person.
Children and Adolescents: Do Not Transfer Adult Scores Automatically
The original adult LSAS should not be treated as if its validation, cutoffs, and interpretation automatically apply to children. A distinct Liebowitz Social Anxiety Scale for Children and Adolescents (LSAS-CA) was developed and studied for younger populations. An initial psychometric investigation found high internal consistency and test-retest reliability and supported its use as an age-specific assessment instrument. Masia-Warner et al., 2003
NICE likewise discusses child and youth assessment separately and lists age-appropriate formal measures as aids to a comprehensive assessment. NICE CG159 The key point is that an adult LSAS number should not be mechanically interpreted with pediatric cutoffs, and a child or adolescent should not be diagnosed from a questionnaire total.
LSAS, SPIN, and a Clinical Assessment Are Different Things
The LSAS is one of several validated measures used in social anxiety assessment. The Social Phobia Inventory (SPIN) is another commonly used instrument, and NICE lists both as examples of validated measures that can inform assessment. They are not interchangeable with a diagnostic interview, and they do not have to produce identical classifications in the same person.
The LSAS is especially distinctive because it is situation based and rates both fear/anxiety and avoidance. That can be useful when the clinical question concerns how social anxiety operates across different contexts. A broader clinical assessment adds information that no questionnaire can supply on its own: onset, duration, impairment, developmental history, comorbidity, differential diagnosis, substance and medication effects, physical health, and the meaning of the symptoms in the person’s life.
Common Interpretation Mistakes
Mistake 1: Treating the total score as a diagnosis
A score is evidence about measured social anxiety severity. It is not a diagnostic criterion set. Even a very high score does not establish by itself that social anxiety disorder is the best explanation for the presentation.
Mistake 2: Treating 30 or 60 as universal clinical borders
The 30 and 60 thresholds came from specific screening studies and specific comparison groups. The 60 threshold also referred to an older generalized subtype framework. They are useful historical and psychometric reference points, not universal present-day diagnostic borders.
Mistake 3: Assuming every subscale is a stable independent trait
Fear, avoidance, social interaction, and performance components can be descriptively useful, but multiple studies have found strong intercorrelations or alternative factor structures. Subscores should therefore be interpreted within the validation model being used rather than treated as separate disorders.
Mistake 4: Comparing scores across versions as if they were identical
Clinician-administered and self-report forms correlate strongly, but administration format can matter. Language adaptations, pediatric versions, and population-specific validations add further differences. The version should always be named when reporting a score in clinical or research contexts.
Mistake 5: Ignoring functioning because the number looks reassuring
A lower total does not automatically mean social anxiety is clinically unimportant. Narrow but disabling fears can have major consequences, and a person may reduce anxiety exposure by avoiding education, work, relationships, public speaking, eating in public, or other valued activities. Diagnostic assessment therefore considers impairment and avoidance patterns, not only total symptom count.
Mistake 6: Assuming a high score explains the cause
The LSAS describes social fear and avoidance; it does not identify etiology. A clinician may need to consider other anxiety disorders, depression, trauma-related conditions, obsessive-compulsive symptoms, neurodevelopmental conditions, psychosis, substance use, speech or language problems, and medical context. This is part of differential assessment, not something a total score can resolve.
What Should Happen After an LSAS Score?
In clinical care, the score is most useful when it starts a more specific conversation. Which situations produce the highest fear? Which are avoided? What does the person predict will happen? What safety behaviors are used? How much does anxiety interfere with school, work, relationships, travel, eating, speaking, dating, medical care, or other daily activities? How long has the pattern been present?
If social anxiety is causing substantial distress, persistent avoidance, or functional impairment, a qualified clinician can combine the LSAS with history, diagnostic assessment, and differential diagnosis. The LSAS may then serve as a baseline for monitoring, especially if the same version and administration method are used consistently.
A low, moderate, or high number is therefore best treated as one standardized data point. Clinical meaning comes from the relationship between the score, the person’s lived pattern of fear and avoidance, functioning, diagnosis, and change over time.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the Liebowitz Social Anxiety Scale used for?
The LSAS is used to measure the severity and breadth of social fear/anxiety and avoidance across social and performance situations. It is used in clinical assessment and research, and repeated scores can help track symptom change. NICE lists the LSAS as a validated measure that can inform assessment and support evaluation of intervention. NICE CG159
How many items are on the LSAS?
The scale covers 24 situations. Each is rated for fear/anxiety and for avoidance, creating 48 ratings that contribute to the usual total score. The traditional content grouping includes 11 social-interaction situations and 13 performance or observation situations.
What is the maximum LSAS score?
With 24 situations rated from 0 to 3 for fear/anxiety and again from 0 to 3 for avoidance, the standard combined total ranges from 0 to 144. Higher scores indicate greater measured social fear and avoidance, but the score is not itself a diagnosis.
Does an LSAS score of 30 mean I have social anxiety disorder?
No. A cutoff of 30 performed well for identifying social anxiety disorder in specific screening studies, but it is not a diagnostic criterion. Diagnosis requires clinical assessment of the full symptom pattern, duration, impairment, context, and alternative explanations. Mennin et al., 2002 Rytwinski et al., 2009
What does an LSAS score of 60 mean?
A score of 60 was identified in older studies as a useful cutoff for classifying what those studies called the generalized subtype of social anxiety disorder. That was a DSM-IV-era subtype, and the generalized specifier was later removed from DSM-5. The number should not be treated as a current diagnostic subtype boundary.
Is the self-report LSAS accurate?
The LSAS-SR has shown good psychometric properties in multiple studies and strong correspondence with clinician-administered ratings. Accuracy still depends on the purpose, population, language version, and how the result is interpreted. A valid self-report severity measure remains different from a diagnostic assessment.
Can the LSAS measure treatment progress?
Yes. It is commonly used as an outcome measure, and research supports sensitivity to change. Repeated scores are most useful when the same version is used consistently and when score change is interpreted alongside functioning, avoidance, goals, and broader clinical outcome.
Can children take the adult LSAS?
The existence of a distinct LSAS-CA for children and adolescents is a strong reason not to transfer adult score interpretation mechanically to younger people. Age-appropriate assessment and validated versions should be used, and no questionnaire score should substitute for a comprehensive child or adolescent evaluation.
Is LSAS the same as SPIN?
No. Both are validated social anxiety measures, but they are different instruments with different item structures and scoring. The LSAS is notable for rating fear/anxiety and avoidance across 24 situations. Neither instrument, by itself, establishes a formal diagnosis.
The Bottom Line
The Liebowitz Social Anxiety Scale is one of the best-established instruments for measuring social anxiety severity. Its major strengths are its situation-based coverage of social and performance contexts, separate ratings of fear/anxiety and avoidance, extensive psychometric study, and usefulness for repeated outcome measurement.
Its limitations matter just as much. Historical cutoffs are screening thresholds rather than diagnostic rules. Fear and avoidance subscores overlap strongly in some samples. Factor structures vary across studies and cultures. Validity depends on the version and population. Adult scores should not be transferred automatically to children. Most importantly, the LSAS does not establish diagnosis, cause, comorbidity, or differential diagnosis on its own.
Used within a proper assessment, the scale can turn a vague statement such as “social anxiety is bad” into structured information about severity and avoidance. Used as a stand-alone online verdict, it is asked to do more than the evidence supports.
Related Articles
References
American Psychiatric Association. Highlights of Changes from DSM-IV-TR to DSM-5: Agoraphobia, Specific Phobia, and Social Anxiety Disorder (Social Phobia). https://www.psychiatry.org/File%20Library/Psychiatrists/Practice/DSM/APA_DSM_Changes_from_DSM-IV-TR_-to_DSM-5.pdf
Baker SL, Heinrichs N, Kim H-J, Hofmann SG. The Liebowitz Social Anxiety Scale as a self-report instrument: a preliminary psychometric analysis. Behaviour Research and Therapy. 2002;40(6):701–715. doi:10.1016/S0005-7967(01)00060-2
Baroni D, Caccico L, Ciandri S, et al. Measurement invariance of the Liebowitz Social Anxiety Scale-Self-Report. Journal of Clinical Psychology. 2023;79(2):391–414. doi:10.1002/jclp.23413
Caballo VE, Salazar IC, Arias V, Hofmann SG, Curtiss J. Psychometric properties of the Liebowitz Social Anxiety Scale in a large cross-cultural Spanish and Portuguese speaking sample. Brazilian Journal of Psychiatry. 2019;41(2):122–130. doi:10.1590/1516-4446-2018-0006
Fresco DM, Coles ME, Heimberg RG, et al. The Liebowitz Social Anxiety Scale: a comparison of the psychometric properties of self-report and clinician-administered formats. Psychological Medicine. 2001;31(6):1025–1035. doi:10.1017/S0033291701004056
Heimberg RG, Holaway RM. Examination of the known-groups validity of the Liebowitz Social Anxiety Scale. Depression and Anxiety. 2007;24(7):447–454. doi:10.1002/da.20277
Heimberg RG, Horner KJ, Juster HR, et al. Psychometric properties of the Liebowitz Social Anxiety Scale. Psychological Medicine. 1999;29(1):199–212. doi:10.1017/S0033291798007879
Liebowitz MR. Social phobia. Modern Problems of Pharmacopsychiatry. 1987;22:141–173. doi:10.1159/000414022
Masia-Warner C, Storch EA, Pincus DB, Klein RG, Heimberg RG, Liebowitz MR. The Liebowitz Social Anxiety Scale for Children and Adolescents: an initial psychometric investigation. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry. 2003;42(9):1076–1084. PubMed
Mennin DS, Fresco DM, Heimberg RG, Schneier FR, Davies SO, Liebowitz MR. Screening for social anxiety disorder in the clinical setting: using the Liebowitz Social Anxiety Scale. Journal of Anxiety Disorders. 2002;16(6):661–673. doi:10.1016/S0887-6185(02)00134-2
National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Social anxiety disorder: recognition, assessment and treatment. Clinical guideline CG159. Recommendations. https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/cg159/chapter/recommendations
National Institute of Mental Health. Social Anxiety Disorder: What You Need to Know. https://www.nimh.nih.gov/health/publications/social-anxiety-disorder-more-than-just-shyness
Rytwinski NK, Fresco DM, Heimberg RG, et al. Screening for social anxiety disorder with the self-report version of the Liebowitz Social Anxiety Scale. Depression and Anxiety. 2009;26. doi:10.1002/da.20503
Safren SA, Heimberg RG, Horner KJ, Juster HR, Schneier FR, Liebowitz MR. Factor structure of social fears: The Liebowitz Social Anxiety Scale. Journal of Anxiety Disorders. 1999;13(3):253–270. doi:10.1016/S0887-6185(99)00003-1
Scholten W, Seldenrijk A, Hoogendoorn A, et al. Baseline severity as a moderator of the waiting list-controlled association of cognitive behavioral therapy with symptom change in social anxiety disorder: a systematic review and individual patient data meta-analysis. JAMA Psychiatry. 2023;80(8):822–831. doi:10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2023.1291
von Glischinski M, Willutzki U, Stangier U, et al. Liebowitz Social Anxiety Scale (LSAS): optimal cut points for remission and response in a German sample. Clinical Psychology & Psychotherapy. 2018. PubMed
Zamalijeva O, Petraškaitė P, Rupšys P, et al. Psychometric properties of Lithuanian translation of the self-report version of the Liebowitz Social Anxiety Scale in young adult sample. Frontiers in Psychiatry. 2026. PubMed