This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: |
|||||||||||
|
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Abshirec, Ricoc1621.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 16:49, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Hexaflex4.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 13:18, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
This line seems a *little* bit too much like an advertisement:
ACT is considered an empirical psychotherapy, its practitioners and researchers are dedicated to the development of science and empirical evaluation of its effects
-Sayfadeen — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sayfadeen ( talk • contribs) 22:49, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
I find it curious that the historical roots of ACT to be found in Buddhist philosophy and literature are not acknowledged or explored in the discussions.
Larry Agriesti — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.102.161.75 ( talk) 23:48, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
This article contains way too much unexplained jargon and reads like a bunch of fluff. Let's pare down to empirically supportable statements and completely get rid of trade terms that don't help the audience understand the main point of the article. It also, as others have pointed out, reads like an advertisement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.143.224.235 ( talk) 03:39, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
With all due respect to Dr. Hayes' edit, this article suffers from a conflict of interest. In addition, the style of writing does not demonstrate a Neutral Point of View as required by wiki. While the edits Dr. Hayes has made to his article may make it unsuitable for the Advertisement tag, it remains predicated and substantialy referenced through Dr. Hayes' own work rather than independently. Some sections are extracts from Dr. Hayes' speeches.
In the introduction, the phrase "empirically based" implies that ACT is "derived from or provable through evidence and/or experiment". This claim is not properly substantiated in the article. Furthermore, the underpinning contexts such as Relational Frame Theory are also theories originated by Dr. Hayes. I have therefore tagged the article as representating a conflict of interest rather than the more aggressive tag of it being an advertisement. I have also tagged it as being based primarily upon one source, Dr. Hayes, and with the tag requesting an improvement to the references used, as they are also primarily of Dr. Hayes' authorship.
I believe that the addition of balancing and contextualising text is required in the article, together with relevant, independent, peer-reviewed citations in order to remove the tags. LookingGlass ( talk) 17:10, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
At the bottom of the page, it states "ACT did not arise from these related areas directly — it is the result of a 25 year course of development inside Western science — but it arrived at a similar place which is interesting in and of itself. The connections [between ACT and Scientology,est,etc] have been explored in several articles that can be found on the ACBS website. The intellectual history of ACT can be found there as well." I've found the intellectual history of ACT on the website, but I feel I've scoured the website and can find nothing about ACT and its "connections" with scientology, est, or whatever else. Could you be a little more specific please? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.68.250.128 ( talk) 05:32, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
I thought this article might be of interest: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/04/090403080729.htm
Quoting the article, in part (emphasis mine):
"There are now a substantial number of controlled trials investigating the efficacy of acceptance and commitment therapy (ACT). This meta-analysis combined multiple well-controlled studies to help clarify the overall impact of ACT relative to waiting lists, psychological placebos, treatment as usual, and established therapies."
"Analyzed separately ACT was superior to waiting lists and psychological placebos (effect size = 0.68) and treatment as usual (effect size = 0.42). However, ACT was not significantly more effective than established treatments (effect size = 0.18, p = 0.13). Also, ACT was not superior to control conditions for the distress problems (anxiety/depression: effect size = 0.03, p = 0.84)."
"The results reveal that ACT is more effective than control conditions for several problem domains, but there is no evidence yet that ACT is more effective than established treatments."
Please read the full article for more information and to review the quotes above in context. I do not believe those quotes violates copyright laws since I am providing the citation as given on that webpage. Unfortunately, I am not very familiar with editing wiki articles so someone may need to clean this up for me.
Citation: Journal of Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics (2009, April 3). Does A New Popular Form Of Psychotherapy (Acceptance And Commitment Therapy) Work?. ScienceDaily. Retrieved April 3, 2009, from http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/04/090403080729.htm
I hope someone can use this information to further develop the main article for this subject. I believe it may assist in the conflicts above so that the main page could be more balanced and informative. -- 76.30.105.105 ( talk) 16:11, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Returning, I have once again been drawn to search for the references and validation of the theory and claims in this article. I have found the following:
Refs 1, 5, 6, 9, 14 and 15 are authored by Hayes (15 is addressed below) Refs 2, 4, 10, 16 and 18 refer to a website "Behaviour Analyst Online" where I could find no corresponding reference material Ref 8 is a listing on the APA Chapter 12 site
The remaining references: 3, 7, 11, 12, 13, 15 and 17 are as follows:
There would seem to be therefore no evidence to support the article's claims that it is "is an empirically based" treatment with the inference that the empirical data substantiates ACT's claims to be an effective treatment. The citations provided by Dr Hayes hinself, if anything, seem to demonstrate the reverse. This cannot be taken to show that the treatment and theory is not well founded, simply that its claims to an empirical provenance are misplaced and misleading. The article should be revised to accord with the evidence base that is available.
LookingGlass ( talk) 16:11, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
ACT has a broad empirical base. The comments on here about it lacking this is almost laughable. Please go to an academic library with the proper journal access, instead of basing your OPINIONS on Time Maganzine and the like. Also, here's an idea, have some knowledge about psychological theories, before you criticize them. Without this, it's like me trying to prove that plutonium isn't radioactive. Just in case you don't have access to a academic library, try these for starters.
Ruiz, F. J. (2010). A review of Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (ACT) empirical evidence: Correlational, experimental psychopathology, component and outcome studies. International Journal of Psychology and Psychological Therapy, 10, 125-162.
Dalrymple, K.L. & Herbert, J.D. (2007). Acceptance and Commitment Therapy for Generalized Social Anxiety Disorder: A pilot study. Behavior Modification, 31, 543-568.
McCracken, L. M., Vowles, K. E., & Eccleston, C. (2005). Acceptance-based treatment for persons with complex, long standing chronic pain: A preliminary analysis of treatment outcome in comparison to a waiting phase. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 43, 1335-1346.
As you can see, none of these have the name Hayes in them, so therefore, Stephen Hayes wasn't involved in the study. And those journals are widely read and peer reviewed. ALL psychological theories are constantly being reviewed, studied and discussed. Hence the term theory. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.66.81.140 ( talk) 18:34, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
The ancient Chinese would have said "know yourself, and you will reach balance", or something like that. We describe it on hundreds of pages of theory. But hey, that's our civilization as opposed to theirs - we relate to the world primarily through categorizing it. None of this is meant in disrespect to the people who spend long hours at hard work trying to help people with psychological problems. It's just an observation that I thought it'd be interesting to make. That is, if I got the correct idea of the procedure from the article.
This talk page also shows that as much as standards are being upheld and improved at Wikipedia, the chances when pitting Wiki work against peer-reviewed literature and professional researchers are still slim. I have absolutely no idea who is in the right here, as I haven't read a single line of any of the referenced works. But I do recommend to anyone trying to prove one way or the other to limit themselves to scientific ("peer-reviewed") journals, and also to check for impact factor, citation counts, recency, and the number and quality of references the paper you are referencing itself makes. That's how weight is thrown around in the scientific community. :-) 89.102.231.111 ( talk) 21:32, 16 May 2011 (UTC) User:Misacek01 currently logged out
A good list of empirical studies on ACT can be found on the ACBS website (www.contextualpsychology.org). We are very close to 50 randomized controlled trials as of summer 2011. Some of them are small and for sure we have a long way to go, but that is how science is.
If quality of evidence is the focus here is a quick and dirty method: just look at the top clinical psychology journal in the world, the Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. Here are the studies there (and one more in substance abuse is very close as of 9/2/2011):
Twohig, M. P., Hayes, S. C., Plumb, J. C., Pruitt, L. D., Collins, A. B., Hazlett-Stevens, H. & Woidneck, M. R. (2010) A randomized clinical trial of Acceptance and Commitment Therapy vs. Progressive Relaxation Training for obsessive compulsive disorder. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 78, 705-716.
Varra, A. A., Hayes, S. C., Roget, N., & Fisher, G. (2008). A randomized control trial examining the effect of Acceptance and Commitment Training on clinician willingness to use evidence-based pharmacotherapy. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 76, 449-458.
Gregg, J. A., Callaghan, G. M., Hayes, S. C., & Glenn-Lawson, J. L. (2007). Improving diabetes self-management through acceptance, mindfulness, and values: A randomized controlled trial. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 75(2), 336-343.
Bach, P. & Hayes, S. C. (2002). The use of Acceptance and Commitment Therapy to prevent the rehospitalization of psychotic patients: A randomized controlled trial. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 70 (5), 1129-1139.
If you expand to the top two journals in cognitive behavior therapy (BRAT and Behavior Therapy) you pick up another dozen RCTs from labs all around the world. Both the American Psychological Association and the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration in the US recognize ACT as evidence-based (the links are now in the main article on ACT). ACT is part of a larger research program from an entire research and practice community as some time on the ACBS website will show. It's a serious effort and we welcome criticism.
Steven C. Hayes ( talk) 14:51, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
{{
cite web}}
: |archive-date=
/ |archive-url=
timestamp mismatch; 1 May 2016 suggested (
help)Wikipedia style as laid out in Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Capital letters states that "Philosophies, theories, doctrines, and systems of thought do not begin with a capital letter, unless the name derives from a proper noun." However I clam an exception needs to be made in the case of Acceptance and Commitment Therapy for two reasons: First, the name is title-cased in all source materials, without exception; and second and more importantly, there are now enough acceptance-based movements or techniques within the field of applied psychology that not to acknowledge proper names as such (e.g. Acceptance and Commitment Therapy, versus acceptance and commitment therapy) begins to risk confusion over whether the reference is to a specific therapy or acceptance-based therapies in general. Thus title case ought to be used for clarity. I don't know if an exception needs more discussion than this, but I'm certainly open to it. Whole Sight ( talk) 11:11, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: page moved. Vegaswikian ( talk) 00:10, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Acceptance and commitment therapy →
Acceptance and Commitment Therapy – There are now several acceptance-based or mindfulness-based therapies in applied psychology - as the article mentions, these include not only ACT, but "Dialectical Behavior Therapy, Functional Analytic Psychotherapy, and Mindfulness-based Cognitive Therapy." Even a cursory web search reveals many such references to "acceptance-based therapies," "an acceptance-based approach," etc. E.g.
Acceptance-based treatment for persons with complex, long standing chronic pain: a preliminary analysis of treatment outcome in comparison to a waiting phase,
Acceptance Therapy & Generalized Anxiety Disorder, ec.
Thus, adopting within Wikipedia the widespread usage outside Wikipedia of proper names for these different therapies - e.g. Acceptance and Commitment Therapy - will aid in distinguishing a particular therapy from the more general topic, when it may occur, of acceptance-based therapies, as well as from ad hoc mentions of a single new approach that is described as "acceptance-based" or an "acceptance therapy" but has not yet been codified further. relisted-- Mike Cline ( talk) 20:29, 17 February 2012 (UTC) Whole Sight ( talk) 11:27, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Sources mention Association for Contextual Behavioral Science in relation to Acceptance and commitment therapy. Would it be appropriate to merge in material from Association for Contextual Behavioral Science into a dedicated section in Acceptance and commitment therapy? SilkTork ✔Tea time 09:42, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
There is no clear consensus here for merging into Acceptance and commitment therapy. Is there a more appropriate parent article - one that embraces both Acceptance and commitment therapy and Relational frame theory? The material here appears to be useful, though notability for a stand alone article is still disputed; it would be helpful to find the most appropriate place for it. SilkTork ✔Tea time 13:38, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
I removed the sentence, "The mindfulness strategies in ACT have similarities to mystical aspects of some major spiritual and religious traditions such as Buddhism." from the criticisms section. The article cited merely points out that there are parallels between Buddhism and ACT. This, in and of itself, is not a criticism and has nothing to do with mysticism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Khimaris ( talk • contribs) 01:29, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
And it says so right in the article. So why was it categorized under CBT? I changed it to category:psychotherapy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.20.52.210 ( talk • contribs) 01:07, 11 January 2013
The basics section is not basic. It is incomprehensible nonsense. Please can someone rewrite this section in plain english? Pigmy vines ( talk) 19:01, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
What are peoples thoughts on this text and source?
"Some evidence suggests that ACT can be effective in treating insomnia, and that that this approach may be better than traditional CBT-I, particularly when sleep anxiety is a cause.Meadows, Guy. "Acceptance and Commitment Therapy for Insomnia (ACT-I)". Assoc. for Contextual Behavioural Science. Retrieved 28 December 2016."
My concern is that it does not appear to be peer review? I am not convinced it is a sufficient source. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 23:14, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
I don't know if User:Stevenchayes is really Steven C. Hayes, the creator of ACT, but if he is, he should not be editing this article directly (per WP:COI) and he certainly should not be making edits that cite his own writing, as he did in this recent edit. Wikipedia's plain and simple conflict of interest guide says:
Thanks, Biogeographist ( talk) 14:48, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
I found quite a few sources that looked like they may be good references when adding information to this page. Does anyone have any feedback in regards to using these sources?
Fung, K. (2017). Handbook of Zen, mindfulness, and behavioral health. New York, New York: Springer Berlin Heidelberg.
Hofmann, S. G. Asmundson, G. J. G. (2017). The science of cognitive behavioral therapy. Boston, MA: Elsevier.
Masuda, A. (Ed.). (2014). Mindfulness and acceptance in multicultural competency : a contextual approach to sociocultural diversity in theory and practice. Retrieved from https://ebookcentral.proquest.com
Orsillo, S. (2016). The Oxford handbook of cognitive and behavioral therapies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Zettle, R. (2017). The Oxford handbook of mood disorders. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Zettle, R. (2016). The Wiley handbook of contextual behavioral science. Winchester, England: Wiley Blackwell. Abshirec ( talk) 02:21, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
The structure of this article and what it talks about, I believe was a great set up. The main points of the articles created good understanding for the reader and mentioned great points of what needs to be known about the topic. On the other hand, the article seems short, choppy, and not straight to the point. I feel that the article is almost selling a product is a Psychology magazine. It seems to be out of order, and would have been easier to follow if put in a different order. The core statements should have been placed closer to the beginning of the article where the article begins to describe what the therapy is. Adding more facts, putting it in a different order will help the article when someone reads it. It can be a great article just needs some more work. Tianna Ramos Garcia ( talk) 05:52, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
This recent rewrite of the lead by Abshirec (a student editor in Wikipedia:Wiki Ed/Southern Oregon University/Introduction to Clinical Psychology (Winter 2018)) is too verbose, and contains claims that belong in other sections. I have reverted to the previous version, and I am pasting Abshirec's lead below. There may be something that can be extracted from this text and integrated into appropriate sections in the article, but in its current form it is too verbose and does not accurately summarize the rest of the article. Remember that per MOS:LEAD, "The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article"; Abshirec's rewrite of the lead is stuffed with claims that are not covered elsewhere in the article. (The quoted text below is from these edits by Abshirec.) Biogeographist ( talk) 12:45, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
Acceptance and commitment therapy (ACT, typically pronounced as the word "act") is a form of counseling and a branch of clinical behavior analysis. [1] Steven C. Hayes developed Acceptance and Commitment Therapy in 1982 in order to create a mixed approach which integrates both cognitive and behavioral therapy. [2] ACT was originally called comprehensive distancing. [3] ACT seeks to combine multiple factors in order to move the healing process along in a positive way. [4] Acceptance and mindfulness are used to create a change within the person's behavior, to inspire psychological healing and flexibility. Within ACT there is an underlying assumption that people will experience traumatic experiences. [4] When one does not accept what has happened this promotes the longevity of suffering and pain. The creators of ACT developed this therapy on a theory that presumes language perpetuates human suffering. [4] Researchers claim that ACT is built on one of the most highly researched behavior analytic theories; the relational framing theory. [5] Relational framing refers to the associations that are made within one's everyday social environment and provides assumptions or preconceptions about objects or experiences in the future. [4]
The objective of ACT is not elimination of difficult feelings; rather, it is to be present with what life brings us and to "move toward valued behavior". [6] Acceptance and commitment therapy invites people to open up to unpleasant feelings, and learn not to overreact to them, and not avoiding situations where they are invoked. Researchers have found that clients benefit more from ACT than they do from Cognitive Behavioral Therapy when they have multiple diagnoses (comorbidities). [7] Questionnaires have been created to assess the clients acceptance and avoidance levels. A commonly used questionnaire is the Acceptance and Action Questionnaire (AAQ-II). These questions seek to evaluate the clients' avoidance tendencies and their amount of psychological flexibility. Researchers have found that when a client is experiencing more distress, it is likely related to their amount of psychological flexibility; higher psychological flexibility promotes more distress). [7]
ACT is difficult to evaluate because of the concepts used within this therapy, such as being in the moment, level of awareness, and level of acceptance. [8] Analysis of the effectiveness of ACT is compromised due to these abstract concepts. For example, its therapeutic effect is a positive spiral where feeling better leads to a better understanding of the truth. [9] In ACT, 'truth' is measured through the concept of 'workability', or what works to take another step toward what matters (e.g. values, meaning). Although, with the transdiagnostic approach researchers have been able to evaluate this therapy in a variety of settings. [8] There are a variety of protocols for ACT, depending on the target behavior or setting. For example, in behavioral health areas a brief version of ACT is called focused acceptance and commitment therapy (FACT). [10] ACT has been empirically supported as treatments for mainly depression but also for obsessive compulsive disorder, chronic pain, and anxiety.The author mentions six different concepts that contribute to psychological flexibility which are acceptance, defusion, self-as-context, mindfulness, committed action, and values. These concepts make up the "Hexaflex model". [8]
Criticisms have been made regarding ACT and the effectiveness of this therapy when used with diverse populations. [11] Approaches that are specific to one region of the world inherently makes the therapy culturally biased. However, they mention that in order to allow therapies like ACT to be culturally competent, the clinician must must take an active role in making sure the therapy is effective and that they are minimizing the amount of negative biases that could come through for the client while participating in the therapy. In order to do so, the clinician must acknowledge how the client is feeling and what they are experiencing to the best of their ability. [11] Researchers have tried to analyze whether ACT has been successful in other cultures, however, they found that many were not sufficiently documenting their clients' demographic information. [12] Evaluating ACT's cultural competence is not possible unless published articles from other cultures/countries start including demographic information for participants.
References
{{
cite book}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
{{
cite book}}
: CS1 maint: others (
link)
{{
cite book}}
: CS1 maint: others (
link)
"Doctoral-level behavior analysts who are psychologists belong to the American Psychological Association's division 25—Behavior analysis. APA offers a diplomate[clarification needed] in behavioral psychology."
Is this relevant? The other listed professional bodies are all included within the context of their work or interest in ACT; this line doesn't mention it at all and seems as thought it should be removed. I would defer to someone with more expertise? 89.21.230.66 ( talk) 11:12, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
@ Stefano3001: Please stop adding the Meichenbaum quotation to this article. There is no explicit connection to ACT in the cited source, so it's original research, prohibited on English Wikipedia. Also, it is good practice to provide an edit summary for each of your edits. Biogeographist ( talk) 12:05, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
What is relevant to this Wikipedia article is not Coyne's personal narrative about how, nine years ago, he discovered the problems in those two ACT trials (readers can read the original blog post if they want that much detail), but the consequence or upshot for ACT in general. The long quotation added by Stefano3001 was WP:UNDUE weight on extraneous detail that distracts from the important upshot.
Clearly I am not opposed to airing criticism of ACT; I seek it out: I added much of the content of this article's criticism section myself. In fact, I am the one who originally added the citation of Coyne's blog post in 2016. But the recently added quotation was not focused enough on the relevant point. In contrast, the shorter quotation of Coyne's blog that I originally added in 2016 is about ACT, not merely about Coyne's step-by-step narrative of events; it says: "Whether or not ACT is more efficacious than other therapies, as its proponents sometimes claim, or whether it is efficacious for psychosis, is debatable". That is the upshot that is relevant to this article.
Also, Stefano3001 called the problems that Coyne identified "tampering with data", which suggests intentional foul play, but Coyne's point wasn't that the ACT researchers were uniquely corrupt, just incompetent in a common way that is an example of more general "limitations of the project to identify evidence supported treatments that now is falling prey to flaws that were built in at the outset", in Coyne's words. Biogeographist ( talk) 16:57, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: |
|||||||||||
|
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Abshirec, Ricoc1621.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 16:49, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Hexaflex4.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 13:18, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
This line seems a *little* bit too much like an advertisement:
ACT is considered an empirical psychotherapy, its practitioners and researchers are dedicated to the development of science and empirical evaluation of its effects
-Sayfadeen — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sayfadeen ( talk • contribs) 22:49, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
I find it curious that the historical roots of ACT to be found in Buddhist philosophy and literature are not acknowledged or explored in the discussions.
Larry Agriesti — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.102.161.75 ( talk) 23:48, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
This article contains way too much unexplained jargon and reads like a bunch of fluff. Let's pare down to empirically supportable statements and completely get rid of trade terms that don't help the audience understand the main point of the article. It also, as others have pointed out, reads like an advertisement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.143.224.235 ( talk) 03:39, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
With all due respect to Dr. Hayes' edit, this article suffers from a conflict of interest. In addition, the style of writing does not demonstrate a Neutral Point of View as required by wiki. While the edits Dr. Hayes has made to his article may make it unsuitable for the Advertisement tag, it remains predicated and substantialy referenced through Dr. Hayes' own work rather than independently. Some sections are extracts from Dr. Hayes' speeches.
In the introduction, the phrase "empirically based" implies that ACT is "derived from or provable through evidence and/or experiment". This claim is not properly substantiated in the article. Furthermore, the underpinning contexts such as Relational Frame Theory are also theories originated by Dr. Hayes. I have therefore tagged the article as representating a conflict of interest rather than the more aggressive tag of it being an advertisement. I have also tagged it as being based primarily upon one source, Dr. Hayes, and with the tag requesting an improvement to the references used, as they are also primarily of Dr. Hayes' authorship.
I believe that the addition of balancing and contextualising text is required in the article, together with relevant, independent, peer-reviewed citations in order to remove the tags. LookingGlass ( talk) 17:10, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
At the bottom of the page, it states "ACT did not arise from these related areas directly — it is the result of a 25 year course of development inside Western science — but it arrived at a similar place which is interesting in and of itself. The connections [between ACT and Scientology,est,etc] have been explored in several articles that can be found on the ACBS website. The intellectual history of ACT can be found there as well." I've found the intellectual history of ACT on the website, but I feel I've scoured the website and can find nothing about ACT and its "connections" with scientology, est, or whatever else. Could you be a little more specific please? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.68.250.128 ( talk) 05:32, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
I thought this article might be of interest: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/04/090403080729.htm
Quoting the article, in part (emphasis mine):
"There are now a substantial number of controlled trials investigating the efficacy of acceptance and commitment therapy (ACT). This meta-analysis combined multiple well-controlled studies to help clarify the overall impact of ACT relative to waiting lists, psychological placebos, treatment as usual, and established therapies."
"Analyzed separately ACT was superior to waiting lists and psychological placebos (effect size = 0.68) and treatment as usual (effect size = 0.42). However, ACT was not significantly more effective than established treatments (effect size = 0.18, p = 0.13). Also, ACT was not superior to control conditions for the distress problems (anxiety/depression: effect size = 0.03, p = 0.84)."
"The results reveal that ACT is more effective than control conditions for several problem domains, but there is no evidence yet that ACT is more effective than established treatments."
Please read the full article for more information and to review the quotes above in context. I do not believe those quotes violates copyright laws since I am providing the citation as given on that webpage. Unfortunately, I am not very familiar with editing wiki articles so someone may need to clean this up for me.
Citation: Journal of Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics (2009, April 3). Does A New Popular Form Of Psychotherapy (Acceptance And Commitment Therapy) Work?. ScienceDaily. Retrieved April 3, 2009, from http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/04/090403080729.htm
I hope someone can use this information to further develop the main article for this subject. I believe it may assist in the conflicts above so that the main page could be more balanced and informative. -- 76.30.105.105 ( talk) 16:11, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Returning, I have once again been drawn to search for the references and validation of the theory and claims in this article. I have found the following:
Refs 1, 5, 6, 9, 14 and 15 are authored by Hayes (15 is addressed below) Refs 2, 4, 10, 16 and 18 refer to a website "Behaviour Analyst Online" where I could find no corresponding reference material Ref 8 is a listing on the APA Chapter 12 site
The remaining references: 3, 7, 11, 12, 13, 15 and 17 are as follows:
There would seem to be therefore no evidence to support the article's claims that it is "is an empirically based" treatment with the inference that the empirical data substantiates ACT's claims to be an effective treatment. The citations provided by Dr Hayes hinself, if anything, seem to demonstrate the reverse. This cannot be taken to show that the treatment and theory is not well founded, simply that its claims to an empirical provenance are misplaced and misleading. The article should be revised to accord with the evidence base that is available.
LookingGlass ( talk) 16:11, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
ACT has a broad empirical base. The comments on here about it lacking this is almost laughable. Please go to an academic library with the proper journal access, instead of basing your OPINIONS on Time Maganzine and the like. Also, here's an idea, have some knowledge about psychological theories, before you criticize them. Without this, it's like me trying to prove that plutonium isn't radioactive. Just in case you don't have access to a academic library, try these for starters.
Ruiz, F. J. (2010). A review of Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (ACT) empirical evidence: Correlational, experimental psychopathology, component and outcome studies. International Journal of Psychology and Psychological Therapy, 10, 125-162.
Dalrymple, K.L. & Herbert, J.D. (2007). Acceptance and Commitment Therapy for Generalized Social Anxiety Disorder: A pilot study. Behavior Modification, 31, 543-568.
McCracken, L. M., Vowles, K. E., & Eccleston, C. (2005). Acceptance-based treatment for persons with complex, long standing chronic pain: A preliminary analysis of treatment outcome in comparison to a waiting phase. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 43, 1335-1346.
As you can see, none of these have the name Hayes in them, so therefore, Stephen Hayes wasn't involved in the study. And those journals are widely read and peer reviewed. ALL psychological theories are constantly being reviewed, studied and discussed. Hence the term theory. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.66.81.140 ( talk) 18:34, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
The ancient Chinese would have said "know yourself, and you will reach balance", or something like that. We describe it on hundreds of pages of theory. But hey, that's our civilization as opposed to theirs - we relate to the world primarily through categorizing it. None of this is meant in disrespect to the people who spend long hours at hard work trying to help people with psychological problems. It's just an observation that I thought it'd be interesting to make. That is, if I got the correct idea of the procedure from the article.
This talk page also shows that as much as standards are being upheld and improved at Wikipedia, the chances when pitting Wiki work against peer-reviewed literature and professional researchers are still slim. I have absolutely no idea who is in the right here, as I haven't read a single line of any of the referenced works. But I do recommend to anyone trying to prove one way or the other to limit themselves to scientific ("peer-reviewed") journals, and also to check for impact factor, citation counts, recency, and the number and quality of references the paper you are referencing itself makes. That's how weight is thrown around in the scientific community. :-) 89.102.231.111 ( talk) 21:32, 16 May 2011 (UTC) User:Misacek01 currently logged out
A good list of empirical studies on ACT can be found on the ACBS website (www.contextualpsychology.org). We are very close to 50 randomized controlled trials as of summer 2011. Some of them are small and for sure we have a long way to go, but that is how science is.
If quality of evidence is the focus here is a quick and dirty method: just look at the top clinical psychology journal in the world, the Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. Here are the studies there (and one more in substance abuse is very close as of 9/2/2011):
Twohig, M. P., Hayes, S. C., Plumb, J. C., Pruitt, L. D., Collins, A. B., Hazlett-Stevens, H. & Woidneck, M. R. (2010) A randomized clinical trial of Acceptance and Commitment Therapy vs. Progressive Relaxation Training for obsessive compulsive disorder. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 78, 705-716.
Varra, A. A., Hayes, S. C., Roget, N., & Fisher, G. (2008). A randomized control trial examining the effect of Acceptance and Commitment Training on clinician willingness to use evidence-based pharmacotherapy. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 76, 449-458.
Gregg, J. A., Callaghan, G. M., Hayes, S. C., & Glenn-Lawson, J. L. (2007). Improving diabetes self-management through acceptance, mindfulness, and values: A randomized controlled trial. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 75(2), 336-343.
Bach, P. & Hayes, S. C. (2002). The use of Acceptance and Commitment Therapy to prevent the rehospitalization of psychotic patients: A randomized controlled trial. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 70 (5), 1129-1139.
If you expand to the top two journals in cognitive behavior therapy (BRAT and Behavior Therapy) you pick up another dozen RCTs from labs all around the world. Both the American Psychological Association and the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration in the US recognize ACT as evidence-based (the links are now in the main article on ACT). ACT is part of a larger research program from an entire research and practice community as some time on the ACBS website will show. It's a serious effort and we welcome criticism.
Steven C. Hayes ( talk) 14:51, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
{{
cite web}}
: |archive-date=
/ |archive-url=
timestamp mismatch; 1 May 2016 suggested (
help)Wikipedia style as laid out in Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Capital letters states that "Philosophies, theories, doctrines, and systems of thought do not begin with a capital letter, unless the name derives from a proper noun." However I clam an exception needs to be made in the case of Acceptance and Commitment Therapy for two reasons: First, the name is title-cased in all source materials, without exception; and second and more importantly, there are now enough acceptance-based movements or techniques within the field of applied psychology that not to acknowledge proper names as such (e.g. Acceptance and Commitment Therapy, versus acceptance and commitment therapy) begins to risk confusion over whether the reference is to a specific therapy or acceptance-based therapies in general. Thus title case ought to be used for clarity. I don't know if an exception needs more discussion than this, but I'm certainly open to it. Whole Sight ( talk) 11:11, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: page moved. Vegaswikian ( talk) 00:10, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Acceptance and commitment therapy →
Acceptance and Commitment Therapy – There are now several acceptance-based or mindfulness-based therapies in applied psychology - as the article mentions, these include not only ACT, but "Dialectical Behavior Therapy, Functional Analytic Psychotherapy, and Mindfulness-based Cognitive Therapy." Even a cursory web search reveals many such references to "acceptance-based therapies," "an acceptance-based approach," etc. E.g.
Acceptance-based treatment for persons with complex, long standing chronic pain: a preliminary analysis of treatment outcome in comparison to a waiting phase,
Acceptance Therapy & Generalized Anxiety Disorder, ec.
Thus, adopting within Wikipedia the widespread usage outside Wikipedia of proper names for these different therapies - e.g. Acceptance and Commitment Therapy - will aid in distinguishing a particular therapy from the more general topic, when it may occur, of acceptance-based therapies, as well as from ad hoc mentions of a single new approach that is described as "acceptance-based" or an "acceptance therapy" but has not yet been codified further. relisted-- Mike Cline ( talk) 20:29, 17 February 2012 (UTC) Whole Sight ( talk) 11:27, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Sources mention Association for Contextual Behavioral Science in relation to Acceptance and commitment therapy. Would it be appropriate to merge in material from Association for Contextual Behavioral Science into a dedicated section in Acceptance and commitment therapy? SilkTork ✔Tea time 09:42, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
There is no clear consensus here for merging into Acceptance and commitment therapy. Is there a more appropriate parent article - one that embraces both Acceptance and commitment therapy and Relational frame theory? The material here appears to be useful, though notability for a stand alone article is still disputed; it would be helpful to find the most appropriate place for it. SilkTork ✔Tea time 13:38, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
I removed the sentence, "The mindfulness strategies in ACT have similarities to mystical aspects of some major spiritual and religious traditions such as Buddhism." from the criticisms section. The article cited merely points out that there are parallels between Buddhism and ACT. This, in and of itself, is not a criticism and has nothing to do with mysticism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Khimaris ( talk • contribs) 01:29, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
And it says so right in the article. So why was it categorized under CBT? I changed it to category:psychotherapy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.20.52.210 ( talk • contribs) 01:07, 11 January 2013
The basics section is not basic. It is incomprehensible nonsense. Please can someone rewrite this section in plain english? Pigmy vines ( talk) 19:01, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
What are peoples thoughts on this text and source?
"Some evidence suggests that ACT can be effective in treating insomnia, and that that this approach may be better than traditional CBT-I, particularly when sleep anxiety is a cause.Meadows, Guy. "Acceptance and Commitment Therapy for Insomnia (ACT-I)". Assoc. for Contextual Behavioural Science. Retrieved 28 December 2016."
My concern is that it does not appear to be peer review? I am not convinced it is a sufficient source. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 23:14, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
I don't know if User:Stevenchayes is really Steven C. Hayes, the creator of ACT, but if he is, he should not be editing this article directly (per WP:COI) and he certainly should not be making edits that cite his own writing, as he did in this recent edit. Wikipedia's plain and simple conflict of interest guide says:
Thanks, Biogeographist ( talk) 14:48, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
I found quite a few sources that looked like they may be good references when adding information to this page. Does anyone have any feedback in regards to using these sources?
Fung, K. (2017). Handbook of Zen, mindfulness, and behavioral health. New York, New York: Springer Berlin Heidelberg.
Hofmann, S. G. Asmundson, G. J. G. (2017). The science of cognitive behavioral therapy. Boston, MA: Elsevier.
Masuda, A. (Ed.). (2014). Mindfulness and acceptance in multicultural competency : a contextual approach to sociocultural diversity in theory and practice. Retrieved from https://ebookcentral.proquest.com
Orsillo, S. (2016). The Oxford handbook of cognitive and behavioral therapies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Zettle, R. (2017). The Oxford handbook of mood disorders. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Zettle, R. (2016). The Wiley handbook of contextual behavioral science. Winchester, England: Wiley Blackwell. Abshirec ( talk) 02:21, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
The structure of this article and what it talks about, I believe was a great set up. The main points of the articles created good understanding for the reader and mentioned great points of what needs to be known about the topic. On the other hand, the article seems short, choppy, and not straight to the point. I feel that the article is almost selling a product is a Psychology magazine. It seems to be out of order, and would have been easier to follow if put in a different order. The core statements should have been placed closer to the beginning of the article where the article begins to describe what the therapy is. Adding more facts, putting it in a different order will help the article when someone reads it. It can be a great article just needs some more work. Tianna Ramos Garcia ( talk) 05:52, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
This recent rewrite of the lead by Abshirec (a student editor in Wikipedia:Wiki Ed/Southern Oregon University/Introduction to Clinical Psychology (Winter 2018)) is too verbose, and contains claims that belong in other sections. I have reverted to the previous version, and I am pasting Abshirec's lead below. There may be something that can be extracted from this text and integrated into appropriate sections in the article, but in its current form it is too verbose and does not accurately summarize the rest of the article. Remember that per MOS:LEAD, "The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article"; Abshirec's rewrite of the lead is stuffed with claims that are not covered elsewhere in the article. (The quoted text below is from these edits by Abshirec.) Biogeographist ( talk) 12:45, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
Acceptance and commitment therapy (ACT, typically pronounced as the word "act") is a form of counseling and a branch of clinical behavior analysis. [1] Steven C. Hayes developed Acceptance and Commitment Therapy in 1982 in order to create a mixed approach which integrates both cognitive and behavioral therapy. [2] ACT was originally called comprehensive distancing. [3] ACT seeks to combine multiple factors in order to move the healing process along in a positive way. [4] Acceptance and mindfulness are used to create a change within the person's behavior, to inspire psychological healing and flexibility. Within ACT there is an underlying assumption that people will experience traumatic experiences. [4] When one does not accept what has happened this promotes the longevity of suffering and pain. The creators of ACT developed this therapy on a theory that presumes language perpetuates human suffering. [4] Researchers claim that ACT is built on one of the most highly researched behavior analytic theories; the relational framing theory. [5] Relational framing refers to the associations that are made within one's everyday social environment and provides assumptions or preconceptions about objects or experiences in the future. [4]
The objective of ACT is not elimination of difficult feelings; rather, it is to be present with what life brings us and to "move toward valued behavior". [6] Acceptance and commitment therapy invites people to open up to unpleasant feelings, and learn not to overreact to them, and not avoiding situations where they are invoked. Researchers have found that clients benefit more from ACT than they do from Cognitive Behavioral Therapy when they have multiple diagnoses (comorbidities). [7] Questionnaires have been created to assess the clients acceptance and avoidance levels. A commonly used questionnaire is the Acceptance and Action Questionnaire (AAQ-II). These questions seek to evaluate the clients' avoidance tendencies and their amount of psychological flexibility. Researchers have found that when a client is experiencing more distress, it is likely related to their amount of psychological flexibility; higher psychological flexibility promotes more distress). [7]
ACT is difficult to evaluate because of the concepts used within this therapy, such as being in the moment, level of awareness, and level of acceptance. [8] Analysis of the effectiveness of ACT is compromised due to these abstract concepts. For example, its therapeutic effect is a positive spiral where feeling better leads to a better understanding of the truth. [9] In ACT, 'truth' is measured through the concept of 'workability', or what works to take another step toward what matters (e.g. values, meaning). Although, with the transdiagnostic approach researchers have been able to evaluate this therapy in a variety of settings. [8] There are a variety of protocols for ACT, depending on the target behavior or setting. For example, in behavioral health areas a brief version of ACT is called focused acceptance and commitment therapy (FACT). [10] ACT has been empirically supported as treatments for mainly depression but also for obsessive compulsive disorder, chronic pain, and anxiety.The author mentions six different concepts that contribute to psychological flexibility which are acceptance, defusion, self-as-context, mindfulness, committed action, and values. These concepts make up the "Hexaflex model". [8]
Criticisms have been made regarding ACT and the effectiveness of this therapy when used with diverse populations. [11] Approaches that are specific to one region of the world inherently makes the therapy culturally biased. However, they mention that in order to allow therapies like ACT to be culturally competent, the clinician must must take an active role in making sure the therapy is effective and that they are minimizing the amount of negative biases that could come through for the client while participating in the therapy. In order to do so, the clinician must acknowledge how the client is feeling and what they are experiencing to the best of their ability. [11] Researchers have tried to analyze whether ACT has been successful in other cultures, however, they found that many were not sufficiently documenting their clients' demographic information. [12] Evaluating ACT's cultural competence is not possible unless published articles from other cultures/countries start including demographic information for participants.
References
{{
cite book}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
{{
cite book}}
: CS1 maint: others (
link)
{{
cite book}}
: CS1 maint: others (
link)
"Doctoral-level behavior analysts who are psychologists belong to the American Psychological Association's division 25—Behavior analysis. APA offers a diplomate[clarification needed] in behavioral psychology."
Is this relevant? The other listed professional bodies are all included within the context of their work or interest in ACT; this line doesn't mention it at all and seems as thought it should be removed. I would defer to someone with more expertise? 89.21.230.66 ( talk) 11:12, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
@ Stefano3001: Please stop adding the Meichenbaum quotation to this article. There is no explicit connection to ACT in the cited source, so it's original research, prohibited on English Wikipedia. Also, it is good practice to provide an edit summary for each of your edits. Biogeographist ( talk) 12:05, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
What is relevant to this Wikipedia article is not Coyne's personal narrative about how, nine years ago, he discovered the problems in those two ACT trials (readers can read the original blog post if they want that much detail), but the consequence or upshot for ACT in general. The long quotation added by Stefano3001 was WP:UNDUE weight on extraneous detail that distracts from the important upshot.
Clearly I am not opposed to airing criticism of ACT; I seek it out: I added much of the content of this article's criticism section myself. In fact, I am the one who originally added the citation of Coyne's blog post in 2016. But the recently added quotation was not focused enough on the relevant point. In contrast, the shorter quotation of Coyne's blog that I originally added in 2016 is about ACT, not merely about Coyne's step-by-step narrative of events; it says: "Whether or not ACT is more efficacious than other therapies, as its proponents sometimes claim, or whether it is efficacious for psychosis, is debatable". That is the upshot that is relevant to this article.
Also, Stefano3001 called the problems that Coyne identified "tampering with data", which suggests intentional foul play, but Coyne's point wasn't that the ACT researchers were uniquely corrupt, just incompetent in a common way that is an example of more general "limitations of the project to identify evidence supported treatments that now is falling prey to flaws that were built in at the outset", in Coyne's words. Biogeographist ( talk) 16:57, 24 August 2021 (UTC)