Talk:Acceptance and commitment therapy

message: 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)
replies: text: I found it interesting, given the authors have gone a long way to acknowledge links with other approaches, that no mention is made of hypnosis in Acceptance & Committment Therapy, Hayes,Strosahl,Wilson, no doubt others have already commented on the use of hypnotic induction throughout, for instance page 193, observer exercise.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.149.153.203 (talk) 19:41, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: 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)
replies: text:  I read this article and it had one person suggesting it was 'cultlike' with a following and being intolerant of internal dissent with a take it or leave it mentality. I have changed the wording which seems to be too NPOV violating and unsupported by the citation. fwiw.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.17.87.48 (talk) 21:41, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  ACBS website? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  New Study Results (April 2009) 

message: 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:
: ref #3 Contains substantial parts of the text of this article.  It is an account by a Dr and ACT trainer in Australia (Harris) in a "popular" psychology magazine.  I was unable to check the references given in the article.
:
: ref #7 I was unable to locate any reference online to this but found something under the hits I got that seems similar.  See new reference at bottom of this.
:
: ref #11  An abstract can be found here: http://www.springerlink.com/content/h78q3474700747mg/  it reads that "well-being outcomes were mediated to a degree by ACT"
:
: ref #12 is incomplete.
:
: ref #13 Öst, L. G. (March 2008). http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18258216 "Efficacy of the third wave of behavioral therapies: a systematic review and meta-analysis". Behaviour research and therapy 46 (3): 296–321. doi:10.1016/j.brat.2007.12.005. . states: "none of the third wave therapies fulfilled the criteria for empirically supported treatments"
:
: ref #15  The abstract on ERIC at http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/custom/portlets/recordDetails/detailmini.jsp?_nfpb=true&_&ERICExtSearch_SearchValue_0=EJ804033&ERICExtSearch_SearchType_0=no&accno=EJ804033 states: "Dialectical Behavior Therapy (DBT) and Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (ACT) are both innovative behavioral treatments ... This article discusses these similarities and differences" 
:
: ref #17 Cloud, John (2006-02-05). "The Third Wave of Therapy". Time Magazine. http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1156613-9,00.html/.   This article seems to me to be critical of ACT in many ways stating for instance that: "Hayes and his followers seem to be offering ACT as a sort of psychological Rosetta stone, a key for interpreting all interior events. At the very least, as Hayes' mentor Barlow has pointed out, ACT seems to lack the scientific virtue of parsimony."
:
: I was able to find one reference that did appear to support ACT:
: http://bmo.sagepub.com/cgi/content/refs/31/6/772  "A Randomized Controlled Effectiveness Trial of Acceptance and Commitment Therapy and Cognitive Therapy for Anxiety and Depression" The abstract states that this research was on a trail 101 patients and that: "the results suggest that ACT is a viable and disseminable treatment, the effectiveness of which appears equivalent to that of CT" 
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)
replies: text: The more I look into the topic, the more it seems 'scientifically based' in the same way as science fiction, Scientology and pseudoscience is 'based' on science. It pure junk science and a prime example of the replication crisis in science. Plenty of reviews, analyses and meta-analyses, but never any attempt to repeat the results of the existing studies. It's all worthless. 2A00:23C6:7627:DE01:3F2B:43EC:DFF8:CA2C (talk) 02:40, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Evidence for claim of "empirically based" treatment 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Research 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Balance 

message: 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)
thread_title: Correction of case for "acceptance and commitment therapy" to "Acceptance and Commitment Therapy"

message: 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)
thread_title:  Buddhism and ACT 

message: 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)
replies: text: The appropriateness (or not) of these sources depends on how they are cited in context (see ). I don't see that there is much to say about these sources apart from their use in relation to particular claims within the article. Biogeographist (talk) 14:43, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Sources

message: by  (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 '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"; 's rewrite of the lead is stuffed with claims that are not covered elsewhere in the article. (The quoted text below is from  by .) Biogeographist (talk) 12:45, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent rewrite of lead 

message: "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)
replies: text: It is relevant and true. I added inline references. Biogeographist (talk) 15:43, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  APA line in professional organizations section 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Original research