Search

• Twenty-six single case experimental designs (SCED) included in review. • All reviewed studies were multiple baseline primarily exploring efficacy. • Two studies met What Works Clearinghouse (WWC) standards. • Lack of consensus in data analyses for SCEDs; visual and/or statistical. • Not possible to conclusively infer intervention efficacy from SCED studies. Recent publications within Contextual Behavioral Science provided a rationale for the expansion of intervention efficacy research using methods that capture idiographic factors and processes. We conducted a systematic review of the use and quality of single-case experimental designs (SCED) within the Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (ACT) literature in adult clinical populations. The systematic review was conducted according to PRISMA guidelines and the databases CINAHL, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, PsycArticles and OpenGrey were searched for peer-reviewed articles. Further studies were sought through review of reference lists of all full text studies. Studies were assessed against What Works Clearinghouse (WWC) single-case design standards. Twenty-six studies met eligibility criteria and were conducted within research teams all implementing multiple-baseline designs. Twenty-four studies did not meet WWC standards with most failing to ensure a degree of concurrence across participants. The extent of randomisation methods was also captured. The review highlights the sparsity of SCEDs within ACT literature in clinical populations and current methodological practices. Limitations of the review and implications for future research are discussed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

For the past 30 years, generations of scholars of cognitive behavior therapy (CBT) have expressed concern that clinical practice has abandoned the close links with theory that characterized the earliest days of the field. There is also a widespread assumption that a greater working knowledge of theory will lead to better clinical outcomes, although there is currently very little hard evidence to support this claim. We suggest that the rise of so-called "third generation" models of CBT over the past decade, along with the dissemination of statistical innovations among psychotherapy researchers, have given new life to this old issue. We argue that theory likely does matter to clinical outcomes, and we outline the future research that would be needed to address this conjecture. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Hayes and colleagues (2013--this issue) argue that empirical clinical psychology is hampered in its efforts to alleviate human suffering and present contextual behavioral science (CBS) to address the basic philosophical, theoretical and methodological shortcomings of the field. CBS represents a host of good ideas but at times the promise of CBS is obscured by excessive promotion of Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (ACT) and Relational Frame Theory (RFT) and demotion of earlier cognitive and behavior change techniques in the absence of clear logic and empirical support. This commentary proposes that—despite these excesses and unnecessary criticisms of earlier approaches—the ideas of CBS, RFT, and ACT deserve serious consideration by the mainstream community and have great potential to shape a truly progressive clinical science to guide clinical practice. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Abstract: A number of recent authors have compared acceptance and commitment therapy (ACT) and traditional cognitive behavior therapy (CBT). The present article describes ACT as a distinct and unified model of behavior change, linked to a specific strategy of scientific development, which we term “contextual behavioral science.” We outline the empirical progress of ACT and describe its distinctive development strategy. A contextual behavioral science approach is an inductive attempt to build more adequate psychological systems based on philosophical clarity; the development of basic principles and theories; the development of applied theories linked to basic ones; techniques and components linked to these processes and principles; measurement of theoretically key processes; an emphasis on mediation and moderation in the analysis of applied impact; an interest in effectiveness, dissemination, and training; empirical testing of the research program across a broad range of areas and levels of analysis; and the creation of a more effective scientific and clinical community. We argue that this is a reasonable approach, focused on long-term progress, and that in broad terms it seems to be working. ACT is not hostile to traditional CBT, and is not directly buoyed by whatever weaknesses traditional CBT may have. ACT should be measured at least in part against its own goals as specified by its own developmental strategy. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]