title: Ost's (2008) methodological comparison of clinical trials of acceptance and commitment therapy versus cognitive behavior therapy: Matching apples with oranges?
abstract: Ost (2008) recently compared the methodological rigor of studies of acceptance and commitment therapy (ACT) and traditional cognitive behavior therapy (CBT). He concluded that the ACT studies had more methodological deficiencies, and thus the treatment did not qualify as an "empirically supported treatment." Although Ost noted several important limitations that should be carefully considered when evaluating early ACT research, his attempt to devise an empirical matching strategy by creating a comparison sample of CBT studies to bolster his conclusions was itself problematic. The samples were clearly mismatched in terms of the populations being treated, leading to differences in study design and methodology. Furthermore, reanalysis showed clear differences in grant support favoring CBT compared with ACT studies that were not reported in the original article. Given the actual mismatch between the samples, Ost's methodological ratings are difficult to interpret and provide little useful information beyond what could already be gathered by a qualitative review of ACT study limitations. Such limitations are characteristic of the earlier randomized controlled trials of any emerging psychotherapeutic approach.
authors.affiliation: Department of Psychiatry & Human Behavior, Alpert Medical School of Brown University, USA. brandon_gaudiano@brown.edu
authors.forename: Brandon A
authors.initials: BA
authors.lastname: Gaudiano
mesh_terms: D015928:Cognitive Behavioral Therapy / Q000379:methods* / Q000706:statistics & numerical data*; D005381:Financing, Organized / Q000706:statistics & numerical data*; D006801:Humans; D015201:Meta-Analysis as Topic; D016032:Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic / Q000191:economics / Q000379:methods*
references.citation: Behav Res Ther. 2006 Mar;44(3):415-37
references.pmid: 15893293
references.citation: J Clin Psychol. 2003 Aug;59(8):833-46
references.pmid: 12858425
references.citation: Behav Modif. 2003 Jul;27(3):300-12
references.pmid: 12841586
references.citation: J Consult Clin Psychol. 2006 Jun;74(3):568-78
references.pmid: 16822113
references.citation: Clin Psychol Rev. 2007 Mar;27(2):173-87
references.pmid: 17157970
references.citation: Clin Psychol Rev. 2008 Jan;28(1):1-16
references.pmid: 17904260
references.citation: Behav Res Ther. 2006 Sep;44(9):1331-5
references.pmid: 16368074
references.citation: J Clin Psychol. 2005 Jul;61(7):805-18
references.pmid: 15827991
references.citation: Behav Modif. 2003 Jul;27(3):322-68
references.pmid: 12841588
references.citation: Behav Res Ther. 2008 Mar;46(3):296-321
references.pmid: 18258216
references.citation: Annu Rev Psychol. 2001;52:685-716
references.pmid: 11148322
references.citation: Evid Based Ment Health. 2008 Feb;11(1):5-7
references.pmid: 18223042
references.citation: Anal Verbal Behav. 1986;4:30-8
references.pmid: 22477508
references.citation: Am Psychol. 2008 Apr;63(3):146-59
references.pmid: 18377105
references.citation: Psychother Psychosom. 2009;78(2):73-80
references.pmid: 19142046
references.citation: Psychother Psychosom. 2009;78(6):380; author reply 380-1
references.pmid: 19738405
references.citation: J Consult Clin Psychol. 2002 Oct;70(5):1129-39
references.pmid: 12362963
references.citation: J Clin Psychol. 2005 Jul;61(7):893-908
references.pmid: 15827997
references.citation: Epilepsia. 2006 Dec;47(12):2173-9
references.pmid: 17201719
references.citation: Behav Res Ther. 2006 Jan;44(1):1-25
references.pmid: 16300724