Ost's (2008) methodological comparison of clinical trials of acceptance and commitment therapy versus cognitive behavior therapy: Matching apples with oranges?
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.
Gaudiano
Brandon A
BA
Department of Psychiatry & Human Behavior, Alpert Medical School of Brown University, USA. brandon_gaudiano@brown.edu
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*
Behav Res Ther. 2006 Mar;44(3):415-37
15893293
J Clin Psychol. 2003 Aug;59(8):833-46
12858425
Behav Modif. 2003 Jul;27(3):300-12
12841586
J Consult Clin Psychol. 2006 Jun;74(3):568-78
16822113
Clin Psychol Rev. 2007 Mar;27(2):173-87
17157970
Clin Psychol Rev. 2008 Jan;28(1):1-16
17904260
Behav Res Ther. 2006 Sep;44(9):1331-5
16368074
J Clin Psychol. 2005 Jul;61(7):805-18
15827991
Behav Modif. 2003 Jul;27(3):322-68
12841588
Behav Res Ther. 2008 Mar;46(3):296-321
18258216
Annu Rev Psychol. 2001;52:685-716
11148322
Evid Based Ment Health. 2008 Feb;11(1):5-7
18223042
Anal Verbal Behav. 1986;4:30-8
22477508
Am Psychol. 2008 Apr;63(3):146-59
18377105
Psychother Psychosom. 2009;78(2):73-80
19142046
Psychother Psychosom. 2009;78(6):380; author reply 380-1
19738405
J Consult Clin Psychol. 2002 Oct;70(5):1129-39
12362963
J Clin Psychol. 2005 Jul;61(7):893-908
15827997
Epilepsia. 2006 Dec;47(12):2173-9
17201719
Behav Res Ther. 2006 Jan;44(1):1-25
16300724