Department of Psychology, Stockholm University, 10691 Stockholm, Sweden.
Behav Res Ther. 2009 Dec;47(12):1071-3. doi: 10.1016/j.brat.2009.07.024. Epub 2009 Aug 18.
Gaudiano's criticism of one part of my review of ACT outcome research (Ost, 2008) is refuted on all issues but one. It is clear that the average amount of grant support for the ACT-studies was smaller than that of CBT-studies, even if the proportion of studies having grant support was not lower. However, that fact should only influence 25% (2 out of 8) of the methodology variables on which ACT-studies had lower mean scores than CBT-studies. It is not acceptable that a relatively new treatment, such as ACT, should be evaluated by more lenient criteria than already established therapies like CBT. If proponents of a new treatment wish to claim that their therapy is empirically supported then they have to accept to be evaluated by the APA Task Force criteria. It is time that ACT researchers start using the current psychotherapy research methodology.
高德亚诺对我评论接受与承诺疗法（ACT）疗效研究（Ost，2008）的一部分的批评在所有问题上都被驳斥了，除了一个问题。ACT 研究获得的赠款支持的平均金额确实小于 CBT 研究，即便有赠款支持的研究比例并不低。然而，这一事实只应该影响到 ACT 研究的平均得分低于 CBT 研究的方法变量中的 25%（8 个中的 2 个）。一种像 ACT 这样的相对较新的治疗方法不应该比 CBT 等已经确立的疗法受到更宽松的标准评估，这是不可接受的。如果新治疗方法的支持者希望声称他们的疗法得到了经验支持，那么他们必须接受 APA 工作组标准的评估。ACT 研究人员是时候开始使用当前的心理治疗研究方法了。
