Institute for Positive Psychology and Education, Australian Catholic University, Strathfield 2135 NSW, Australia.
Institute for Positive Psychology and Education, Australian Catholic University, Strathfield 2135 NSW, Australia.
Behav Res Ther. 2017 Oct;97:259-272. doi: 10.1016/j.brat.2017.05.016. Epub 2017 May 29.
Öst's (2014) systematic review and meta-analysis of Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (ACT) has received wide attention. On the basis of his review, Öst argued that ACT research was not increasing in its quality and that, in contradiction to the views of Division 12 of the American Psychological Association (APA), ACT is "not yet well-established for any disorder" (2014, p. 105). We conducted a careful examination of the methods, approach, and data used in the meta-analysis. Based in part on examinations by the authors of the studies involved, which were then independently checked, 91 factual or interpretive errors were documented, touching upon 80% of the studies reviewed. Comparisons of Öst's quality ratings with independent teams rating the same studies with the same scale suggest that Ost's ratings were unreliable. In all of these areas (factual errors; interpretive errors; quality ratings) mistakes and differences were not random: Ost's data were dominantly more negative toward ACT. The seriousness, range, and distribution of errors, and a wider pattern of misinterpreting the purpose of studies and ignoring positive results, suggest that Öst's review should be set aside in future considerations of the evidence base for ACT. We argue that future published reviews and meta-analyses should rely upon diverse groups of scholars rather than a single individual; that resulting raw data should be made available for inspection and independent analysis; that well-crafted committees rather than individuals should design, apply and interpret quality criteria; that the intent of transdiagnostic studies need to be more seriously considered as the field shifts away from a purely syndromal approach; and that data that demonstrate theoretically consistent mediating processes should be given greater weight in evaluating specific interventions. Finally, in order to examine substantive progress since Öst's review, recent outcome and process evidence was briefly examined.
奥斯特（2014）对接受与承诺疗法（ACT）的系统评价和荟萃分析受到了广泛关注。基于他的综述，奥斯特认为 ACT 研究的质量并没有提高，而且与美国心理协会（APA）第 12 分会的观点相反，ACT“对于任何障碍都还没有得到很好的确立”（2014，第 105 页）。我们仔细检查了荟萃分析中使用的方法、方法和数据。部分基于对所涉及研究的作者的检查，然后由独立的检查者进行检查，记录了 91 个事实或解释性错误，涉及到所审查的 80%的研究。将奥斯特的质量评级与使用相同量表对相同研究进行独立评级的独立团队进行比较表明，奥斯特的评级不可靠。在所有这些领域（事实错误；解释性错误；质量评级），错误和差异都不是随机的：奥斯特的数据主要对 ACT 更为负面。错误的严重程度、范围和分布，以及对研究目的的广泛误解和忽视阳性结果，表明奥斯特的综述在未来考虑 ACT 的证据基础时应被搁置。我们认为，未来发表的综述和荟萃分析应该依靠不同的学者群体，而不是单一的个人；应该提供原始数据供检查和独立分析；应该由精心设计的委员会而不是个人来设计、应用和解释质量标准；随着该领域从纯粹的综合征方法转向更广泛的方法，需要更认真地考虑跨诊断研究的意图；应该更加重视证明理论上一致的中介过程的数据，以评估特定的干预措施。最后，为了检查自奥斯特综述以来的实质性进展，简要检查了最近的结果和过程证据。
