University of Nevada, Reno.
Behav Ther. 2023 Nov;54(6):956-970. doi: 10.1016/j.beth.2023.07.006. Epub 2023 Jul 18.
How good is the science in the Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (ACT) program? This article examines ACT philosophy, theory, and research on five dimensions: (1) the quality of its meta-science; (2) the clarity of its constructs; (3) the psychometrics of its principal measures; (4) the adequacy of its account of values; and (5) the quality of its research. Significant problems are found in each dimension, and suggestions for improvements are offered. ACT aligns with a Machiavellianism that is problematic in accurately describing these commitments and constituting a meta-stance that permits problematic values to be embraced. Relatedly, there is evidence of a positive bias in ACT research that has been ignored methodologically and in summaries of ACT. These problems justify significant skepticism regarding any claims from the science associated with ACT. Avoiding questionable research practices, psychometrically problematic measures, and research designs that weaken valid causal inference is recommended. Finally, an increased commitment to open science, intellectual humility, and severe testing is recommended.
接纳与承诺疗法（ACT）的科学性如何？本文从五个维度审视了 ACT 的哲学、理论和研究：（1）元科学的质量；（2）建构的清晰度；（3）主要测量工具的心理测量学；（4）价值观解释的充分性；（5）研究质量。在每个维度都发现了重大问题，并提出了改进建议。ACT 与马基雅维利主义相一致，这种主义在准确描述这些承诺和构成允许接受有问题的价值观的元立场方面存在问题。相关地，有证据表明 ACT 研究存在积极偏差，这在方法学上和 ACT 研究的总结中都被忽视了。这些问题使得与 ACT 相关的科学主张值得高度怀疑。建议避免可疑的研究实践、心理测量学上有问题的测量工具以及削弱有效因果推断的研究设计。最后，建议增加对开放科学、知识谦逊和严格测试的承诺。
