Inventing the wheel once more or learning from the history of psychotherapy research methodology.

Gaudiano's criticism of one part of my review of ACT outcome research (Öst, 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.