Overview
Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (ACT) has become one of the most prominent and well-researched models within Contextual Behavioral Science. The Association for Contextual Behavioral Science (ACBS) recently reported more than 1,100 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) supporting ACT’s effectiveness (see ACT Evidence Overview). ACT is widely utilized across various disciplines—including psychiatry, psychology, social work, physiotherapy, behavior analysis, chaplaincy, coaching, and nursing—and is delivered in diverse professional settings such as private practices, community clinics, college counseling centers, hospitals, schools, spiritual organizations, sports medicine, and more. ACT also addresses a broad range of populations, including veterans, adolescents, children, refugees, organizations, and individuals managing behavioral health conditions, medical concerns, or mental disorders, across multiple geographic locations.
This widespread application demonstrates the broad dissemination of ACT principles but also introduces variability in how ACT is delivered. Such variability has implications for maintaining ACT competencies across different contexts.
Several studies have investigated fidelity in ACT delivery, often using established protocols to ensure that the intervention adheres to its intended framework. These studies frequently assess the service provider’s training level and use recorded service sessions evaluated by subject matter experts. Many studies include multiple expert raters to establish inter-rater reliability. However, while these methods assess fidelity, they provide limited insights into the competency level of ACT delivery.
Moreover, as Perepletchikova et al. (2007) noted, traditional methods for establishing treatment fidelity may not align well with process-oriented approaches like ACT. This misalignment can result in a loss of the contextual sensitivity that is central to ACT’s effectiveness. This highlights the need for more nuanced approaches to evaluating competency and fidelity in ACT practice.
Measurement of Competency in ACT
Various methodologies have been employed to develop competency tools for assessing the quality of services delivered under the ACT model. The most common approach involves using expert consensus to construct or select assessment items. Typically, these tools focus on evaluating simulated video material, where observer ratings are compared against expert ratings. These evaluations often distinguish between "ACT-consistent" and "inconsistent" actions depicted in the videos. However, these methods do not deliver insight into how the delivered service impacts the service recipient.
Knowledge questionnaires are also commonly used in competency assessments. While they test basic understanding, they do not sufficiently measure competency. As prior research indicates, knowledge alone represents the lowest level of competence development and does not guarantee the ability to deliver high-quality practice (Dreyfus & Dreyfus, 1986; Lysaght & Altschuld, 2000).
Summary of Key Issues
This review highlights several methodological challenges that must be addressed to advance the field. A notable issue is the confusion between treatment fidelity and competency:
● Treatment Fidelity: Measures are tied to specific procedures, limiting their adaptability across the diverse practice settings, professional disciplines, and geographical locations where ACT is implemented.
● Competency: While progress has been made, significant gaps remain in evaluating comprehensive competence.
Research conducted by Walser et al. (2013) within the Department of Veterans Affairs provides a robust model for assessing competency. This model incorporates standardized competency measures and outcome evaluations for service recipients. However, the study's assessment tool lacked methodological rigor, a limitation echoed in other studies examining competency measures.
The ACT-FM (ACT Fidelity Measure) shows promise as a technique for incorporating expert input to develop competency measurement tools. Nonetheless, many studies that have employed rigorous methodologies still fail to include outcome measures assessing the service recipients' experiences, a critical component of comprehensive evaluation. Addressing these methodological limitations will be essential for refining competency measures and ensuring ACT is delivered effectively across diverse settings.
Materials/Assessments
Competency specific tools:
ACT Core Competency Rating Form (ACT-CCRF)
A 30 item expert rated scale adapted for use in a large dissemination project by Walser et al. (2013) based on expert consensus competencies originally published by Strosahl and Hayes (2004). Walser et al. (2013) reported that training and consultation in ACT led to increased competency ratings over time and more patient improvement. Psychometric properties of the ACT-CCRF were not analyzed.
ACT Core Competency Rating Form ACT-CCRF - Self-assessment version :
A 30 item self-report version equivalent to expert rating categories in the ACT-CCRF reported in Walser et al. (2013). This self-assessment tool outlines primary behaviors that align with the ACT model, aiding clinicians in evaluating and enhancing their ACT skills.
An expanded 60 item version of the ACT-CCRF Self-assessment is available.
A 51 item version of the ACT-CCRF Self-assessment was published in the 1st edition of Learning ACT (Luoma et al., 2007).
A 50 item version of the ACT-CCRF Self-assessment was published in the 2nd edition of Learning ACT (Luoma et al., 2017).
A 33 item version of the ACT-CCRF Self-assessment for BCBAs was adapted from Luoma et al. (2017) in ACT and applied behavior analysis (Szabo, 2023). This version is designed to be used by BCBAs using ACT within their scope of practice and consistent with other measures of training and competency for BCBAs.
Focused Acceptance and Commitment Therapy Competency Assessment Tool (FACT-CAT):
A 25 item self-assessment designed to help practitioners assess their competence in delivering Focused ACT (FACT) across various client populations, this tool uses a rating scale to evaluate specific competencies.
ACT Knowledge Questionnaire (AKQ: Luoma and Plumb Vilardarga, 2013)
The AKQ is a standard multiple choice self-report of 16 items.
Therapist Agreement with Sensitivity to Context (TASC: Long, 2015; Long & Hayes, 2018)
The TASC is a video-based evaluation in which respondents state what ACT process is being targeted in a series of short video segments of expert practitioners.
ACT Situational Judgment Test (ACT-SJT: Jamison, 2024; Jamison et al., n.d.)
The ACT-SJT is a 5 item measure developed through expert consensus using Delphi methodology. Multiple choice responses to hypothetical situations test knowledge of ACT principles. An initial field evaluation demonstrated that training in ACT is associated with higher scores on the ACT-SJT.
ACT Fidelity tools that may have application to competency measurement:
ACT Fidelity Measure (ACT-FM: O’Neil et al., 2019). Provides concrete behavioural descriptions of consistent and inconsistent ACT therapeutic behaviors and as such it can be considered to be a measure of competency of ACT skills. The measure was developed by expert consensus and a Delphi study, and the resultant 25 items show good to excellent inter-rater reliability in a small field test. Full analysis of the psychometric properties of the ACT-FM has not been reported.
Walser, R. D. & Mazina, B. (2017). Acceptance and commitment therapy rating scale training manual. Unpublished manual (email robyn.walser@va.gov for information).
Walser, R. D. et al. (2006). Acceptance And Commitment Therapy Tape Rating Scale.
Psychological flexibility measures used in training that may be relevant to assessing competency:
Mindful Healthcare Scale (MHS: Gillanders et al., 2024) is a 13 item self-report measure designed to assess psychological flexibility among healthcare professionals, including individuals who practice psychological therapy. The MHS has good psychometric properties, with evidence across large samples of strong factor structure, internal reliability, convergent and concurrent validity and sensitivity to training (specifically, those with higher self-reported exposure to ACT had higher scores on the MHS).
Acceptance and Action Questionnaire (AAQ: Bond & Bunce, 2003). This 16 item scale was was used by Stafford-Brown and Pakenham (2012) who observed AAQ as mediating improved psychological functioning among clinical psychology trainees learning ACT.
Five Facet Mindfulness Questionnaire (FFMQ: Baer, Smith, Hopkins, Krietmeyer, & Toney, 2006). This 39 item scale was was used by Stafford-Brown and Pakenham (2012) who observed FFMQ as mediating improved psychological functioning among clinical psychology trainees learning ACT.
Comprehensive Assessment of Acceptance and Commitment Therapy Processes (CompACT: Francis et al., 2016)
The CompACT is a general measure of psychological flexibility and its sub-processes within the ACT model.
References:
Baer, R. A., Smith, G. T., Hopkins, J., Krietemeyer, J., & Toney, L. (2006). Using self-report assessment methods to explore facets of mindfulness. Assessment, 13(1), 27-45. DOI: 10.1177/1073191105283504
Bond, F. W., & Bunce, D. (2003). The role of acceptance and job control in mental health, job satisfaction, and work performance. Journal of applied psychology, 88(6), 1057. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.6.1057
Craske, M. G., Niles, A. N., Burklund, L. J., Wolitzky-Taylor, K. B., Vilardaga, J. C. P., Arch, J. J., Saxbe, D. E., & Lieberman, M. D. (2014). Randomized controlled trial of cognitive behavioral therapy and acceptance and commitment therapy for social phobia: Outcomes and moderators. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 82(6), 1034–1048. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0037212
Dochat, C., Wooldridge, J. S., Herbert, M. S., Lee, M. W., & Afari, N. (2021). Single-session acceptance and commitment therapy (ACT) interventions for patients with chronic health conditions: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Contextual Behavioral Science, 20, 52–69. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcbs.2021.02.002
Francis, A. W., Dawson, D. L., & Golijani-Moghaddam, N. (2016). The development and validation of the Comprehensive assessment of Acceptance and Commitment Therapy processes (CompACT). Journal of contextual behavioral science, 5(3), 134-145. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcbs.2016.05.003
Gaudiano, B. A., Ellenberg, S., Ostrove, B., Johnson, J., Mueser, K. T., Furman, M., & Miller, I. W. (2020). Feasibility and preliminary effects of implementing acceptance and commitment therapy for inpatients with psychotic-spectrum disorders in a clinical psychiatric intensive care setting. Journal of Cognitive Psychotherapy, 34(1), 80–96. https://doi.org/10.1891/JCPSY-D-19-00014
Gillanders, D., Fisher, S., Kidney, G., Ferreira, N., Morris, P. G., & Harkjaer-Thorgrimsen, L. M. (2024). The Mindful Healthcare Scale (MHS): Development and initial validation. Journal of Contextual Behavioral Science, 33, 100817. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcbs.2024.100817
Gould, R. L., McDermott, C. J., Thompson, B. J., Rawlinson, C. V., Bursnall, M., Bradburn, M., & Waterhouse, S. (2024). Acceptance and commitment therapy plus usual care for improving quality of life in people with motor neuron disease (COMMEND): A multicentre, parallel, randomised controlled trial in the UK. The Lancet, 403(10383), 123–134. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(24)00001-2
Holmes, M. N. G., Wileman, V., McCracken, L. M., Critchley, D., March, M. K., Norton, S., & Godfrey, E. (2021). Experiences of training and delivery of physical therapy informed by acceptance and commitment therapy (PACT): A longitudinal qualitative study. Physiotherapy, 112, 41–48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physio.2021.01.002
Jamison, K. (2024). Applied knowledge of acceptance and commitment therapy (ACT): developing and assessing the utility of a situational judgement test (SJT). Dissertation.
Jamison, K., Curran, D., White, R., & SamuelY, V. (n.d.). Applied Knowledge of Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (ACT): Developing and Assessing the Utility of a Situational Judgement Test (SJT). Poster.
Karlin, B. E., Walser, R. D., Yesavage, J., Zhang, A., Trockel, M., & Taylor, C. B. (2013). Effectiveness of acceptance and commitment therapy for depression: Comparison among older and younger veterans. Aging & Mental Health, 17(5), 555–563. https://doi.org/10.1080/13607863.2013.789002
Lang, A. J., Schnurr, P. P., Jain, S., He, F., Walser, R. D., Bolton, E., & Chard, K. M. (2017). Randomized controlled trial of acceptance and commitment therapy for distress and impairment in OEF/OIF/OND veterans. Psychological Trauma: Theory, Research, Practice, and Policy, 9(S1), 74–84. https://doi.org/10.1037/tra0000226
Long, D. M. (2015). Development and evaluation of an acceptance and commitment therapy online competency assessment: A contextual behavioral building block approach (Doctoral dissertation). University of Nevada, Reno.
Long, D. M., & Hayes, S. C. (2018). Development of an ACT prototype for therapeutic skill assessment. Journal of contextual behavioral science, 9, 63-71.
Luoma, J. B., Hayes, S. C., & Walser, R. D. (2007). Learning ACT: An acceptance & commitment therapy skills-training manual for therapists. New Harbinger Publications.
Luoma, J. B., Hayes, S. C., & Walser, R. D. (2017). Learning ACT: An acceptance & commitment therapy skills-training manual for therapists. 2nd Ed. New Harbinger Publications.
Luoma, J. B., & Plumb Vilardaga, J. (2013). Improving therapist psychological flexibility while training acceptance and commitment therapy: A pilot study. Cognitive Behaviour Therapy, 42(1), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1080/16506073.2012.701662
O'Neill, L., Latchford, G., McCracken, L. M., & Graham, C. D. (2019). The development of the Acceptance and Commitment Therapy Fidelity Measure (ACT-FM): A Delphi study and field test. Journal of Contextual Behavioral Science, 14, 111–118. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcbs.2019.09.001
Pakenham, K. I. (2017). Training in acceptance and commitment therapy fosters self-care in clinical psychology trainees. Clinical Psychologist, 21(3), 186–194. https://doi.org/10.1111/cp.12125
Perepletchikova, F., Treat, T. A., & Kazdin, A. E. (2007). Treatment integrity in psychotherapy research: Analysis of the studies and examination of the associated factors. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 75(6), 829–841. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.75.6.829
Plumb, J. C., & Vilardaga, R. (2010). Assessing treatment integrity in acceptance and commitment therapy: Strategies and suggestions. International Journal of Behavioral Consultation and Therapy, 6(3), 263–295. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0100905
Stafford‐Brown, J., & Pakenham, K. I. (2012). The effectiveness of an ACT informed intervention for managing stress and improving therapist qualities in clinical psychology trainees. Journal of clinical psychology, 68(6), 592-513. DOI: 10.1002/jclp.21844
Stewart, C., White, R. G., Ebert, B., Mays, I., Nardozzi, J., & Bockarie, H. (2016). A preliminary evaluation of acceptance and commitment therapy (ACT) training in Sierra Leone. Journal of Contextual Behavioral Science, 5(1), 16–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcbs.2016.02.001
Strosahl, K. D., & Hayes, S. (Eds.). (2004). A practical guide to acceptance and commitment therapy. Springer Science & Business Media.
Szabo, T. G. (2023). ACT and applied behavior analysis. Context Press.
Trompetter, H. R., Schreurs, K. M., Heuts, P. H., & Vollenbroek-Hutten, M. M. (2014). The systematic implementation of acceptance & commitment therapy (ACT) in Dutch multidisciplinary chronic pain rehabilitation. Patient Education and Counseling, 96(2), 249–255. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2014.05.015
Walser, R. D., Karlin, B. E., Trockel, M., Mazina, B., & Taylor, C. B. (2013). Training in and implementation of acceptance and commitment therapy for depression in the Veterans Health Administration: Therapist and patient outcomes. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 51(9), 555–563. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brat.2013.05.009
Walser, R. D., Garvert, D. W., Karlin, B. E., Trockel, M., Ryu, D. M., & Taylor, C. B. (2015). Effectiveness of acceptance and commitment therapy in treating depression and suicidal ideation in veterans. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 74, 25–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j