The elaboration and evolution of CBT: A familiar foundation and creative application with chronic pain
The case presented by Wicksell and colleagues (2005) raises a number of intriguing issues, particularly about the utility and application of cognitive and behavioral approaches in pain management. Rather than focus on the specific application of Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (ACT; Hayes, Strosahl, and Wilson, 1999) in this case, we have chosen to comment on how their work reminds us of the similarities across CBT approaches and to suggest some minor but important modifications.
How does Relational Frame Theory (RFT) relate to traditional CBT-theories?
That question is a huge one. RFT seeks a broad understanding of cognition.
How does Relational Frame Theory (RFT) relate to traditional CBT-theories?
That question is a huge one. RFT seeks a broad understanding of cognition.
Are there any potential advantages of traditional CBT compared to ACT?
It is an empirical question, as was the previous one.
As for data so far, right now we have two studies showing a smaller effect size for ACT than for a traditional CBT procedure done outside of an ACT model. Zettle, 2003 found a smaller effect for ACT than for systematic desensitization with trait anxiety when treating a relatively minor problem (math anxiety). The effect was the same in the area of math anxiety per se.
Are there advantages of ACT as compared to traditional CBT?
Ultimately this is an empirical question. After considering that we can look at the possible advantages in a theoretical sense.
Right now there are a handful of studies that have looked directly and they tend to be medium to small. Only a few are published, and one of these barely mentions outcome because it was a piece on process of change. So we have a long way to go before this question will be answered empirically.
Here are the studies done so far: