Acceptance and Commitment Therapy versus Traditional Cognitive Behavioral Therapy: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Current Empirical Evidence

By F. Ruiz. 2012

305 citations recorded by the source corpus.

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

The empirical status of acceptance and commitment therapy: A review of meta-analyses (2020, methodology): “The 12 meta-analytic effects comparing ACT to CBT reported effects sizes ranging from no effect in anxiety g = 0.00 (Bluett, Homan, Morrison, Levin, & Twohig, 2014) to small in transdiagnostic outcomes g = 0.40 (Ruiz, 2012).”
Mindfulness-Based Approaches in the Treatment of Disordered Gambling (2018, background): “For example, a recent systematic review comparing ACT to CBT found ACT outperformed CBT across a range of symptoms (Ruiz, 2012).”
A Meta-Analysis of the Efficacy of Acceptance and Commitment Therapy for Clinically Relevant Mental and Physical Health Problems (2014, methodology): “Although the meta-analysis by Ruiz [4] was conducted recently, it included several studies involving nonclinical populations.”
Acceptance- and mindfulness-based interventions for the treatment of chronic pain: a meta-analytic review (2016, methodology): “A meta-analysis of samples with a mix of mental and physical health problems, showed that ACT seemed to work through its proposed mechanism of change while CBT did not (Ruiz, 2012).”