Skip to main content
ABCT 2024 58th Annual Convention Main banner
Psychology Tools Ad
Final Program


Icon Legend
This session is not in your schedule.
This session is in your schedule. Click again to remove it.
Presentation Icons
Recorded Session
Recorded Session
Ticketed Session
Ticketed Session
Back

Symposia

Treatment - CBT

Innovations in the systematic evaluation of clinical research on cognitive-behavioral therapy-based interventions

4 - (SYM 129) The First 1,000 RCTS Part 2: A Meta-analysis of Acceptance and Commitment Therapy Processes

Sunday, November 17, 2024
10:30 AM – 12:00 PM EST
Location: Grand Ballroom K/L, Level 5, Downtown Marriott
Abstract Body
This presentation will serve as a complementary talk to Borgogna, Owen, and Spencer (2024; part of the submitted symposium). Building off the findings of Borgogna et al. (2024), this presentation will focus on findings from the comprehensive meta-analysis of Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (ACT) randomized control trials (RCTs; k >1,000) with an emphasis on ACT process measure outcomes relative to control interventions.  ACT is a transdiagnostic interventions theorized to facilitate reduction in multiple mental illness symptoms via reductions in psychological inflexibility. The traditional “hexaflex” psychological inflexibility postulates six specific components. The reviewed studies assessed psychological inflexibility in a highly heterogenous manner. Most studies included at least one broad-based unidimensional psychological inflexibility measure, most commonly a measure within the acceptance-and-action questionnaire (AAQ) family. Random effects meta-analyses indicated that generally ACT is superior at reducing psychological inflexibility relative to control interventions, g=.30 (95% CI=.07, .53). Not surprisingly this effect was strongest when compared to waitlist control interventions, g=.41 (95% CI=.07, .75), but much weaker relative to active control interventions, with several interventions (e.g., traditional cognitive behavioral therapy) demonstrating stronger (though not statistically meaningful) reductions in psychological inflexibility greater than ACT. Similar to part one in our series heterogeneity was enormous Q=1,266.64, p< .001, I2=94.63%. This presentation will break down sources of heterogeneity within the ACT process measure literature within RCTs. We will also discuss distinct ACT processes (e.g., cognitive fusion) and differences across specific measures (e.g., CompACT vs AAQ).