A number of recent authors have compared acceptance and commitment therapy (ACT) and traditional cognitive behavior therapy (CBT). The present article describes ACT as a distinct and unified model of behavior change, linked to a specific strategy of scientific development, which we term “contextual behavioral science.” We outline the empirical progress of ACT and describe its distinctive development strategy. A contextual behavioral science approach is an inductive attempt to build more adequate psychological systems based on philosophical clarity; the development of basic principles and theories; the development of applied theories linked to basic ones; techniques and components linked to these processes and principles; measurement of theoretically key processes; an emphasis on mediation and moderation in the analysis of applied impact; an interest in effectiveness, dissemination, and training; empirical testing of the research program across a broad range of areas and levels of analysis; and the creation of a more effective scientific and clinical community. We argue that this is a reasonable approach, focused on long-term progress, and that in broad terms it seems to be working. ACT is not hostile to traditional CBT, and is not directly buoyed by whatever weaknesses traditional CBT may have. ACT should be measured at least in part against its own goals as specified by its own developmental strategy.

Focused Acceptance & Commitment Therapy (FACT) is a brief intervention based on traditional Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (ACT). Although there is a growing body of research on the efficacy of ACT for a variety of populations and disorders, there is little research to date on the use of FACT in group settings. This project is 1 of the first of its kind, as it examines data on psychological flexibility, health and mental health status, and symptom reduction from a 4-week FACT group. Participants in this study were 51 patients who attended this group as part of routine clinical care in a VA integrated primary care and mental health setting. They completed pre- and posttreatment measures of well-being, depression, anxiety, stress, psychological flexibility, and perceptions of physical and mental health functioning. Pre- to posttreatment analyses of variance demonstrated large effects for quality of life, F(1, 51) = 21.29, p < .001, η2 = 0.30, moderate effects for depressive symptoms, F(1, 51) = 11.47, p < .001, η2 = 0.08, and perceptions of mental health functioning (MCS scale), F(1, 51) = 9.67, p = .003, η2 = 0.11, and small effects for perceptions of perceived stress, F(1, 51) = 4.08, p = .04, η2 = 0.03, and physical health functioning (PCS scale), F(1, 51) = 6.60, p = .01, η2 = 0.08. There was a statistical trend for reductions in anxiety, F(1, 51) = 3.29, p = .07, η2 = 0.01, and a nonsignificant effect for psychological flexibility, F(1, 51) = 2.05, p = .16, η2 = 0.04. These data provide initial support for the implementation of a group-based FACT protocol within a VA primary care setting and help to lay a foundation for further, more controlled studies on Group FACT in future research. (PsycINFO Database Record

No abstract