Cited by 5Personality Disorders and PsychopathologyMindfulness and Compassion InterventionsPsychotherapy Techniques and Applications

Using acceptance and commitment therapy in the treatment of borderline personality disorder: rationale, preliminary evidence, and future directions

Morgan, Theresa A., Aljabari, Rawya·2019·Current Treatment Options in Psychiatry

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s40501-019-00185-9

Cites

75 of 75 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

2 of the 77 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Morgan, T. A., & Aljabari, R.
Affiliations
Brown University (US)
Corresponding author
Morgan, Theresa A.
Venue
Current Treatment Options in Psychiatry
Published
2019-10-12
Volume
6
Issue
4
Pages
271-283
ISSN
2196-3061 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2979534341
Cited by
5
References
77
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 1 · 2020: 1
FWCI
0.58
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Current Treatment Options in Psychiatry (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Personality Disorders and Psychopathology
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Mindfulness and Compassion Interventions
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychotherapy Techniques and Applications
Keywords
acceptance and commitment therapy, borderline personality disorder, transdiagnostic mechanisms, mindfulness, acceptance, quality of life, life engagement, psychotherapy treatment, evidence base

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review