The DOI matches its Crossref record; 62 of the 67 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; 7 of the 34 sources its claims cite were checked for support.
Acceptance and Commitment Therapy modules: Differential impact on treatment processes and outcomes
Open accessAbstract
A modular, transdiagnostic approach to treatment design and implementation may increase the public health impact of evidence-based psychosocial interventions. Such an approach relies on algorithms for selecting and implementing treatment components intended to have a specific therapeutic effect, yet there is little evidence for how components function independent of their treatment packages when employed in clinical service settings. This study aimed to demonstrate the specificity of treatment effects for two components of Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (ACT), a promising candidate for modularization. A randomized, nonconcurrent, multiple-baseline across participants design was used to examine component effects on treatment processes and outcomes in 15 adults seeking mental health treatment. The ACT OPEN module targeted acceptance and cognitive defusion; the ACT ENGAGED module targeted values-based activation and persistence. According to Tau-U analyses, both modules produced significant improvements in psychiatric symptoms, quality of life, and targeted therapeutic processes. ACT ENGAGED demonstrated greater improvements in quality of life and values-based activation. ACT OPEN showed greater improvements in symptom severity, acceptance, and defusion. Both modules improved awareness and non-reactivity, which were mutually targeted, though using distinct intervention procedures. Both interventions demonstrated high treatment acceptability, completion, and patient satisfaction. Treatment effects were maintained at 3-month follow up. ACT components should be considered for inclusion in a modular approach to implementing evidence-based psychosocial interventions for adults. © 2015 Elsevier Ltd.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
49 Own result · 25 Own method · 15 No full text of the sources · 13 Own interpretation · 3 Supported · 2 Supported so far · 2 Partly supported · 2 No basis given · 1 Not checked yet · accuracy not yet measured
The sources with a verdict support this claim; the rest weren’t checked yet, have no full text we could read, or their verdicts aren’t rated yet.
In the paper
“This science-practice gap may reflect a failure of the dominant intervention research paradigm to adequately address factors that influence the implementation of EBPI in usual care (Fairburn & Wilson, 2013; Kazdin & Blase, 2011; Rotheram-Borus, Swendeman, & Chorpita, 2012).”
§ Acceptance and Commitment Therapy Modules: Differential Impact on Treatment Processes and Outcomes > Abstract
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Fairburn & Wilson, 2013 source
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Kazdin & Blase, 2011 source
- Supportedcites Rotheram-Borus, Swendeman, & Chorpita, 2012 source
In “Standard Operating Procedures Limit EBI Diffusion and Innovation” (page not available), the paper describes a dominant research paradigm for designing and implementing EBIs and says its widespread adoption creates barriers to innovation. The “Biomedical Validation Model” subsection adds that interventions developed in laboratories or well-resourced trials may prove unattractive or infeasible to providers and consumers, supporting the proposed explanation for the science-practice gap. (LLM, conf=0.91)
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“Visual analyses were consistent with previous studies suggesting ACT intervention trends carry-over into follow-up assessment phases (Luoma, Kohlenberg, Hayes, & Fletcher, 2012).”
§ Acceptance and Commitment Therapy Modules: Differential Impact on Treatment Processes and Outcomes > Results > Treatment Outcomes and Processes
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Luoma, Kohlenberg, Hayes, & Fletcher, 2012 source
The Results, Secondary Outcomes section reports that improvements in the ACT group were maintained through follow-up, including general mental health and another secondary outcome. This supports the cited sentence’s suggestion that ACT intervention trends can carry over into follow-up; the paper reports statistical analyses rather than visual analyses. (LLM, conf=0.88)
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“This result is consistent with ACT’s psychological flexibility model, which makes a distinction between symptom reduction and well-being (Hayes et al., 2013).”
§ Acceptance and Commitment Therapy Modules: Differential Impact on Treatment Processes and Outcomes > Discussion
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Hayes et al., 2013 source
In “Develop a Model of Pathology, Intervention, and Health,” the paper says ACT reduces symptoms, but that this impact is secondary to its primary focus on valued living. “The Scientific Development Strategy of Empirical Clinical Psychology” likewise places valued actions and life functioning ahead of disorder-specific distress. These passages support the distinction attributed to ACT’s model; the citation does not attribute the ACT ENGAGED result itself to this paper. Page numbers are not available in the supplied passages. (LLM, conf=0.93)
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Supported
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“ACT OPEN showed greater improvements in symptom severity, acceptance, and defusion.”
§ Acceptance and Commitment Therapy Modules: Differential Impact on Treatment Processes and Outcomes > Abstract
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Treatment effects were maintained at 3-month follow up.”
§ Acceptance and Commitment Therapy Modules: Differential Impact on Treatment Processes and Outcomes > Abstract
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“ACT ENGAGED demonstrated greater improvements in quality of life and values-based activation.”
§ Acceptance and Commitment Therapy Modules: Differential Impact on Treatment Processes and Outcomes > Abstract
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“According to Tau- U analyses, both modules produced significant improvements in psychiatric symptoms, quality of life, and targeted therapeutic processes.”
§ Acceptance and Commitment Therapy Modules: Differential Impact on Treatment Processes and Outcomes > Abstract
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Both interventions demonstrated high treatment acceptability, completion, and patient satisfaction.”
§ Acceptance and Commitment Therapy Modules: Differential Impact on Treatment Processes and Outcomes > Abstract
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“These differences were not statistically significant, t(13) = 1.73, p = .11.”
§ Acceptance and Commitment Therapy Modules: Differential Impact on Treatment Processes and Outcomes > Results > Treatment Acceptance and Completion
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Both interventions demonstrated high treatment acceptability, completion, and patient satisfaction.”
§ Acceptance and Commitment Therapy Modules: Differential Impact on Treatment Processes and Outcomes > Abstract
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- It may state two separate claims as one. 33
- Probably not a substantial claim. 28
- The quote only partly states this claim. 1
The sources with a verdict support this claim; the rest weren’t checked yet, have no full text we could read, or their verdicts aren’t rated yet.
In the paper
“Single case experimental designs (SCED) provide a pragmatic alternative that, when well-designed and executed, rival the scientific rigor of randomized controlled trials while requiring far fewer participants (Barlow, Nock, & Hersen, 2008; Smith, 2012; Vilardaga, 2014).”
§ Acceptance and Commitment Therapy Modules: Differential Impact on Treatment Processes and Outcomes > Abstract
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Barlow, Nock, & Hersen, 2008
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Supportedcites Smith, 2012 source
The Abstract calls SCEDs a rigorous, methodologically sound alternative capable of legitimate experimental inferences. Basics of the SCED describes participants serving as their own controls rather than being divided into comparison groups, and the discussion of changing-criterion designs says one can be conducted with a single participant. The Conclusions also identify practical advantages, while cautioning that SCEDs should not supplant group designs as the gold standard. (LLM, conf=0.86)
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Vilardaga, 2014 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Therapists cannot be expected to learn each new treatment package supported by a randomized controlled trial, particularly when many EBPIs share core components and target similar psychological processes, making distinct training in complete treatment packages potentially redundant and unnecessary (Chorpita et al., 2011).”
§ Acceptance and Commitment Therapy Modules: Differential Impact on Treatment Processes and Outcomes > Discussion > Implications for modular treatment development, dissemination, and implementation
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites Chorpita et al., 2011 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
Split into 2 atoms — 0 confirmed, 2 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Partly supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Modularity is also an ideal fit with current trends toward disruptive innovations in EBPIs, as it is patient-centered, responsive to idiographic variables that influence treatment engagement and response, and maintains a tight link to the evidence base while allowing therapists to select components that match their expertise and are feasible within their practice settings (Rotheram-Borus et al., 2”
§ Acceptance and Commitment Therapy Modules: Differential Impact on Treatment Processes and Outcomes > Discussion > Implications for modular treatment development, dissemination, and implementation
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites Rotheram-Borus et al., 2012 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
In “Synthesize and Diffuse Common and Robust Elements of EBIs” (page unavailable), the paper describes clinicians using evidence-based practice elements to customize interventions for a person’s characteristics and setting; it also presents a modular intervention as an example of this approach. It does not say that therapists select components to match their own expertise or that modularity specifically responds to individual variables influencing treatment engagement and response. (LLM, conf=0.85)
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Partly supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“The contextual behavioral scientific approach that gave rise to ACT (Hayes et al., 2013) is well-suited to modular treatment design and evaluation because both rest on a pragmatic philosophy that lends itself to inductive and iterative methodologies for knowledge development and dissemination.”
§ Acceptance and Commitment Therapy Modules: Differential Impact on Treatment Processes and Outcomes > Discussion > Implications for modular treatment development, dissemination, and implementation
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Hayes et al., 2013 source
The Abstract identifies contextual behavioral science as ACT’s scientific development strategy. The “ACT: A CBS Approach” section describes that strategy as inductive, principle-focused, and dynamically developed, while “Explicate Philosophical Assumptions” describes its pragmatic philosophy. The citation identifies the approach; the assertion about its suitability for modular treatment design is the citing authors’ own conclusion. (LLM, conf=0.91)
boostedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Supported
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“First, improvements on the Values Bullseye, though large, did not occur until the fourth week in the intervention phase for all participants in the ACT ENGAGED module, which targeted this process explicitly.”
§ Acceptance and Commitment Therapy Modules: Differential Impact on Treatment Processes and Outcomes > Results > Treatment Outcomes and Processes
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Both modules were viewed as acceptable, with no session rated below 3 and an average score of 4.17 on the 5-point scale of the TEI.”
§ Acceptance and Commitment Therapy Modules: Differential Impact on Treatment Processes and Outcomes > Results > Treatment Acceptance and Completion
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“All 7 participants assigned to the ACT OPEN module rated the treatment with an average score of 4 or better, with 50% of sessions rated with the highest possible score.”
§ Acceptance and Commitment Therapy Modules: Differential Impact on Treatment Processes and Outcomes > Results > Treatment Acceptance and Completion
plainn = 7- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Seventy-five percent of the 8 participants assigned to the ACT ENGAGED module rated the treatment with an average score of 4 or better, with 40% of sessions given the maximum rating.”
§ Acceptance and Commitment Therapy Modules: Differential Impact on Treatment Processes and Outcomes > Results > Treatment Acceptance and Completion
plainn = 8- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Participants who received the ACT OPEN module demonstrated small improvements at follow-up relative to baseline scores on the Values Bullseye, though these improvements were not reliably linked to treatment trends and the omnibus treatment effect was not significant.”
§ Acceptance and Commitment Therapy Modules: Differential Impact on Treatment Processes and Outcomes > Results > Treatment Outcomes and Processes
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“All participants who received the ACT OPEN module showed substantial improvement in acceptance, with moderately large session-by-session gains and almost no deterioration during the 3-month follow-up period.”
§ Acceptance and Commitment Therapy Modules: Differential Impact on Treatment Processes and Outcomes > Results > Treatment Outcomes and Processes
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The ACT OPEN module had a large effect on symptom severity, while the ACT ENGAGED module showed only moderate improvements.”
§ Acceptance and Commitment Therapy Modules: Differential Impact on Treatment Processes and Outcomes > Results > Treatment Outcomes and Processes
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Both the ACT OPEN and ACT ENGAGED modules were acceptable to adults seeking mental health treatment, demonstrating 100% treatment completion rates and very high levels of patient satisfaction post-treatment and at 3-month follow-up.”
§ Acceptance and Commitment Therapy Modules: Differential Impact on Treatment Processes and Outcomes > Discussion > Implications for modular treatment development, dissemination, and implementation
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“These were the only cases in either condition to become more cognitively fused (Tau = .64, p = .00) and less accepting of thoughts and feelings (Tau = .56, p = .00), and to fail to show improvement in reactivity (Tau = .07, p = .71).”
§ Acceptance and Commitment Therapy Modules: Differential Impact on Treatment Processes and Outcomes > Results > Treatment Outcomes and Processes
plainn = 2 ·- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Between-group analyses detected no significant differences by condition for awareness (Tau-U = .02, SE = .20, p = .83) or nonreactivity (Tau-U = .01, SE = .09, p = .93).”
§ Acceptance and Commitment Therapy Modules: Differential Impact on Treatment Processes and Outcomes > Results > Treatment Outcomes and Processes
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“All participants reported large WHOQoL improvements over baseline and these gains were maintained across the three months of follow-up assessment.”
§ Acceptance and Commitment Therapy Modules: Differential Impact on Treatment Processes and Outcomes > Results > Treatment Outcomes and Processes
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“These cases did not differ from participants in either condition at baseline on any demographic variable, number of past or current diagnoses, symptom severity, or any process measure.”
§ Acceptance and Commitment Therapy Modules: Differential Impact on Treatment Processes and Outcomes > Results > Treatment Outcomes and Processes
plainn = 2- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“It is interesting to note that moderate symptom reduction and large quality of life improvements occurred even though judgment and believability of negative thoughts remained high in this condition.”
§ Acceptance and Commitment Therapy Modules: Differential Impact on Treatment Processes and Outcomes > Discussion
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“It is notable that the two participants in the ACT OPEN condition meeting criteria for a current PTSD diagnosis displayed patterns of improvement consistent with other participants within that treatment condition and showed no deterioration on process or outcome measures.”
§ Acceptance and Commitment Therapy Modules: Differential Impact on Treatment Processes and Outcomes > Results > Treatment Outcomes and Processes
plainn = 2- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This process was explicitly targeted only by the ACT ENGAGED module, which produced large improvements over baseline scores and reliable session-by-session growth in values-based action.”
§ Acceptance and Commitment Therapy Modules: Differential Impact on Treatment Processes and Outcomes > Results > Treatment Outcomes and Processes
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, participants in the ACT ENGAGED condition showed moderately greater improvements over those in the ACT ENGAGED condition (Tau-U = .38, SE = .17, p = .02).”
§ Acceptance and Commitment Therapy Modules: Differential Impact on Treatment Processes and Outcomes > Results > Treatment Outcomes and Processes
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The quote only partly states this claim.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The difference between modules was significant, with ACT ENGAGED demonstrating superior treatment effects (Tau-U = .54, SE = .10, p = .00).”
§ Acceptance and Commitment Therapy Modules: Differential Impact on Treatment Processes and Outcomes > Results > Treatment Outcomes and Processes
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Compared to scores of other participants in the ACT ENGAGED condition, the two cases displayed 69% less improvement in quality of life (p = .04) and 68% less improvement in symptom severity (p = .00).”
§ Acceptance and Commitment Therapy Modules: Differential Impact on Treatment Processes and Outcomes > Results > Treatment Outcomes and Processes
plainn = 2 ·- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“It has been suggested that inclusion of such a lag in statistical analysis would not fairly represent the amount of change due to the intervention (Parker & Vannest, 2012), so the first three weekly data points in the intervention phase were excluded from Tau-U analysis of the Values Bullseye.”
§ Acceptance and Commitment Therapy Modules: Differential Impact on Treatment Processes and Outcomes > Results > Treatment Outcomes and Processes
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Parker & Vannest, 2012 source
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“ICCs indicated excellent agreement between the two raters in the ACT OPEN (ICC = .94, 95% CI = .90, .96) and ACT ENGAGED (ICC = .96, 95% CI = .95, .98) modules.”
§ Acceptance and Commitment Therapy Modules: Differential Impact on Treatment Processes and Outcomes > Method > Measures
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In the current study, α = .95.”
§ Acceptance and Commitment Therapy Modules: Differential Impact on Treatment Processes and Outcomes > Method > Specific Change Processes
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Following enrollment, participants were randomly allocated to an assessment-only baseline of 3, 4, or 5 weeks in fixed blocks of 3 using a computer random number generator.”
§ Acceptance and Commitment Therapy Modules: Differential Impact on Treatment Processes and Outcomes > Method > Design and Treatment Assignment
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In the current study, α = .85.”
§ Acceptance and Commitment Therapy Modules: Differential Impact on Treatment Processes and Outcomes > Method > Treatment Outcome
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“No participant refused treatment after being informed about the intervention to which they were randomly assigned.”
§ Acceptance and Commitment Therapy Modules: Differential Impact on Treatment Processes and Outcomes > Results > Treatment Acceptance and Completion
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“No participants refused participation after random assignment and all randomized participants (N = 15) were included in the main analyses.”
§ Acceptance and Commitment Therapy Modules: Differential Impact on Treatment Processes and Outcomes > Method > Participants
plainn = 15- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A claim is checked only against the cited paper’s full text, never its abstract, and none is available for its sources.
In the paper
“Therapists report that they value the science behind EBPI, but are concerned that standardized manuals do not meet the needs of real-world clients and practice settings (Addis & Krasnow, 2000; Borntrager, Chorpita, Higa-McMillan, & Weisz, 2009; Nelson & Steele, 2007).”
§ Acceptance and Commitment Therapy Modules: Differential Impact on Treatment Processes and Outcomes > Abstract
What the sources say
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The clinical assessor and therapists were doctoral students in clinical psychology with at least 3 years of training in ACT and directly supervised by a developer of the treatment (SCH).”
§ Acceptance and Commitment Therapy Modules: Differential Impact on Treatment Processes and Outcomes > Method > Therapists, Assessors, and Setting
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“This approach is free from assumptions of distribution and linearity, robust to serial dependence inherent in time-series designs, superior in power and precision over other SCED effect size indices, and allows for examination of changes in both mean levels and trend (Parker, Vannest, Davis, & Sauber, 2011).”
§ Acceptance and Commitment Therapy Modules: Differential Impact on Treatment Processes and Outcomes > Method > Analytic Strategy
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Parker, Vannest, Davis, & Sauber, 2011 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In summary, both modules targeted self-awareness processes, but there was zero overlap in therapy tasks or techniques.”
§ Acceptance and Commitment Therapy Modules: Differential Impact on Treatment Processes and Outcomes > Method > Interventions
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“A randomized, nonconcurrent, multiple-baseline across participants design was used to examine component effects on treatment processes and outcomes in 15 adults seeking mental health treatment.”
§ Acceptance and Commitment Therapy Modules: Differential Impact on Treatment Processes and Outcomes > Abstract
plainn = 15- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Upon completion of baseline assessment, participants were allocated to therapist and intervention module in randomly varied blocks of 3–5 generated by a computer random number generator.”
§ Acceptance and Commitment Therapy Modules: Differential Impact on Treatment Processes and Outcomes > Method > Design and Treatment Assignment
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In the current study α = .89.”
§ Acceptance and Commitment Therapy Modules: Differential Impact on Treatment Processes and Outcomes > Method > Specific Change Processes
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Fidelity was assessed using the 16-item ACT Integrity Coding System (Plumb & Vilardaga, 2010).”
- Also stated in: § Measures · plain
“Twenty percent of each therapist’s sessions in each condition were rated for fidelity by two bachelors-level coders who completed 40 hours of training with a peer-reviewed ACT trainer.”
§ Acceptance and Commitment Therapy Modules: Differential Impact on Treatment Processes and Outcomes > Method > Measures
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Plumb & Vilardaga, 2010 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Also stated in: § Measures · plain
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In the current trial α = .96.”
§ Acceptance and Commitment Therapy Modules: Differential Impact on Treatment Processes and Outcomes > Method > Measures
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In the current study α = .87.”
§ Acceptance and Commitment Therapy Modules: Differential Impact on Treatment Processes and Outcomes > Method > Specific Change Processes
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In the current study, α = .82.”
§ Acceptance and Commitment Therapy Modules: Differential Impact on Treatment Processes and Outcomes > Method > Common Change Processes
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In the current study, α = .79, which is consistent with published reports of internal consistency in the FFMQ.”
§ Acceptance and Commitment Therapy Modules: Differential Impact on Treatment Processes and Outcomes > Method > Common Change Processes
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In the current study, α = .89.”
§ Acceptance and Commitment Therapy Modules: Differential Impact on Treatment Processes and Outcomes > Method > Treatment Outcome
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“It is possible that modules targeting acceptance and defusion may be necessary precursors to modules aimed at values-based behavioral activation for individuals with a current PTSD diagnosis.”
§ Acceptance and Commitment Therapy Modules: Differential Impact on Treatment Processes and Outcomes > Discussion
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The ACT OPEN module, which targeted acceptance and cognitive defusion processes, produced greater session-by-session improvement and larger overall reductions in symptom severity.”
§ Acceptance and Commitment Therapy Modules: Differential Impact on Treatment Processes and Outcomes > Discussion
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Single case experimental designs are ideal for this kind of treatment distillation and matching because they allow for rapid knowledge generation based on critical comparisons at the level of clinical decision-making.”
§ Acceptance and Commitment Therapy Modules: Differential Impact on Treatment Processes and Outcomes > Discussion > Implications for modular treatment development, dissemination, and implementation
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Though the present study design provided a good balance between external validity and experimental control (e.g., randomization, replication across participants), critical comparisons should be replicated to see if current results hold across experimenters, treatment settings, therapists, and participants.”
§ Acceptance and Commitment Therapy Modules: Differential Impact on Treatment Processes and Outcomes > Discussion > Limitations and Recommendations for Future Research
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Fidelity monitoring within the current study demonstrated that ACT modules can be functionally independent and distinct, adequately addressing a wide range of clinical content across 8 sessions with no contamination of therapy procedures across modules or use of procedures not specified by the module (e.g., non-adherence).”
§ Acceptance and Commitment Therapy Modules: Differential Impact on Treatment Processes and Outcomes > Discussion > Implications for modular treatment development, dissemination, and implementation
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A claim is checked only against the cited paper’s full text, never its abstract, and none is available for its sources.
In the paper
“While formal mediation analyses were beyond the scope of the current study, examination of time-lagged associations between process and outcome variables are possible within single case experiments (Hilliard, 1993; Tschacher & Ramseyer, 2009) and are recommended for developing modular treatment protocols that optimize exposure to key treatment mechanisms.”
§ Acceptance and Commitment Therapy Modules: Differential Impact on Treatment Processes and Outcomes > Discussion > Limitations and Recommendations for Future Research
What the sources say
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Though group designs would require massive samples to power so many interaction effects, results from SCED, including the current study, can be aggregated to provide guidelines for personalized selection and evaluation of treatment components (Van den Noortgate & Onghena, 2007).”
§ Acceptance and Commitment Therapy Modules: Differential Impact on Treatment Processes and Outcomes > Discussion > Limitations and Recommendations for Future Research
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Van den Noortgate & Onghena, 2007 source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The current study suggests that treatment modules targeting components of ACT’s psychological flexibility model are feasible and effective in treating adults with mixed anxiety and depression.”
§ Acceptance and Commitment Therapy Modules: Differential Impact on Treatment Processes and Outcomes > Discussion > Implications for modular treatment development, dissemination, and implementation
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Both modules demonstrated broad symptom improvements and sustained increases in quality of life, though they were comprised of wholly different interventions and produced distinct changes in psychological processes.”
§ Acceptance and Commitment Therapy Modules: Differential Impact on Treatment Processes and Outcomes > Discussion > Implications for modular treatment development, dissemination, and implementation
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Both of the ACT component modules produced significant improvements in symptom severity and quality of life, but at different rates and magnitudes and using different techniques.”
§ Acceptance and Commitment Therapy Modules: Differential Impact on Treatment Processes and Outcomes > Discussion
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Though the ACT OPEN component did not directly target values and commitment processes, it appears that some participants in this condition independently brought their behaviors into greater alignment with their personal values after learning to relate differently to their thoughts and feelings.”
§ Acceptance and Commitment Therapy Modules: Differential Impact on Treatment Processes and Outcomes > Discussion
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The paper relies on this without support.
There is little evidence for how treatment components function independent of their treatment packages when employed in clinical service settings.
“yet there is little evidence for how components function independent of their treatment packages when employed in clinical service settings.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Modular treatments are efficient to train, inherently flexible, and easy to update as new intervention data emerges.
“Modular treatments are efficient to train, inherently flexible, and easy to update as new intervention data emerges.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The modular approach capitalizes on therapists’ tendency to be integrative when adapting efficacious treatments to real-world practice demands.
“The modular approach capitalizes on therapists’ tendency to be integrative when adapting efficacious treatments to real-world practice demands.”
The paper relies on this without support.
An effective personalized treatment relies on an understanding of patient characteristics that influence intervention processes and outcomes.
“An effective personalized treatment relies on an understanding of patient characteristics that influence intervention processes and outcomes.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Nonreactive awareness of one’s self and environment is a central feature of the psychological flexibility model and a common core element in all ACT interventions.
“Nonreactive awareness of one’s self and environment is a central feature of the psychological flexibility model and a common core element in all ACT interventions.”
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?
The source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“Moreover, given that psychological flexibility as an overall skill appears to be helpful in the treatment of trichotillomania, it may be instructive to identify specific processes within this model that contribute to improved outcomes (Villatte et al., 2016).”
From The role of psychological flexibility in acceptance-enhanced behavior therapy for trichotillomania: Moderation and mediation findings (2023) · cites this paper as Villatte et al., 2016
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“and dismantling research suggests that the values and committed action components of ACT are especially impactful for broad indicators of functioning [65], at times performing, along with full-model ACT interventions, for outcomes that include a social well-being component [66].”
From A Randomized Pilot Study of Acceptance and Commitment Therapy to Improve Social Support for Veterans with PTSD (2022) · cites this paper as [65]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“This is in contrast to previous research, which found comparable effects across therapy components, or greater benefits following the values-based module (Levin et al., 2020; Petersen et al., 2019; Villatte et al., 2016).”
From A randomised trial comparing a brief online delivery of mindfulness-plus-values versus values only for symptoms of depression: Does baseline severity matter? (2020) · cites this paper as Villatte et al., 2016
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“In line with previous studies [59] two independent bachelor-level observers blinded to research aims will observe at least 20% of sessions to evaluate their adherence to the protocol, after a period of training.”
From The actyourchange in teens study protocol: An acceptance and commitment therapy-based intervention for adolescents with obesity: A randomized controlled trial (2021) · cites this paper as [59]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“Coders have to achieve a minimum of 80% reliability with the expert trainers and each other. With lower level of agreement, the data will be dismissed [26].”
From The ACTyourCHANGE study protocol: promoting a healthy lifestyle in patients with obesity with Acceptance and Commitment Therapy-a randomized controlled trial. (2021) · cites this paper as [26]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Similarly, the previous study found that the Engaged component of ACT showed more significant improvements in value-based behaviours than the Open component (Villatte et al., 2016)”
From Online Self-Help Acceptance and Commitment Therapy Module for College Students with Higher Gaming Disorder During COVID-19: A Pilot Study (2023) · cites this paper as Villatte et al., 2016
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“The research indicated that the Engaged components of ACT (i.e.intervention converged values and committed action) could increase more adaptive behavioural regulation and improve more on valued action than other components (Villatte et al., 2016).”
From Online Self-Help Acceptance and Commitment Therapy Module for College Students with Higher Gaming Disorder During COVID-19: A Pilot Study (2023) · cites this paper as Villatte et al., 2016
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Many evidence-based psychosocial interventions share core components and target analogous psychological processes, so having therapists learn each new full treatment protocol may be redundant and unnecessary (Chorpita et al., 2011;Villatte et al., 2016).”
From Online Self-Help Acceptance and Commitment Therapy Module for College Students with Higher Gaming Disorder During COVID-19: A Pilot Study (2023) · cites this paper as Villatte et al., 2016
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Therefore, component research could provide training and guidance in an effective, flexible and easily updated way (Villatte et al., 2016).”
From Online Self-Help Acceptance and Commitment Therapy Module for College Students with Higher Gaming Disorder During COVID-19: A Pilot Study (2023) · cites this paper as Villatte et al., 2016
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Many evidence-based psychosocial interventions share core components and target analogous psychological processes, so having therapists learn each new full treatment protocol may be redundant and unnecessary (Chorpita et al., 2011;Villatte et al., 2016).”
From Online Self-Help Acceptance and Commitment Therapy Module for College Students with Higher Gaming Disorder During COVID-19: A Pilot Study (2023) · cites this paper as Villatte et al., 2016
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Our review also suggests that the conceptual distinctions between internal shifts in ACT processes, such as acceptance and external shifts in overt behavior, often have not been made clearly and consistently in the literature (see though Villatte et al., 2016, for a notable exception).”
From Acceptance and Commitment Therapy Processes and Mediation: Challenges and How to Address Them (2023) · cites this paper as Villatte et al., 2016
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“To the authors’ knowledge, only one study [26] has previously explored the specific effect of two subcomponents of the ACT on treatment processes and outcomes in 15 adults seeking mental health treatment, founding that both the modules—one targeting acceptance and defusion, and one targeting values-based activation—produced improvements in psychiatric symptoms and quality of life, as well as”
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Both modules resulted in significant improvements in psychiatric symptoms, but ACT-Open was associated with greater improvement in psychiatric symptoms and ACT-Engage was associated with greater improvements in quality of life.”
From A randomised trial comparing a brief online delivery of mindfulness-plus-values versus values only for symptoms of depression: Does baseline severity matter? (2020) · cites this paper as Villatte et al. (2016)
Statistics recomputed
Every reported test result, recomputed from its test statistic and degrees of freedom. A result shows as not adding up only once an independent check has confirmed it.
- Consistentt(13) = 1.73reported p = .11 · recomputed p = .107
“t(13) = 1.73, p = .11”
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
Self-check results appear here once an independent check has confirmed them.
Citations
Cites
Intraclass correlations: Uses in assessing rater reliability.
Shrout, P. E., & Fleiss, J. L. (1979) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.86.2.420 · Cited by 24,532
Cicchetti, D. V. (1994) · Psychological Assessment · doi:10.1037/1040-3590.6.4.284 · Cited by 9,349
Using Self-Report Assessment Methods to Explore Facets of Mindfulness
Baer, R. A., Smith, G. T., Hopkins, J., Krietemeyer, J., & Toney, L. (2006) · Assessment · doi:10.1177/1073191105283504 · Cited by 7,511 · cited 4×
“The Acting with Awareness subscale of the FFMQ (Baer et al., 2006) was used to assess attention to one's behaviors in the moment versus acting on “automatic pilot”.”
BackgroundMethodInfluential(1999) · Cited by 5,934
Self-citationSkevington, S. M., Lotfy, M., & O'Connell, K. A. (2004) · Quality of Life Research · doi:10.1023/b:qure.0000018486.91360.00 · Cited by 4,686
Psychological flexibility as a fundamental aspect of health
Kashdan, T. B., & Rottenberg, J. (2010) · Clinical Psychology Review · doi:10.1016/j.cpr.2010.03.001 · Cited by 3,054 · cited 1×
“…by their application of this psychological flexibility model, which specifies a set of modifiable processes involved in the development, maintenance, and amelioration of a broad range of problems in living (Hayes, Levin, Plumb-Vilardaga, Villatte, & Pistorello, 2013; Kashdan & Rottenberg, 2010).”
BackgroundSingle Case Experimental Designs: Strategies for Studying Behavior Change
Barlow, D. H., Nock, M. K., & Hersen, M. (1976) · Cited by 3,036
Wang, P. S., Lane, M., Olfson, M., Pincus, H. A., Wells, K. B., & Kessler, R. C. (2005) · Archives of General Psychiatry · doi:10.1001/archpsyc.62.6.629 · Cited by 2,695 · cited 1×
“The public health impact of evidence-based psychosocial interventions (EBPI) remains relatively low despite a proliferation of efficacious treatments for a wide range of behavioral and mental health problems (McHugh & Barlow, 2012; Wang et al., 2005).”
Combining nonoverlap and trend for single-case research: Tau-U
Parker, R. I., Vannest, K. J., Davis, J. L., & Sauber, S. B. (2011) · Behavior Therapy · doi:10.1016/j.beth.2010.08.006 · Cited by 1,468
Rebooting psychotherapy research and practice to reduce the burden of mental illness
Kazdin, A. E., & Blase, S. L. (2011) · Perspectives on Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/1745691610393527 · Cited by 1,254
An improved effect size for single-case research: nonoverlap of all pairs.
Parker, R. I., & Vannest, K. (2009) · Behavior Therapy · doi:10.1016/j.beth.2008.10.006 · Cited by 1,126 · cited 1×
“%) effects (Parker & Vannest, 2009).”
Hayes, S. C., Levin, M. E., Plumb-Vilardaga, J., Villatte, J. L., & Pistorello, J. (2013) · Behavior Therapy · doi:10.1016/j.beth.2009.08.002 · Cited by 1,120 · cited 1×
“This requires evidence of how component procedures impact therapy processes and outcomes, and how components function when removed from the treatment protocols tested in efficacy trials (Hayes et al., 2013; Rosen & Davison, 2003).”
BackgroundSelf-citationBehavior therapy: Appraisal and status.
Franks, C. M. (1969) · McGraw-Hill eBooks · Cited by 1,077
Weisz, J. R. (2012) · Archives of General Psychiatry · doi:10.1001/archgenpsychiatry.2011.147 · Cited by 827
Hayes, S. C., Villatte, M., Levin, M., & Hildebrandt, M. (2011) · Annual Review of Clinical Psychology · doi:10.1146/annurev-clinpsy-032210-104449 · Cited by 800
Self-citationChorpita, B. F., Daleiden, E. L., & Weisz, J. R. (2005) · Mental Health Services Research · doi:10.1007/s11020-005-1962-6 · Cited by 717
Acceptance and mindfulness-based therapy: New wave or old hat?
Hofmann, S. G., & Asmundson, G. J. G. (2008) · Clinical Psychology Review · doi:10.1016/j.cpr.2007.09.003 · Cited by 665 · cited 1×
“…flexibility model are shared by modern contextual therapies (Hayes et al., 2011) and traditional cognitive and behavioral therapies (Arch & Craske, 2008; Hofmann & Asmundson, 2008), which could facilitate the adoption and integration of these components in a modular treatment approach.”
BackgroundSingle-case experimental designs: a systematic review of published research and current standards
Smith, J. D. (2012) · Psychological Methods · doi:10.1037/a0029312 · Cited by 630 · cited 1×
“Single case experimental designs (SCED) provide a pragmatic alternative that, when well-designed and executed, rival the scientific rigor of randomized controlled trials while requiring far fewer participants (Barlow, Nock, & Hersen, 2008; Smith, 2012; Vilardaga, 2014).”
BackgroundEffectiveness of psychotherapy with children and adolescents: A meta-analysis for clinicians.
Weisz, J. R., Weiss, B., Alicke, M. D., & Klotz, M. L. (1987) · Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-006x.55.4.542 · Cited by 581
Ahn, H.-N., & Wampold, B. E. (2001) · Journal of Counseling Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-0167.48.3.251 · Cited by 571
A national survey of practicing psychologists' attitudes toward psychotherapy treatment manuals
Addis, M. E., & Krasnow, A. D. (2000) · Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-006x.68.2.331 · Cited by 509
A national survey of practicing psychologists' attitudes toward psychotherapy treatment manuals.
Addis, M. E., & Krasnow, A. D. (2000) · Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology · doi:10.1037//0022-006x.68.2.331 · Cited by 508
Levin, M. E., Hildebrandt, M. J., Lillis, J., & Hayes, S. C. (2012) · Behavior Therapy · doi:10.1016/j.beth.2012.05.003 · Cited by 471
Self-citationThe Scientist Practitioner: Research and Accountability in the Age of Managed Care
Hayes, S. C., Barlow, D. H., & Nelson‐Gray, R. O. (1999) · DigitalGeorgetown (Georgetown University Library) · Cited by 417
Self-citationDevelopment of a modified treatment evaluation inventory
Kelley, M. L., Heffer, R. W., Gresham, F. M., & Elliott, S. N. (1989) · Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment · doi:10.1007/bf00960495 · Cited by 409
Cooper, H., & Patall, E. A. (2009) · Psychological Methods · doi:10.1037/a0015565 · Cited by 339
Luoma, J. B., Kohlenberg, B. S., Hayes, S. C., & Fletcher, L. (2012) · Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology · doi:10.1037/a0026070 · Cited by 336
Self-citationSingle Case Experimental Designs: Strategies for Studying Behavior Change
Boyle, M. E. (1983) · Journal of Music Therapy · doi:10.1093/jmt/20.3.164 · Cited by 325
Arch, J. J., & Craske, M. G. (2008) · Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice · doi:10.1111/j.1468-2850.2008.00137.x · Cited by 310 · cited 1×
“…psychological flexibility model are shared by modern contextual therapies (Hayes et al., 2011) and traditional cognitive and behavioral therapies (Arch & Craske, 2008; Hofmann & Asmundson, 2008), which could facilitate the adoption and integration of these components in a modular treatment…”
BackgroundRosen, G. M., & Davison, G. C. (2003) · Behavior Modification · doi:10.1177/0145445503027003003 · Cited by 305
Modularity in the design and application of therapeutic interventions
Chorpita, B. F., Daleiden, E. L., & Weisz, J. R. (2005) · Applied and Preventive Psychology · doi:10.1016/j.appsy.2005.05.002 · Cited by 295
Borntrager, C. F., Chorpita, B. F., Higa-McMillan, C., & Weisz, J. R. (2009) · Psychiatric Services · doi:10.1176/ps.2009.60.5.677 · Cited by 277
Chorpita, B. F., Research Network on Youth Mental Health, Weisz, J. R., Daleiden, E. L., Schoenwald, S. K., Palinkas, L. A., Miranda, J., Higa-McMillan, C. K., Nakamura, B. J., Austin, A. A., et al. (2013) · Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology · doi:10.1037/a0034200 · Cited by 241
Nelson, T. D., & Steele, R. G. (2007) · Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research · doi:10.1007/s10488-006-0111-x · Cited by 216
Dissemination and Implementation of Evidence-Based Psychological Interventions
McHugh, R. K., & Barlow, D. H. (2015) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/med:psych/9780195389050.003.0013 · Cited by 211
Disruptive innovations for designing and diffusing evidence-based interventions
Rotheram-Borus, M. J., Swendeman, D., & Chorpita, B. F. (2012) · American Psychologist · doi:10.1037/a0028180 · Cited by 210
Single-case methodology in psychotherapy process and outcome research.
Hilliard, R. B. (1993) · Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology · doi:10.1037//0022-006x.61.3.373 · Cited by 198
Single-case methodology in psychotherapy process and outcome research
Hilliard, R. B. (1993) · Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-006x.61.3.373 · Cited by 198
Are the parts as good as the whole? A meta-analysis of component treatment studies.
Bell, E. C., Marcus, D. K., & Goodlad, J. K. (2013) · Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology · doi:10.1037/a0033004 · Cited by 192
Customization of Pain Treatments: Single-Case Design and Analysis
Onghena, P., & Edgington, E. S. (2005) · The Clinical Journal of Pain · doi:10.1097/00002508-200501000-00007 · Cited by 188 · cited 1×
“A bottom-up analytic approach (Onghena & Edgington, 2005; Parker & Vannest, 2012) was employed beginning with visual analysis to identify patterns within and across study phases, then proceeding to statistical analysis of individual phase contrasts within participants and across treatment…”
MethodZettle, R. D., Rains, J. C., & Hayes, S. C. (2011) · Behavior Modification · doi:10.1177/0145445511398344 · Cited by 177
Self-citationCan meta-analysis help target interventions at individuals most likely to benefit?
Thompson, S. G., & Higgins, J. P. (2005) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(05)70200-2 · Cited by 174
The Bull's-Eye Values Survey: A Psychometric Evaluation
Lundgren, T., Luoma, J. B., Dahl, J., Strosahl, K., & Melin, L. (2012) · Cognitive and Behavioral Practice · doi:10.1016/j.cbpra.2012.01.004 · Cited by 172
Efficacy of modular cognitive behavior therapy for childhood anxiety disorders
Chorpita, B. F., Taylor, A. A., Francis, S. E., Moffitt, C., & Austin, A. A. (2004) · Behavior Therapy · doi:10.1016/s0005-7894(04)80039-x · Cited by 148
From single-case studies to practice-based knowledge: aggregating and synthesizing case studies
Iwakabe, S., & Gazzola, N. (2009) · Psychotherapy Research · doi:10.1080/10503300802688494 · Cited by 119
Bottom-up analysis of single-case research designs
Parker, R. I., & Vannest, K. J. (2012) · Journal of Behavioral Education · doi:10.1007/s10864-012-9153-1 · Cited by 117
The Aggregation of single-case results using hierarchical linear models
Van den Noortgate, W., & Onghena, P. (2007) · The Behavior Analyst Today · doi:10.1037/h0100613 · Cited by 86
Twohig, M. P. (2009) · Cognitive and Behavioral Practice · doi:10.1016/j.cbpra.2008.10.002 · Cited by 86
Modeling psychotherapy process by time-series panel analysis (TSPA)
Tschacher, W., & Ramseyer, F. (2009) · Psychotherapy Research · doi:10.1080/10503300802654496 · Cited by 82
Chorpita, B. F., Park, A. L., Tsai, K. H., Korathu-Larson, P. A., Higa-McMillan, C. K., Nakamura, B. J., Weisz, J. R., & Krull, J. L. (2015) · Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology · doi:10.1037/a0039301 · Cited by 81
Changes in facets of mindfulness and posttraumatic stress disorder treatment outcome
Boden, M. T., Bernstein, A., Walser, R. D., Bui, L., Alvarez, J., & Bonn-Miller, M. O. (2012) · Psychiatry Research · doi:10.1016/j.psychres.2012.07.011 · Cited by 78
Assessing treatment integrity in acceptance and commitment therapy: strategies and suggestions
Plumb, J. C., & Vilardaga, R. (2010) · International Journal of Behavioral Consultation and Therapy · doi:10.1037/h0100912 · Cited by 75 · cited 1×
“Intervention fidelity Fidelity was assessed using the 16-item ACT Integrity Coding System (Plumb & Vilardaga, 2010).”
MethodSelf-citationThe dissemination and implementation of psychological treatments: problems and solutions
Fairburn, C. G., & Wilson, G. T. (2013) · International Journal of Eating Disorders · doi:10.1002/eat.22110 · Cited by 64
Chorpita, B. F., Rotheram-Borus, M. J., Daleiden, E. L., Bernstein, A., Cromley, T., Swendeman, D., & Regan, J. (2011) · Perspectives on Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/1745691611418240 · Cited by 49
Vilardaga, R., Bricker, J. B., & McDonell, M. G. (2014) · Journal of Contextual Behavioral Science · doi:10.1016/j.jcbs.2014.03.003 · Cited by 37
Self-citationVilardaga, R., Heffner, J. L., Mercer, L. D., & Bricker, J. B. (2014) · Behaviour Research and Therapy · doi:10.1016/j.brat.2014.07.008 · Cited by 17
Self-citationPerspectives on Pooled Data Analysis: the Case for an Integrated Approach
Alemayehu, D. (2021) · Journal of Data Science · doi:10.6339/jds.201107_09(3).0006 · Cited by 13
Research Network on Youth Mental Health, Park, A. L., Tsai, K. H., Guan, K., Reding, M. E. J., Chorpita, B. F., & Weisz, J. R. (2016) · Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research · doi:10.1007/s10488-015-0625-1 · Cited by 10
Precourt, G. (2009) · Journal of Advertising Research · doi:10.2501/s0021849909090126 · Cited by 7
The Reach of Evidence-Based Psychological Interventions
McHugh, R. K., & Barlow, D. H. (2015) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/med:psych/9780195389050.003.0001 · Cited by 7
Vilardaga, R. (2014) · Journal of Contextual Behavioral Science · doi:10.1016/j.jcbs.2014.05.002 · Cited by 5
Self-citationRe: Orr D. Surgical training--post-Tooke. Surgeon 2008; 6(2): 67-8.
Barlow, D. (2008) · The Surgeon · doi:10.1016/s1479-666x(08)80019-4 · Cited by 2
Cited by
Sorted by citations
The empirical status of acceptance and commitment therapy: A review of meta-analyses
Gloster, A. T., Walder, N., Levin, M. E., Twohig, M. P., & Karekla, M. (2020) · Journal of Contextual Behavioral Science · doi:10.1016/j.jcbs.2020.09.009 · Cited by 622
Hayes, S. C., Ciarrochi, J., Hofmann, S. G., Chin, F., & Sahdra, B. (2022) · Behaviour Research and Therapy · doi:10.1016/j.brat.2022.104155 · Cited by 234
Self-citationStockton, D., Kellett, S., Berrios, R., Sirois, F., Wilkinson, N., & Miles, G. (2019) · Behavioural and Cognitive Psychotherapy · doi:10.1017/s1352465818000553 · Cited by 193
Trompetter, H. R., Lamers, S. M. A., Westerhof, G. J., Fledderus, M., & Bohlmeijer, E. T. (2017) · Behaviour Research and Therapy · doi:10.1016/j.brat.2017.01.008 · Cited by 126
Haller, H., Breilmann, P., Schröter, M., Dobos, G., & Cramer, H. (2021) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/s41598-021-99882-w · Cited by 126
Metadata
- Authors
- Villatte, J. L., Vilardaga, R., Villatte, M., Plumb Vilardaga, J. C., Atkins, D. C., & Hayes, S. C.
- Affiliations
- University of Washington (US)
- University of Nevada, Reno (US)
- Corresponding author
- Villatte, Jennifer L.
- Venue
- Behaviour Research and Therapy
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2016-02
- Volume
- 77
- Pages
- 52-61
- ISSN
- 0005-7967 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC4752868
- OpenAlex
- W2194064755
- Cited by
- 136
- References
- 67
- Citations by year
- 2026: 4 · 2025: 19 · 2024: 15 · 2023: 16 · 2022: 14 · 2021: 19 · 2020: 18 · 2019: 13 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 9 · 2016: 2
- FWCI
- 7.44
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
- Locations
- Behaviour Research and Therapy (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
- PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
- Funders
- National Institute of Mental Health (F31MH096341)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Mindfulness and Compassion Interventions
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychotherapy Techniques and Applications
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
- Keywords
- acceptance and commitment therapy, transdiagnostic treatment, treatment components, cognitive defusion, acceptance, persistence, psychiatric symptoms, quality of life, treatment process, treatment acceptability, patient satisfaction, maintenance of treatment effects
- MeSH terms
- Adult, Awareness, Mental Disorders, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Psychotherapy, Quality of Life, Severity of Illness Index, Treatment Outcome, Patient Satisfaction, Mindfulness, Acceptance and Commitment Therapy
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.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-09-28, under version 3 of the claim definition (prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-09-28 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
Cited sources are checked with a language model’s help (gpt-6-sol).
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
