Cited by 101Mindfulness and Compassion InterventionsDigital Mental Health InterventionsAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes

A randomized dismantling trial of the open and engaged components of acceptance and commitment therapy in an online intervention for distressed college students

Levin, Michael E., Krafft, Jennifer, Hicks, Elizabeth T., Pierce, Benjamin, Twohig, Michael P.·2020·Behaviour Research and Therapy

Abstract

This dismantling trial compared the effects of a full online Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (ACT) intervention to the isolated effects of the Open (i.e., acceptance, cognitive defusion) and Engaged (i.e., values, committed action) components of ACT. A sample of 181 distressed college students were randomized to one of four conditions: a 12-session full ACT website (Full), a version targeting the Open components (Open), a version targeting the Engaged components (Engaged), or waitlist. Participants in active conditions were also randomized to receive phone coaching or just email prompts to increase program adherence. All three ACT conditions significantly improved over time relative to the waitlist condition on the primary outcome of mental health symptoms. The Engaged and Full conditions had greater rates of reliable change on the primary outcome relative to waitlist, but not the Open condition. Similarly, only Engaged and Full conditions improved on positive mental health relative to waitlist. The Full condition had greater improvements on a few ACT process measures relative to Engaged and Open conditions, particularly cognitive fusion. Overall, results indicate targeting only the Open components of ACT was somewhat less effective, and that including both the Open and Engaged components led to greater decreases in cognitive fusion.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.brat.2020.103557

Cites

45 of 45 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, 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

1 of the 46 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Levin, M. E., Krafft, J., Hicks, E. T., Pierce, B., & Twohig, M. P.
Affiliations
Utah State University (US)
Corresponding author
Levin, Michael E.
Venue
Behaviour Research and Therapy
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2020-03
Volume
126
Pages
103557
ISSN
0005-7967 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3001745999
Cited by
101
References
46
Citations by year
2026: 15 · 2025: 13 · 2024: 17 · 2023: 13 · 2022: 29 · 2021: 11 · 2020: 3
FWCI
5.59
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Behaviour Research and Therapy (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Digital Commons - USU (Utah State University) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Mindfulness and Compassion Interventions
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Digital Mental Health Interventions
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
Keywords
acceptance and commitment therapy, online psychological intervention, university students, psychological distress, cognitive fusion, cognitive defusion, values-based action, treatment components, program adherence, psychiatric symptoms, positive mental health
MeSH terms
Psychological Distress, Internet-Based Intervention, Adolescent, Adult, Female, Humans, Male, Mental Health, Stress, Psychological, Students, Universities, Young Adult, 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.

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