Document Type

Article

Publication Date

10-2012

Abstract

Objective—Randomized comparisons of acceptance-based treatments with traditional cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) for anxiety disorders are lacking. To address this research gap, we compared acceptance and commitment therapy (ACT) to CBT for heterogeneous anxiety disorders.

Method—One hundred twenty eight individuals (52% female, mean age = 38, 33% minority) with one or more DSM-IV anxiety disorders began treatment following randomization to 12 sessions of CBT or ACT; both treatments included behavioral exposure. Assessments at pre-treatment, post-treatment, 6-month, and 12-month follow-up measured anxiety specific (principal disorder Clinical Severity Ratings [CSR], Anxiety Sensitivity Index, Penn State Worry Questionnaire, Fear Questionnaire avoidance) and non-anxiety specific (Quality of Life Index [QOLI], Acceptance and Action Questionnaire-16 [AAQ]) outcomes. Treatment adherence and therapist competency ratings, treatment credibility, and co-occurring mood and anxiety disorders were investigated.

Results—CBT and ACT improved similarly across all outcomes from pre- to post-treatment. During follow-up, ACT showed steeper CSR improvements than CBT (p < .05, d = 1.33) and at 12-month follow-up, ACT showed lower CSRs than CBT among completers (p < .05, d = 1.05). At 12-month follow-up, ACT reported higher AAQ than CBT (p = .08, d = .42; Completers: p < .05, d = .59) whereas CBT reported higher QOLI than ACT (p < .05, d = .43). Attrition and comorbidity improvements were similar, although ACT utilized more non-study psychotherapy at 6-month follow-up. Therapist adherence and competency were good; treatment credibility was higher in CBT.

Conclusions—Overall improvement was similar between ACT and CBT, indicating that ACT is a highly viable treatment for anxiety disorders.

Comments

This is a pre-copy-editing, author-produced PDF of an article accepted for publication in Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, volume 80, issue 5, in 2012 following peer review. The definitive publisher-authenticated version is available online at DOI: 10.1037/a0028310.

This article may not exactly replicate the final version published in the APA journal. It is not the copy of record.

Copyright

American Psychological Association

 
 

To view the content in your browser, please download Adobe Reader or, alternately,
you may Download the file to your hard drive.

NOTE: The latest versions of Adobe Reader do not support viewing PDF files within Firefox on Mac OS and if you are using a modern (Intel) Mac, there is no official plugin for viewing PDF files within the browser window.