Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Rebuttal of Atkins et al. (2017) critique of the Öst (2014) meta-analysis of ACT
Stockholm University, Faculty of Social Sciences, Department of Psychology, Clinical psychology.
2017 (English)In: Behaviour Research and Therapy, ISSN 0005-7967, E-ISSN 1873-622X, Vol. 97, p. 273-281Article in journal (Other academic) Published
Abstract [en]

Atkins et al. strongly criticize my (Öst, 2014) systematic review and meta-analysis of ACT. The bulk of their re-examination of my article is divided into four parts: a) Selection of studies, b) Ratings of methodological quality, c) Meta-analysis, and d) Judgments of quality of evidence. It is evident from my paper that I have refuted their claims regarding each of these parts. Regarding a) Selection of studies I showed that only four studies had a cell size of less than 10 and their inclusion did not change the mean effect size or increased variability. Concerning b) Ratings of methodological quality I have showed that my ratings were reliable and had accuracy. As for c) Meta-analysis, I have demonstrated that I got very similar results to those of A-Tjak et al. (2015) that Atkins et al. describes as a much better meta-analysis. Regarding d) Judgments of quality of evidence, Atkins et al. brought up 23 studies for which they argued that I have done an incorrect evaluation but for every single study I have disproved their arguments and maintain my 2014 evaluation of the evidence base of ACT. Thus, there is no reason to follow Atkins et al. suggestion that my review “should now be set aside in making decisions regarding the treatment efficacy of ACT.”

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
2017. Vol. 97, p. 273-281
Keywords [en]
acceptance and commitment therapy, ACT, systematic review, meta-analysis, research methodology, evidence base
National Category
Psychology
Research subject
Psychology
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:su:diva-152051DOI: 10.1016/j.brat.2017.08.008OAI: oai:DiVA.org:su-152051DiVA, id: diva2:1176920
Available from: 2018-01-23 Created: 2018-01-23 Last updated: 2018-01-25Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

No full text in DiVA

Other links

Publisher's full text

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Öst, Lars-Göran
By organisation
Clinical psychology
In the same journal
Behaviour Research and Therapy
Psychology

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

doi
urn-nbn

Altmetric score

doi
urn-nbn
Total: 58 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf