The ACT community is committed to honesty and transparency and has a long history of welcoming criticism such as by inviting critics to ACBS conferences and giving them an open platform to express their concerns. This is a recent development but hopefully these can detect or at least balance out various sources of bias. In that context it is worth noting that meta-analyses of meta-analyses - a kind of a super summary - are now beginning to appear (e.g., Cheng et al., 2022 Gloster et al., 2020). A few well known meta-analyses have turned out to contain many errors when examined closely (e.g., see Atkins et al., 2017). You should be aware, however, that it is very difficult to evaluate the quality and fairness of meta-analyses themselves. We do not filter studies based on that they find or what they say about ACT, good, bad, or indifferent. High quality reviews and meta-analyses are increasingly necessary in order to understand and evaluate the ACT database given its size and scope, and are to be preferred over crude counts of studies, single citations, or other more limited means. To see the growth trend through the end of 2022 visually click here or download the attachment at the bottom of this page.
They are presented in reverse chronological order, by year of publication.
ACT OF AGGRESSION TRAINER 770 PROFESSIONAL
Also there are a few reviews in there that are focused on the process or professional use of ACT research such as bibliometric, geographic, sociological, methodolgical, citation, and similar reviews. These can include reviews of assesment, psychological flexibility processes, ACT components, or entire ACT interventions. Links to peer reviewed assessments of the ACT evidence base:īelow is a list of meta-analyses, systematic, scoping, or narrative reviews of the ACT evidence base, either overall or in specific areas.
0 kommentar(er)
