A scoping review to identify process and outcome measures used in acceptance and commitment therapy research, with adults with acquired neurological conditions.
Hannah Foote, Audrey Bowen, Sarah Cotterill and 3 others
PMID 36540937WHAT IT FOUND
Researchers found 136 different measurement tools used in acceptance and commitment therapy studies for adults with neurological conditions.
This wide variation makes it difficult to compare results across studies or determine which tools are most effective.
Key findings
01The review identified 136 measurement tools across 54 studies, with 32 specific to therapy processes and 104 to health outcomes.
02The Acceptance and Action Questionnaire was the most frequently used process measure, appearing in 21 studies, while composite psychological flexibility measures were used in 76% of studies that included a process measure.
03Most studies targeted psychological distress, using general anxiety and depression scales like the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale in 14 studies, rather than condition-specific outcomes.
STILL TO COME
How it was doneWhat they found
Read the rest of this summary
You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.
What it does not show
The review only included studies published in English. Many studies did not specify whether tools were selected to measure therapy processes or health outcomes. The categorisation of some tools relied on author judgement because full measurement details were not always available. The review identifies what was measured, not which measurements are most valid or reliable for clinical use.
Declared interests
The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest. The review was funded by a Research Impact Scholarship from the University of Manchester, and one author is funded by a Stroke Association Post-doctoral Fellowship.
The easy way to misread this
Do not interpret the list of tools as a recommendation for which to use. The review shows what researchers have used, not what works best, and the authors explicitly state these findings cannot inform what should be measured.