Why to skeptics argue that there is a quite limited support for ACT while advocates seem to say otherwise?
Some skeptics have not really read the whole literature and considered it carefully. Let’s put these aside — they are easy to detect and there is little to say about such criticism. What you then have left behind are honest critics. These are very valuable and helpful people because they can light the way for additional research and development. The differences with honest critics so far seem to be in these areas. Breadth of the criteria. The ACT / RFT community gives more weight to a model that is working than to RCTs alone. Mediational analyses, RFT progress, AAQ studies, component studies, experimental psychopathology, the like all weigh in very heavily. It is absolutely fair to let RCTs be the ultimate arbiter but if they are the only criterion, right now critics will see less support than people within the ACT / RFT community might believe is there. Over time, however, if the ACT / RFT community does its job, even that problem will be self-correcting because the development path
