Talk:Cognitive behavioral therapy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
WikiProject on Psychology
Portal		 This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, which collaborates on Psychology and related subjects on Wikipedia. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details on the project.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
High This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.

Article Grading: The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it needs.
It is requested that a diagram or diagrams be included in this article to improve its quality.
For more information, refer to discussion on this page and/or the listing at Wikipedia:Requested images.

Contents

[edit] CBT use in patients with High Functioning Autism/Aspergers Syndrome

It is said that CBT can used to successfully treat persons on the higher functioning end of the autism spectrum who are suffering from depression, neagative thought patterns/suicidal thoughts. Can this be included in the article? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.164.183.81 (talk • contribs).

Well, it can be used with anyone suffering from depression, so autism-spectrum people are kind of already covered. I think it might be especially useful in AS people though, because of how logical it is. If there are references for something like that, it might be good to add (maybe in conditions comorbid to autism spectrum disorders if not in cognitive therapy). --Galaxiaad 02:35, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cognitive Therapy versus Cognitive Behaviour Therapy

Why does this article treat "cognitive therapy" and "cognitive therapy" as synonyms? I have always understood that cognitive behaviour therapy is a means of behaviour modification which takes cognizance of underlying cognitions, whereas cognitive therapy is a more purely "cognitive" approach to therapy. A. Carl 19:49, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I think you mean "cognitive behavior therapy" and "cognitive therapy." Yes, one was developed beginning in the 60s by Aaron Beck, and it essentially deals with the underlying beliefs that cause thoughts, which lead to (among other things) observable behavior. While I don't know about CBT as much as I do cognitive therapy, I do know that they are different, and should therefore be discussed as different topics. In fact, it would be beneficial to have some sort of tree indicating the development of the many different theories which came about as a result of modifications to Beck's original Cognitive Therapy (referred to as a proper noun for clarity.) Strangely enough, the two disciplines are frequently confused in various web publications. Just try a search for "cognitive therapy" and see how many references you get for CBT. --Iamlima 07:15, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

The practice of Cognitive Behavioral Therapy has grown out of the original ideas of Albert Ellis, PhD and Aaron Beck, MD. The changing terminology follows the changing breadth of the research and practice that includes successful aspects of behavioral, emotive and cognitive methods. user:smoores 19:43 7/11/2006

Albert Ellis was first with Rational-Emotive Behavioral Therapy. Aaron Beck showed up in the 1960s with Cognitive Therapy. Generally, the whole sub-field of psychology is known as Cognitive-Behavioral Therapy, although textbooks tend to use Cognitive Therapy haphazardly when hey actually mean Cognitive-Behavioral Therapy. The reason that "behavioral" is in there is because the types of therapy used are offshoots of behavioral therapy. Dlmccaslin 03:35, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually there are many precursors to both Beck and Ellis. Notably Abraham Low's Recovery Incorporated which is a clear predecessor of cognitive therapy in the 1930s and is cited by David Burns (author of Feeling Good, the bestselling CT self-help book) as a major influence on his work. CBT is a broader term that encompasses a range of different therapy approaches which draw on diverse cognitive and behavioural techniques of therapy, including the work of Beck and Ellis. CBT effectively superseded behaviour therapy in the 1970s as most therapists came to accept that behavioural learning was "cognitively mediated", i.e., client expectations, beliefs, and thinking patterns shaped their responses to therapy techniques, etc. It would be great if someone could sort out an article which distinguishes between the different schools and helps the public to make sense of the confusion of terminology. More information on behaviour therapy would help as a starting point. Please, though, not another article which portrays CBT as an amalgam of Beck and Ellis, there are also many other important influences on its development. HypnoSynthesis 23:40, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't agree that "CBT effectively superseded behaviour therapy in the 1970s as most therapists came to accept that behavioural learning was cognitively mediated" - CBT still includes many behavioral techniques such as exposure and motivational interviewing. The article is narrow and inaccurate. CBT is the merging of Cognitive Therapy with Behavioral Psychotherapy, but the term is wrongly used today to refer only to Beck's Cognitive Therapy. I'm going to have a go at rewriting this article - I'll get back to you! 10:24 26 October 2006 Alec Brady

[edit] Cognitive Analytic Therapy

I have added a wiki-link to Cognitive Analytic Therapy. There is empirical evidence in favour of this, which stands in marked contrast to Rational Emotive Behavioural Counselling (there may be a journal devoted to Rational Emotive Therapy, but as Yankura and Dryden point out in their book on Albert Ellis (published by Sage), few papers in this journal are actually reports of empirical research projects.


[edit] Rational Emotive Therapy

Cognitive therapy is broken down into many branches. Of two of those, Beck and Ellis, Ellis has his Rational Emotive Therapy and Beck has his Cognitive Behavioral Therapy. Cognitive Behavioral Therapy is redirected here, but this page doesn't give much information about it.


I think some of these need to be seperated out, because I can't find information on Beck's therapy in itself.

[edit] Terminology

I have seen this kind of therapy referred to as REBT (Rational-Emotive Behavioural Therapy) and RET (Rational-Emotive Therapy); I initially tried searching using 'REBT' and failed to find anything, only finding this later after trying 'therapy'. It would be nice to include these terms in the article (or perhaps put redirects to it; I'm new to Wikipedia so I don't know what's best) so it can be found via those names.

I'm not sure on the guidelines for redirecting acronyms, best thing I think would be to ask and then do it. Or just add a bit in the introduction mentioning the other names. Are they exactly the same? - Xgkkp 20:55, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
The thing that concerns me is that CBT and CT are lumped together as somehow being one in the same, which they are not. CT, which is what Beck devised, is slightly different than CBT, a more recent innovation. REBT, on the other hand, has numerous things in common with CBT and CT, but also differs somewhat. Namely, the theorist who developed it. Without getting too divisive, RET and REBT are also slightly different. It would be beneficial, in an academic sense, to at least include an explanation of how they differ, and discuss how these differences came about. At its most primitive, CBT includes elements of behavioral modification. That's also how RET and REBT differ, if memory serves. I'll end my rambling now, except to say that it's rare to find a Beck-centric clinician that employs straightup CT. Most use CBT. And studies involving the efficacy of cognitive approaches for the treatment of depression typically examine CBT.

[edit] Article Flow?

I found it difficult to read this article, it reads like many short paragraphs stuck together without any sense of flow or direction. I don't think that it could be easily solved without a complete re-write though, something that I'm certainly not knowledgeble enough about the subject to do.

Perhaps it should be changed to more resemble the style of the Clinical depression page, given how the two are linked - Xgkkp 01:30, 19 May 2004 (UTC)

Another Idea - Categorisation? - Xgkkp 20:56, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Bad edits

68.54.45.35 made some bad edits. Does any know how to revert them?

I tried CBT. I didn't get on with it. I'm now with a therapist who is largely humanist in approach. Much better. I looked at some of the links from this page - they read like advertising copy for CBT. The first problem with CBT is that it starts off by telling the client that s/he is having 'irrational thoughts'. (Contrast Laing's thesis that however bizarre the patient's beliefs and behaviour seem, everything is perfectly rational from the perspective of the patient.) Sensitive clients are liable to be just a little bit insulted by being told they have irrational thoughts before the analysis has even begun, and so the relationship with the therapist starts in a bad way. Secondly, cognitivism and behaviourism don't really fit together that easily, since the first asserts the existence and accessibility of thoughts and feelings in the subject - something which the latter denies. The approach is therefore eclectic to the point of inconsistency - perhaps then it is the therapist who is not quite rational? Third, the cognitive part of CBT asserts that feelings follow thoughts, and thoughts are propositional attitudes which conform to Brentano's thesis: i.e. thoughts are essentially about things. Actually, I think the disposition to anxiety often comes first, and the thoughts and the 'aboutness' is more-or-less an epiphenomenon. Once I realised this, I have found it slightly easier to manage my anxiety. (Brentano's thesis is also part of the existentialist-humanist tradition - I think Sartre mentions it in Sketch for a Theory of the Emotions, but it turns out that the thing that thoughts and feelings are about can be 'everything in general and nothing in particular', which is as good as saying that the thoughts and feelings don't really have any content at all. I guess I must read Sketch in its entirety - it is not a long book - that is if I can keep myself calm enough for long enough to do so.)

These are rather simplistic comments on the 'family' of therapies loosely called CBT. Beckian forms of CBT tend to be 'rationalist', in that they do indeed assert that there are rational thoughts and dysfunctional ones. However a number of developments are far more 'constructivist' in that they assume that there are very good reasons why people think the way that they do in terms of previous experience. The terms 'cognitive' and 'behavioural' are more useful to consider as ralated more to practice rather then theoretical principles. CBT involves accessing beliefs about self, world and others, formulating how these relate to behaviours and emotions, and practicing new ways of behaving that may seek to disconfirm those beliefs (put very simply). CBT formulation techniques are also best considered as frameworks used to simplify the complexity of human experience. They do not seek to describe any kind of 'truth' about an individual. Hence the point about anxiety occuring before cognitions is - theoretically - correct, but most people who gain from CBT find the relationship described by the ABC framework helpful.

[edit] claims of critics

This is arguably the primary type of psychological treatment being studied in research today, a fact that critics of CBT claim is due in part to its very rational, "scientific" methodology, rather than because it is more effective than any other modality.

I tend to be fairly loose about whether you need to cite sources in order to include a criticism in an article; too much stringency plays into the hands of POV warriors who feel they can deny their enemies the chance to be heard if they simply be unreasonable about demanding sources for the obvious. However, the above criticism is not obvious at all; I find it in fact very odd. Is it trying to say that CBT is not the most effective of the modalities? If so, that's a claim that needs some supporting evidence -- not necessarily proof, but at least indication of why someone would believe that. If it's trying to say "CBT would be popular even if it wasn't the most effective modality because it appeals to researcher personalities", well, that's a difficult statement to support since it's based on a counter-factual. I think we need to get some source for this criticism, find out who's saying it and exactly how they're saying it. -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:06, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

In fact, to support supporters of CBT is this article: http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medicalnews.php?newsid=22319# "Cognitive therapy as good as antidepressants, effects last longer" 12.126.65.246 09:26, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

CBT is effective for treating depression, anxiety and also the delusional symptoms in schizophrenia. CBT does not treat treat the cognitive deficits nor the social cogntive deficits associated with schizophrenia. For this a cognitive rememdiation or a cogntive enhancement therapy is indicated. Hogarty and Flesher et al have published a report on Cogntive Enhancement Therapy in the 2004 Archives of General Psychiatry. Alice Medalia hosts an annual conference in Cognitive Remediation on the first weekend in June in New York. Those interested can check out the following link http://www.cognitive-remediation.org

these are very sweeping statements. The brain is the most complicated known entity in the universe. Individuals vary in larger degree than known therapies for mental illness. CBT may work for one population, but be a complete waste of time for another. Practitioners would do well to think a little about what they don't know.


Well said. This whole article has serious NPOV issues. There are quotations and external references which, when you follow them, end up to be links to sites that are effectively advertisements for a service and very biased, unscientific and, frankly, loaded with rubbish. It is important to stick to the Encyclopedic nature of the article and not drop into a kind of 'Tony Robbins late night infomercial' type style as this article does. Refer to academic research if you feel it is appropriate to explain the approach in a neutral way but don't try and come up with lots of references to dubious sites to try and impress and drop the idea that this page is an advertisement for CBT. 14:36, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Clinical trial discussed in article is pretty out of date

The antidepressant chosen for the study has been withdrawn from the market.

How much of cognitive therapy has been investigated with PET scans?

How much of an influence have recent findings in evolutionary psychology had on cognitive therapy? See: Mean Markets and Lizard Brains: How to Profit from the New Science of Irrationality by Terry Burnham

[edit] Were the developers of CBT proponents of Freud's theory?

Most of the therapists of the first two thirds of the twentieth century were of the psychodynamic persuasion. Almost all early psychotherapists were trained as Freudians and later spilt off. Behavioral therapists were some of the strongest detractors of Freud and split with him fairly early (i.e. the 1920s). Beck, the developer of CT said at the 108th American Psychological Association (2000) that he, like many of his generation, spent years as a psychoanalyst before developing cognitive therapy. As the name implies, cognitive-behavioral therapy uses techniques from both modalities. As a result of the blending, the majority of Freud's influence has been lost.

And rightly so. Analytic theory has a great strength in that it made useful observations of human interactions and processes (e.g. transference, splitting). However from a scientific perspective, Freud's underpinning theories centred around psychosexual stages have absolutely no empirical value whatsoever, either prospective or retrospective. It was developed using a limited number of case studies, and does not stand up to replication. Despite nearly 100 years of practice, the efficacy literature is limited, and any benefit experienced may be explained by hermeneutics (a criticism made of all forms of psychotherapy), i.e. the client interprets the therapist's confidence as evidence that they should, and therefore will recover; the therapist interprets the client's recovery as an indication that the therapy is indeed effective.

[edit] disambiguation line?

This article is about the Cognitive Therapy. For the Behavioralist technique, see Behavior Modification.

Does anyone know what this is supposed to mean? I have never heard of "the Behavioralist technique" called "cognitive therapy"; the only thing I have ever heard called "cognitive therapy" is "the Cognitive Therapy [sic]" of that name. And yet if there is nothing else called "cognitive therapy" there is no need for a disambiguation line. -- Antaeus Feldspar 15:47, 28 September 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Small Edits

I've made some small changes to the second section, as it was extremely confusing, and did not flow well. It should improve readability.


[edit] Split into multiple articles

First of all, Beck's Cognitive Therapy (CT) and Cognitive Behaviour Therapy (CBT) are not the same damn thing (I can provide sources to support this if needed, don't have it on hand now). So I suggest that the CBT article describe the principles common to all CBT therapies (REBT, RET, CT, Cognitive Analytical), such as their belief that cognitions and emotions affect behaviour and psychopathology and that to relieve psychological problems cognitions are changed.

I'd be happy to do most of the work as I'm quite familiar with the literature behind Beck's CT

I have also noticed that behaviour therapy redirects to the CBT article. This is totally absurd considering that behavioural therapy and CBT are two very distinct therapies. I also think that the disambiguation should be removed and that a seperate behaviour therapy article needs to be started.

Not at all: behavior therapies are cognitive behavior therapies, just as CT is a cognitive behavior therapy. Otherwise, what's the word 'behavior' doing in there? By all means let's have a CBT article that describes the subcategories and gives links to articles on them; but don't treat CT as part of CBT unless you're going to treat BT as part of it as well. - Alec Brady 20:57, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Split into three articles

I'm a psychiatrist. I agree with the last comment. "Cognitive behaviour therapy" should not redirect to "cognitive therapy". Have a separate page for each, plus a page on behaviour therapy. 62.6.139.11 16:18, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

dr.alf 09:56, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
There's a similar post up above saying what you're saying. I agree, this should be split. Westfall 05:04, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
Be bold Lumos3 09:04, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
Going to be bold this week, expect two new articles by the end of the week :-) dr.alf 12:48, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
Good luck. :) Gflores Talk 06:00, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
Let's do it already! I don't know enough about the subject otherwise I would. -- Barrylb 17:08, 10 June 2006 (UTC)


As a social work student, I must agree that the article is confusing both in the way it is written and in what is included. The suggestion of three articles would be, in my opinion, the most viable solution to the ambiguity. In searching "behavioral therapy," I was taking directly to the cognitive page which is potentially very misleading.

Splitting the article would make the material easier to follow. SamDavidson 19:52, 22 July 2006 (UTC)


I agree that there should be three articles. Personally I think it should be Cognitive therapy and Behavior modification (as it now exists) and Cognitive Behavioral Therapy. I imagine the first two having a more restricted (although the behavior modification page could potentially cover a vast body of work not directly related to psychotherapy) and historical focus than the latter. Most of what's here now would seem to belong to the CBT page. Since this organisation has been suggested by numerous people here & above over several months, would it be OK for anyone to effect this now? EverSince 01:44, 25 December 2006 (UTC) p.s. or cognitive behavior therapy as commonly known (I guess this usage implies behavior therapy as the core but then doing it in a cognitive way?)
I'm planning to move this page this weekend to Cognitive behavioral therapy. And then make this page a stub or start-class on the subject of cognitive therapy. I hope any objections or alternative suggestions can be raised beforehand, although they haven't been since March 2006 it looks like. The move can always be reverted afterwards of course. EverSince 18:48, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm glad that this has been moved in this way. But I think we need more discussion of the categories. The way I would see it is that behavior modification shouldn't be treated as a psychotherapy, but behavior therapy should be(possibly referred to as behavioral psychotherapy - as in Isaac Marks' book of that name (ISBN 072360875X)). Then we treat behavioral psychotherapy and cognitive psychotherapy (in all their various flavors like habituation, reciprocal inhibition, CT, REBT etc) as subclasses of cognitive behavior therapy. Alec.brady 20:57, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
I agree that behavior modification isn't necessarily therapy. So I do think the intro should probably refer/link to behavior therapy rather than behavior modification. Although at the moment the behavior therapy page is very scant, such that it could probably be a subsection of behavior modification, and I previously added a merge suggestion tag to the former page for that reason. I would say behavioral therapy can be both a component of CBT and a separate self-contained therapy EverSince 22:31, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Three Articles

As a social work student, I must agree that the article is confusing both in the way it is written and in what is included. The suggestion of three articles would be, in my opinion, the most viable solution to the ambiguity. In searching "behavioral therapy," I was taken directly to the cognitive page which is potentially very misleading.

amgrimm

[edit] The four column technique

Please expand the four column technique so it describes the techniques in a usable way.

I added a paragraph on teaching ABC's which is the same technique. (Deanbender 01:29, 19 May 2006 (UTC))

Nice, well done. Thanks! Do we have a citation with examples of completed Four Column exercises? basilwhite

I have added a citation, Ellis' "Guide to Rational Living" as the needed citation. Would anyone object to me changing the title of this section and doing a quick rewrite? In 3 years of working in cognitive therapy, I have never heard of this referred to as the four-column technique. We always called it the ABCs of Irrational Beliefs. Ellis called it the ABCs of emotional arrousal.Dlmccaslin 07:46, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Be bold! And thanks for the reference ... but isn't ISBN 0-13-370650-8 Ellis's A New Guide to Rational Living, not Ellis and Harper's A Guide to Rational Living? See Amazon. I've changed the article to that. -- JimR 09:35, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Treating depression with CBA

This section is confusing. What is CBA? And what is cognitive behavioral-analysis system of psychotherapy (CBASP)? And what are the implications of the study on combined Serzone-CBASP treatment? Does anyone use the technique as a result or is it just another study? --- Barrylb 16:59, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I see the section has been removed and then replaced, adding a bit of an explanation of CBASP but it seem lives in a vaccum. Why isn't CBASP mentioned at the top of the article with other approaches? And I there is still nothing stating the implications or the significance of the study. -- Barrylb 11:45, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

The implications of the study are that a combination of one form of CBT and an anti-depressant drug can be highly effective. I've added a sentence to this effect to the article, and removed the importance-s tag. The point is that scientific study bears out the value of an appropriate combination of treatment including CBT, in line with the principles of evidence-based medicine. -- JimR 06:52, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I am sure there are thousands of studies every year. Why does it deserve special mention? Has it "changed the world"? Is the technique now commonly used as a result of the study? If so it should be mentioned in the introduction of the article. If this is just discussing a study then I would like to put it in a 'Recent Research' section or something like that. -- Barrylb 07:00, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
To add to what I have just said, look at the prominence given to this section in the article: is it deserved? -- Barrylb 07:06, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm not interested in the implications of the study in itself. I'd like to know why this study is so important in the big picture of cognitive therapy. -- Barrylb 07:10, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

It is important in the big picture because the results of 85% response and 42% remission are much better than other methods. I've again tried to point this out in the article, despite your previous reversion. These success rates suggest that the approach is highly beneficial to depression sufferers and deserves wide attention. Note that the paper has had at least 58 citations since it was published in May 2000. -- JimR 10:30, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Ok, it seems to me the section should really be part of an 'emerging treatments' or 'recent research' section. Given that all the talk about CBASP and CBASP+medication is centered around this study, it is clearly not a widely accepted or used technique. Widely accepted techniques don't usually refer to particular studies to back them up. -- Barrylb 09:26, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure that May 2000 should be described as "recent", or the research as "emerging". There have been a number of other studies examining or touching on CBASP since; for example, see [1]. -- JimR 10:32, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

My point is that you are still talking about 'studies'. If the technique is still about 'studies' then we should have this in an appropriate section, perhaps 'ongoing research'. -- Barrylb 11:26, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

The message of evidence-based medicine is that all medical techniques should be backed up by ongoing systematic scientific studies, not just by tradition, long use, guesswork, or ex cathedra statements by medical experts. That CBASP plus medication has been validated as effective in this way is a positive thing. Somehow you seem to be seeing it as negative. -- JimR 10:43, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

No, this is not what I am saying. Of course every medical technique should be backed up by research. However, there are studies conducted all the time that validate all sorts of things but we don't report on them all. Why are we reporting on this one? -- Barrylb 03:49, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Because the results of 85% response and 42% remission are unusually high, because the paper is so widely cited, and because it is (or at least was at the time) "the largest psychotherapy and medication clinical trial ever conducted in either psychology and [sic] psychiatry" [2]. We should be reporting stand-out studies more than we do: it's the lack of other reports like this that is the failure, not the presence of this one. -- JimR 06:48, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I think my problewm here is that you're not explaining what CBASP is. How is it different than CBT, or DBT for that matter? The only thing you say is that a study in the New England Journal of Medicine found it highly effective when paired with one particular antidepressant (Which soulds strange for the Journal, picking one type of therapy and one specific drug, but that's beside the point). If CBASP is important, it deserves its own page along with DBT and other offshoots, in which case the information about the study should be removed. Otherwise, you should explain what CBASP is. Dlmccaslin 10:24, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

It wasn't me who added the original material about the Keller study. But I've put in some more detail and references about CBASP in line with your request. Sorry but what are you referring to by "DBT"? (I'm not sure why all the focus here is on CBASP. Note that the four-column technique a bit further up the article has no references, and there's not much visible about it on Google.) -- JimR 13:22, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Needs importance tag?

I removed the tag for importance, but perhaps that was premature. Importance isn't a real guideline yet, only a proposed one. Therefore my thinking is that we should wait until there is consensus to start using it - before we start using it. But I'm a little new at the guideline proposal thing, so .. comments? Fresheneesz 19:33, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

The current version of Wikipedia:Importance does not specifically discuss importance of sections, but it does give three criteria for importance of articles. Taking these in turn, I think it's clear that if we apply them to the CBASP section, they all hold.
1. There is evidence that a reasonable number of people are, were or might be concurrently interested in the subject (eg. it is at least well-known in a community).
There are at least two communities likely to be interested in the effective treatment of depression by CBASP plus medication, namely: depression sufferers (for whom in some cases relief is so important as to be literally a matter of life or death); and psychiatrists, psychologists and other therapists, to many of whom the topic will already be well-known.
2. It is an expansion (longer than a stub) upon an established subject.
It not a stub, in that it has a reasonable level of detail, and it is on a subject established in McCullough's work and the Keller paper referenced.
3. Discussion on the article's talk page establishes its importance.
See above, where I've argued that the importance of this material is in line with the principles of evidence-based medicine.
So the section should not have an {{importance}} tag, and even if Wikipedia:Importance does become a guideline not just a proposal, that won't carry any implication that the material about CBASP shouldn't be on the page. -- JimR 11:27, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ellis and Beck

The way the article reads, it looks like Albert Ellis and Aaron Beck developed CBT together, when in reality, they were two seperate people working a decade apart on two different but related types of therapy. I'm going to edit to clarify.Dlmccaslin 03:41, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] CBT and Child Treatment

I don't see any material on the use off CBT with children and adolescents. I know that there is a deep and abundant body of literature on this. How would be the best way to include such material?

A separate section?

SamDavidson 17:23, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Citations and references are needed. When I get a moment I will try to add some. RalphLender 18:35, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

They have been added.

[edit] Criticism on grounds of fault attribution

207.38.162.227 added the following to the introduction of the article:

CBT is claimed to be a treatment for mental illness. CBT suggests that mental illness is within the control of the sufferer or that the sufferer is the cause of the mental illness. Many sufferers from chronic mental illness disorders such as bipolar or schizophrenia reject this approach since it implies that they are the fault of their biologically based disorder.

I've moved this to its own section called Criticisms, and marked it as POV and requiring citations. I agree that it may be the interpretation of some sufferers that CBT implies they are themselves to blame. However, I would argue that this interpretation is incorrect, and that neither CBT as a method, nor any reputable CBT practitioners, attribute blame to sufferers of bipolar illness or schizophrenia. I'm not knowledgeable about the latter case, but CBT can be of enormous benefit in treating the depression side of bipolar illness — not by saying that the sufferers are the cause, but by showing them how they can learn control techniques to limit or escape from depression. It would be a great pity if bipolar sufferers were put off trying CBT by an incorrect feeling that they would be found at fault. Therefore, unless the section is rewritten neutrally and provided with relevant references, I propose to remove it. -- JimR 04:52, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I would agree. CBT can be useful in helping persons with severe mental illnesses cope better. It would not be a substitute for appropriate medication treatment but it would be an additional component of treatment. There is nothing in the literature I've read to suggest that CBT "blames" the suffer of severe mental illness or suggests it is "all in their head." DPeterson 22:00, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the confirmation. I've now removed the Criticisms section (still preserved above on this talk page). -- JimR 11:09, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] CBASP

This section was disproportionately long and read more like an advertisement for a patented form of therapy. In-depth details of individual studies are not appropriate for an article of such general appeal. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Count Caspian (talk • contribs) 24 July 2006.

Please see the extensive discussion of this section above, where the importance of the material has been canvassed. -- JimR 10:48, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I've now attempted to address your concern about proportion in this article by moving the bulk of the material about CBASP and the Keller study to a separate article. This is in line with the articles about REBT and DBT. I agree that the patenting of CBASP might be questioned, but nonetheless the strength of the Keller paper's results (emphasised by many citations) do bear reporting because they have the important point — more general than either CBASP or the now withdrawn Serzone — that combination therapy is of great value. -- JimR 11:18, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Behavior v. Behaviour

Someone keeps changing "behaviour" to "behavior". This should probably be addressed. Normally, I would say that it should be "behaviour" as per WP:MOS rules about crosscultural spelling variations. However, because this is the title of a type of therapy, I don't really know. In Brittain, is "Behaviorism" spelled "Behaviourism" in books and such? If so, we should just keep it the way it was first written. Any suggestions?Dlmccaslin 23:56, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

It should be behavior. For example, the reference # 7 is now incorrect as the title is behavior not behaviour. In addition, all the other references use the spelling, behavior not behaviour. So, I suggest that the commonly accepted usage and spelling, as seen in the references and other publications, be used. Forthermore, the articles in Wikipedia are Behavior Modification and Behaviorism. I suggest that the word be changed to 'behavior' from behaviour. What do others think? Perhaps we could take a poll here? DPetersontalk 01:44, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

'IN SUPPORT OF CHANGING BEHAVIOUR TO BEHAVIOR'

  1. Only in some instances...see my comments below under 'NEUTRAL' RalphLendertalk 14:08, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


'IN SUPPORT OF KEEPING SPELLING BEHAVIOUR'

  1. Original spelling in article should be kept per the MoS. References should be spelled correctly to their original titles ("behavior" as appropriate). There's no standard spelling for the therapy: it's "behaviXr therapy" where how "behaviXr" is spelled depends on whether the writer speaks BrE or AmE. — Saxifrage ✎ 02:28, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
  2. WP:MOS --Clawed 02:53, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
  3. Except when the article title or author uses the AE spelling DPetersontalk 12:31, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

'NEUTRAL'

  1. How about leaving the original spelling (Behaviour), but making a note at the top of the article about the different spellings? Then, someone should go through the article and correct the spellings to Behavior where that is in an article title or quote. Finally, someone should go through the article and change the spelling where it refers to Behavior not Behaviour; for example, when discussing Beck's work, Behavior and not Behaviour would be appropriate; 'Yes?' Comments would be appreciated. RalphLendertalk 14:07, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
  2. I agree with this idea. See my note below. I've corrected spellings where the British spelling is incorrect, for example in an article title, and as the term is used by known individuals, for example, Ellis uses the spelling, Behavior not Behavioral. Other than those type of changes, the BE spelling should remain in all other instances. DPetersontalk 12:31, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
  3. I support this idea JonesRDtalk 17:58, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


'Note': I have changed behaviour to behavior in those instances where the term is used in that spelling...for example, Dr. Ellis writes about Rational Emotive 'Behavior' Therapy. In addition, several of the reference titles were changed to BE from AE but the articles titles are in AE. If my changing these back is a problem, please let me know and I will revert my edits. DPetersontalk 12:26, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

What you've done seems reasonable to me. JonesRDtalk 17:58, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, might as well stick with that spelling. RalphLendertalk 19:25, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] CBT and Neuro Linguistic Programming

This is a complete layperson's comment but it would be really helpful to understand where CBT is different to NLP. To my ignorant mind it seems that both techniques (or at least an NLP-lite shorn of the mumbo-jumbo) rely on understanding, challenging and reforming the word-based mental model of the patient to change emotional states and create more helpful behavioural patterns. Within this idea are the NLP assumptions that people can do much more than they think they can by copying people who are successful at that thing and that people whom you find difficult are typically making choices that are rational and "good" to them. If the ideas are similar, why is NLP held in such ill repute (including by wiki) and CBT seen as such a great thing. Help me - I am confused!

There are several hugh differences. I will just briefly sketch out a few for you.

  1. . Cognitive Behavioral Therapy is based on a very different set of theoretical assumptions. For example, that thinking, feeling, and acting are all related and that you can change how you feel by changing how you think.
  2. . There is a HUGH body of empirical literature on the efficacy of CBT, but not for NLP.
  3. . NLP seems to be just a technique. CBT is a more complete theory of behavior and treatment.

Just a few ideas. DPetersontalk 01:56, 30 August 2006 (UTC) P.S. please sign your notes. DPetersontalk 01:56, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Does anyone else have any information on the distinctions? JonesRDtalk 20:05, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

For starts, NLP is based on the assumption that the brain has a "mental language", which is an old model of thought that has long since fallen into disfavour among researchers and theorists. CBT, on the other hand, is based on modern models of cognition in general. — Saxifrage ✎ 20:32, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Excellent point! DPetersontalk 00:29, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] CBT / CT and the Scientist-Practitioner Model of Training

I struggle a bit with the statement that CT is aligned very closely with the scientist-practitioner model. While I can certainly see where this statement comes from (and do not disagree with its general validity), I'm a little concerned about how this might be read by CT consumers. I am personally currently completing my internship in a strictly CBT setting under a relatively well-regarded cognitive behavioural therapist and researcher, and (I hope this doesn't sound arrogant!) consider myself very well trained and qualified in the use of CBT. However, I am completing a Psy.D. program that explicitly frames itself under the practitioner-scientist model. I'm concerned that the current article may suggest to mental health consumers that they must look for a scientist-practitioner psychologist in order to have "quality" cognitive therapy.

Good point. Perhaps you could suggest alternative language? Also, please sign posts with the four tildes DPetersontalk 03:36, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Ah yes, the four tildes.....thank you! Just joined Wikipedia today, so I'm still learning some of the details :-).

My wheels are turning regarding alternate language...perhaps a brief explanation that CBT is closely aligned with the movement toward evidence-based practice in psychotherapy? This may directly address the concept of scientifically informed practice without singling out a particular psychology training model as superior in terms of service delivery.Noktavejo 07:01, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

That sounds very good. If you want to take a stab at that by either editing the article directly...or if you prefer, putting your suggested edit here, that would be great. DPetersontalk 16:32, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] a question

If I think that Cognitive Therapy is what is needed to help someone, should I suggest to him that he sees any psychologist? Or should I find out "one by one" who uses this kind of treatment? Or should I send the patient to search on his own, door-by-door? --Guruclef 10:01, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

If that is the specific treatment the individual is seeking, then asking the therapist about the therapist's approach is appropriate. JonesRDtalk 19:03, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cognitive behavioral therapy

I've moved the content to this title, as per suggestions discussed above. I've had a go at establishing a stub back on the page about Beck's Cognitive therapy. Going to try editing this one in line with the title. EverSince 18:01, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../c/o/g/Talk%7ECognitive_behavioral_therapy_358f.html"