![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
PROBLEM: this is the same thing as http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_behaviour_therapy. We need to integrate both pages into one somehow
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 separated out, because I can't find information on Beck's therapy in itself.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.252.241.33 (talk • contribs) 02:04, 7 March 2004
68.54.45.35 made some bad edits. Does any know how to revert them? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.232.74.85 (talk • contribs) 05:09, 14 October 2004
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.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.56.114.4 (talk • contribs) 21:16, 9 December 2004
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 related 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 occurring before cognitions is - theoretically - correct, but most people who gain from CBT find the relationship described by the ABC framework helpful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nickmaguire (talk • contribs) 23:13, 23 August 2006
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 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.118.80.7 (talk • contribs) 00:36, 5 August 2005
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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by A. Carl (talk • contribs) 19:49, 25 January 2006
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.118.80.7 (talk • contribs) 00:38, 5 August 2005
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 split 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.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.180.11.187 (talk • contribs) 02:27, 24 April 2006
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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nickmaguire (talk • contribs) 23:45, 23 August 2006
I've made some small changes to the second section, as it was extremely confusing, and did not flow well. It should improve readability.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.47.136.120 (talk • contribs) 02:45, 2 December 2005
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 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.203.42.93 (talk • contribs) 17:33, 9 May 2006
Under "Causes of Depression" the triad that is discussed has only 2 parts. 69.140.12.223 (talk) 04:57, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
The statement:
"The American Psychiatric Association Practice Guidelines (April 2000) indicated that among psychotherapeutic approaches, cognitive behavioral therapy and interpersonal psychotherapy had the best-documented efficacy for treatment of major depressive disorder, although they noted that rigorous evaluative studies had not been published."
is misleading, as the guidelines clearly state that rigorous evaluative studies have not been published on psychodynamic psychotherapy only. This is a seperate treatment and has no bearing on CBT. I will therefore remove the suggestion that rigorous evaluative studies have not been published. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.41.105.161 (talk) 02:23, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
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? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.164.183.81 (talk • contribs)
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
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 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)
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)
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
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)
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.
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)
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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 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)
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?
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.
207.38.162.227 added the following to the introduction of the article:
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)
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)
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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Count Caspian (talk • contribs) 24 July 2006
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)
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)
'IN SUPPORT OF CHANGING BEHAVIOUR TO BEHAVIOR'
'IN SUPPORT OF KEEPING SPELLING BEHAVIOUR'
'NEUTRAL'
'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)
Yes, might as well stick with that spelling. RalphLendertalk 19:25, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
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.
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)
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.
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)
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)
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)
I added the fact tag to this. While the statements may be true, there really should be citations to support the statements. DPetersontalk 20:07, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
One month is long enough, I have removed it... anyone feel free to put it back in, with a citation. Sethie 16:54, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
I have removed Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy from this page. This little known therapy has been extensively advertised on Wiki as evidence based, sometimes the only evidence based treatment for a variety of disorders affecting attachment. (Theraplay, also little known and not evidence based has also been advertised in this way.) A range of attachment articles including attachment therapy are currently before ArbCom. In the course of ArbCom it has transpired that of the 6 users promoting DDP and Theraplay and controlling these pages, User:DPeterson, User:RalphLender, User:JonesRD, User:SamDavidson, User:JohnsonRon, and User:MarkWood, the latter four are definitely socks and have been blocked, and the other two have been blocked for one year. The attachment related pages are in the course of being rewritten.Fainites barley 20:55, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
There should be a second listing criticisms against CBT in this article, to give it more balance. Unfortunately I am not up to gathering articles and references myself, as I don't really know enough about the topic to properly research them.
I can however offer a philosophical argument against CBT, which may be of interest. CBT looks for errors in thinking, events which are misinterpreted and which lead to negative thoughts...
...However, it could be argued that in some cases, it is reasonable and rational to have negative thoughts as a reaction to things which perhaps even the majority of people might not find depressing. This is because not everyone experiences the world in the same way, or feels the way way about it.
A good example would be belief in god. People who honestly believe in, for example, fairies are considered to be somewhat abnormal. Most people do not believe in fairies, and there is no known scientifically valid evidence to suggest that they exist. However, a belief in god, an entity for whom there is a similar lack of scientific evidence, is considered normal because very large numbers of people hold that belief. In other words, sanity is defined by the majority, and if the majority is irrational then irrationality is considered sanity.
CBT is very much about trying to change your way of thinking so that things which you find depressing but which most people do not are no longer depressing to you.
Um. I disagree that CBT is 'very much about trying to change your way of thinking'. Changing inferential style is an important strand of some approaches to CBT, but it's not definitive of CBT, and much CBT ignores it. Alec.brady 13:12, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
However, it may be possible that to do so would be an error in thinking, as for that person it is reasonable to be depressed as a reaction to those things, given their views, life experiences and beliefs. From a philosophical point of view, CBT could be considered deluding one's self.
Anyway, aside from that some more medical criticism would helpful, to give some opposing views for balance. Mojo-chan 16:03, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
There is an article by J. Grave and J. Blisset in "Clinical Psychology Review" (Vol: 24 Issue: 4, August, 2004 pp: 399-420, "Is cognitive behavior therapy developmentally appropriate for young children? A critical review of the evidence")that discusses the inappropriateness of CBT for children between the ages of 5 and 8. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.158.159.132 (talk) 23:09, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
There are a lot of criticisms possible that should be included. It should definitely be in a separate section. 1) CBT is often no better than BT for some disorders. So what exactly does focusing on cognition bring to the table? 2)It encourages a hedonic value system 3)It poorly engages existential questions 4) It is poor on acceptance. -Montreal Psycho July 29-08
Xris0, you have removed the following piece on the basis of "inappropriate citation - should at minimum be mainstream news source, best would be peer-reviewed journal article" :
Research shows that CBT can bring fast improvement to patients, but the same research shows that not all patients improve, those who improve usually still exhibit symptoms, in the long run (2+ years after treatment) CBT effects erode, CBT is not more effective than other forms of psychotherapy.[1]
I assume that this is a valid reason. This statement was a very dense synopsis of the article, which in my opinion is exceptional and very well researched. What I did (trying to stay within the rules of Wikipedia), I added an external link to this article. But I am asking all interested contributors for some better way to present this idea, and give credit to the source.Leontaurus (talk) 18:54, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
I just realized the citation link does not point anywhere. This is the source article: Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT) Efficacy: Fact or Fiction? Leontaurus (talk) 23:41, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Don't we need a citacion for this?
In a 2009 article in Psychological Medicine,2009; 1 DOI entitled " Cognitive behavoural therapy for the major psychiatric disorder: does it really work? A meta-analytical review of well-controlled trials" the authors found that not a single trial employing both blinding and psychological placebo has found CBT to be effective in schizophrenia and surprisingly few well-controlled studies of CBT in depression. The authors found that CBT is also ineffective in preventing relapses in bipolar disorder.
Leontaurus (talk) 21:48, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Just noted a small error in the page. Though CBT and REBT are very close, there is still a large difference in their theoretical underpinnings and practical applications. ABC theory is a part of REBT, not CBT. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.245.230.242 (talk) 21:19, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
it seems that the "Cognitive Behavioral Therapy" section appears twice in the text. I don't have the time right now to check if the two sections are exactly identical, but they are certainly very similar. --87.2.232.16 (talk) 07:58, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
I notice that one of the “symptoms” treated by CBT is “irrational thoughts”. Elsewhere I find the linked article on “irrational thoughts” to be a hodge podge of arbitrary judgements. Other articles on rationality lack coherence.
I understand CBT is used by Drug Courts in the U.S. If so, it strikes me as being a reinforcement of an already existing form of thought control.
For example, regarding “irrational thoughts”, the “therapist” may say to the “sufferer” (for example, a marijuana user sentenced to Drug Court), “You must give up your use of marijuana, because if you don’t you will always be in trouble with the law, and it is irrational to purposely harm yourself in this way. This irrational behavior is evidence of your sickness.” In other words, your use of marijuana is evidence of mental illness. However, the criminal prohibition that gets you into trouble in the first place is itself a form of thought control by thought prohibition: the thought created by marijuana use is prohibited. Then the “therapy” reinforces this prohibition by showing you how destructive your marijuana use is in view of the criminal prohibition.
However, it is the criminal prohibition that is destructive, not the marijuana use. That many people use marijuana, specifically for the thought created by the use of marijuana, in spite of the criminal prohibition of marijuana use, is evidence not of mental illness among the users but of thought control by the law. The thought prohibition itself may be a factor in causing actual mental illness in marijuana users.
I notice that CBT is considered most successful when used in conjunction with anti-depressant drugs. It sounds to me like the powers who control the drug industry have succeeded in replacing an uncontrollable drug with one they can control.
I believe there needs to be a critical point of view in the article. Thought control may be useful to some people in a society plagued by poverty, chaos and state violence, but is it good? Is it not useful to attempt to improve living conditions for the underclass? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ngeo (talk • contribs) 02:30, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I just removed this because it's hard to fulfil this request without any idea of what kind of diagram is desired. If you just want a simple flow-chart, that is quite easy, you just have to say what you want in it. If you re-add this template please add more detail about what you want. thanks --pfctdayelise (talk) 09:56, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
Is it appropriate to have the distracting link of Tao Lin (the relatively young and unknown e-commerce 'poet') at the start of this Wiki? Surely it opens up Wikipedia to other distracting cross-referencing of dubious value. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikijuice (talk • contribs) 01:59, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
The article was in a terrible mess, I have taken the liberty to clean-up the article and created a few new headlines. The previous text has of course been kept, but placed under more appropriate headings. I hope others can help clean up the article futher to improve quality of the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.117.10.100 (talk) 08:41, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
I have cleaned up the insomnia section which contained redundant phrases, repeated sentences, and splintering of the subject under discussion across multiple paragraphs. Hoodathunkit (talk) 14:23, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
This is article was and is in a terrible mess, so I decided to do some radical cleaning up:
This is the latest version before my changes, if anyone wants to save the removed content. I hope to keep working on this article as I find the time. /skagedal... 20:19, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
An anonymous editor changed the first sentence from "[CBT] is an umbrella-term for goal-oriented psychotherapeutic systems that aim to influence problematic emotions, behaviors and cognitions" to "[CBT] is an umbrella-term for goal-oriented psychotherapeutic systems and approaches that aim to influence problematic and dysfunctional emotions, behaviors and cognitions". Do these words really add anything? What's the difference between a "system" and an "approach" Doesn't "systems" include "approaches"? And, if emotions, behaviors are cognitions are "dysfunctional", they are surely problematic? /skagedal... 19:06, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
I'm slooowly working on this article, you can see some ideas on what I think the article should cover under Wikipedia:WikiProject Psychology/Psychotherapy and my notepad on User:Skagedal/Notepad.
One problem I have is trying to define what CBT is. All sources agree that CBT is an umbrella term that include a variety of approaches, but they differ in what the inclusion critera should be. Dobson's "Hanbook of Cognitive–Behavioral Therapies" is one source I've found that takes a theoretical approach to this problem and argues that all cognitive–behavioral therapies are based on a common assumption that cognitive events mediate behavioral change; thus, neither "pure behavior therapy" (where "cognitive mediation" is seen as irrelevant mentalism) or "pure cognitive therapy" (where cognitive change in itself is the goal of therapy) are included under the umbrella. A wider definition is, it seems, often used by CBT organizations, for example in the "What is CBT" text from the British association that is linked in this article, where it says: "The term 'Cognitive–Behavioural Therapy' (CBT) is variously used to refer to behaviour therapy, cognitive therapy, and to therapy based on the pragmatic combination of principles of behavioural and cognitive theories". This more closely follows the "popular use" of the term, according to my experience.
This could of course be handled by stating in the article that different definitions exist, but the bigger problem is to decide what goes in the article and what does not. Should the article in general take an inclusive approach (that might better reflect what readers are expecting to find in this article) or follow the stricter approach (that might make more theoretical sense)? /skagedal... 20:50, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
I can't see anything on it's efficacy? Eg a summary of studies, or any meta-studies, on the effectiveness of CBT? Ie, how effective is it for common disorders such as anxiety etc, versus untreated controls or other therapeutic methods? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.154.238.36 (talk) 03:41, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Maybe you can have a look at this: Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT) Efficacy: Fact or Fiction? Leontaurus (talk) 18:15, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
i ablog spot containing articles on CBT on Wikepedia which was reverted. http://cognitivebehavioureltherapy.blogspot.com/ i think it contains up to date information on CBT. Shall we undo the revert? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shandithrt (talk • contribs) 07:09, 11 December 2008
Here's a good source for the criticism and controversies concerning EBPs including CBT. [3] ----Action potential discuss contribs 03:59, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Wingnuts who hate cbt will be interested in the news articles about Professor Keith Laws, and in the research from one psychologist at one minor university that discredits CBT for schizophrenia (not too controversial apart from UK NICE guidelines) and also for depression (a lot more controvrsial, especially given the amount of evidence showing CBT is effective for depression.)
People need to be careful to note he hasn't done new real research, he has done a meta review. ETC ETC. I'm not editing because i: I have pro-CBT pov and ii:I hate Professor Keith Laws. 82.33.48.96 (talk) 13:46, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
I've read sources that claim that cognitive behavioral therapy has been used to try to re-habilitate convicted pedophiles. There should maybe be additional material on that in the article. ADM (talk) 07:57, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
((cite journal))
: Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)). go ahead and add something. Earlypsychosis (talk) 09:32, 24 July 2009 (UTC)Do you want to merge Computerised CBT into this article? It would probably be best covered as a subsection here rather than a separate article. ----Action potential t c 07:12, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Skagedal, thanks for that. I copied the old text that you alerted me to into the article on CCBT. If the computerized CBT article was elaborated then it might stand as an article on its own. I am still leaning towards one article that covers both topics. ----Action potential t c 08:30, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
As a psychologist, I think it should be within the article, including information on the accredited NICE CCBT programmes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.31.240.220 (talk) 17:17, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
Is it Computerised CBT or Computerized CBT? The "computerised" is used in the title for the article and "computerized" is used in the article itself. The link from the "CBT" article is spelled the former way, but the sub-heading in the same article is spelled by the latter way. Is it computer -ise or -ize? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mslitchfield (talk • contribs) 02:57, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
I removed the text:
The source can be found by link here: [4]. The text I removed seemed to be a very negative POV. I removed it on the following grounds:
I'd like to add this sentence back in...can we make it more NPOV and more accurately reflect the source? And are there any other independent sources covering the same thing? Considering others here would be ideal; it's also problematic that the previous sentence (which I left, and which is weakly positive about the effectiveness of CBT) only references a single source. Cazort (talk) 03:07, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
((cite journal))
: Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)(2009). Earlypsychosis (talk) 08:00, 18 August 2009 (UTC)((cite journal))
: Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) and a good depression meta analysis Dobson KS (1989). "A meta-analysis of the efficacy of cognitive therapy for depression". J Consult Clin Psychol. 57 (3): 414–9. PMID 2738214. ((cite journal))
: Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (help) both showing good evidence. Earlypsychosis (talk) 08:27, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
This quotation from para 3 "where specific treatments for symptom-based diagnoses are recommended, has favored CBT over other approaches such as psychodynamic treatments[5]" surely overreaches. The reality to date is that no head-to-head trial over active therapies has ever shown one to be superior. Yes, CBT is superior to wait-list controls, but so is every psychotherapeutic modality so-tested. CBT has more evidence (meaning more trials have been conducted), but it has *no* evidence of *superiority.*
For a very broad and deep survey of the current state of all psychotherapies, I draw your attention to:
Four years old now, but I'm not aware of any trial, meta-analysis or systematic review which refutes the essential findings.
Certainly, in the 80's, CBT did look superior to psychodynamic therapy in some trials, but those have long since come under heavy criticism and refutation due to the now widely acknowledged problem of bias due to investigator allegiance. All psychotherapy research has methodologically improved since that time, and it behooves this Wikipedia article to reflect the best state of current evidence.
Rtarzwell (talk) 04:18, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
removed this from the introduction. not broad enought for opening paragraph and not sourced. added here for future use if needed.
In my CBT for eating disorders lectures the lecturer mentioned that IPT was more effective longer term (at tweleve months). The researchers argued that CBT was just treating the symptoms and while still beneficial was less effective than IPT over the longer term. This effect was attributed to IPT dealing with the interpersonal relationships. Does anyone have the source for this research? Should we include some comparisons with other forms of psychotherapy? ----Action potential discuss contribs 14:34, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Currently eating disorders is not covered in this article. We could cover typical interventions. ----Action potential discuss contribs 14:41, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
There is an ongoing debate in the literature that it is more cost effective to train psychologists in behavioural only (e.g. behavioral activation) treatments. Cognitive therapy had no additive benefit over behavioral only. This is a recent finding, these treatments have not been compared like this before. Researchers believe that the behavioral intervention (exposure) was so powerful such the cognitive + exposure group had no additive benefit. The research in the current article is quite selective, I think the article would benefit from discussing some of these recent issues. ----Action potential discuss contribs 01:42, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
EP, here are some references as a start. I'm not an expert on the topic. It was recently discussed in recent lectures on psychopathology and evidence-based treatments. The evidence from dismantling studies which looks at the active ingredients of CBT suggested that behavioral activation was so powerful that there was no need for the cognitive therapy part of CBT. The counter-argument was that cognitive restructuring is still useful for reducing drop-out rates, etc. I think we should also cover debate concerning CBT v. SSRI/SSNRI medication for treatment of depression.
Action potential discuss contribs 06:40, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT) Efficacy: Fact or Fiction?
This article is a comprehensive overview, plus it is a Systematic review of CBT (scholar source, although not published in a peer review journal). It shows (from a collection of scholar sources) that CBT is very effective in the short term, but has several drawbacks. a) Not all patients improve. b) Most patients that do improve, still have negative symptoms. c) The effects of CBT disappear in the long run (2-4 years after treatment). d) CBT overall is not more effective than other forms of psychotherapy.
This should go under the “criticism” section. But since I do not know how to enter it in the article, I added it as an external link. OK, I just looked at the regulations for external links: "Links to be considered -> Sites which fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources." 94.68.16.252 (talk) 21:59, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
The external link was removed by user Scarpy, so I placed this note for extra consideration. 94.68.16.252 (talk) 22:03, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
the fact or ficton article is a very poor source. It is an unpublished website page with a selection of articles to push a bias agenda. The question is not whether or not CBT is an effective treatment per se, but for what conditions CBT has been shown to be effective, and how it compares to other forms of treatment. Earlypsychosis (talk) 08:35, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
I am confused about how the last sentence should be read:
"The authors also found few well-controlled studies of CBT in depression that found the therapy to be effective, and that CBT is also ineffective in preventing relapses in bipolar disorder."
Doesn't the second "also" imply that CBT in depression was found to be ineffective ?
Marq au (talk) 02:23, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
((cite journal))
: Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (help) and Dobson KS, Hollon SD, Dimidjian S; et al. (2008). "Randomized trial of behavioral activation, cognitive therapy, and antidepressant medication in the prevention of relapse and recurrence in major depression". J Consult Clin Psychol. 76 (3): 468–77. doi:10.1037/0022-006X.76.3.468. PMC 2648513. PMID 18540740. ((cite journal))
: Explicit use of et al. in: |author=
(help); Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) Earlypsychosis (talk) 07:10, 9 March 2010 (UTC)?? Earlypsychosis (talk) 07:12, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
Depressed Adults are Nearly Twice as Likely to Smoke as Those Not Depressed
Pratt LA, Brody DJ. Depression and smoking in the U.S. household population aged 20 and over, 2005-2008. NCHS data brief, no 34. Hyattsville, MD: National Center for Health Statistics. 2010. http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db34.htm#ref5
Depressed People Smoke More, Quit Less
As Depression Deepens, Cigarette Smoking Increases
By Daniel J. DeNoon
WebMD Health News
Reviewed by Laura J. Martin, MD
http://www.webmd.com/depression/news/20100414/depressed-people-smoke-more-quit-less
Survey shows how depression and smoking intertwine
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE63D48O20100414
Many Smokers Suffer from Depression
By Psych Central News Editor
Reviewed by John M. Grohol, Psy.D. on April 14, 2010
http://psychcentral.com/news/2010/04/14/many-smokers-suffer-from-depression/12846.html
Many smokers are depressed
April 14, 2010 | 8:54 am
"Among men ages 40 to 54, a whopping 55% of those who smoke have depression. Among women ages 20 to 39 who smoke, 50% have depression."
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/booster_shots/2010/04/smoking-depression.html
Looks like CBT is also being used to help smokers, many of whom are depressed.
At least a couple of antidepressants are already marketed as smoking-cessation aids, with demonstrable benefits.
Could be a really interesting CBT study. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.165.11.102 (talk) 15:13, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
I see a problem in this article with weasel words, surrounding the work of Arnold Lazarus. There are several highly WP:POV sentences that are unsourced or not properly source. This sentence was not sourced:
The "weasel words" here are "it became clear"...according to whom? And "narrowly focused" also has a negative connotation...whereas "expanded the scope" has a positive connotation. Really, what Lazarus did was to develop a new method / approach to therapy...we need to be careful to maintain WP:NPOV here. This next sentence is sourced by a work of Lazarus himself:
The "Weasel word" here is "arguably" ...arguably according to whom? This needs to be sourced with a third-party source (i.e. not Lazarus or another developer or proponent of the theory) who can be identified by name. It looks like someone has been editing this article in such a way as to introduce a favorable perspective on this particular approach or person. Cazort (talk) 00:56, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
"In a 2010 article in Psychological Medicine entitled, "Cognitive behavioral therapy for the major psychiatric disorder: does it really work?",[2] the authors found that no trial employing both blinding and psychological placebo has found CBT to be effective in schizophrenia. The authors also found few well-controlled studies of CBT in depression that found the therapy to be effective, and in those found, the effect was small. CBT is also ineffective in preventing relapses in bipolar disorder."
This paragraph is very misleading. More details should be provided or should be removed outright. It mentions only schizophrenia in the first sentence, and that is far too specific. I agree with the statement, despite NICE's suggestions, but I think it is misleading to some extent. More important is the following sentence, which does not properly synthesize the findings of the study, and the final sentence which seems to be simply a statement of fact, while it clearly is not a fact. Sorry for bad spelling/mistakes, I wish I had more time to fix this section and explain myself, but alas!— Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.110.237.63 (talk • contribs) 22:01, 13 November 2010
Added back the above paragraph because the removal was absurd and unsupported. I have removed the reference tha followed it by Kingdon and colleagues regarding the (assumed) efficacy of CBT as it contains no data and is an anecdotal description of some individual cases — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sjadd (talk • contribs) 07:02, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
Strong Support This basic article and its subject matter are covered in CBT's main article, but this article is more detailed. Suggest supplanting this for the material in the CBT section, using any non-redundant matter to strengthen this section. Cesium 133 (talk) 08:15, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
Google 'manualized' to see pages discussing this word.
fjgseyferth 83.117.110.100 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:44, 15 January 2011 (UTC).
Please try to keep the definition clinical and not inject your personal feelings into the definition of the item itself. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.67.20.109 (talk) 23:52, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
We should add a section on CFS to the article. --sciencewatcher (talk) 16:10, 7 August 2011 (UTC).
what is CFS ? Earlypsychosis (talk) 07:56, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
We should add some of the studies that show where CBT is ineffective too... we should not cherry pick successes. --122.108.140.210 (talk) 01:27, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Cognitive behavioral therapy/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.
== Superior to other modalities? ==
This quotation from para 2 "where specific treatments for symptom-based diagnoses are recommended, has favored CBT over other approaches such as psychodynamic treatments[5]" surely overreaches. The reality to date is that no head-to-head trial over active therapies has ever shown one to be superior. Yes, CBT is superior to wait-list controls, but so is every psychotherapeutic modality so-tested. CBT has more evidence (meaning more trials have been conducted), but it has *no* evidence of *superiority.* For a very broad and deep survey of the current state of all psychotherapies, I draw your attention to: Four years old now, but I'm not aware of any trial, meta-analysis or systematic review which refutes the essential findings. |
Last edited at 04:12, 18 September 2009 (UTC). Substituted at 20:19, 2 May 2016 (UTC)