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)[reply]

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)[reply]

The pratice 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)[reply]

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.

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.

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.

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)[reply]

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

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.)

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.

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

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.

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)[reply]

Anecdotal evidence suggests that Ice Cream ingestion is very effective in treating depression like symptoms. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gbleem (talk • contribs) 13:12, 18 October 2005 (UTC).[reply]

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

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)[reply]

dr.alf 09:56, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Be bold Lumos3 09:04, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Going to be bold this week, expect two new articles by the end of the week :-) dr.alf 12:48, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good luck. :) Gflores ^Talk 06:00, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let's do it already! I don't know enough about the subject otherwise I would. -- Barrylb 17:08, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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

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))[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]