Table1. Studies Included in Meta-Analysis.
| Authors | Population / Setting | TX | Design | N | Number of Outcoms | g | 95%-CI | p |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bradley and Follingstad, 2003 | Forensic | DBT | No-Contact | 31 | 9 | .96 | .23–1.70 | .01 |
| Comtois et al., 2007 | Community | DBT | Pre-Post | 23 | 7 | .43 | .01–.76 | .01 |
| Evershed et al., 2003 | Forensic | DBT | DBT vs.TAU | 17 | 14 | .50 | -.45–1.45 | .31 |
| Garland et al., 2010 | 60% African American | MBCT-based | MBCT-based vs. Active (Alcohol Support Group) | 37 | 6 | .43 | -.22–1.07 | .19 |
| Gaudiano and Herbert, 2006 | 88% minority | ACT | ACT+ETAU vs. ETAU | 29 | 8 | .37 | -.35–1.10 | .31 |
| Gregg et al., 2007 | Low-SES | ACT | Active (Diabetes Ed) | 73 | 5 | .57 | .12–1.01 | .31 |
| Hayes et al., 2004a | Low-SES | ACT | Active (12-step) | 56 | 9 | .21 | -.33–.74 | .45 |
| Hinton et al., 2004b | Vietnamese refugees | CA- CBT† | WL | 12 | 6 | 2.75 | 1.15–4.36 | <.01 |
| Hinton et al., 2005b | Cambodian refugees | CA-CBT † | WL | 40 | 7 | 3.26 | 2.32–4.21 | <.01 |
| Hinton et al., 2009 | Cambodian refugees | CA-CBT † | WL | 24 | 5 | 2.61 | 1.52–3.69 | <.01 |
| Hinton et al., 2011 | Latina women | CA-CBT † | Active (Applied Muscle Relaxation) | 24 | 2 | 1.54 | .65–2.43 | <.01 |
| James et al., 2011e | Underserved Adolescents | DBT‡ | Pre-Post | 18 | 4 | .74 | .31–1.16 | <.01 |
| Lundgren et al., 2006 | S. Africa | ACT | Active (Supportive Therapy) | 27 | 4 | 1.46 | .63–2.29 | <.01 |
| Lundgren et al., 2008 | India | ACT | Active (Yoga) | 18 | 3 | .82 | -.12–1.77 | .09 |
| Lynch et al., 2003 | Older Adults (85% White) | DBT | Active (Medication); DBT+MED vs. MED | 31 | 8 | .29 | -.48–1.05 | .46 |
| Lynch et al., 2007 (study 1) | Older Adults (88% White) | DBT | Active (Medication); DBT+MED vs. MED | 33 | 1 | .54 | -.29–1.38 | .20 |
| Lynch et al., 2007 (study 1) | Older Adults (86% White) | DBT | Active (Medication); DBT+MED vs. MED | 31 | 1 | .88 | .15–1.61 | .02 |
| Mendelson et al., 2010 | Urban Youth | Mindfulness + Yoga | No-Contact | 97 | 13 | .26 | -.18–.69 | .25 |
| Miller et al., 2000 | 92% minority | DBT | Pre-Post | 27 | 1 | .82 | .46–1.18 | b.01 |
| Morone et al., 2008 | Older Adults (89% White) | MBSR | WL | 37 | 8 | .32 | -.40–1.03 | .38 |
| Pasieczny and Connor, 2011 | Inner City Adults (Australia) | DBT | DBT vs. TAU | 84 | 10 | .82 | .25–1.39 | <.01 |
| Rathus and Miller, 2002c | 84% minority | DBT | DBT vs. TAU / Pre-Post | 67 | 6 | .37 | -.27–1.02 | .26 |
| Roth and Robbins, 2004 | Hispanic | MBSR | No Contact | 86 | 4 | .67 | .15–1.20 | .01 |
| Saavedra, 2008 | Community | ACT | WL | 26 | 3 | .73 | -.06–1.51 | .07 |
| Sakdalan et al., 2010 | Forensic with Intellectual Disability | DBT Skills Training | Pre-Post | 6 | 4 | .76 | .07–1.45 | .03 |
| Samuelson et al., 2007 | Forensic | MBSR | Pre-Post | 955 | 3 | .10 | .05–.15 | <.01 |
| Semple et al., 2010e,f | Inner City Youth | MBCT-C | Pre-Post | 20 | 3 | .43 | .08–.78 | .02 |
| Splevins et al., 2009 | Older Adults(Race/ethnicity not reported) | MBCT | Pre-Post | 22 | 4 | .57 | .28–.85 | <.01 |
| Trupin et al., 2002 | Forensic | DBT | DBT vs. TAU | 90 | 1 | .21 | -.20–.62 | .32 |
| Wetherell et al., 2010g | Older Adult | ACT | Pre-Post | 7 | 4 | .68 | .10–1.25 | .02 |
| Woodberry and Popenoe, 2008d | Community | DBT | Pre-Post | 28 | 13 | .40 | .07–.73 | .02 |
| Young and Baime, 2010 | Older Adult | MBSR | Pre-Post | 141 | 1 | .82 | .67–.97 | <.01 |
Note. TX=Treatment type stated by the author(s) or derivation thereof: ACT=Acceptance and Commitment Therapy; DBT=Dialectical Behavior Therapy; MBCT=Mindfulness-Based Cognitive Therapy; MBCT-C=Mindfulness-Based Cognitive Therapy for Children; MBSR=Mindfulness-based Stress Reduction. N refers to the number of participants which a study reported that completed the post-treatment assessments and thus were included in the present analyses. In situations where N differed among study measures, we used the highest value. Number of Outcomes refers to a study's outcome variables that were used to compute the effect size. Hedges' g is the effect size estimate reported; .2=small effect, .5=medium effect, and .8=large effect.
Effect size was computed by comparing only the active treatment conditions in the study.
Effect size was computed by comparing the treatment to the waitlist condition before participants in the waitlist condition received treatment.
Authors reported posttreatment assessments were not administered for the control group, thus for some outcome measures, effect size estimates for between-subjects comparisons were unable to be conducted; instead we used pre-post within-treatment group differences to estimate the effect size.
Child and parent ratings were combined to produce an overall effect size for the study.
Only significant results were reported in this study, thus the overall effect size presented is likely an overestimation.
Effect size was computed by comparing the pre- to posttreatment change in study measures.
Although this study was an RCT comparing ACT to CBT, the effect size was computed by comparing the pre- to posttreatment change for the ACT treatment group given the small sample size and rate of attrition in the CBT condition.
CA-CBT is an integrative treatment that includes mindfulness principles with traditional CBT principles.
Treatment was described as DBT, but integrated with other techniques including CBT, psychodynamic, client-centered, Gestalt, paradoxical, and strategic approaches during the individual sessions.