Module 16: A Rebuttal to the Review

We have a little bit of an RFT battle going on here. In this article, Villatte, et al., respond to the review of their book by Barnes-Holmes and co. They make the case that their book was timely and relevant to clinical practice. They also highlight their use of differing levels of terminology.

Discussion

  1. Do you feel as though the authors justify their use of new and differing terminology?

  2. What do you make of the risk of confusion by learners who may come across differing terms, techniques, and practices within RFT? Is this just par for the course in science?

Jacob MartinezComment