Idiosyncratic definitions and unsupported hypotheses: Rational emotive behavior therapy as pseudoscience

My concerns about Rational Emotive Behavior Therapy (REBT) began over a decade ago. I find its concepts lack adequate and consistent definitions, its distinctive hypotheses are not confirmed by empirical data and are untestable, and its scientific foundations fall outside mainstream psychology. Contrary to what it claims, its practice and philosophy are not consisten with the use of reason in psychotherapy. These criticisms are discussed and documented. Practitioners may not be aware of the unsubstantiated claims and theoretical assumptions inherent in REBT, and that they adopt these assumptions when practicing REBT.