Examining item content across nine psychological (in)flexibility scales: What do they measure?

IF 3.4 3区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL Journal of Contextual Behavioral Science Pub Date : 2025-01-01 DOI:10.1016/j.jcbs.2025.100872
Clarissa W. Ong , Alexa M. Skolnik , Hannah M. Johnson , Eric B. Lee
{"title":"Examining item content across nine psychological (in)flexibility scales: What do they measure?","authors":"Clarissa W. Ong ,&nbsp;Alexa M. Skolnik ,&nbsp;Hannah M. Johnson ,&nbsp;Eric B. Lee","doi":"10.1016/j.jcbs.2025.100872","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Psychological inflexibility and flexibility are central to the model of acceptance and commitment therapy (ACT). As such, it is critical to assess these constructs accurately and reliably to provide robust tests of ACT theory. One measurement aspect to consider is the content covered by scales purported to assess the same construct. The present study provides a description of content included in nine psychological flexibility and inflexibility scales and evaluates the degree of content overlap across scales using the Jaccard Index. Overall, we found that the scales overwhelmingly focused on internal experiences (78.5% of items), with the most common type being emotions/feelings (41.1%) and thoughts (28.2%). In addition, the Jaccard Index indicated very weak overlap with respect to item content, suggesting that the constructs of psychological flexibility and inflexibility are measured inconsistently, compromising our ability to pool data from different studies. The Comprehensive Assessment of ACT Processes (CompACT) and Multidimensional Psychological Flexibility Inventory (MPFI) had the highest mean overlap scores. Despite broad consensus, the lack of overlap when considering precise categories and item content underscores the need to clarify definitions of psychological flexibility and inflexibility for measurement and practice greater transparency when reporting on study measures.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":47544,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Contextual Behavioral Science","volume":"35 ","pages":"Article 100872"},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Contextual Behavioral Science","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2212144725000031","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Psychological inflexibility and flexibility are central to the model of acceptance and commitment therapy (ACT). As such, it is critical to assess these constructs accurately and reliably to provide robust tests of ACT theory. One measurement aspect to consider is the content covered by scales purported to assess the same construct. The present study provides a description of content included in nine psychological flexibility and inflexibility scales and evaluates the degree of content overlap across scales using the Jaccard Index. Overall, we found that the scales overwhelmingly focused on internal experiences (78.5% of items), with the most common type being emotions/feelings (41.1%) and thoughts (28.2%). In addition, the Jaccard Index indicated very weak overlap with respect to item content, suggesting that the constructs of psychological flexibility and inflexibility are measured inconsistently, compromising our ability to pool data from different studies. The Comprehensive Assessment of ACT Processes (CompACT) and Multidimensional Psychological Flexibility Inventory (MPFI) had the highest mean overlap scores. Despite broad consensus, the lack of overlap when considering precise categories and item content underscores the need to clarify definitions of psychological flexibility and inflexibility for measurement and practice greater transparency when reporting on study measures.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
8.50
自引率
18.00%
发文量
82
审稿时长
61 days
期刊介绍: The Journal of Contextual Behavioral Science is the official journal of the Association for Contextual Behavioral Science (ACBS). Contextual Behavioral Science is a systematic and pragmatic approach to the understanding of behavior, the solution of human problems, and the promotion of human growth and development. Contextual Behavioral Science uses functional principles and theories to analyze and modify action embedded in its historical and situational context. The goal is to predict and influence behavior, with precision, scope, and depth, across all behavioral domains and all levels of analysis, so as to help create a behavioral science that is more adequate to the challenge of the human condition.
期刊最新文献
A mixed methods study investigating alexithymia, experiential avoidance, and psychological distress: Insights into men with high externally oriented thinking Transforming strain into strength: Alleviating stress and burnout in special education teachers with ACT matrix intervention Introduction to the special issue on process-based therapy Acceptance and commitment therapy (ACT) for pediatric chronic non-cancer pain: A systematic review Examining item content across nine psychological (in)flexibility scales: What do they measure?
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1