Francisco J. Ruiz , Javier M. Bianchi , Douglas M. Bastidas-Suárez , Eduar S. Ramírez , Valentina Peña-Hernández
{"title":"Is the AAQ-II that bad?","authors":"Francisco J. Ruiz , Javier M. Bianchi , Douglas M. Bastidas-Suárez , Eduar S. Ramírez , Valentina Peña-Hernández","doi":"10.1016/j.jcbs.2024.100854","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>The Acceptance and Action Questionnaire – II (AAQ-II) has been heavily criticized based on factor-analytic studies that analyzed its discriminant validity. These studies have suggested that the AAQ-II may measure trait negative emotion/neuroticism, which has led some authors to suggest that the studies utilizing the AAQ-II might be reread, changing \"psychological flexibility” or \"experiential avoidance” for \"neuroticism,” \"negative emotion,” or \"distress.” We suggest most of these findings are due to the inconsistent use of the AAQ-II as a measure of psychological flexibility and experiential avoidance instead of psychological inflexibility. Additionally, we analyze the discriminant validity of the Spanish version of the AAQ-II in three Colombian samples. In Study 1, we conducted both exploratory graph analysis (EGA) and exploratory factor analysis (EFA) to determine the number of dimensions in a general online sample (<em>N</em> = 2398) and a treatment-seeking sample (<em>N</em> = 358) that responded to the AAQ-II and the Depression, Anxiety, and Stress Scale – 21 (DASS-21). In Study 2, we conducted the same analyses in a general online sample (<em>N</em> = 444) that responded to the AAQ-II, DASS-21, and the Big Five Inventory – 2 Neuroticism subscale. All analyses indicated that the AAQ-II items pertained to a unique community/factor and strongly supported the discriminant validity of the AAQ-II in Colombian samples. We recommend using the AAQ-II only as a measure of psychological inflexibility and argue that it is too adventurous to suggest the reinterpretation of thousands of studies and discourage journals from publishing articles using the AAQ-II.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":47544,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Contextual Behavioral Science","volume":"34 ","pages":"Article 100854"},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-01","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/S2212144724001340","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
The Acceptance and Action Questionnaire – II (AAQ-II) has been heavily criticized based on factor-analytic studies that analyzed its discriminant validity. These studies have suggested that the AAQ-II may measure trait negative emotion/neuroticism, which has led some authors to suggest that the studies utilizing the AAQ-II might be reread, changing "psychological flexibility” or "experiential avoidance” for "neuroticism,” "negative emotion,” or "distress.” We suggest most of these findings are due to the inconsistent use of the AAQ-II as a measure of psychological flexibility and experiential avoidance instead of psychological inflexibility. Additionally, we analyze the discriminant validity of the Spanish version of the AAQ-II in three Colombian samples. In Study 1, we conducted both exploratory graph analysis (EGA) and exploratory factor analysis (EFA) to determine the number of dimensions in a general online sample (N = 2398) and a treatment-seeking sample (N = 358) that responded to the AAQ-II and the Depression, Anxiety, and Stress Scale – 21 (DASS-21). In Study 2, we conducted the same analyses in a general online sample (N = 444) that responded to the AAQ-II, DASS-21, and the Big Five Inventory – 2 Neuroticism subscale. All analyses indicated that the AAQ-II items pertained to a unique community/factor and strongly supported the discriminant validity of the AAQ-II in Colombian samples. We recommend using the AAQ-II only as a measure of psychological inflexibility and argue that it is too adventurous to suggest the reinterpretation of thousands of studies and discourage journals from publishing articles using the AAQ-II.
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.