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

IF 3.4 3区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL
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.
检查九个心理(in)灵活性量表的项目内容:它们测量什么?
心理的不灵活性和灵活性是接受和承诺治疗(ACT)模型的核心。因此,准确可靠地评估这些结构以提供ACT理论的可靠测试是至关重要的。要考虑的一个测量方面是旨在评估相同结构的量表所涵盖的内容。本研究提供了九个心理灵活性和不灵活性量表的内容描述,并使用Jaccard指数评估量表之间的内容重叠程度。总体而言,我们发现量表绝大多数集中在内部体验(78.5%的项目),最常见的类型是情绪/感觉(41.1%)和想法(28.2%)。此外,Jaccard指数显示,在项目内容方面,重叠非常弱,这表明心理灵活性和不灵活性的构建是不一致的,影响了我们从不同研究中汇集数据的能力。ACT过程综合评估(CompACT)和多维心理灵活性量表(MPFI)的平均重叠分数最高。尽管有广泛的协商一致意见,但在考虑精确的类别和项目内容时缺乏重叠,强调需要澄清心理灵活性和不灵活性的定义,并在报告研究措施时实行更大的透明度。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
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.
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信