Top

Health and Quality of Life Outcomes

Published in:

Open Access 01-12-2020 | Research

Further development in the assessment of psychological flexibility: validation of the German committed action questionnaire

Authors: Yannik Terhorst, Harald Baumeister, Lance M. McCracken, Jiaxi Lin

Published in: Health and Quality of Life Outcomes | Issue 1/2020

Abstract

Background

Psychological flexibility is considered a fundamental aspect of health. It includes six interrelated facets: 1) cognitive defusion, 2) acceptance, 3) contact with the present moment, 4) self-as-context, 5) values, and 6) committed action. To gain further insight into psychological flexibility and its effects on health, reliable and valid instruments to assess all facets are needed. Committed action is one facet that is understudied. A long and short version of a validated measure (CAQ and CAQ-8) have been developed in English. Currently, there are no German versions of the CAQ. Aim of this study is to validate German-language versions of these in a chronic pain population.

Methods

The CAQ instructions and items were translated and evaluated in a chronic pain population (N = 181). Confirmatory factor analysis and Mokken scale analysis were conducted to evaluate the German questionnaires. Correlations with health outcomes, including quality of life (SF-12), physical and emotional functioning (MPI, BPI, PHQ-9, GAD-7), pain intensity, and with other facets of psychological flexibility (CPAQ, FAH-II) were investigated for convergent validity purposes. Scale reliability was assessed by the alpha, MS, lambda-2, LCRC, and omega coefficient.

Results

A bifactor model consisting of one general factor and two methodological factors emerged from the analysis. Criteria for reliability and validity were met. Medium to strong correlations to health outcomes and other facets of psychological flexibility were found. Results were similar to the original English version.

Conclusions

The present study presents a valid and reliable instrument to investigate committed action in German populations. Future studies could expand the present findings by evaluating the German CAQ versions in non-pain populations. The role of committed action and the wider psychological flexibility model in pain and other conditions deserves further investigation.

Available only for authorised users

Kashdan TB, Rottenberg J. Psychological flexibility as a fundamental aspect of health. Clin Psychol Rev. 2010;30:865–78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2010.03.001.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Hayes SC, Luoma JB, Bond FW, Masuda A, Lillis J. Acceptance and commitment therapy: model, processes and outcomes. Behav Res Ther. 2006;44:1–25.CrossRef

Masuda A, Tully EC. The role of mindfulness and psychological flexibility in somatization, depression, anxiety, and general psychological distress in a nonclinical college sample. J Evid Based Complementary Altern Med. 2012;17:66–71. https://doi.org/10.1177/2156587211423400.CrossRef

Hayes SC, Strosahl K, Wilson KG. Acceptance and commitment therapy : the process and practice of mindful change. New York: Guilford Press; 2012. https://www.guilford.com/books/Acceptance-and-Commitment-Therapy/Hayes-Strosahl-Wilson/9781462528943.

Lin J, Klatt L-I, McCracken LM, Baumeister H. Psychological flexibility mediates the effect of an online-based acceptance and commitment therapy for chronic pain. Pain. 2018;159:663–72. https://doi.org/10.1097/j.pain.0000000000001134.CrossRefPubMed

Gentili C, Rickardsson J, Zetterqvist V, Simons LE, Lekander M, Wicksell RK. Psychological flexibility as a resilience factor in individuals with chronic pain. Front Psychol. 2019;10:2016. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02016.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Veehof MM, Oskam M-J, Schreurs KMG, Bohlmeijer ET. Acceptance-based interventions for the treatment of chronic pain: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Pain. 2011;152:533–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pain.2010.11.002.CrossRefPubMed

Veehof MM, Trompetter H, Bohlmeijer ET, Schreurs KMG. Acceptance- and mindfulness-based interventions for the treatment of chronic pain: a meta-analytic review. Cogn Behav Ther. 2016;45:5–31.CrossRef

Brown M, Glendenning A, Hoon AE, John A. Effectiveness of web-delivered acceptance and commitment therapy in relation to mental health and well-being: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Med Internet Res. 2016;18:e221. https://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.6200.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

10.

Twohig MP, Levin ME. Acceptance and commitment therapy as a treatment for anxiety and depression: a review. Psychiatr Clin North Am. 2017;40:751–70.CrossRef

11.

Kazdin AE. Mediators and mechanisms of change in psychotherapy research. Annu Rev Clin Psychol. 2007;3:1–27. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.clinpsy.3.022806.091432.CrossRefPubMed

12.

Cuijpers P. The future of psychotherapy research: stop the waste and focus on issues that matter. Epidemiol Psychiatr Sci. 2016;25:291–4.CrossRef

13.

Murphy R, Cooper Z, Hollon SD, Fairburn CG. How do psychological treatments work? Investigating mediators of change. Behav Res Ther. 2009;47:1–5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brat.2008.10.001.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

14.

Probst T, Baumeister H, McCracken L, Lin J, Probst T, Baumeister H, et al. Baseline psychological inflexibility moderates the outcome pain interference in a randomized controlled trial on internet-based acceptance and commitment therapy for chronic pain. J Clin Med. 2018;8:24. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm8010024.CrossRefPubMedCentral

15.

Vowles KE, McCracken LM, McLeod C, Eccleston C. The chronic pain acceptance questionnaire: confirmatory factor analysis and identification of patient subgroups. Pain. 2008;140:284–91.CrossRef

16.

Brown KW, Ryan RM. The benefits of being present: mindfulness and its role in psychological well-being. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2003;84:822–48.CrossRef

17.

Wicksell RK, Lekander M, Sorjonen K, Olsson GL. The Psychological Inflexibility in Pain Scale (PIPS)--statistical properties and model fit of an instrument to assess change processes in pain related disability. Eur J Pain. 2010;14:771.e1–14.

18.

Yu L, Norton S, McCracken LM. Change in “self-as-context” (“perspective-taking”) occurs in acceptance and commitment therapy for people with chronic pain and is associated with improved functioning. J Pain. 2017;18:664–72.CrossRef

19.

Yu L, McCracken LM, Norton S. The self experiences questionnaire (SEQ): preliminary analyses for a measure of self in people with chronic pain. J Contextual Behav Sci. 2016;5:127–33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcbs.2016.07.006.CrossRef

20.

McCracken LM, Yang S-Y. The role of values in a contextual cognitive-behavioral approach to chronic pain. Pain. 2006;123:137–45.CrossRef

21.

Baranoff J, Hanrahan SJ, Kapur D, Connor JP. Acceptance as a process variable in relation to catastrophizing in multidisciplinary pain treatment. Eur J Pain. 2013;17:101–10.CrossRef

22.

Vowles KE, Wetherell JL, Sorrell JT. Targeting acceptance, mindfulness, and values-based action in chronic pain: findings of two preliminary trials of an outpatient group-based intervention. Cogn Behav Pract. 2009;16:49–58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cbpra.2008.08.001.CrossRef

23.

Vowles KE, Witkiewitz K, Sowden G, Ashworth J. Acceptance and commitment therapy for chronic pain: evidence of mediation and clinically significant change following an abbreviated interdisciplinary program of rehabilitation. J Pain. 2014;15:101–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpain.2013.10.002.CrossRefPubMed

24.

Levin ME, Hildebrandt MJ, Lillis J, Hayes SC. The impact of treatment components suggested by the psychological flexibility model: a meta-analysis of laboratory-based component studies. Behav Ther. 2012;43:741–56. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.BETH.2012.05.003.CrossRefPubMed

25.

McCracken LM. Committed action: an application of the psychological flexibility model to activity patterns in chronic pain. J Pain. 2013;14:828–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpain.2013.02.009.CrossRefPubMed

26.

McCracken LM, Chilcot J, Norton S. Further development in the assessment of psychological flexibility: A shortened Committed Action Questionnaire (CAQ-8). Eur J Pain (United Kingdom). 2015;19:677–85.

27.

Huijnenl IPJ, Verbunt JA, Petersl ML, Smeetsl RJEM, Kindermansl HPJ, Roelofs J, et al. Differences in activity-related behaviour among patients with chronic low back pain. Eur J Pain. 2011;15:748–55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejpain.2010.11.015.CrossRef

28.

Kindermans HPJ, Roelofs J, Goossens MEJB, Huijnen IPJ, Verbunt JA, Vlaeyen JWS. Activity patterns in chronic pain: underlying dimensions and associations with disability and depressed mood. J Pain. 2011;12:1049–58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpain.2011.04.009.CrossRefPubMed

29.

McCracken LM, Samuel VM. The role of avoidance, pacing, and other activity patterns in chronic pain. Pain. 2007;130:119–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pain.2006.11.016.CrossRefPubMed

30.

Vlaeyen JWS, Linton SJ. Fear-avoidance and its consequences in chronic musculoskeletal pain: a state of the art. Pain. 2000;85:317–32 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10781906. Accessed 1 Dec 2017.CrossRef

31.

Wicksell RK, Renöfält J, Olsson GL, Bond FW, Melin L. Avoidance and cognitive fusion - central components in pain related disability? Development and preliminary validation of the psychological inflexibility in pain scale (PIPS). Eur J Pain. 2008;12:491–500. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejpain.2007.08.003.CrossRefPubMed

32.

Scott W, McCracken LM. Psychological flexibility, acceptance and commitment therapy, and chronic pain. Curr Opin Psychol. 2015;2:91–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2014.12.013.CrossRef

33.

Lin J, Lüking M, Ebert DD, Buhrman M, Andersson G, Baumeister H. Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a guided and unguided internet-based acceptance and commitment therapy for chronic pain: study protocol for a three-armed randomised controlled trial. Internet Interv. 2015;2:7–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.invent.2014.11.005.CrossRef

34.

Lin J, Paganini S, Sander L, Lüking M, Ebert DD, Buhrman M, et al. An internet-based intervention for chronic pain. Dtsch Arztebl Int. 2017;114:681–8. https://doi.org/10.3238/arztebl.2017.0681.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

35.

Beaton DE, Bombardier C, Guillemin F, Ferraz MB. Guidelines for the process of cross-cultural adaptation of self-report measures. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2000;25:3186–91.CrossRef

36.

Dworkin RH, Turk DC, Farrar JT, Haythornthwaite JA, Jensen MP, Katz NP, et al. Core outcome measures for chronic pain clinical trials: IMMPACT recommendations. Pain. 2005;113:9–19.CrossRef

37.

Dworkin RH, Turk DC, Wyrwich KW, Beaton D, Cleeland CS, Farrar JT, et al. Interpreting the clinical importance of treatment outcomes in chronic pain clinical trials: IMMPACT recommendations. J Pain. 2008;9:105–21.CrossRef

38.

Flor H, Rudy TE, Birbaumer N, Streit B, Schugens MM. Zur Anwendbarkeit des West Haven-Yale Multidimensional Pain Inventory im deutschen Sprachraum - Daten zur Reliabilität und Validität des MPI-D. Schmerz. 1990;4:82–7.CrossRef

39.

Radbruch L, Loick G, Kiencke P, Lindena G, Sabatowski R, Grond S, et al. Validation of the German version of the brief pain inventory. J Pain Symptom Manag. 1999;18:180–7.CrossRef

40.

Gräfe K, Zipfel S, Herzog W, Löwe B. Screening psychischer störungen mit dem “Gesundheitsfragebogen für Patienten (PHQ-D)”. Ergebnisse der Deutschen validierungsstudie. Diagnostica. 2004;50:171–81.CrossRef

41.

Löwe B, Decker O, Müller S, Brähler E, Schellberg D, Herzog W, et al. Validation and standardization of the generalized anxiety disorder screener (GAD-7) in the general population. Med Care. 2008;46:266–74 https://insights.ovid.com/pubmed?pmid=18388841. Accessed 16 Sep 2017.CrossRef

42.

Spitzer RL, Kroenke K, Williams JB, Löwe B. A brief measure for assessing generalized anxiety disorder. Arch Intern Med. 2006;166:1092–7.CrossRef

43.

Rief W, Nanke A, Klaiberg A, Braehler E. Base rates for panic and depression according to the brief patient health questionnaire: a population-based study. J Affect Disord. 2004;82:271–6.CrossRef

44.

Luo X, Lynn George M, Kakouras I, Edwards CL, Pietrobon R, Richardson W, et al. Reliability, Validity, and Responsiveness of the Short Form 12-Item Survey (SF-12) in Patients With Back Pain. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2003;28:1739–45. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.BRS.0000083169.58671.96.CrossRef

45.

Bond FW, Hayes SC, Baer RA, Carpenter KM, Guenole N, Orcutt HK, et al. Preliminary psychometric properties of the acceptance and action questionnaire-II: a revised measure of psychological inflexibility and experiential avoidance. Behav Ther. 2011;42:676–88. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.beth.2011.03.007.CrossRefPubMed

46.

Hoyer J, Gloster AT. Psychologische Flexibilität messen: Der Fragebogen zu Akzeptanz und Handeln II. Verhaltenstherapie. 2013;23:42–4.CrossRef

47.

Nilges P, Köster B, Schmidt CO. Schmerzakzeptanz - Konzept und Überprüfung einer deutschen Fassung des Chronic Aain Acceptance Questionnaire. Schmerz. 2007;21:57–67.CrossRef

48.

Bailey RW, Vowles KE, Witkiewitz K, Sowden G, Ashworth J. Examining committed action in chronic pain: further validation and clinical utility of the committed action questionnaire. J Pain. 2016;17(10):1095–104.CrossRef

49.

Åkerblom S, Perrin S, Fischer MR, McCracken LM. A validation and generality study of the committed action questionnaire in a Swedish sample with chronic pain. Int J Behav Med. 2016;23:260–70. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12529-016-9539-x.CrossRefPubMed

50.

Hu LT, Bentler PM. Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Struct Equ Model. 1999;6:1–55.CrossRef

51.

Mîndrilã D. Maximum likelihood (ML) and diagonally wighted least squares (DWLS) estimation procedures: a comparison of estimation bias with ordinal and multivariate non-normal data. Int J Digit Soc. 2010;1:60–6.CrossRef

52.

Li C-H. The performance of ML, DWLS, and ULS estimation with robust corrections in structural equation models with ordinal variables. Psychol Methods. 2016;21:369–87. https://doi.org/10.1037/met0000093.CrossRefPubMed

53.

van der Ark LA. Mokken scale analysis in R. J Stat Softw. 2007;20:183–208. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11336-007-9034-z.CrossRef

54.

Mokken RJ. A theory and procedure of scale analysis : with applications in political research. Mouton; 1971.CrossRef

55.

van der Ark LA. New Developments in Mokken Scale Analysis in R. 2012;48:1–27 https://www.jstatsoft.org/article/view/v048i05.

56.

Sijtsma K, van der Ark LA. A tutorial on how to do a Mokken scale analysis on your test and questionnaire data. Br J Math Stat Psychol. 2017;70:137–58.CrossRef

57.

Chou YH, Lee CP, Liu CY, Hung CI. Construct validity of the depression and somatic symptoms scale: evaluation by Mokken scale analysis. Neuropsychiatr Dis Treat. 2017;13:205–11.CrossRef

58.

Molenaar IW, Sijtsma K. User’s manual MSP5 for windows. Software manual. IEC ProGAMMA: Groningen; 2000.

59.

Cronbach LJ. Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika. 1951;16:297–334. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02310555.CrossRef

60.

Molenaar IW, Sijtsma K. Mokken’s approach to reliability estimation extended to multicategory items. Kwant Methoden. 1988;9:115–26.

61.

Sijtsma K, Molenaar IW. Reliability of test scores in nonparametric item response theory. Psychometrika. 1987;52:79–97 https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/BF02293957.pdf. Accessed 1 Dec 2017.CrossRef

62.

Guttman L. A basis for analyzing test-retest reliability. Psychometrika. 1945;10:255–82 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21007983. Accessed 1 Dec 2017.CrossRef

63.

van der Ark LA, van der Palm DW, Sijtsma K. A latent class approach to estimating test-score reliability. Appl Psychol Meas. 2011;35:380–92. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146621610392911.CrossRef

64.

McNeish D. Thanks coefficient alpha, we’ll take it from here. Psychol Methods. 2018;23:412–33.CrossRef

65.

Dunn TJ, Baguley T, Brunsden V. From alpha to omega: a practical solution to the pervasive problem of internal consistency estimation. Br J Psychol. 2014;105:399–412. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjop.12046.CrossRefPubMed

66.

Revelle W, Zinbarg R. Coefficients alpha, Beta, omega and GLB: comments on Sijtsma. Psychometrika. 2009;74:145–54 http://personality-project.org/revelle/publications/revelle.zinbarg.08.pdf. Accessed 25 Mar 2017.CrossRef

67.

Zhang Z, Yuan K. Robust Coefficients Alpha and Omega and Confidence Intervals With Outlying Observations and Missing Data : Methods and Software; 2016.CrossRef

68.

R Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing, vol. 0. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing; 2018:{ISBN} 3–900051–07-0. doi:http://www.R-project.org/.

69.

Rosseel Y. Lavaan: an R package for structural equation modeling. J Stat Softw. 2009;30:1–3.

70.

Revelle W. psych: Procedures for Psychological, Psychometric, and Personality Research; 2018.

Title: Further development in the assessment of psychological flexibility: validation of the German committed action questionnaire
Authors: Yannik Terhorst
Harald Baumeister
Lance M. McCracken
Jiaxi Lin
Publication date: 01-12-2020
Publisher: BioMed Central
Published in: Health and Quality of Life Outcomes / Issue 1/2020
Electronic ISSN: 1477-7525
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12955-020-01497-8

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

Springer Medicine

Further development in the assessment of psychological flexibility: validation of the German committed action questionnaire

Abstract

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 1/2020

Cross-cultural adaptation and psychometric properties of the Herth Hope Index in Kinyarwanda: adapting a positive psychosocial tool for healthcare recipients and providers in the Rwandan setting

Comparison of Ferguson’s δ and the Gini coefficient used for measuring the inequality of data related to health quality of life outcomes

Translation, cross-cultural adaptation and validation of the Slovenian version of Harris Hip Score

Assessing quality of life in older adults: psychometric properties of the OPQoL-brief questionnaire in a nursing home population

Cross-cultural adaptation and psychometric evaluation of the Yoruba version of the Back beliefs questionnaire among patients with chronic low-back pain

Utility value estimates in cardiovascular disease and the effect of changing elicitation methods: a systematic literature review