Psychometric Evaluation of the Psychological Flexibility Scale for Adolescents
Objective : To examine psychometric properties of Psychological Flexibility Scale for
Method : The samples were 312 high school students. For validity, confirmatory factor
analysis (CFA) was utilized for factorial validation. Concurrent validity was assessed as
correlation with Acceptance and action questionnaire (AAQ-II). Moreover, nomological
network with depression and mindfulness was investigated. For reliability, Cronbach’s
alpha coefficients and ω coefficients were estimated.
Result : The findings suggested that the 6-factor model of the PFSA demonstrated good
factor structures (χ2= 510.818, df = 309, p < .001, χ2/df = 1.653, CFI = .952, RMSEA =
.046). Moreover, it was found that psychological flexibility score was associated with
depression and mindfulness in accordance with theoretical expectation. In addition,
the PFSA demonstrated good internal reliabilities (Cronbach’s α ranged from .603 to
.790 and full-scale reliability at .897; ω reliability coefficients ranged from .634 to .847,
and full-scale reliability at .937)
Conclusion : The findings supported that the Psychological Flexibility Scale for
Adolescents is psychometrically sound questionnaire, which can be used for assessing
psychological flexibility in adolescents.
Hayes SC, Strosahl KD, Wilson KG. Acceptance and commitment therapy: The process and practice of mindful change. 2nd ed. New York: Guilford Press; 2012.
Halliburton AE, Cooper LD. Applications and adaptations of acceptance and commitment therapy (ACT) for adolescents. J Contextual Behav Sci [internet]. 2015[cited 2018 Jan 3]; 4:1-11. doi:10.1016/j.jcbs.2015.01.002.
Livheim F, Hayes L, Ghaderi A, Magnusdottir T, Hogfeldt A, Rowse, A, et al. The effectiveness of acceptance and commitment therapy for adolescent mental health: Swedish and Australian pilot outcomes. J Child Fam Stud 2015; 24: 1016-30. doi:10.1007/s10826-014- 9912-9.
Bond FW, Hayes SC, Baer RA, Carpenter KM, Guenole N, Orcutt HK, et al. Preliminary psychometric properties of the Acceptance and Action Questionnaire-II: revised measure of psychological inflexibility and experiential avoidance. Behav Ther [internet]. 2011[cited 2018 Sep 7]; 42:676-88. Available from: http:// contextualscience.org/acbs.
Noiphon W, Phromuthai N. Reliability and validity of Acceptance and Action Questionnaire-II (Thai version) among depression patients. [internet]. 2017 [cited 2018 Feb 28]. Available from: http://aimhc.net/new/_admin/download/ -290-1501753396.pdf.
Rolffs JL, Rogge RD, Wilson KG. Disentangling components of flexibility via the Hexaflex Model: development and validation of the Multidimensional Psychological Flexibility Inventory (MPFI). Assessment. 2016; 1-25. doi:10.1177/1073191116645905.
Greco LA, Lambert W, Baer RA. Psychological inflexibility in childhood and adolescence: development and evaluation of the Avoidance and Fusion Questionnaire for Youth. Psychol Assess 2008; 20: 93-102. doi: 10.1037/1040- 35220.127.116.11.
Rochefort C, Baldwin AS, Chmielewski M. Experiential avoidance: an examination of the construct validity of the AAQ-II and MEAQ. Behav Ther 2018; 49:435-49. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.beth.2017.08.008.
Wolgast M. What does the Acceptance and Action Questionnaire (AAQ-II) really measure?. Behav Ther 2014; 45:831-9. doi: 0005-7894/ 45/831-839/$1.00/0.
Sannarin T. Development and psychometric evaluation of the Psychological Flexibility Scale for Adolescents: A pilot study. Thai Journal of Clinical Psychology 2019; 1-10.
Hair J, Black WC, Babin BJ, Anderson RE. Multivariate Data Analysis. 7th ed. Edinburg: Pearson; 2014.
Trangkasombat U, Lapboonsap W, Hawanon P. Using CES-D (Thai version) for screening depression in adolescents. Journal of the Psychiatric Association of Thailand [internet]. 1997 [cited 2018 Mar 28]; 42:2-13. Available from: https://www.tci-thaijo.org.
Silpakit C, Silpakit O, Wisajun P. The validity of Philadephia Mindfulness Scale Thai version. Journal of Mental Health of Thailand 2011; 19:140-47.
Nunnally CJ, Bernstein HI. Psychometric theory. 3rd ed. New York: McGraw Hill; 1994.
Christodoulou A, Michaelides M, Karekla M. Network analysis: a new psychometric approach to examine the underlying ACT model components. J Contextual Behav Sci 2019; 12: 285-9. Available from: https://doi. org/10.1016/j.jcbs.2018.10.002.
Levin ME, MacLane C, Daflos S, Seeley JR, Hayes SC, Biglan A, et al. Examining psychological inflexibility as a transdiagnostic process across psychological disorders. J Contextual Behav Sci 2014; 3: 155-63. doi:10.1016/j.jcbs. 2014.06.003.
Stabbe OK, Rolffs JL, Rogge RD. Flexibly and/or inflexibly embracing life: identifying fundamental approaches to life with latent profile analyses on the dimensions of the Hexaflex model. J Con¬textual Behav Sci 2019; 12: 106-18. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcbs. 2019.03.003.
Zettle RD, Gird SR, Webster BK, Carrasquillo- Richardson N, Swails JA, Burdsal CA. The self-as-context scale: development and preliminary psychometric properties. J Contextual Behav Sci 2018; 10:64-74. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j. jcbs.2018.08.010.
Eisenbeck N, Szabó-Bartha A. Validation of the Hungarian version of the Acceptance and Action Questionnaire-II (AAQ-II). J Contextual Behav Sci 2018; 9:80-7. Available from: https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.jcbs.2018.07.007.
Levin ME, Krafft J, Pistorello J, Seeley JR. Assessing psychological inflexibility in univer¬sity students: Development and validation of the acceptance and action questionnaire for university students (AAQ-US). J Contextual Behav Sci 2019; 12:199-206. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcbs.2018.03.004.
Renshaw TL. Probing the relative psychometric validity of three measures of psychological inflexibility. J Contextual Behav Sci 2018; 7:47- 54. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j. jcbs.2017.12.001.
Gámez W, Chmielewski M, Kotov R, Ruggero C, Watson D. Development of a measure of experiential avoidance: the Multidimensional Experiential Avoidance Questionnaire. Psychol Assess 2011; 23; 692-713. doi: 10.1037/ a0023242.
MacAndrew Z, Richardson J, Stopa L. Psychometric properties of acceptance measures: a systematic review. J Contextual Behav Sci2019; 12:261-77. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcbs.2018.08.006.
Ong CW, Pierce BG, Wood DW, Twohig MP, Levin ME. The Acceptance and Action Questionnaire - II: an Item Response Theory Analysis. J Psychopathol Behav Assess. 2019; 41:123-34. Available from https://doi.org/ 10.1007/s10862-018-9694-2.
Tyndall I, Waldeck D, Pancani L, Whelan R, Roach B, Dawson DL. The Acceptance and Action Questionnaire-II (AAQ-II) as a measure of experiential avoidance: concerns over discriminant validity. J Contextual Behav Sci 2019; 12:278-84. Available from: https://doi. org/10.1016/j.jcbs.2018.09.005.
Ong CW, Lee EB, Levin ME, Twohig MP. A review of AAQ variants and other context-specific measures of psychological flexibilityJ Contextual Behav Sci 2019; 12:329-46. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcbs. 2019.02.007.
Swan J, Hancock K, Dixon A, Bowman J. Acceptance and Commitment Therapy for children: a systematic review of intervention studies. J Contextual Behav Sci 2015; 4:73-85. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j. jcbs.2015.02.001.
Harris R. The happiness trap: how to stop struggling and start living: a guide to ACT. Boston, MA: Trumpeter; 2008.
Puolakanaho A, Tolvanen A, Kinnunen SM, Lappalainen R. Burnout-related ill-being at work: associations between mindfulness and acceptance skills, worksite factors, and experienced well-being in life. J Contextual Behav Sci2018; 10:92-102. Available from https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcbs.2018.09.003.