Assessing Psychological Flexibility: What Does It Add Above and Beyond Existing Constructs?
Assessing Psychological Flexibility: What Does It Add Above and Beyond Existing Constructs?
复制标题
DOI：
10.1037/a0024135
复制
发表时间：
2011-12-01
影响因子：
3.6
通讯作者：
Hoyer, Juergen
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Gloster, Andrew T.;Klotsche, Jens;Hoyer, Juergen
心理灵活性（PF）是接受与承诺治疗的核心概念。它被定义为作为一个有意识的人充分接触当前时刻，并坚持或改变行为以服务于所选择的价值观的过程。PF被认为是健康心理功能的一个重要方面。尽管其潜在的重要性，从其他结构的PF的独特性还没有得到充分的证明，和心理测量评估的措施，旨在评估它是有限的。本研究的目的是扩大目前的知识PF的结构，在2个寻求帮助的样本，包括惊恐障碍与广场恐怖症（n = 368），临床相关的社交恐惧症（n = 209），和2个非临床样本，包括学生（n = 495）和个人访问就业办公室（n = 95）。所有样本的结果表明，PF，作为衡量的接受和行动问卷（第二版; AAQ-II），是一个单一的结构与1因素模型。PF与其他变量的相关性在很大程度上与预测一致，将患者与健康对照区分开来，并显示出治疗敏感性的初步迹象。增量有效性部分证明，特别是指数的功能。令人惊讶的是，PF还解释了独特的方差以上更既定的措施，一些指标的神经病学。结果表明，PF增加了一些增量的临床有效性，但需要进一步和更严格的测试，以充分阐明其优势和局限性。
The construct of psychological flexibility (PF) is a central concept in acceptance and commitment therapy. It is defined as the process of contacting the present moment fully as a conscious human being and persisting in or changing behavior in the service of chosen values. PF is hypothesized to be an important aspect of healthy psychological functioning. Despite its potential importance, the distinctness of PF from other constructs has not been adequately demonstrated, and psychometric evaluations of measures designed to assess it are limited. This study aimed at extending current knowledge about PF by examining the construct in 2 help-seeking samples, including panic disorder with agoraphobia (n = 368), clinically relevant social phobia (n = 209), and 2 nonclinical samples including students (n = 495) and individuals visiting an employment office (n = 95). Results across all samples indicate that PF, as measured by the Acceptance and Action Questionnaire (2nd version; AAQ-II), is a unitary construct with a 1 factor model. PF correlated with other variables largely consistent with predictions, differentiated patients from healthy controls, and showed preliminary indications of treatment sensitivity. Incremental validity was partially demonstrated, especially for indices of functioning. Surprisingly, PF also explained unique variance above more established measures for some indices of symptomatology. Results suggest that PF adds some incremental clinical validity, yet further and more stringent tests are required to fully elucidate its strengths and limitations.