An Examination of the Factor Structure of the Multidimensional Psychological Flexibility Inventory

Abstract

The Multidimensional Psychological Flexibility Inventory (MPFI), a 60-item self-report measure, assesses the Acceptance and Commitment Therapy Hexaflex. The factor structure of the MPFI was examined in this study. In a community sample of adults ( N = 827), four models (correlated six-factor, one-factor, higher order, and bifactor) were tested for each of the constructs of interest (i.e., psychological flexibility and psychological inflexibility). All models, with the exception of the one-factor, provided adequate fit to the data. Differences between the three adequate fitting models were trivial in magnitude. Additional statistical indices from the bifactor models indicated that the general factors accounted for the large majority of reliable variance. The majority of the domain-specific factors evidenced redundancy with their respective general factors. Results from a series of structural regressions indicated that the domain-specific factors did not provide additional incremental utility above and beyond the general factors in predicting two relevant clinical constructs (i.e., health anxiety and depression). These results provide support for the use of the MPFI Flexibility and Inflexibility total scores, but not subscale scores. The MPFI may require further refinement to either greatly reduce the length of the measure, or to ensure that subscales have incremental utility.

The Iranian form of psychometric properties of the Multidimensional Psychological Flexibility Inventory

“…Higher scores on experiential avoidance, lack of contact with present moment, self as content, fusion, lack of contact with values, and inaction were positively associated with higher levels of anxiety, stress, and depressive symptoms. These results are in line with findings from previous research on the MPFI-60 (Landi, Pakenham, Giovannetti, et al, 2021;Lin et al, 2020;Rogge et al, 2019;Rolffs et al, 2018;Stabbe et al, 2019;Thomas et al, 2021). Moreover, scores on the global psychological flexibility and its subscale were positively associated with higher scores on self-compassion.…”

“…The results of quantitative content validity also showed acceptable content validity of the MPFI-60 items. Confirmatory factor analysis, consistent with previous psychometric work (Landi, Pakenham, Giovannetti, et al, 2021;Lin et al, 2020;Rolffs et al, 2018;Seidler et al, 2020;Thomas et al, 2021) and the Hexaflex model (Hayes et al, 1999(Hayes et al, , 2012, yielded a second-order factor structure consisting of six first-order factors for psychological flexibility (i.e., acceptance, present moment awareness, self as context, defusion, values, and committed action) and six first-order factors for psychological inflexibility (i.e., experiential avoidance, lack of contact with present moment, self as content, fusion, lack of contact with values, and inaction). The factor loading values of all indicators were above 0.5 (ranging from 0.51 to 0.89), so they all remained on the scale.…”

“…A subsequent replication study by Seidler et al (2020) confirmed the second-order factor structure of the MPFI with two general factors (i.e., psychological flexibility and inflexibility) and 12 subscales. In another study, Thomas et al (2021) examined the factor structure of the MPFI in a large sample of community adults and found support for the higher-order model of MPFI scale. In addition, assessment of the psychometric properties of an Italian version of the MPFI in a sample of 1587 respondents revealed a second-order factor structure for this scale with good internal consistency (a = 0.85 to a = 0.94) and measurement invariance within different age, gender, and mental health status groups.…”

“…Despite the multidimensional nature of the Hexaflex model, most of the aforementioned studies on the effectiveness of ACT interventions and correlational research on psychological flexibility/inflexibility relied on unidimensional scales, including the Acceptance and Action Questionnaire (AAQ; Hayes et al, 2004), the Acceptance and Action Questionnaire-II (AAQ-II; Bond et al, 2011) and the Brief Experiential Avoidance Questionnaire (BEAQ; Gámez et al, 2014). These scales assess global levels of psychological inflexibility and failed to capture the specific dimensions of the Hexaflex model (Lin et al, 2020;Rolffs et al, 2018;Thomas et al, 2021). Moreover, most items in the above scales are negatively worded to assess psychological inflexibility, and the reversed item scores are used as a measure of psychological flexibility (Rogge et al, 2019).…”

“…Several multidimensional measures have been developed to assess the specific components of the Hexaflex model of psychological flexibility, including the Multidimensional Experiential Avoidance Questionnaire (MEAQ; Gámez et al, 2011), the Five Facet Mindfulness Questionnaire (FFMQ; Baer et al, 2006), the Self-Compassion Scale (SCS; Neff, 2003), and the Comprehensive Assessment of ACT Processes (CompACT; Francis et al, 2016). Although these multidimensional scales offer the possibility of more accurate measurement of psychological flexibility and inflexibility, they were developed from different conceptual perspectives and focus on some components of the Hexaflex model rather than attempting to comprehensively assess all dimensions of this model (Rolffs et al, 2018;Stabbe et al, 2019;Thomas et al, 2021). The MPFI-60 is the only measure developed in accordance with the Hexaflex model to assess each of the 12 dimensions of psychological flexibility and inflexibility separately (Rolffs et al, 2018).…”