Psychometric evaluation of the Brief Experiential Avoidance Questionnaire among treatment-seeking veterans with posttraumatic stress disorder.

Abstract

Objective: The present study aimed to explore the psychometric properties of the Brief Experiential Avoidance Questionnaire (BEAQ) among veterans seeking treatment for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Given that experiential avoidance (EA) is implicated in the development and maintenance of PTSD, it appears to be a possible clinical target for change across treatment. Method: The BEAQ was administered among two samples of military veterans seeking outpatient (n ϭ 179) and residential (n ϭ 257) treatment for PTSD at a Veterans Affairs specialty clinic. The BEAQ is a 15-item self-report measure intended to assess EA, and additional information regarding its psychometric properties is warranted. Results: Descriptive results of the BEAQ in veteran samples are presented. Confirmatory factor analyses of the BEAQ found poor fit in both samples, indicating the BEAQ is not a unidimensional construct, as has been proposed. Conclusions: Future research should consider whether the current structure of the BEAQ is appropriate for measuring EA in veteran samples. Clinical Impact StatementThe current article evaluates the psychometric properties of the Brief Experiential Avoidance Questionnaire. Given that experiential avoidance has been shown to relate to PTSD, valid measures are needed to assess for experiential avoidance in veteran samples. The current study examined the BEAQ in veterans receiving treatment for PTSD and found that while BEAQ scores changed across treatment, factor analysis did not confirm a unidimensional structure, as previously proposed. Suggestions for improving model fit are considered.

Psychometric Properties of the German Brief Experiential Avoidance Questionnaire (BEAQ)

“…Item 6 showed overall poor performances and was thus not included in the factor analyses. Our findings—alongside Byllesby et al’s (2020) who also found that Item 6 showed the lowest loadings in the one-factor CFAs in both clinical populations—would imply that Item 6 could potentially be removed from the BEAQ scoring. Its reverse item formulation may be problematic (Weijters et al, 2013) and future studies should investigate whether Item 6 should be retained in the BEAQ.…”

“…In this study, the BEAQ's factor structure was explored in two treatment seeking veteran samples (N = 179 and 257). The veterans in this study seemed considerably more avoidant (M = 66.7-68.8) than the samples in the original validation study (M = 52.02-56.41 for the patient samples and M = 43.33-49.37 for the nonclinical samples; Byllesby et al, 2020;Gámez et al, 2014). In the confirmatory factor analyses (CFA), the one-factor model fit was poor and three items did not significantly load on the factor (Items 4, 6, and 7 and Items 1, 3, and 6).…”

“…With regard to the BEAQ’s factor structure, the authors concluded based on scree plot examination that one general factor best described the data across three study phases (Gámez et al, 2014). However, a recent investigation of the BEAQ questioned the BEAQ’s unidimensionality (Byllesby et al, 2020). In this study, the BEAQ’s factor structure was explored in two treatment seeking veteran samples ( N = 179 and 257).…”

Evaluating Mechanisms: Mapping Weekly Dynamics between Experiential Avoidance and SAD Symptoms

“…Fourth, we used the BEAQ to evaluate changes in EA, because it has been recommended over other widely-used measures due its excellent construct, convergent, and discriminant validity (Rochefort et al, 2018;Tyndall et al, 2019). However, the BEAQ has been criticized for 1) using items related to behavioral (vs. internal) avoidance (Tyndall et al, 2019), and 2) demonstrating poor fit in certain samples (e.g., treatment-seeking veterans; Byllesby et al, 2020).…”