The Acceptance and Action Questionnaire – II: an Item Response Theory Analysis

Abstract

Psychological flexibility is the act of being open to internal experiences while pursuing valued life directions and has been implicated in positive mental health. A lack of psychological flexibility has been implicated in a wide range of mental health problems. In most research, assessment of psychological (in)flexibility has been done with the Acceptance and Action Questionnaire-II (AAQ-II), yet researchers have noted that items on the AAQ-II may not adequately discriminate between responses to experiences and the experiences themselves. Furthermore, little research has examined whether items on the AAQ-II function as intended in terms of assessing psychological (in)flexibility, and whether items function differently across populations. The present study used an item response theory framework to examine item functioning in the AAQ-II across items (within the measure) and across non-distressed student, distressed student, outpatient, and residential samples. The analyses identified differences in functioning between items, with some items being more sensitive to differences in psychological inflexibility. No items performed well in assessing psychological flexibility (as opposed to inflexibility) or positive functioning. Items functioned similarly across samples, yet patterns of responding differed in the non-distressed student versus residential and outpatient samples. Implications for the use of the AAQ-II in clinical and research contexts are discussed.

Psychological inflexibility and intolerance of uncertainty moderate the relationship between social isolation and mental health outcomes during COVID-19

“…Because we used a modified version of the AAQ-II with a restricted scale, our psychological inflexibility findings may have been attenuated, resulting in underestimations of the actual effects. Additionally, there have been recent concerns regarding the item sensitivity and construct validity of the AAQ-II ( Ong et al, 2019 ; Rochefort et al, 2018 ; Tyndall et al, 2019 ). Finally, although measures were taken to exclude careless responses, we cannot be certain that every such case was detected and excluded from the dataset.…”

A review of AAQ variants and other context-specific measures of psychological flexibility

“…Our findings lend support to usage of context-specific AAQs when they exist and have been empirically validated along psychometric dimensions relevant to the study design (e.g., established treatment sensitivity for a clinical trial). Furthermore, although the AAQ-II is thought to be a psychometrically solid measure of general psychological flexibility, limitations with respect to item sensitivity, measurement invariance across samples, and discriminant CONTEXT-SPECIFIC MEASURES OF PSYCHOLOGICAL FLEXIBILITY 11 validity have been noted (Ong, Pierce, Woods, Twohig, & Levin, 2018;Tyndall et al, 2018;Wolgast, 2014). The extent to which the context-specific AAQs share these limitations is unclear and further psychometric investigation is needed to fully evaluate their utility.…”

Digital And Communication Technologies, Automation In Personnel Management

“…In most research, assessment of psychological (in) flexibility has been done with the Acceptance and Action Questionnaire yet researchers have noted that items on the AAQ may not adequately discriminate between responses to experiences and the experiences themselves (Ong, Pierce, Woods, Twohig, & Levin, 2018).…”