Ong, C,.W., Sheehan, K.G., Haaga, D.A.F. (2023) Measuring ACT in context: Challenges and future directions. Journal of Contextual Behavioral Science, 28, 235-247. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcbs.2023.04.005

Measures Reviewed: CompACT, CFQ, PPFI, Psy-Flex, IRAP, ELS, Values Wheel, VLQ, MPFI, EPIC, OESQ, TOF, GPQ, PBAT, ACT-FM, AAQ-II and AAQ variants

Abstract: Measurement in acceptance and commitment therapy (ACT) should prioritize theoretically relevant outcomes (well-being, values-consistent action) and hypothesized processes of change (psychological flexibility and its components). Development and refinement of ACT measures have proceeded rapidly and with some success. This review describes empirical research on such issues as measurement invariance in diverse samples and identifies challenges associated with measurement of key ACT constructs such as psychological (in)flexibility and values. Important priorities for future research include continued evaluation of discriminant validity of psychological inflexibility measures from general distress as well as more frequent incorporation of multiple assessment modalities including non-self-report methods. Recommendations for ACT measurement in clinical practice include anchoring assessment in values and personalizing assessment to the client.

Ong, C.W., Barthel, A.L., & Hofmann, S.G. (2023). The Relationship Between Psychological Inflexibility and Well-Being in Adults: A Meta-Analysis of the Acceptance and Action Questionnaire. Behavior Therapy. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.beth.2023.05.007

Measures Reviewed: AAQ and its variants

Abstract

Psychological inflexibility is defined as the rigid responding to stimuli (e.g., unpleasant thoughts and feelings) that interferes with well-being and valued actions. It is the treatment target in acceptance and commitment therapy (ACT). Despite the centrality of the link between inflexibility and well-being to ACT theory, an empirical review clarifying the nature of this relationship has not been conducted. As such, the current meta-analysis examined the meta-correlation between psychological inflexibility, measured by the Acceptance and Action Questionnaire (AAQ) and its variants, and well-being. A systematic review yielded 151 studies, including 25 versions of the AAQ and 43 well-being measures. Consistent with ACT theory, higher psychological inflexibility was associated with worse well-being (r = −.47, 95% CI[−.49, −.45]). In addition, sample diagnosis, type of AAQ, and type of well-being measure significantly moderated this relationship. Overall, our findings support the hypothesized link between psychological inflexibility and worse well-being. Limitations include reliance on cross-sectional data, precluding causal interpretation.

Discussion

The present meta-analysis examined the relationship between psychological inflexibility, measured by the AAQ and its variants, and well-being, variously defined as quality of life, life satisfaction/flourishing, and valued action. Based on 262 correlation coefficients reported from 151 studies across over 35 countries and 22 languages, the overall correlation between psychological inflexibility and well-being was −.47, 95% CI[−.49, −.45]...

Spencer, S.D., Jo, D., Hamagami, F., Antonio, M.C.K., Qinaʻau, J., Masuda, A., & Hishinuma, E.S. (2022). A psychometric validation of contextual cognitive behavioral therapy-informed measures with racially and ethnically diverse adults. Journal of Contextual Behavioral Science, 25, 61-72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcbs.2022.06.004

Measures Reviewed: FFMQ, ELS, and AAQ-II

Abstract

The Five Facet Mindfulness Questionnaire (FFMQ), Engaged Living Scale (ELS), and Acceptance and Action Questionnaire-II (AAQ-II) are three commonly used contextual cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT)-informed self-report questionnaires. The present study aimed to psychometrically validate these three scales with racially and ethnically diverse adults in Hawaiʻi (N = 1102). Using a cross-validation strategy with an iterative process of exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses, findings revealed that factor structures of the FFMQ, ELS, and AAQ-II were theoretically consistent with extant literature. However, we also found slight factorial structure differences in the present sample, which may have practical implications when assessing these constructs within racially and ethnically diverse adults. Evidence of reliability, convergent validity, and measurement invariance of these scales are also provided. Implications and limitations of these findings are discussed.

Aller T.B., Barrett, T., Levin, M.E., Brunson McClain, M. (2022). Measuring psychological flexibility in autistic adults: Examining the validity and reliability of the AAQ-II, BEAQ, and VQ. Journal of Contextual Behavioral Science, 26, 125-133. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcbs.2022.09.001

Measures Reviewed: AAQ-II, BEAQ, and VQ

Abstract:

Autistic adults, adults who have an autism spectrum disorder diagnosis, are more likely than their non-autistic peers to experience mental health concerns. A growing body of literature supports interventions that target psychological flexibility as a useful approach for reducing mental health concerns in autistic adults. Despite this, psychometric evidence on measuring psychological flexibility within this population is scant. Accordingly, we determined the validity and reliability of the Acceptance and Action Questionnaire-II (AAQ-II), Brief Experiential Avoidance Questionnaire (BEAQ), and Valuing Questionnaire (VQ) in measuring psychological flexibility in a sample of 461 autistic adults. Each of the measures demonstrated consistent factor structures and internal consistency as was proposed in the original measurement development articles. Convergent, discriminant, and explanatory validity of the AAQ-II, BEAQ, and VQ aligned with a priori hypotheses. The AAQ-II, BEAQ and VQ obstruction subscale demonstrated redundancy in one another suggesting the benefits of selecting a single measure of psychological flexibilty for research. The VQ Progress subscale demonstrated more explanatory validity for key mental health outcomes compared to the other measures. Overall, the VQ scale might be the most useful of the three measures in measuring psychological flexibility in autistic adults in clinical settings, but each included scale appeared reliable and valid for this population.

Cherry, K.M., Vander Hoeven, E., Patterson, T.S., & Lumley, M.N. (2021). Defining and measuring “psychological flexibility”: A narrative scoping review of diverse flexibility and rigidity constructs and perspectives. Clinical Psychology Review, 84, 101973. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0272735821000167

12 measures were reviewed including the AAQ-II and PPFI.

Abstract:

Psychological flexibility (PF) is a popular construct in clinical psychology. However, similar constructs have existed since the mid-20th century, resulting in different terms, definitions and measures of flexibility, hindering the advancement of the field. The main measure of PF – the Acceptance and Action Questionnaire (AAQ-II; Bond et al., 2011) – has also been heavily criticized. To move towards definitional consensus and improved measurement, we surveyed the literature to map PF and related-terms, examine definitional overlaps, and assessthe psychometric quality of prominent flexibility measures. A scoping review was conducted in two databases (PsycNET and SCOPUS). Twenty-three flexibility constructs appeared across 220 articles, and twelve measures were included and rated for quality. PF, psychological inflexibility (PI), and cognitive flexibility (CF) were most prominent. Definitional similarities among prominent flexibility constructs emerged, namely handling distress or interference, taking action, and meeting goals or values. The Personalized Psychological Flexibility Index (PPFI; Kashdan, Disabato, Goodman, Doorley, & McKnight, 2020) appears to be the best measure available to assess PF. Problems with the current use of the AAQ-II were apparent, hindering current knowledge of PF. Definitional consensus and measurement development are vital to advance the field. To this end, recommendations and next steps for researchers and practitioners are outlined.

Borgogna, N.C., McDermott, R.C., Berry, A., Lathan, E.C., & Gonzales, J. (2020).  A multicultural examination of experiential avoidance: AAQ – II measurement comparisons across Asian American, Black, Latinx, Middle Eastern, and White college students. Journal of Contextual Behavioral Science, 16, 1-8.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcbs.2020.01.011

Measures reviewed: AAQ – II

Abstract

Experiential avoidance is a common psychological process, a core component of third-wave behavioral therapies, and a robust predictor of general psychopathology. The Acceptance and Action Questionnaire (AAQ version II [AAQ – II]; Bond et al. 2011) is a popular and widely used measure of experiential avoidance. However, studies examining the measurement and function of the AAQ-II across cultures are largely relegated to translational investigations across different languages, thus providing little information about measurement equivalence among English speaking populations from different racial/ethnic backgrounds. The present study examined data from the 2016–2017 National Healthy Minds Study (HMS; N = 24,439) and tested the measurement invariance of the AAQ – II across White, Black, Latinx, Asian American, and Middle Eastern college students. We then examined how racial/ethnic group moderated experiential avoidance as a concurrent predictor of anxiety and depression. Multigroup structural equation modeling indicated support for configural but not metric measurement invariance across all groups. The effect size of the non-invariance was small in magnitude. The AAQ – II functioned as a strong positive correlate of anxiety and depression measures across racial/ethnic groups. Moderation analyses further indicated that the AAQ-II was a significantly stronger predictor of anxiety and depression for White participants (β′s = .717, .738 respectively) compared to Asian American participants (β′s = 0.671, 0.665 respectively) and was a significantly stronger predictor of anxiety for White participants compared to Latinx respondents (β = 0.662). Implications for research, theory, and clinical practice are discussed, with specific recommendations for culturally informed adaptations to the AAQ – II.

A psychometric comparison of psychological inflexibility measures: Discriminant validity and item performance

Ong, C.W., Pierce, B.G., Petersen, J.M., Barney, J.L., Fruge, J.E., Levin, M.E., & Twohig, M.P. (2020). A psychometric comparison of psychological inflexibility measures: Discriminant validity and item performance. Journal of Contextual Behavioral Science, 18, 34-47. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcbs.2020.08.007

Measures Reviewed: AAQ-II, AAQ-3 (revised AAQ-II), BEAQ, and CompACT

Abstract: 

Psychological inflexibility is a rigid behavioral pattern that interferes with engagement in personally meaningful activities; it is the hypothesized root of suffering in acceptance and commitment therapy (ACT). Thus, the quality of its measurement affects the research, theory, and practice of ACT. The current study aimed to evaluate the discriminant validity and item performance of four measures of psychological inflexibility: the Acceptance and Action Questionnaire—II (AAQ-II), a revised version of the AAQ-II (AAQ-3), the Brief Experiential Avoidance Questionnaire (BEAQ), and the Comprehensive assessment of Acceptance and Commitment Therapy processes (CompACT). We analyzed data from community (n = 253), student (n = 261), and treatment-seeking samples (n = 140) using exploratory factor analysis and multigroup graded-response models. The CompACT had the strongest discriminant validity followed by the AAQ-3, whereas items in the CompACT Behavioral Awareness and Valued Action subscales performed most consistently across groups. No single measure emerged as clearly superior to others; rather, appropriate selection of measures depends on the goals and context of assessment. Scientific and clinical implications are discussed.

In the Journal of Contextual Behavioral Science Volume 12, Maria Karekla and Nuno Ferreira guest edited the Special Issue on ACT Process Measurement.  ACBS members can read the Special Issue on ACT Process Measurement in the JCBS portal.

The JCBS Special Issue on ACT Process Measurement contains 16 articles:

• A review of AAQ variants and other context-specific measures of psychological flexibility
• A systematic review of values measures in acceptance and commitment therapy research
• Assessing psychological flexibility: Validation of the Open and Engaged State Questionnaire
• Assessing psychological inflexibility in hoarding: The Acceptance and Action Questionnaire for Hoarding (AAQH)
• Assessing psychological inflexibility in university students: Development and validation of the acceptance and action questionnaire for university students (AAQ-US)
• Assessing the valuing process in Acceptance and Commitment Therapy: Experts' review of the current status and recommendations for future measure development
• Development and initial validation of the Generalized Pliance Questionnaire
• Further validation of the Chronic Pain Acceptance Questionnaire for Adolescents in a broader paediatric context
• Network analysis: A new psychometric approach to examine the underlying ACT model components
• Preliminary psychometric properties of the Everyday Psychological Inflexibility Checklist
• Preliminary validation and reliability assessment of a 10-item Tacting of Function Scale
• Psychometric properties of acceptance measures: A systematic review
• Psychometric properties of the Avoidance and Fusion Questionnaire – Youth in Colombia
• Scaling-up assessment from a contextual behavioral science perspective: Potential uses of technology for analysis of unstructured text data
• The Acceptance and Action Questionnaire-II (AAQ-II) as a measure of experiential avoidance: Concerns over discriminant validity
• The initial validation of a state version of the Cognitive Fusion Questionnaire
   

Ong, C. W., Lee, E.B., Levin, M.E., & Twohig, M.T. (2019). A review of AAQ variants and other context-specific measures of psychological flexibility. Journal of Contextual Behavioral Science, 12, 329-346. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcbs.2019.02.007

Measures Reviewed: AAQ-II and AAQ-II variants, 6-PAQ, BIPIS, CPAQ, PPF

Abstract:

Psychological flexibility refers to a way of interacting with internal experiences and the external environment that advances one toward chosen values whereas psychological inflexibility reflects rigid adherence to ineffective responses such that valued living is compromised. Psychological flexibility is a critical variable of interest in acceptance and commitment therapy, thus, accurate assessment of this construct is pertinent to professionals in the field. Numerous measures of psychological flexibility for specific conditions exist and the psychometric validation of each of these measures varies in breadth and depth. To orient professionals to the scope of available measures as well as their psychometric properties, the current review summarizes the existing literature on context-specific measures of psychological flexibility. Most measures demonstrated satisfactory basic psychometric properties, though their clinical utility (e.g., treatment sensitivity) has largely been underexplored. Generally, context-specific measures performed better than a generic measure of psychological flexibility with respect to incremental validity and treatment sensitivity. Still, further research is needed to validate these measures (e.g., discriminant validity) in order to justify their use across settings and study designs.

Reilly, E. D., Ritzert, T. R., Scoglio, A. A. J., Mote, J., Fukuda, S. D., Ahern, M. E., & Kelly, M. M. (2019). A systematic review of values measures in acceptance and commitment therapy research. Journal of Contextual Behavioral Science, 12, 290-304. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcbs.2018.10.004

Measures Reviewed: BEVS, CPVI, ELS, VLS, VLQ, VQ

Absract:

Values are a guiding principle in Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (ACT), and a vital element of both ACT research and clinical assessment. This systematic review aimed to evaluate the current evidence for the utility and efficacy of quantitative survey measures that assess values within an ACT study framework. Online databases were searched using key words to identify research articles administering values-based assessments. A thorough database search yielded 65 separate articles that met inclusion criteria, and eight validated scales measuring values. Value-scale psychometric studies that met inclusion criteria were assessed for content validity, internal consistency, and construct validity. Results provide information to guide future researchers regarding the most psychometrically sound and appropriate measures that assess values across multiple criteria. While the measures vary significantly in psychometric properties, the Valuing Questionnaire, the Engaged Living Scale (either short or long form), and the Valued Living Scale appear to have the strongest methodological support. Important future directions include further psychometric studies across all measures to assess their utility in more diverse contexts (e.g., randomized controlled trials, time-lagged, and other controlled studies of ACT treatment) and populations (e.g., age, health, race, ethnicity, nationality, etc.) with consideration of a measure's definition of values within an ACT context.

McAndrews, Z., Richardson, J., & Stopa, L. (2019) Psychometric properties of acceptance measures: A systematic review. Journal of Contextual Behavioral Science, 12, 261-277. DOI: 10.1016/j.jcbs.2018.08.006

Measures Reviewed: AAQ, AAQ-II, FFMQ, FFMQ-15, PHLMS, KIMS, DERS, S-DERS, ASQ

Abstract:
Acceptance is an important construct across models for understanding psychological distress. Several measures have been designed to capture this, however, there is a lack of evidence regarding the most suitable tool. The objective of this review was to systematically evaluate measurement properties of tools designed to measure self-reported acceptance. A systematic review of the literature on psychometric properties of acceptance measures was performed. Articles were selected if the primary aim was to develop or evaluate measurement properties (validity, reliability, responsiveness) of a self-report acceptance scale (or subscale). The methodological quality of included studies was evaluated using the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health status Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) checklist. The quality of measurement properties were evaluated using criteria suggested by Terwee et al. (2007). All studies were independently reviewed by two raters, and inter-rater reliability was assessed. The search strategy identified 3097 unique articles. Twenty articles, reporting 32 studies, met inclusion criteria. Nine instruments were identified; two unidimensional scales of acceptance, four mindfulness tools with an acceptance subscale, and three emotion regulation scales with an acceptance-based subscale. None of the instruments were assessed across all domains of psychometric properties. No studies investigated measurement error or cross-cultural validity. Internal consistency was the most widely assessed property, and was generally acceptable across all scales. Lack of target population involvement resulted in poor content validity for most scales. Inter-rater reliability of study selection and evaluation was excellent. There are important conceptual differences across current acceptance measures, which might result from differences in theoretical models on which these are based. None of the measures evaluated can be recommended as having superior psychometric properties. Important limitations in content validity need to be addressed, with greater involvement of target populations. Further research is required to demonstrate the psychometric properties of existing measures, given their significant role in evaluating acceptance-based interventions across clinical and research settings.

Rogge, R.D., Daks, J.S., Dubler, B.A., & Saint, K.J. (2019) It's all about the process: Examining the convergent validity, conceptual coverage, unique predictive validity, and clinical utility of ACT process measures. Journal of Contextual Behavioral Science, 14, 90-102. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcbs.2019.10.001

Measures Reviewed: AAQ-II, CompACT, MPFI, OESQ.

Abstract
The Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (ACT) literature now offers a range of process measures, including: the Acceptance and Action Questionnaire-II (AAQ-II), the Open and Engaged State Questionnaire (OESQ), the Comprehensive Assessment of ACT Processes (CompACT), and the Multidimensional Psychological Flexibility Inventory (MPFI). The current study sought to directly compare and contrast the information provided by those scales: (1) in a sample of 2,385 online respondents (67% female, 85% Caucasian, M = 33yo) and (2) in a case study of a client receiving ACT for a depressive disorder. Quantitative results revealed that all of the flexibility scales were strongly linked to wellbeing whereas the inflexibility scales were strongly linked to psychological distress. The results further highlighted that newer multidimensional scales (the 3-dimension CompACT, the 12-dimension MPFI) offered greater insights into current functioning, often doubling the amount of variance explained by the AAQ-II alone. Both the quantitative analyses and the clinical case study demonstrate the more nuanced and clinically meaningful patterns that emerge when multiple dimensions of flexibility and inflexibility are tracked. In particular, the results suggested the MPFI (and the online MindFlex Assessment System that makes the MPFI easy to administer and interpret) offers researchers and clinicians the most conceptually comprehensive scale to assess the dimensions of the Hexaflex model. Implications for clinical research and practice are discussed.

Barrett, K., O’Connor, M. & McHugh, L. A (2019). Systematic Review of Values-Based Psychometric Tools Within Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (ACT). The Psychological Record, 69, 457–485. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40732-019-00352-7

Measures Reviewed: VQ, ELS, VLQ, MPFI, AAQ-OC, BEVS

Abstract: 

The ACT model consists of acceptance, cognitive defusion, contact with the present moment, self-as-context, values, and committed action, which together create psychological flexibility. Limited research has examined the unique contribution of values-focused work in acceptance-based therapies. To investigate this in a reliable and valid way, it is critical to ensure that the instruments used to measure values are empirically sound. This review aims to identify value-based psychometric tools currently in use, and examine their ability to reliably and validly measure the ACT-defined concept of values. The current study searched PsycINFO, Medline, and PubMed databases for psychometric validation papers of values-measurement instruments. Seventeen values-measures were evaluated by extracting data relating to their content, structural, construct, convergent, and discriminant validity, as well as internal consistency and test–retest reliability. The COSMIN manual for systematic reviews of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) was utilized as a guideline for assessing bias and examining the quality of psychometric tools identified. Outcomes suggest that the Valuing Questionnaire (Smout, Davies, Burns, & Christie, 2014), Engaged Living Scale (Trompetter et al., 2013), Valued Living Questionnaire (Wilson, Sandoz, Kitchens, & Roberts, 2010), Multidimensional Psychological Flexibility Inventory (Rolffs, Rogge, & Wilson, 2018), Acceptance and Action Questionnaire for Obsessions and Compulsions (Jacoby, Abramowitz, Buchholz, Reuman, & Blakey, 2018), and Bulls-Eye Values Survey (Lundgren, Luoma, Dahl, Strosahl, & Melin, 2012) have the best psychometric properties. A number of alternative values-based instruments demonstrate preliminary evidence for their utility, though further examination of these is necessary. This review also highlights a number of issues pertaining to the cohesiveness and psychometric comprehensiveness of current values-measurement research, with recommendations for improvement.

Renshaw, T.L. (2018). Probing the relative psychometric validity of three measures of psychological inflexibility. Journal of Contextual Behavioral Science, 7, 47-54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcbs.2017.12.001

Measures Reviewed: AAQ-II, AFQ-Y8, and AFQ-Y17

Abstract:

The present study probed the relative structural and concurrent validity of responses to three self-report measures of psychological inflexibility with a large sample of college students (N = 797): the revised version of the Acceptance and Action Questionnaire (AAQ-II), the shorter version of the Avoidance and Fusion Questionnaire for Youth (AFQ-Y8), and the longer version of the Avoidance and Fusion Questionnaire for Youth (AFQ-Y17). Structural validity findings showed that responses to the AAQ-II and AFQ-Y8 indicated good data–model fit and latent construct reliability, whereas the data–model fit for responses to the AFQ-Y17 was poor, despite strong latent construct reliability. Concurrent validity findings demonstrated that scores derived from all three measures of psychological inflexibility had comparable correlations with several concurrent indicators of negative mental health (i.e., depression, anxiety, global negative affect), positive mental health (i.e., happiness, hope, global positive affect), and theoretically-similar therapeutic processes (i.e., mindfulness skills). Yet findings from hierarchical regressions evidenced some incremental validity when scores from the AAQ-II, AFQ-Y8, and AFQ-Y17 were taken together to predict concurrent mental health outcomes—suggesting potential differential construct representation among these three measures. Limitations of the present study and future directions for research and practice are discussed.

Goodman, M.S., Madni, L.A. & Semple, R.J. Measuring Mindfulness in Youth: Review of Current Assessments, Challenges, and Future Directions. Mindfulness, 8, 1409–1420 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12671-017-0719-9

7 measures were reviewed including CAMM and MAAS-A

Abstract

Interest in mindfulness-based interventions (MBIs) for youth continues to grow across academic, clinical, educational, and community settings. Conclusions regarding the effects of mindfulness training with youth are tempered by methodological issues. One common limitation is the availability of reliable and valid ways to measure mindfulness. This review identifies existing youth mindfulness measures, discusses key challenges to measurement, and offers suggestions for improving assessment research. A search of electronic databases, consultation with colleagues, and data from professional meetings yielded seven self-report measures: (a) Child and Adolescent Mindfulness Measure (CAMM); (b) Mindful Attention Awareness Scale for Adolescents (MAAS-A); (c) Mindful Attention Awareness Scale for Children (MAAS-C); (d) Comprehensive Inventory of Mindfulness Experiences-Adolescents (CHIME-A); (e) Mindful Thinking and Action Scale for Adolescents (MTASA); (f) Mindfulness Scale for Pre-Teens, Teens, and Adults (MSPTA); and (g) Mindfulness Inventory for Children and Adolescents (MICA). All seven assess trait mindfulness through self-report. We discuss methodological concerns regarding the near-exclusive use of self-report measures to assess youth mindfulness and offer suggestions for validating new measures and improving research studies that incorporate the assessment of mindfulness in youth.

In October 2015 our systematic review on available ACT-measures (+ 50!) was published in the Dutch Journal of Psychiatry (“New generation behaviour therapy; new generation assessment measures; a review of currently available assessment measures”). Of course, we would like to share our findings with the international CBS-community as well; so we decided to post a brief excerpt of the relevant finding here on the ACBS-website, hoping this could be of use to this community (see attachment below for the full-overview).

Warm regards,

Tim Batink
 

New generation behaviour therapy; new generation assessment measures; a review of currently available assessment measures.

T. BATINK, G. JANSEN, F.P.M.L. PEETERS

BACKGROUND
Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (ACT) is a relatively new form of behaviour therapy, which has Relational Frame Theory (RFT) as its theoretical foundation. Since ACT is not aimed primarily at reducing psychopathological symptoms, changes are likely to be needed in the nature and purpose of the assessment measures used.

AIM
To provide an up-to-date overview of ACT-measures that are suitable for use with adults and that will assist clinicians and researchers.

METHOD
We performed a systematic review of the literature.

RESULTS
More than 50 ACT-related questionnaires were identified; which will be listed per ACT-component (supplemented with reference).

CONCLUSION
Clinicians and researchers with an interest in ACT have many measures at their disposal. Most of these are available free of charge.

SHORT EXCERPT
In October 2015, a systematic review on available ACT-measures was published in the Dutch Journal of Psychiatry. The current document serves as a brief excerpt of the relevant findings for the international community. We began this review with searches in ACT oriented sources: the website of the Association for Contextual Behavioral Science (ACBS; http://contextualscience.org), the mailing list of the ACBS and Journal of Contextual Behavioral Science (JCBS). As search terms 'questionnaire', 'scale' and 'test' were used. Subsequently, we applied this same approach in the PubMed with 'acceptance' and 'commitment' as additional search terms. This resulted in 58 questionnaires (February 2015). Below, we will give an overview of these questionnaires, classified per ACT-component and specific problem areas / disorders. Additionally, a list with the full-names of the questionnaires with a core-reference will be provided, completed with a full reference list. Please use to reference below, when citing this overview.

Original source: Batink, T., Jansen, G., & Peeters, F. (2015). Nieuwe generatie gedragstherapie, nieuwe generatie meetinstrumenten; een overzicht van beschikbare ACT-meetinstrumenten [New generation behaviour therapy; new generation assessment measures; a review of currently available assessment measures]. Tijdschrift voor Psychiatrie, 57, 739-748.

Author correspondence: Tim Batink (tim.batink@maastrichtuniversity.nl)
 

Compiled by Joseph Ciarrochi & Linda Bilich.

Ciarrochi, J., & Bilich, L. (2006). Acceptance and Commitment Therapy. Measures Package: Process measures of potential relevance to ACT. Unpublished manuscript, University of Wollongong, Australia.

(attached below)
 

Table of Contents:

Forward .................................................................................................... ......................... 3
Avoidance / Acceptance .................................................................................................... 4
The Acceptance and Action Questionnaire (AAQ-2) ......................................................... 5
White Bear Suppression Inventory (WBSI) ....................................................................... 8
Emotion Control Questionnaire (ECQ2) .......................................................................... 15
State Social Anxiety and State Emotion-Regulation Questionnaires ............................... 19
Repressive Defensive Coping ........................................................................................... 22
Miller Behavioral Style Scale (MBSS)............................................................................. 28
Experiential Avoidance Scale ........................................................................................... 31
Balanced Inventory of Desirable Responding (BIDR) ..................................................... 35
Fusion / Dysfunctional thinking..................................................................................... 38
Automatic Thoughts Questionnaire (ATQ) ...................................................................... 39
Personal Need for Structure (PNS) ................................................................................... 42
Belief in Personal Control Scale (BPCS) ......................................................................... 44
Dysfunctional Attitude Scale (DAS) ................................................................................ 48
Narcissistic Personality Inventory (NPI) .......................................................................... 51
Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale (RSE) ................................................................................ 53
Adult Dispositional Hope Scale........................................................................................ 55
Adult State Hope Scale .................................................................................................... . 57
Domain Specific Hope Scale (DSHS) .............................................................................. 59
Sociotropy – Autonomy Scale (SAS) ............................................................................... 64
Mindfulness / Awareness of feelings ................................................................................ 70
Kentucky Inventory of Mindfulness Skills (KIMS) ......................................................... 71
The Mindfulness Attention Awareness Scale (MAAS).................................................... 74
Value clarification / Goal striving / Action orientation ............................................... 77
Personal Strivings Assessment ......................................................................................... 78
Valued Living Questionnaire (VLQ) ................................................................................ 95
The BULLs-eye Instrument about valued life Primary Care Version (BULLI-PC) ........ 98
The Bulls-eye Instrument about valued life.................................................................... 103
Action Control Scale (ACS-90) ...................................................................................... 109
Pleasant Events Schedule............................................................................................ .... 114
ACT measures for specific populations ...................................................................... 126
Diabetes Acceptance and Action Scale for Children and Adolescents (DAAS) ............ 127
Avoidance and Fusion Questionnaire for Youth (AFQ-Y) ............................................ 131
Child Acceptance and Mindfulness Measure (CAMM) ................................................. 133
Chronic Pain Acceptance Questionnaire – Revised (CPAQ-R) ..................................... 136
Chronic Pain Values Inventory (CPVI) .......................................................................... 138
Psychological Inflexibility in Pain Scale (PIPS) ............................................................ 141
Trauma Specific AAQ (AAQ-TS) .................................................................................. 143
ACT weekly Diary .................................................................................................... ...... 147