A Systematic Review of Values-Based Psychometric Tools Within Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (2019)

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.