Cited by 48Mindfulness and Compassion InterventionsMusculoskeletal pain and rehabilitationPsychometric Methodologies and Testing

A confirmatory factor analysis of facets of psychological flexibility in a sample of people seeking treatment for chronic pain

Open access
Scott, Whitney, McCracken, Lance M., Norton, Sam·2016·Annals of Behavioral Medicine

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Evidence supports the validity of individual components of the psychological flexibility model in the context of chronic pain. However, there is a need to test the inter-relationships amongst measures of individual components of psychological flexibility in a more integrative manner. In particular, research is needed to examine whether a model with discrete facets as proposed is indeed reflected in data from currently used assessment measures in people with chronic pain. PURPOSE: This cross-sectional study investigated the underlying structure of measures of processes of psychological flexibility amongst individuals with chronic pain and the associations between this measurement model and patient functioning. METHODS: Five-hundred and seventy-three adults with chronic pain completed measures of pain, physical and social functioning, mental health, depression and processes of psychological flexibility, including acceptance, cognitive defusion, decentering and committed action. Confirmatory factor analyses tested lower-order, higher-order and bifactor models to examine the structure of psychological flexibility process measures. RESULTS: A single general factor reflecting openness explained variability in items across all of the psychological flexibility process measures. In addition to this general factor, distinct decentering and committed action group factors emerged in the data. As expected, the general factor was strongly correlated with measures of social functioning, mental health and depression. CONCLUSIONS: Future research is needed to determine the most useful means by which the presence of the general factor can be reflected in the measurement and theory of psychological flexibility.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s12160-015-9752-x

Cites

42 of 42 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • 'Openness', reflecting acceptance, has been identified as a general factor underlying several PF processes.

    “In particular, ‘openness’, reflecting acceptance, has been identified as a general factor underlying several PF processes.52”
  • Methodological quality of studies evaluating the AAQ-II ranged from excellent to poor.

    “Methodological quality of studies evaluating the AAQ-II ranged from excellent to poor (Bond et al., 2011; Palladino et al., 2013; Scott, McCracken, & Norton, 2016).”

    From Psychometric properties of acceptance measures: A systematic review (2019) · cites this paper as Scott, McCracken, & Norton, 2016

    The Methods > Measures passage reports the AAQ’s internal consistency and validity, and the Results > Confirmatory Factor Analysis passage reports this study’s factor analysis. Neither assesses the methodological quality of studies evaluating the AAQ-II. Searches for the claimed excellent-to-poor quality range and for AAQ-II study quality found no passage addressing it; page numbers were not available in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.76)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Scott, W., McCracken, L. M., & Norton, S.
Affiliations
King's College London (GB)
Corresponding author
McCracken, Lance M.
Venue
Annals of Behavioral Medicine
Published
2015-11-25
Volume
50
Issue
2
Pages
285-296
ISSN
  • 0742-5554 (ISSN-L)
  • 0883-6612
  • 1532-4796
OpenAlex
W2175535294
Cited by
48
References
42
Citations by year
2025: 2 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 9 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 5
FWCI
8.69
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Annals of Behavioral Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Research Portal (King's College London) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
International Association for the Study of Pain (N/A)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Mindfulness and Compassion Interventions
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pharmacology › Musculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Psychometric Methodologies and Testing
Keywords
psychological flexibility, chronic pain, acceptance and commitment therapy, bifactor model, decentering, committed action, cognitive defusion, social functioning, depression, mental health, measurement structure
MeSH terms
Activities of Daily Living, Adaptation, Psychological, Adult, Cognition, Cross-Sectional Studies, Depression, Factor Analysis, Statistical, Female, Humans, Male, Mental Health, Middle Aged, Models, Psychological, Pain Measurement, Patient Acceptance of Health Care, Chronic Pain, Pain Management

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review