CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 55Mindfulness and Compassion InterventionsPsychometric Methodologies and TestingAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes

A systematic review of values-based psychometric tools within acceptance and commitment therapy (ACT)

Barrett, K., O’Connor, M., McHugh, L.·2019·The Psychological Record
DOI 10.1007/s40732-019-00352-7
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s40732-019-00352-7

Cites

72 of 72 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • Value-based living relates to ongoing and dynamic patterns of various activities, so fluctuations in consistency rating are expected in cases without specific intervention.

    “Although the test-retest reliability was not reported in the original study (Romero-Moreno et al., 2017), given that valuebased living relates to ongoing and dynamic patterns of various activities, fluctuations in consistency rating are expected in cases without specific intervention (Barrett et al., 2019; Wilson et al., 2010).”

    From Reliability and validity of the Japanese version of the Valued Living Questionnaire Adapted to Caregiving (2023) · cites this paper as Barrett et al., 2019

  • The J-VLQAC met an appropriate standard of reliability (ICC ≥ .70, Barrett et al., 2019).

    “The ICC values of the subscale scores were higher than .70 for both factor models, except for Factor 3 (.65) in the 3-factor model, indicating that the test-retest reliability of the J-VLQAC is moderate level according to Koo and Li (2016)' criteria and met an appropriate standard of reliability (ICC ≥ .70, Barrett et al., 2019).”

    From Reliability and validity of the Japanese version of the Valued Living Questionnaire Adapted to Caregiving (2023) · cites this paper as Barrett et al., 2019

  • The J-VLQAC has good or acceptable internal consistency.

    “The results showed that both versions of the J-VLQAC had acceptable levels of internal consistency and moderate level of test-retest reliability.”

    From Reliability and validity of the Japanese version of the Valued Living Questionnaire Adapted to Caregiving (2023) · cites this paper as Barrett et al., 2019

  • The factor structure of the ELS had only been previously studied in a chronic pain sample, limiting its validity for non-clinical samples.

    “Although Barrett et al. (2019) showed that the ELS is one of the values-based psychometric tools within ACT with strongest psychometric properties, the factor structure of the ELS had only been previously studied in a chronic pain sample, thus limiting its validity for non-clinical samples.”

    From Psychometric properties of the engaged living scale (ELS) Spanish version in a large sample of Spanish pilgrims (2023) · cites this paper as Barrett et al., 2019

  • The Valuing Questionnaire (VQ) is considered one of the most psychometrically robust instruments to measure valued living according to the acceptance and commitment therapy model.

    “The Valuing Questionnaire (VQ) is considered as one of the most psychometrically robust instruments to measure valued living according to the acceptance and commitment therapy model.”

    From Psychometric properties of the Valuing Questionnaire in a Spaniard sample and factorial equivalence with a Colombian sample (2022) · cites this paper as Barrett, O’Connor & McHugh, 2019

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Barrett, K., O’Connor, M., & McHugh, L.
Affiliations
University College Dublin (IE)
Corresponding author
Barrett, K.
ORCID
Venue
The Psychological Record
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2019-08-12
Volume
69
Issue
4
Pages
457-485
ISSN
  • 0033-2933 (ISSN-L)
  • 2163-3452
DOI
10.1007/s40732-019-00352-7
OpenAlex
W2968964630
Cited by
55
References
72
Citations by year
2025: 11 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 13 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 1
FWCI
1.03
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
Locations
The Psychological Record (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Mindfulness and Compassion Interventions
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Psychometric Methodologies and Testing
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
Keywords
acceptance and commitment therapy, values measurement, psychological flexibility, psychometric validation, construct validity, convergent and discriminant validity, reliability statistics, patient-reported outcome measures

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