CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 40Mindfulness and Compassion InterventionsAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive ProcessesMedical Practices and Rehabilitation

Measuring avoidance in medical rehabilitation

Kortte, Kathleen B., Veiel, Lori, Batten, Sonja V., Wegener, Stephen T.·2009·Rehabilitation Psychology
DOI 10.1037/a0014703
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To establish psychometric properties of the Acceptance and Action Questionnaire (AAQ), a measure of avoidance, in medical rehabilitation populations. STUDY DESIGN: Cross-sectional and longitudinal. SETTING: Three acute, inpatient rehabilitation units. PARTICIPANTS: One hundred thirty-nine adults with spinal cord dysfunction, stroke, amputation, or orthopedic surgery. MEASURES: AAQ, Hope Scale, Spiritual Well-Being Scale, Positive and Negative Affect Scale, Brief Symptom Inventory, Hopkins Rehabilitation Engagement Rating Scale, Functional Independence Measure, Craig Handicap Assessment and Reporting Technique, Satisfaction with Life Scale. RESULTS: The AAQ has adequate internal consistency (alpha = .70), is best understood with a two-factor solution, is positively correlated with depression (r = .36, p < .01) and negative affect (r = .41, p < .001), and is negatively correlated with hope (r = -.51, p < .001), positive affect (r = -.33, p < .001), and spiritual well-being (r = -.32, p < .001). Predictive relationships with life satisfaction (beta = -.40, p < .001) and level of handicap (beta = -.20, p < .014) were found at 3-month follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: Findings provide preliminary support that the AAQ is reliable and valid in medical populations and that avoidance plays an important role in rehabilitation outcomes.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/a0014703

Cites

51 of 51 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, 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?

  • Methodological quality across the two studies assessing the AAQ was fair-to-poor.

    “Methodological quality across the two studies assessing the AAQ was fair-to-poor, with lack of clarity and detail in reporting resulting in lower ratings (Hayes et al., 2004; Kortte, Veiel, Batten, & Wegener, 2009).”

    From Psychometric properties of acceptance measures: A systematic review (2019) · cites this paper as Kortte, Veiel, Batten, & Wegener, 2009

  • Kortte et al. (2009) reported that a two-factor solution was more suited in medical rehabilitation populations.

    “Hayes et al. (2004) recommended a single factor structure for the 9-item version of the AAQ; however, Kortte et al. (2009) reported that a two-factor solution was more suited in medical rehabilitation populations (although internal consistency for each factor was not reported).”

    From Psychometric properties of acceptance measures: A systematic review (2019) · cites this paper as Kortte et al., 2009

  • Only two articles, Gu et al. (2016) and Kortte et al. (2009), used Bonferroni corrections, while Curtiss and Klemanski (2014) was the only study to use FDR procedures to adjust p values.

    “Only two articles, Gu et al. (2016) and Kortte et al. (2009), used Bonferroni corrections, while Curtiss and Klemanski (2014) was the only study to use FDR procedures to adjust p values.”

    From Psychometric properties of acceptance measures: A systematic review (2019) · cites this paper as Kortte et al. (2009)

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Kortte, K. B., Veiel, L., Batten, S. V., & Wegener, S. T.
Affiliations
  • Johns Hopkins University (US)
  • VA Maryland Health Care System (US)
ORCID
Venue
Rehabilitation Psychology
Publisher
American Psychological Association (APA)
Published
2009-02
Volume
54
Issue
1
Pages
91-98
ISSN
  • 0090-5550 (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-1544
DOI
10.1037/a0014703
OpenAlex
W2095406685
Cited by
40
References
51
Citations by year
2025: 2 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 1 · 2014: 5 · 2013: 6 · 2012: 1
FWCI
4.60
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Rehabilitation Psychology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • American Association of Spinal Cord Injury Psychologists and Social Workers
  • Medstar Research Institute
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Mindfulness and Compassion Interventions
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Physical Therapy, Sports Therapy and Rehabilitation › Medical Practices and Rehabilitation
Keywords
avoidance, Acceptance and Action Questionnaire, psychometric properties, medical rehabilitation, spinal cord dysfunction, stroke, amputation, orthopedic surgery, depression, hope, spiritual well-being, positive and negative affect, life satisfaction, handicap, rehabilitation outcomes
MeSH terms
Adaptation, Psychological, Adolescent, Adult, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Anxiety, Avoidance Learning, Chronic Disease, Depression, Disability Evaluation, Female, Follow-Up Studies, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Motivation, Personality Inventory, Psychometrics, Rehabilitation, Vocational, Reproducibility of Results, Young Adult

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