Cited by 43Smoking Behavior and CessationMindfulness and Compassion InterventionsPsychometric Methodologies and Testing

Validation of the Avoidance and Inflexibility Scale (AIS) among treatment-seeking smokers.

Open access
Farris, Samantha G., Zvolensky, Michael J., DiBello, Angelo M., Schmidt, Norman B.·2015·Psychological Assessment

Abstract

The Avoidance and Inflexibility Scale (AIS; Gifford et al., 2004) was derived as a smoking-specific measure of experiential avoidance. However, there has been little investigation of the psychometric proprieties of the AIS and no published work on the topic. The current study aimed to test the reliability and validity of the AIS among a sample of adult treatment-seeking daily smokers (n = 465; 48.2% female, 17.8 [SD = 9.60] cigarettes per day). The AIS was administered at 3 time points (baseline, quit-day, and 1 month postquit) as part of a larger smoking cessation trial. An exploratory factor analysis indicated a 2-factor solution, described by inflexibility and avoidance because of smoking related "thoughts/feelings" (9 items) and "somatic sensations" (4 items). Results revealed that the AIS-total and factor scores demonstrated high internal consistency and test-retest reliability. The AIS total and factor scores also displayed high convergent, discriminant, and incremental predictive validity with theoretically relevant smoking and affective variables. The present data suggest that the AIS measure appears to be a valid and reliable smoking-specific index of experiential avoidance.

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 · 10.1037/pas0000059

Cites

48 of 48 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?

  • The 27-item Avoidance and Inflexibility Scale is a validated tool that assesses willingness to experience physical sensations, emotions, and thoughts that cue smoking.

    “Acceptance of triggers to smoke was assessed via the 27-item Avoidance and Inflexibility Scale [67], a validated tool that assesses how willing is someone to experience physical sensations, emotions, and thoughts that cue smoking [68].”

    From Can an Acceptance and Commitment Therapy-Based Smartphone App Help Individuals with Mental Health Disorders Quit Smoking? (2024) · cites this paper as [68]

    The Abstract reports evidence that the AIS is a valid and reliable smoking-specific measure of experiential avoidance. The Measures section says it assesses responses to smoking-related thoughts, feelings, and bodily sensations, but identifies it as a 13-item scale, not a 27-item scale. (LLM, conf=0.91)

    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

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. First MB Spitzer RL Gibbon M Williams JB 2007 Structured clinical interview for DSM-IV-TR Axis I disorders, research version, non-patient edition (SCIDI/NP) New York, NY Biometrics Research, New York State Psychiatric Institute
  2. Gifford EV 2002 Acceptance based treatment for nicotine dependent smokers: Altering the regulatory functions of smoking related affect, physiological symptoms, and cognition Doctoral dissertation University of Nevada Reno, NV
  3. Zvolensky MJ Farris SG Schmidt NB Smits JAJ in press The role of smoking inflexibility/avoidance in the relation between anxiety sensitivity and tobacco use and beliefs among treatment-seeking smokers Experimental and Clinical Psychopharmacology PMC4112514 24490706

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Farris, S. G., Zvolensky, M. J., DiBello, A. M., & Schmidt, N. B.
Affiliations
Florida State University (US)
Venue
Psychological Assessment
Published
2015-06
Volume
27
Issue
2
Pages
467-477
ISSN
  • 1040-3590 (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-134X
OpenAlex
W2172075151
Cited by
43
References
48
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 7
FWCI
3.44
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Psychological Assessment (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institute of Mental Health (R01-MH076629-01A1)
  • National Institute of Drug Abuse (F31-DA035564)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Smoking Behavior and Cessation
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Mindfulness and Compassion Interventions
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Psychometric Methodologies and Testing
Keywords
experiential avoidance, inflexibility, smoking, smoking cessation, psychometric validation, treatment-seeking smokers, somatic sensation, incremental predictive validity, convergent validity, test-retest reliability
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Aged, Anxiety, Avoidance Learning, Depression, Factor Analysis, Statistical, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Patient Acceptance of Health Care, Psychometrics, Smoking, Tobacco Use Disorder, Reproducibility of Results, Smoking Cessation, 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