Cited by 26Mindfulness and Compassion InterventionsPsychometric Methodologies and TestingAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes

Spanish validation of the short-form of the Avoidance and Fusion Questionnaire (AFQ-Y8) with children and adolescents.

García-Rubio, Carlos, Lecuona, Oscar, Blanco Donoso, Luis Manuel, Cantero-García, María, Paniagua, David, Rodríguez-Carvajal, Raquel·2020·Psychological Assessment

Abstract

The Avoidance and Fusion Questionnaire for Youth-Short Form (AFQ-Y8) was designed to measure psychological inflexibility in children and adolescents. However, it has not yet been validated to the Spanish population. The present study examines the factorial structure, internal consistency, convergent and incremental validity, and measurement invariance between children and adolescents, male and female, and male and female across age of the AFQ-Y8 with 982 students from Spain (children = 459, adolescents = 523). The results confirmed, in both children and adolescents, a unifactorial structure of general psychological inflexibility. AFQ-Y8 was positively related to negative psychological health outcomes, and negatively related to positive psychological health outcomes and acceptance-related skills, such as mindfulness. In addition, psychological inflexibility showed incremental validity in the explanation of negative psychological health over mindfulness. Measurement invariance across age and gender groups was supported, suggesting that the scores in the AFQ-Y8 are comparable between children and adolescents, and between males and females. In conclusion, results show that the Spanish version of the AFQ-Y8 is a reliable and valid measure of psychological inflexibility in children and adolescents. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved).

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/pas0000801

Cites

0 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?

Cites

The publisher hasn’t deposited this paper’s reference list.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
García-Rubio, C., Lecuona, O., Blanco Donoso, L. M., Cantero-García, M., Paniagua, D., & Rodríguez-Carvajal, R.
Affiliations
Universidad Autónoma de Madrid (ES)
Venue
Psychological Assessment
Published
2020-04
Volume
32
Issue
4
Pages
e15-e27
ISSN
  • 1040-3590 (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-134X
OpenAlex
W2990566373
Cited by
25
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 5
FWCI
1.69
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Psychological Assessment (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • OSF Preprints (OSF Preprints) (submittedVersion)
Funders
Spanish Ministry of Education, Culture, and Sport (FPU13/01677)
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
psychological inflexibility, Spanish validation, children and adolescents, measurement invariance, incremental validity, mindfulness, acceptance and commitment therapy, mental health outcomes, cross-cultural adaptation
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Child, Female, Humans, Male, Personality, Psychometrics, Spain, Reproducibility of Results, Mindfulness

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