CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 35Mindfulness and Compassion InterventionsAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive ProcessesPsychometric Methodologies and Testing

Acceptance and Action Questionnaire II

Open access
Bond, Frank W., Hayes, Steven C., Baer, Ruth A., Carpenter, Kenneth M., Guenole, Nigel, Orcutt, Holly K., Waltz, Tom, Zettle, Robert D.·2012·PsycTESTS Dataset
DOI 10.1037/t11921-000
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

This study explores the factor structure of the Acceptance and Action Questionnaire (AAQ-II) in both clinical and general normative groups.It also examines the factorial invariance of a one-factor proposed model in both groups.Data was collected from the overall database of a Portuguese Cognitive and Behavioral Research Center (N= 687, 425 females; mean age= 36 years; SD with good internal consistencies and construct related validity.The one-factor solution measurement and structural invariance of the one-factor solution proposed.Multigroup invariance and also structural invariance of the one-factor model of Acceptance and Action Questionnaire II across both groups under study.The one-factor model have both similar meanings and the same structure, but the measurement model in clinical and nonclinical in the development and maintenance of several clinical disorders, may explain why the AAQ-II does not operate equivalently across clinical and nonclinical groups.

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/t11921-000

Cites

24 of 24 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 Portuguese version of the AAQ-II has shown good psychometric properties and appropriate discriminant validity, with a Cronbach's alpha of 0.92.

    “The Portuguese version has shown good psychometric properties and appropriate discriminant validity, with a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.92 (Costa et al., 2014).”

    From Dealing With the Pandemic of COVID-19 in Portugal: On the Important Role of Positivity, Experiential Avoidance, and Coping Strategies (2021) · cites this paper as Costa et al., 2014

    The Results and Discussion report validity evidence and good psychometric properties for the AAQ-II in Portuguese clinical and nonclinical samples. However, the Measures section's statement about discriminant validity refers to Bond et al. (2011), not a finding established for the Portuguese version here. Our copy does not report a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.92; the .920 in Discussion Table 3 is a CFI value. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    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

Related

Authors
Bond, F. W., Hayes, S. C., Baer, R. A., Carpenter, K. M., Guenole, N., Orcutt, H. K., Waltz, T., & Zettle, R. D.
ORCID
Venue
PsycTESTS Dataset
Publisher
American Psychological Association (APA)
Published
2011
DOI
10.1037/t11921-000
OpenAlex
W2106734771
Cited by
32
References
23
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 2 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 2 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 2 · 2012: 1
Type
dataset
Language
fr
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • PsycTESTS Dataset (publishedVersion)
  • Portuguese National Funding Agency for Science, Research and Technology (RCAAP Project by FCT) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Dialnet (Universidad de la Rioja) (submittedVersion)
  • Redalyc (Universidad Autónoma del Estado de México) (submittedVersion)
  • Portuguese National Funding Agency for Science, Research and Technology (RCAAP Project by FCT) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Mindfulness and Compassion Interventions
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Psychometric Methodologies and Testing
Keywords
Acceptance and Action Questionnaire-II, experiential avoidance, psychological flexibility, factor structure, measurement invariance, mental illness

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