Cited by 4Traumatic Brain Injury ResearchMindfulness and Compassion InterventionsAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes

Psychological flexibility in mild traumatic brain injury: an evaluation of measures

Faulkner, Josh W., Snell, Deborah L., Theadom, Alice, Mahon, Susan, Barker-Collo, Suzanne, Skirrow, Paul·2021·Brain Injury

Abstract

Primary objective In this study, we examined the psychometric properties of measures of psychological flexibility in a mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI) sample.Method and Procedures Adults who sustained a mTBI (n = 112) completed the Acceptance and Action Questionnaire – Acquired Brain Injury reactive avoidance subscale (AAQ-ABI (RA). Exploratory factor analysis and Rasch analysis were conducted to evaluate the facture structure, dimensionality, and differential item functioning. Construct validity was determined by correlating the AAQ-ABI (RA) with the Acceptance and Action Questionnaire-Revised (AAQ-II) and Fear Avoidance after Traumatic Brain Injury (FAB-TBI).Main outcome and Results The AAQ-ABI (RA) was found to have strong internal consistency (Cronbach’s α = 0.87). Consistent with previous findings, the AAQ-ABI (RA) had one distinct factor. Fit to the unidimensional Rasch model was adequate (χ2 (18) = 22.5, p = .21) with no evidence of differential item functioning across person factors examined. The AAQ-ABI (RA) also had expected relationships with theoretically relevant constructs.Conclusions The AAQ-ABI (RA) appears to be a psychometrically sound measure of psychological flexibility in mTBI.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/02699052.2021.1959062

Cites

57 of 57 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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 58 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Faulkner, J. W., Snell, D. L., Theadom, A., Mahon, S., Barker-Collo, S., & Skirrow, P.
Affiliations
  • Massey University (NZ)
  • University of Otago (NZ)
  • Auckland University of Technology (NZ)
  • University of Auckland (NZ)
Corresponding author
Faulkner, Josh W.
Venue
Brain Injury
Published
2021-07-29
Volume
35
Issue
9
Pages
1103-1111
ISSN
  • 0269-9052 (ISSN-L)
  • 1362-301X
OpenAlex
W3189549088
Cited by
4
References
58
Citations by year
2025: 2 · 2022: 2
FWCI
0.36
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Brain Injury (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
Health Research Council of New Zealand (Foxley Clinical Fellowship (20/041))
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Traumatic Brain Injury Research
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Mindfulness and Compassion Interventions
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
Keywords
mild traumatic brain injury, psychological flexibility, psychometric properties, construct validity, Rasch analysis, differential item functioning, fear avoidance
MeSH terms
Adult, Brain Concussion, Factor Analysis, Statistical, Humans, Psychometrics, Surveys and Questionnaires, Reproducibility of Results

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