Cited by 75Mindfulness and Compassion InterventionsMusculoskeletal pain and rehabilitationAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes

The Cognitive Fusion Questionnaire: A Preliminary Study of Psychometric Properties and Prediction of Functioning in Chronic Pain

McCracken, Lance M., DaSilva, Philomena, Skillicorn, Beth, Doherty, Richard·2014·The Clinical Journal of Pain

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Acceptance and Commitment Therapy and the psychological flexibility model on which it is based are growing interests for those researching and treating chronic pain. One part of this model is a therapeutic process called cognitive defusion. Cognitive defusion is a process of experiencing a distinction between thoughts and the events or people they describe. This process is intended to reduce the dominating psychological influence of thoughts without necessarily changing the content or frequency of the thoughts. There are recently developed measures of this process but little study of it in people with chronic pain. METHODS: This study explored the reliability and validity of the Cognitive Fusion Questionnaire (CFQ) within a chronic pain population. A total of 326 adults with chronic pain completed this measure and a set of other standard clinical measures at the start of treatment in a specialty chronic pain service in the United Kingdom. RESULTS: An exploratory factor analysis revealed an interpretable 2-factor structure within the items of the CFQ. Internal consistency reliability was good (α=0.87). In the analyses of validity the CFQ significantly correlated with general psychological acceptance and pain-related acceptance as expected. In multiple regression analyses, which included relevant patient background variables, pain, and acceptance of pain, cognitive fusion contributed significantly to the explained variance in the prediction of 5 of 6 dependent variables tested. DISCUSSION: The CFQ may be a useful measure for further research and treatment development.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1097/ajp.0000000000000047

Cites

33 of 33 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

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
McCracken, L. M., DaSilva, P., Skillicorn, B., & Doherty, R.
Affiliations
  • King's College London (GB)
  • Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust (GB)
Corresponding author
  • McCracken, Lance M.
  • DaSilva, Philomena
  • Doherty, Richard
Venue
The Clinical Journal of Pain
Published
2014-10
Volume
30
Issue
10
Pages
894-901
ISSN
0749-8047 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1971644871
Cited by
75
References
33
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 12 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 10 · 2018: 9 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 8 · 2014: 2
FWCI
5.93
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Clinical Journal of Pain (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Research Portal (King's College London) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Mindfulness and Compassion Interventions
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pharmacology › Musculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
Keywords
Cognitive Fusion Questionnaire, cognitive fusion, cognitive defusion, acceptance and commitment therapy, psychological flexibility, chronic pain, psychological acceptance, pain acceptance, psychometric validation, factor structure, reliability statistics, chronic pain patients
MeSH terms
Adaptation, Psychological, Adult, Aged, Attitude to Health, Factor Analysis, Statistical, Female, United Kingdom, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Pain Measurement, Psychometrics, Surveys and Questionnaires, Statistics as Topic, Thinking, Reproducibility of Results, Young Adult, Chronic Pain, Acceptance and Commitment Therapy

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