Cited by 96Mindfulness and Compassion InterventionsAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive ProcessesPsychometric Methodologies and Testing

Psychometric Properties of the Acceptance and Action Questionnaire–II for Chinese College Students and Elite Chinese Athletes

Zhang, Chun-Qing, Chung, Pak-Kwong, Si, Gangyan, Liu, Jing Dong·2014·Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development

Abstract

The purpose of the present study was to examine the psychometric properties of the Chinese version of the Acceptance and Action Questionnaire–II (AAQ-II) across two samples of Chinese college students (n = 183 and n = 366) and a sample of elite Chinese athletes (n = 330). Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses supported the existence of a unidimensional AAQ-II. Adequate internal consistency reliability, test–retest reliability (one-month interval), factorial validity, and nomological validity with mindfulness, well-being, positive and negative affect/mood for both students and athletic samples were demonstrated. The AAQ-II also showed incremental validity in college students in explaining variances of well-being, positive and negative affect, anxiety, and depression, beyond the mindfulness measure. Most important, factorial invariance of the AAQ-II was demonstrated across male and female college students as well as across male and female athletes. Partial factorial invariance was also demonstrated across adolescent and adult athletes. Overall, results of this study suggest that the Chinese version of the AAQ-II may be a useful self-report measure of experiential avoidance in Chinese college students and elite Chinese athletes.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/0748175614538064

Cites

49 of 49 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

2 of the 51 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Zhang, C.-Q., Chung, P.-K., Si, G., & Liu, J. D.
Affiliations
  • Hong Kong Baptist University (HK)
  • Education University of Hong Kong (HK)
  • Hong Kong Baptist University, Hong Kong
Venue
Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development
Published
2014-10-01
Volume
47
Issue
4
Pages
256-270
ISSN
  • 0748-1756 (ISSN-L)
  • 1947-6302
OpenAlex
W2317319709
Cited by
96
References
51
Citations by year
2026: 9 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 12 · 2023: 16 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 11 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 8 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 1
FWCI
5.11
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development (publishedVersion)
  • HKBU Institutional Repository (Hong Kong Baptist University) (submittedVersion)
Funders
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/orPUBLICation of this article.
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, Chinese version, psychometric properties, measurement invariance, incremental validity, mindfulness, well-being, positive and negative affect, anxiety, depression, university students, elite athletes, gender differences

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