A Systematic Review of Values-Based Psychometric Tools Within Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (ACT)

被引:36
作者
Barrett, K. [1 ]
O'Connor, M. [1 ]
McHugh, L. [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Coll Dublin, Sch Psychol, Newman Bldg, Dublin 4, Ireland
关键词
Acceptance and commitment therapy; ACT; Values; Instrument; Psychometric; CHRONIC PAIN; VALUING QUESTIONNAIRE; LIVING QUESTIONNAIRE; COGNITIVE THERAPY; VALIDATION; TRIAL; WILLINGNESS; OBSESSIONS; INPATIENTS; VALIDITY;
D O I
10.1007/s40732-019-00352-7
中图分类号
B84 [心理学];
学科分类号
04 ; 0402 ;
摘要
The ACT model consists of acceptance, cognitive defusion, contact with the present moment, self-as-context, values, and committed action, which together create psychological flexibility. Limited research has examined the unique contribution of values-focused work in acceptance-based therapies. To investigate this in a reliable and valid way, it is critical to ensure that the instruments used to measure values are empirically sound. This review aims to identify value-based psychometric tools currently in use, and examine their ability to reliably and validly measure the ACT-defined concept of values. The current study searched PsycINFO, Medline, and PubMed databases for psychometric validation papers of values-measurement instruments. Seventeen values-measures were evaluated by extracting data relating to their content, structural, construct, convergent, and discriminant validity, as well as internal consistency and test-retest reliability. The COSMIN manual for systematic reviews of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) was utilized as a guideline for assessing bias and examining the quality of psychometric tools identified. Outcomes suggest that the Valuing Questionnaire (Smout, Davies, Burns, & Christie, 2014), Engaged Living Scale (Trompetter et al., 2013), Valued Living Questionnaire (Wilson, Sandoz, Kitchens, & Roberts, 2010), Multidimensional Psychological Flexibility Inventory (Rolffs, Rogge, & Wilson, 2018), Acceptance and Action Questionnaire for Obsessions and Compulsions (Jacoby, Abramowitz, Buchholz, Reuman, & Blakey, 2018), and Bulls-Eye Values Survey (Lundgren, Luoma, Dahl, Strosahl, & Melin, 2012) have the best psychometric properties. A number of alternative values-based instruments demonstrate preliminary evidence for their utility, though further examination of these is necessary. This review also highlights a number of issues pertaining to the cohesiveness and psychometric comprehensiveness of current values-measurement research, with recommendations for improvement.
引用
收藏
页码:457 / 485
页数:29
相关论文
共 75 条
[1]   Further validation of the Chronic Pain Values Inventory in a Swedish chronic pain sample [J].
Akerblom, Sophia ;
Perrin, Sean ;
Fischer, Marcelo Rivano ;
McCracken, Lance M. .
JOURNAL OF CONTEXTUAL BEHAVIORAL SCIENCE, 2017, 6 (03) :261-267
[2]  
[Anonymous], 2012, ACCEPTANCE COMMITMEN
[3]  
[Anonymous], 2008, Understanding human values
[4]  
[Anonymous], 1962, THEORY COGNITIVE DIS
[5]  
[Anonymous], 2001, Unpublished doctoral thesis
[6]  
[Anonymous], 1990, Interpersonal perception
[7]  
[Anonymous], 2006, PERSONAL VALUES QUES
[8]  
Antonovsky A., 1979, HLTH STRESS COPING N
[9]  
Blackledge J. T., 2007, 33 ANN CONV ASS BEH
[10]  
Bond FW, 2011, BEHAV THER, V42, P676, DOI 10.1016/j.beth.2011.03.007