Top

Gepubliceerd in:

24-02-2024

Cross-cultural validity and reliability of the comprehensive assessment of acceptance and commitment therapy processes (CompACT) in people with multiple sclerosis

Auteurs: Ambra Mara Giovannetti, Rosalba Rosato, Ingrid Galán, Anna Toscano, Elisenda Anglada, Rebeca Menendez, Jürgen Hoyer, Paolo Confalonieri, Andrea Giordano, Kenneth Ian Pakenham, Jana Pöttgen, Alessandra Solari

Gepubliceerd in: Quality of Life Research | Uitgave 5/2024

Abstract

Purpose

The Comprehensive assessment of Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (CompACT) is a 23-item questionnaire measuring psychological flexibility, a quality of life protective factor. An 18-item version was recently produced. We assessed validity and reliability of CompACT, and equivalence of paper and electronic (eCompACT) versions in people with multiple sclerosis (PwMS) in Italy, Germany and Spain.

Methods

We used confirmatory factor analysis and assessed CompACT-23 and CompACT-18 measurement invariance between the three language versions. We assessed construct validity (Spearman's correlations) and internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha). Test–retest reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient, ICC) and equivalence of paper and eCompACT (ICC and linear regression model for repeated measures) were assessed in subsamples of PwMS.

Results

A total of 725 PwMS completed the study. The three-factor structure of the CompACT-23 showed poor fit (RMSEA 0.07; CFI 0.82; SRMR 0.08), while the fit of the CompACT-18 was good (RMSEA 0.05; CFI 0.93; SRMR 0.05). Configural and partial metric invariance were confirmed, as well as partial scalar invariance (reached when five items were allowed to vary freely). The CompACT-18 showed good internal consistency (all alpha ≥ 0.78); and test–retest reliability (all ICCs ≥ 0.86). Equivalence between paper and eCompACT was excellent (all ICCs ≥ 0.86), with no mode, order, or interaction effects.

Conclusion

Results support using the refined CompACT-18 as a three-factor measure of psychological flexibility in PwMS. Paper and eCompACT-18 versions are equivalent. CompACT-18 can be used cross-culturally, but sub-optimal scalar invariance suggests that direct comparison between the three language versions should be interpreted with caution.

vorige artikel Reciprocal association between pain and quality of life after newly acquired spinal cord injury

volgende artikel Patient experiences in ulcerative colitis: conceptual model and review of patient-reported outcome measures

Alleen toegankelijk voor geautoriseerde gebruikers

Luoma, J. B., Hayes, S. C., & Walser, R. D. (2007). Learning ACT: An acceptance & commitment therapy skills-training manual for therapists. New Harbinger & Reno.

Luoma, J. B., Hayes, S. C., & Walser, R. D. (2017). Learning ACT: An acceptance & commitment therapy skills-training manual for therapists (2nd ed.). Oakland: New Harbinger & Reno.

Hayes, S. C., Strosahl, K. D., & Wilson, K. G. (1999). Acceptance and commitment therapy: An experiential approach to behavior change. Guilford Press.

Brandon, S., Pallotti, C., & Jog, M. (2021). Exploratory study of common changes in client behaviors following routine psychotherapy: Does psychological flexibility typically change and predict outcomes? Journal of Contemporary Psychotherapy, 51(1), 49–56. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10879-020-09468-2CrossRef

Gloster, A. T., Walder, N., Levin, M. E., Twohig, M. P., & Karekla, M. (2020). The empirical status of acceptance and commitment therapy: A review of meta-analyses. Journal of Contextual Behavioral Science, 18, 181–192. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcbs.2020.09.009CrossRef

Hayes, S. C., Levin, M. E., Plumb-Vilardaga, J., Villatte, J. L., & Pistorello, J. (2013). Acceptance and commitment therapy and contextual behavioral science: Examining the progress of a distinctive model of behavioral and cognitive therapy. Behavior therapy, 44(2), 180–198. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.beth.2009.08.002CrossRefPubMed

Wersebe, H., Lieb, R., Meyer, A. H., Hofer, P., & Gloster, A. T. (2018). The link between stress, well-being, and psychological flexibility during an acceptance and commitment therapy self-help intervention. International Journal of Clinical and Health Psychology, 18(1), 60–68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijchp.2017.09.002CrossRefPubMed

Fledderus, M., Bohlmeijer, E. T., Fox, J.-P., Schreurs, K. M. G., & Spinhoven, P. (2013). The role of psychological flexibility in a selfhelp acceptance and commitment therapy intervention for psychological distress in a randomized controlled trial. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 51(3), 142–151. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brat.2012.11.007CrossRefPubMed

Hughes, L. S., Clark, J., Colclough, J. A., Dale, E., & McMillan, D. (2017). Acceptance and commitment therapy (ACT) for chronic pain: A systematic review and meta-analyses. The Clinical Journal of Pain, 33(6), 552–568. https://doi.org/10.1097/AJP.0000000000000425CrossRefPubMed

10.

Subhas, N., Pang, N. T., Chua, W. C., Kamu, A., Ho, C. M., David, I. S., Goh, W. W., Gunasegaran, Y. I., & Tan, K. A. (2021). The cross-sectional relations of COVID-19 fear and stress to psychological distress among frontline healthcare workers in Selangor, Malaysia. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(19), 10182. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph181910182CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

11.

Stockton, D., Kellett, S., Berrios, R., Sirois, F., Wilkinson, N., & Miles, G. (2019). Identifying the underlying mechanisms of change during acceptance and commitment therapy (ACT): A systematic review of contemporary mediation studies. Behavioural and Cognitive Psychotherapy, 47(3), 332–362. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1352465818000553CrossRefPubMed

12.

Trindade, I. A., Ferreira, N. B., Mendes, A. L., Ferreira, C., Dawson, D., & Golijani-Moghaddam, N. (2021). Comprehensive assessment of acceptance and commitment therapy processes (CompACT): Measure refinement and study of measurement invariance across Portuguese and UK samples. Journal of Contextual Behavioral Science, 21, 30–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcbs.2021.05.002CrossRef

13.

Pakenham, K. I., Mawdsley, M., Brown, F. L., & Burton, N. W. (2018). Pilot evaluation of a resilience training program for people with multiple sclerosis. Rehabilitation Psychology, 63(1), 29–42. https://doi.org/10.1037/rep0000167CrossRefPubMed

14.

Giovannetti, A. M., Solari, A., & Pakenham, K. I. (2021). Effectiveness of a group resilience intervention for people with multiple sclerosis delivered via frontline services. Disability and Rehabilitation. https://doi.org/10.1080/09638288.2021.1960441CrossRefPubMed

15.

Giovannetti, A. M., Messmer Uccelli, M., Solari, A., & Pakenham, K. I. (2022). Evaluation of a program for training psychologists in an acceptance and commitment therapy resilience intervention for people with multiple sclerosis: A single-arm longitudinal design with a nested qualitative study. Disability and Rehabilitation. https://doi.org/10.1080/09638288.2022.2025926CrossRefPubMed

16.

Lloyd, J., Bond, F. W., & Flaxman, P. E. (2013). The value of psychological flexibility: Examining psychological mechanisms underpinning a cognitive behavioural therapy intervention for burnout. Work & Stress, 27(2), 181–199. https://doi.org/10.1080/02678373.2013.782157CrossRef

17.

Puolakanaho, A., Tolvanenb, A., Kinnunena, S. M., & Lappalainena, R. (2020). A psychological flexibility -based intervention for burnout: A randomized controlled trial. Journal of Contextual Behavioral Science, 15, 52–67.CrossRef

18.

de Wit, M., & Hajos, T. (2020). Quality of Life. In M. D. Gellman (Ed.), Encyclopedia of behavioral medicine. Springer.

19.

The World Health Organization Quality of Life assessment (WHOQOL): position paper from the World Health Organization. (1995). Social Science & Medicine (1982), 41(10), 1403–1409. https://doi.org/10.1016/0277-9536(95)00112-k

20.

Mayo, N. E. (2015). ISOQOL dictionary of quality of life and health outcomes measurement. Milwaukee: International society for quality of life research (p. 115). Eds. International Society for Quality of Life Research (ISOQOL).

21.

Densham, S., Williams, D., Johnson, A., & Turner-Cobb, J. M. (2016). Enhanced psychological flexibility and improved quality of life in chronic fatigue syndrome/myalgic encephalomyelitis. Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 88, 42–47. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpsychores.2016.07.009CrossRefPubMed

22.

Gloster, A. T., Klotsche, J., Chaker, S., Hummel, K. V., & Hoyer, J. (2011). Assessing psychological flexibility: What does it add above and beyond existing constructs? Psychological Assessment, 23(4), 970–982. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0024135CrossRefPubMed

23.

Kashdan, T. B., & Rottenberg, J. (2010). Psychological flexibility as a fundamental aspect of health. Clinical Psychology Review, 30(7), 865–878. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2010.03.001CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

24.

Pakenham, K. I., Tossani, E., Grandi, S., & Landi, G. (2023). The mediating role of psychological flexibility in the relationship between resilience and distress and quality of life in people with multiple sclerosis. Journal of Health Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1177/13591053231182364CrossRefPubMed

25.

Giovannetti, A. M., Quintas, R., Tramacere, I., Giordano, A., Confalonieri, P., Messmer Uccelli, M., Solari, A., & Pakenham, K. I. (2020). A resilience group training program for people with multiple sclerosis: Results of a pilot single-blind randomized controlled trial and nested qualitative study. PLoS ONE, 15(4), e0231380. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0231380CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

26.

Francis, A. W., Dawson, D. L., & Golijani-Moghaddam, N. (2016). The development and validation of the Comprehensive assessment of Acceptance and Commitment Therapy processes (CompACT). Journal of Contextual Behavioral Science, 5(3), 134–145. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcbs.2016.05.003CrossRef

27.

Compston, A., & Coles, A. (2002). Multiple sclerosis. Lancet (London, England), 359(9313), 1221–1231. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(02)08220-XCrossRefPubMed

28.

Aikens, J. E., Fischer, J. S., Namey, M., & Rudick, R. A. (1997). A replicated prospective investigation of life stress, coping, and depressive symptoms in multiple sclerosis. Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 20(5), 433–445. https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1025547431847CrossRefPubMed

29.

Dennison, L., Moss-Morris, R., & Chalder, T. (2009). A review of psychological correlates of adjustment in patients with multiple sclerosis. Clinical Psychology Review, 29(2), 141–153. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2008.12.001CrossRefPubMed

30.

McCabe, M. P., & McKern, S. (2002). Quality of life and multiple sclerosis: Comparison between people with multiple sclerosis and people from the general population. Journal of Clinical Psychology in Medical Settings, 9, 287–295.CrossRef

31.

Meek, C., & das Nair, R., Evangelou, N., Middleton, R., Tuite-Dalton, K., & Moghaddam, N. (2022). Psychological flexibility, distress, and quality of life in secondary progressive multiple sclerosis: A cross-sectional study. Multiple Sclerosis and Related Disorders, 67, 104154. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.msard.2022.104154CrossRefPubMed

32.

Pakenham, K. I., & Landi, G. (2023). A pilot randomised control trial of an online acceptance and commitment therapy (ACT) resilience training program for people with multiple sclerosis. Sclerosis, 1, 27–50. https://doi.org/10.3390/sclerosis1010005CrossRef

33.

Bond, F. W., Hayes, S. C., Baer, R. A., Carpenter, K. M., Guenole, N., Orcutt, H. K., Waltz, T., & Zettle, R. D. (2011). Preliminary psychometric properties of the acceptance and action questionnaire-II: A revised measure of psychological inflexibility and experiential avoidance. Behavior Therapy, 42(4), 676–688. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.beth.2011.03.007CrossRefPubMed

34.

Doorley, J. D., Goodman, F. R., Kelso, K. C., & Kashdan, T. B. (2020). Psychological flexibility: What we know, what we do not know, and what we think we know. Social and Personality Psychology Compass. https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12566CrossRef

35.

Kashdan, T. B., Disabato, D. J., Goodman, F. R., Doorley, J. D., & McKnight, P. E. (2020). Understanding psychological flexibility: A multimethod exploration of pursuing valued goals despite the presence of distress. Psychological Assessment, 32(9), 829–850. https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0000834CrossRefPubMed

36.

Wolgast, M. (2014). What does the acceptance and action questionnaire (AAQ-II) really measure? Behavior Therapy, 45(6), 831–839. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.beth.2014.07.002CrossRefPubMed

37.

Gámez, W., Chmielewski, M., Kotov, R., Ruggero, C., & Watson, D. (2011). Development of a measure of experiential avoidance: The multidimensional experiential avoidance questionnaire. Psychological Assessment, 23(3), 692–713. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0023242CrossRefPubMed

38.

Tynan, M., Afari, N., Dochat, C., Gasperi, M., Roesch, S., & Herbert, M. S. (2022). Confirmatory factor analysis of the comprehensive assessment of acceptance and commitment therapy (CompACT) in active-duty military personnel. Journal of Contextual Behavioral Science, 25, 115–121. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcbs.2022.07.001CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

39.

Hsu, T., Hoffman, L., & Thomas, E. B. K. (2023). Confirmatory measurement modeling and longitudinal invariance of the CompACT-15: A short-form assessment of psychological flexibility. Psychological Assessment, 35(5), 430–442. https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0001214CrossRefPubMed

40.

Golijani-Moghaddam, N., Morris, J. L., Bayliss, K., & Dawson, D. L. (2023). The CompACT-10: Development and validation of a comprehensive assessment of acceptance and commitment therapy processes short-form in representative UK samples. Journal of Contextual Behavioral Science, 2023(29), 59–66. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcbs.2023.06.003CrossRef

41.

Giovannetti, A. M., Pöttgen, J., Anglada, E., Menéndez, R., Hoyer, J., Giordano, A., Pakenham, K. I., Galán, I., & Solari, A. (2022). Cross-country adaptation of a psychological flexibility measure: The comprehensive assessment of acceptance and commitment therapy processes. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19(6), 3150. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19063150CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

42.

MacCallum, R. C., Widaman, K. F., Zhang, S., & Hong, S. (1999). Sample size in factor analysis. Psychological Methods, 4(1), 84–99. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.4.1.84CrossRef

43.

Polman, C. H., Reingold, S. C., Banwell, B., Clanet, M., Cohen, J. A., Filippi, M., Fujihara, K., Havrdova, E., Hutchinson, M., Kappos, L., Lublin, F. D., Montalban, X., O’Connor, P., Sandberg-Wollheim, M., Thompson, A. J., Waubant, E., Weinshenker, B., & Wolinsky, J. S. (2011). Diagnostic criteria for multiple sclerosis: 2010 revisions to the McDonald criteria. Annals of Neurology, 69(2), 292–302. https://doi.org/10.1002/ana.22366CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

44.

Zigmond, A. S., & Snaith, R. P. (1983). The hospital anxiety and depression scale. Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica, 67, 361–370. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0447.1983.tb09716.xCrossRefPubMed

45.

Connor, K. M., & Davidson, J. R. (2003). Development of a new resilience scale: The Connor-Davidson resilience scale (CD-RISC). Depression and Anxiety, 18(2), 76–82. https://doi.org/10.1002/da.10113CrossRefPubMed

46.

Hayes, S. C., Strosahl, K., Wilson, K. G., Bissett, R. T., Pistorello, J., Toarmino, D., Polusny, M. A., Dykstra, T. A., Batten, S. V., Bergan, J., Stewart, S. H., Zvolensky, M. J., Eifert, G. H., Bond, F. W., Forsyth, J. P., Karekla, M., & McCurry, S. M. (2004). Measuring experiential avoidance: A preliminary test of a working model. The Psychological Record, 54(4), 553–578. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03395492CrossRef

47.

Brown, K. W., & Ryan, R. M. (2003). The benefits of being present: Mindfulness and its role in psychological well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84(4), 822–848. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.84.4.822CrossRefPubMed

48.

Gillanders, D. T., Bolderston, H., Bond, F. W., Dempster, M., Flaxman, P. E., Campbell, L., Kerr, S., Tansey, L., Noel, P., Ferenbach, C., Masley, S., Roach, L., Lloyd, J., May, L., Clarke, S., & Remington, B. (2014). The development and initial validation of the cognitive fusion questionnaire. Behavior Therapy, 45(1), 83–101. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.beth.2013.09.001CrossRefPubMed

49.

Wilson, K. G., Sandoz, E. K., Kitchens, J., & Roberts, M. (2010). The valued living questionnaire: Defining and measuring valued action within a behavioral framework. The Psychological Record, 60, 249–272.CrossRef

50.

Vickrey, B. G., Hays, R. D., Harooni, R., Myers, L. W., & Ellison, G. W. (1995). A health-related quality of life measure for multiple sclerosis. Quality of Life Research, 4(3), 187–206. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02260859CrossRefPubMed

51.

Kurtzke, J. F. (1983). Rating neurologic impairment in multiple sclerosis: An expanded disability status scale (EDSS). Neurology, 33(11), 1444–1452. https://doi.org/10.1212/wnl.33.11.1444CrossRefPubMed

52.

Bollen, K. A. (1989). Structural equations with latent variables. John Wiley & Sons.CrossRef

53.

Horn, J. L., & McArdle, J. J. (1992). A practical and theoretical guide to measurement invariance in aging research. Experimental Aging Research, 18(3–4), 117–144. https://doi.org/10.1080/03610739208253916CrossRefPubMed

54.

Schermelleh-Engel, K., Moosbrugger, H., & Müller, H. (2003). Evaluating the fit of structural equation models: Tests of significance and descriptive goodness-of-fit measures. Methods of Psychological Research, 8(2), 23–74.

55.

Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1–55.CrossRef

56.

Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1995). Evaluating model fit. In R. H. Hoyle (Ed.), Structural equation modeling (pp. 76–99). Sage.

57.

Chen, F. F. (2007). Sensitivity of goodness of fit indexes to lack of measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling, 14(3), 464–504.CrossRef

58.

Cohen, J. (1977). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. New York: Academic Press Nunnally, J. C. & Bernstein, I. H. (1994) Psychometric Theory (3rd ed.). McGraw-Hill.

59.

Shrout, P. E., & Fleiss, J. L. (1979). Intraclass correlations: Uses in assessing rater reliability. Psychological Bulletin, 86(2), 420–428. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.86.2.420CrossRefPubMed

60.

Steinmetz, H. (2013). Analyzing observed composite differences across groups: Is partial measurement invariance enough? Methodology, 9(1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1027/1614-2241/a000049CrossRef

61.

Schmitt, N., Golubovich, J., & Leong, F. T. (2011). Impact of measurement invariance on construct correlations, mean differences, and relations with external correlates: An illustrative example using Big Five and RIASEC measures. Assessment, 18(4), 412–427. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191110373223CrossRefPubMed

62.

Coons, S. J., Gwaltney, C. J., Hays, R. D., Lundy, J. J., Sloan, J. A., Revicki, D. A., Lenderking, W. R., Cella, D., Basch, E., & ISPOR ePRO Task Force,. (2009). Recommendations on evidence needed to support measurement equivalence between electronic and paper-based patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures: ISPOR ePRO good research practices task force report. Value in Health, 12(4), 419–429. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1524-4733.2008.00470.xCrossRefPubMed

63.

Muehlhausen, W., Doll, H., Quadri, N., Fordham, B., O’Donohoe, P., Dogar, N., & Wild, D. J. (2015). Equivalence of electronic and paper administration of patient-reported outcome measures: A systematic review and meta-analysis of studies conducted between 2007 and 2013. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 13, 167. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12955-015-0362-xCrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

64.

Eremenco, S., Coons, S. J., Paty, J., Coyne, K., Bennett, A. V., McEntegart, D., & ISPOR PRO Mixed Modes Task Force,. (2014). PRO data collection in clinical trials using mixed modes: Report of the ISPOR PRO mixed modes good research practices task force. Value in Health, 17(5), 501–516. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2014.06.005CrossRefPubMed

65.

Mokkink, L. B., Terwee, C. B., Patrick, D. L., Alonso, J., Stratford, P. W., Knol, D. L., Bouter, L. M., & de Vet, H. C. (2010). The COSMIN study reached international consensus on taxonomy, terminology, and definitions of measurement properties for health-related patient-reported outcomes. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 63(7), 737–745. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.02.00CrossRefPubMed

Titel: Cross-cultural validity and reliability of the comprehensive assessment of acceptance and commitment therapy processes (CompACT) in people with multiple sclerosis
Auteurs: Ambra Mara Giovannetti
Rosalba Rosato
Ingrid Galán
Anna Toscano
Elisenda Anglada
Rebeca Menendez
Jürgen Hoyer
Paolo Confalonieri
Andrea Giordano
Kenneth Ian Pakenham
Jana Pöttgen
Alessandra Solari
Publicatiedatum: 24-02-2024
Uitgeverij: Springer International Publishing
Gepubliceerd in: Quality of Life Research / Uitgave 5/2024
Print ISSN: 0962-9343
Elektronisch ISSN: 1573-2649
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-024-03609-z

Bohn Stafleu van Loghum

Deel dit onderdeel of sectie (kopieer de link)

Abstract

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Log in om toegang te krijgen

Andere artikelen Uitgave 5/2024

Evaluation of the internet-based intervention “Selfapy” in participants with unipolar depression and the impact on quality of life: a randomized, parallel group study

Social support during re-entry period and long-term quality of life in breast cancer survivors: a 10-year longitudinal cohort study

Multimorbidity patterns and health-related quality of life among community-dwelling older adults: evidence from a rural town in Suzhou, China

Patient acceptable symptom state and treatment failure threshold values for work productivity and activity Impairment and EQ-5D-5L in osteoarthritis

Trajectory of health-related quality of life in parents of children treated with epilepsy surgery versus medical therapy

Health-related quality of life of people with heart failure in low- and middle-income countries: a systematic review and meta-analysis