Is the AAQ-II that bad?
Francisco J. Ruiz, Javier M. Bianchi, Douglas M. Bastidas-Suárez, Eduar S. Ramírez, Valentina Peña-Hernández
Abstract
The Acceptance and Action Questionnaire – II (AAQ-II) has been heavily criticized based on factor-analytic studies that analyzed its discriminant validity . These studies have suggested that the AAQ-II may measure trait negative emotion/neuroticism, which has led some authors to suggest that the studies utilizing the AAQ-II might be reread, changing "psychological flexibility” or "experiential avoidance” for "neuroticism,” "negative emotion,” or "distress.” We suggest most of these findings are due to the inconsistent use of the AAQ-II as a measure of psychological flexibility and experiential avoidance instead of psychological inflexibility. Additionally, we analyze the discriminant validity of the Spanish version of the AAQ-II in three Colombian samples. In Study 1, we conducted both exploratory graph analysis (EGA) and exploratory factor analysis (EFA) to determine the number of dimensions in a general online sample ( N = 2398) and a treatment-seeking sample ( N = 358) that responded to the AAQ-II and the Depression, Anxiety, and Stress Scale – 21 (DASS-21). In Study 2, we conducted the same analyses in a general online sample ( N = 444) that responded to the AAQ-II, DASS-21, and the Big Five Inventory – 2 Neuroticism subscale. All analyses indicated that the AAQ-II items pertained to a unique community/factor and strongly supported the discriminant validity of the AAQ-II in Colombian samples. We recommend using the AAQ-II only as a measure of psychological inflexibility and argue that it is too adventurous to suggest the reinterpretation of thousands of studies and discourage journals from publishing articles using the AAQ-II.