ArticleQuality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation2024
Cross-cultural validity and reliability of the comprehensive assessment of acceptance and commitment therapy processes (CompACT) in people with multiple sclerosis.
Article in Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Assessing the psychometric properties of the 10-item version of the comprehensive assessment of ACT processes (CompACT) in a community-based adult sample.Journal of behavioral and cognitive therapy · 2026Article
- Assessing validity and reliability of the Benefit Finding Scale in Italian people with multiple sclerosis and their caregivers.Neurological sciences : official journal of the Italian Neurological Society and of the Italian Society of Clinical Neurophysiology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors at 6 institutions in 4 countries.
Funding
Abstract
purposeThe 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.
methodsWe 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.
resultsA 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.
conclusionResults 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.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.