ArticlePeerJ2025
Internal structure of the action and acceptance questionnaire II (AAQ-II): evidence for a three-factor and bifactor model in two samples of university students.
Article in PeerJ, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Experiential avoidance (EA), defined as an inflexible behavioral pattern by which a person tries to avoid contact with private unpleasant situations, is considered a transdiagnostic variable associated with various psychopathological disorders. The Acceptance and Action Questionnaire II (AAQ-II) is a broadly used measure of EA. However, inconsistencies in the methods employed for examining its internal structure and the need for culturally validated measures in diverse populations highlight the need for further study. We conducted two studies in Spanish-speaking university students (nStudy1 = 829; nStudy2 = 830) to determine the validity and reliability of the AAQ-II. Methods: In the first study, we examined the questionnaire through exploratory factor analysis (EFA). In the second study, we conducted confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) to examine how well these factor structures fit our data. Results: We suggested a three-factor structure (namely: painful memories, emotional distress, and affective control), in contrast with the unidimensional model consistently reported in the literature. The three-factor model showed a better fit overall. Additionally, we tested a bifactor model to determine the feasibility of a general factor. Our results suggested that this general factor explained a high amount of the variance within the model when compared to the three independent factors. In terms of convergent validity, significant positive associations were found between EA and suicidal ideation, depressive and anxious symptoms, while negative associations were found with psychological well-being. The factor structures tested showed good internal consistency indices (ω = 0.853-0.918; α = 0.853-0.918). Discussion: We discuss our results in terms of their methodological and practical implications for the use of the AAQ-II.
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.