Factor structure of the Cognitive Fusion Questionnaire in university students from Lima
Abstract
Background: Cognitive fusion is a core concept in Acceptance and Commitment Therapy. The Cognitive Fusion Questionnaire (CFQ) was developed as a unidimensional measure that would overcome the limitations of previous endeavors. Method: The current study analyzed the factor structure of the CFQ in Peruvian undergraduates (n = 450, 53% female). It also examined whether such structure was invariant between males and females. Results: Data supported the hypothesized unidimensionality, as well as strict invariance. No difference was found between males and females regarding the latent means of cognitive fusion. Reliability of the scale was high (ω = .916). Conclusion:Suggestions are made that future studies a) include other measures alongside the CFQ, b) examine the quality of the CFQ at different levels of the construct, and c) test whether or not different measures of cognitive (de)fusion measure the same construct.
Downloads
References
Bardeen, J. R., & Fergus, T. A. (2016). The interactive effect of cognitive fusion and experiential avoidance on anxiety, depression, stress and posttraumatic stress symptoms. Journal of Contextual Behavioral Science, 5(1), 1-6. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JCBS.2016.02.002
Barnes-Holmes, D., Finn, M., McEnteggart, C., & Barnes-Holmes, Y. (2018). Derived stimulus relations and their role in a behavior-analytic account of human language and cognition. Perspectives on Behavior Science, 41(1), 155-173. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40614-017-0124-7
Barnes-Holmes, Y., Barnes-Holmes, D., & McEnteggart, C. (en prensa). Relational Frame Theory: Description, evidence, and clinical applications. En P. Lucena-Santos, S. Carvalho, J. Pinto-Gouveia, M. Silva Oliveira, & J. Pistorello (Eds.), International ACT practical handbook. Reno: TBC Press.
Blackledge, J. T. (2015). Cognitive defusion in practice: a clinician’s guide to assessing, observing, supporting change in your client. Oakland: Context Press.
Bolderston, H., Gillanders, D. T., Turner, G., Taylor, H. C., Ní Mhaoileoin, D., & Coleman, A. (2018). The initial validation of a state version of the Cognitive Fusion Questionnaire. Journal of Contextual Behavioral Science. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JCBS.2018.04.002
Brosseau-Liard, P. E., & Savalei, V. (2014). Adjusting incremental fit indices for nonnormality. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 49(5), 460-470. https://doi.org/10.1080/00273171.2014.933697
Brosseau-Liard, P. E., Savalei, V., & Li, L. (2012). An investigation of the sample performance of two nonnormality corrections for RMSEA. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 47(6), 904-930. https://doi.org/10.1080/00273171.2012.715252
Brown, T. A. (2015). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research (2.a ed.). Nueva York: Guilford Press.
Byrne, B. M. (2012). Structural equation modeling with Mplus: Basic concepts, applications, and programming. Nueva York: Routledge.
Cheung, G. W., & Rensvold, R. B. (2002). Evaluating goodness-of-fit indexes for testing measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 9(2), 233-255. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15328007SEM0902_5
China, C., Hansen, L. B., Gillanders, D. T., & Benninghoven, D. (2018). Concept and validation of the German version of the Cognitive Fusion Questionnaire (CFQ-D). Journal of Contextual Behavioral Science, 9, 30-35. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JCBS.2018.06.003
Costa, J. A., Marôco, J., & Pinto-Gouveia, J. (2017). Validation of the psychometric properties of cognitive fusion questionnaire. A study of the factorial validity and factorial invariance of the measure among osteoarticular disease, diabetes mellitus, obesity, depressive disorder, and general populations. Clinical Psychology & Psychotherapy, 24(5), 1121-1129. https://doi.org/10.1002/cpp.2077
Critchfield, T. S., Barnes-Holmes, D., & Dougher, M. J. (2018). Editorial: What Sidman did -- Historical and contemporary significance of research on derived stimulus relations. Perspectives on Behavior Science, 41(1), 9-32. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40614-018-0154-9
Dionne, F., Gagnon, J., Balbinotti, M., Peixoto, E. M., Martel, M. E., Gillanders, D., & Monestès, J. L. (2016). “Buying into thoughts”: Validation of a French translation of the Cognitive Fusion Questionnaire. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, 48(4), 278-285. https://doi.org/10.1037/cbs0000053
Dominguez-Lara, S. A. (2016). Evaluación de la confiabilidad del constructo mediante el coeficiente H: breve revisión conceptual y aplicaciones. Psychologia. Avances en la Disciplina, 10(2), 87. https://doi.org/10.21500/19002386.2134
Domínguez-Lara, S. A. y Merino-Soto, C. (2015). ¿Por qué es importante reportar los intervalos de confianza del coeficiente alfa de Cronbach? Revista Latinoamericana de Ciencias Sociales, Niñez y Juventud, 13(2), 1326-1328.
Dunn, T. J., Baguley, T., & Brunsden, V. (2014). From alpha to omega: A practical solution to the pervasive problem of internal consistency estimation. British Journal of Psychology, 105(3), 399-412. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjop.12046
Flynn, M. K., Hernandez, J. O., Hebert, E. R., James, K. K., & Kusick, M. K. (2018). Cognitive fusion among hispanic college students: Further validation of the Cognitive Fusion Questionnaire. Journal of Contextual Behavioral Science, 7, 29-34. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JCBS.2017.11.003
Forman, E. M., Herbert, J. D., Juarascio, A. S., Yeomans, P. D., Zebell, J. A., Goetter, E. M., & Moitra, E. (2012). The Drexel defusion scale: A new measure of experiential distancing. Journal of Contextual Behavioral Science, 1(1-2), 55-65. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JCBS.2012.09.001
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39. https://doi.org/10.2307/3151312
Freixa i Baqué, E. (2003). ¿Qué es conducta? International Journal of Clinical and Health Psychology, 3(3), 595-613. Recuperado a partir de http://www.aepc.es/ijchp/articulos_pdf/ijchp-89.pdf
Gillanders, D. T., Bolderston, H., Bond, F. W., Dempster, M., Flaxman, P. E., Campbell, L., … 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.2013.09.001
Hadash, Y., Lichtash, Y., & Bernstein, A. (2017). Measuring decentering and related constructs: Capacity and limitations of extant assessment scales. Mindfulness, 8(6), 1674-1688. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12671-017-0743-9
Hayes, S. C., Barnes-Holmes, D., & Roche, B. (Eds.). (2001). Relational Frame Theory: A Post-Skinnerian account of human language and cognition. Nueva York: Plenum Press.
Hayes, S. C., Barnes-Holmes, D., & Wilson, K. G. (2012). Contextual Behavioral Science: Creating a science more adequate to the challenge of the human condition. Journal of Contextual Behavioral Science, 1(1-2), 1-16. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JCBS.2012.09.004
Hayes, S. C., & Brownstein, A. J. (1986). Mentalism, behavior-behavior relations, and a behavior-analytic view of the purposes of science. The Behavior Analyst, 9(2), 175-190. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03391944
Hayes, S. C., Hayes, L. J., & Reese, H. W. (1988). Finding the philosophical core: A review of Stephen C. Pepper’s World Hypotheses: A Study in Evidence. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 50(1), 97-111. https://doi.org/10.1901/jeab.1988.50-97
Hayes, S. C., Strosahl, K. D., & Wilson, K. G. (1999). Acceptance and Commitment Therapy: An experiential approach to behavior change. Nueva York: Guilford Press.
Hayes, S. C., Strosahl, K. D., & Wilson, K. G. (2014). Terapia de aceptación y compromiso. Proceso y práctica del cambio consciente (Mindfulness). Bilbao: Desclée de Brouwer.
Hayes, S. C., & Wilson, K. G. (1995). The role of cognition in complex human behavior: A contextualistic perspective. Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry, 26(3), 241-248. https://doi.org/10.1016/0005-7916(95)00024-T
Herzberg, K. N., Sheppard, S. C., Forsyth, J. P., Credé, M., Earleywine, M., & Eifert, G. H. (2012). The Believability of Anxious Feelings and Thoughts Questionnaire (BAFT): A psychometric evaluation of cognitive fusion in a nonclinical and highly anxious community sample. Psychological Assessment, 24(4), 877-891. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0027782
Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1-55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118
Kim, B.-O., & Cho, S. (2015). Psychometric properties of a Korean version of the Cognitive Fusion Questionnaire. Social Behavior and Personality: an international journal, 43(10), 1715-1723. https://doi.org/10.2224/sbp.2015.43.10.1715
Krafft, J., Haeger, J. A., & Levin, M. E. (2018). Comparing cognitive fusion and cognitive reappraisal as predictors of college student mental health. Cognitive Behaviour Therapy, 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1080/16506073.2018.1513556
Larsson, A., Hooper, N., Osborne, L. A., Bennett, P., & McHugh, L. (2016). Using brief cognitive restructuring and cognitive defusion techniques to cope with negative thoughts. Behavior Modification, 40(3), 452-482. https://doi.org/10.1177/0145445515621488
López-López, J. C., & Luciano, C. (2017). An experimental analysis of defusion interactions based on deictic and hierarchical framings and their impact on cognitive performance. The Psychological Record, 67(4), 485-497. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40732-017-0250-3
Lucena-Santos, P., Carvalho, S., Pinto-Gouveia, J., Gillanders, D., & Silva Oliveira, M. (2017). Cognitive Fusion Questionnaire: Exploring measurement invariance across three groups of Brazilian women and the role of cognitive fusion as a mediator in the relationship between rumination and depression. Journal of Contextual Behavioral Science, 6(1), 53-62. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JCBS.2017.02.004
Luciano, C. (2016). Evolución de ACT. Análisis y Modificación de Conducta, 42(165-166), 3-14. Recuperado a partir de http://rabida.uhu.es/dspace/handle/10272/12309
Mardia, K. V. (1970). Measures of multivariate skewness and kurtosis with applications. Biometrika, 57(3), 519-530. https://doi.org/10.1093/biomet/57.3.519
McCracken, L. M., DaSilva, P., Skillicorn, B., & Doherty, R. (2014). The Cognitive Fusion Questionnaire: A preliminary study of psychometric properties and prediction of functioning in chronic pain. The Clinical Journal of Pain, 30(10), 894-901. https://doi.org/10.1097/AJP.0000000000000047
McEnteggart, C. (2018). A brief tutorial on acceptance and commitment therapy as seen through the lens of derived stimulus relations. Perspectives on Behavior Science, 41(1), 215-227. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40614-018-0149-6
McNeish, D. (2018). Thanks coefficient alpha, we’ll take it from here. Psychological Methods, 23(3), 412-433. https://doi.org/10.1037/met0000144
Meyer, J. P. (2010). Reliability. Nueva York: Oxford University Press.
Montero, I., & León, O. G. (2007). A guide for naming research studies in Psychology. International Journal of Clinical and Health Psychology, 7(3), 847-862. Recuperado a partir de http://www.aepc.es/ijchp/GNEIP07_es.pdf
Ong, C. W., Pierce, B. G., Woods, D. W., Twohig, M. P., & Levin, M. E. (2018). The Acceptance and Action Questionnaire – II: An item response theory analysis. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10862-018-9694-2
Peters, G. (2018). Userfriendlyscience: Quantitative analysis made accessible. Paquete de R, versión 0.7.2. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=userfriendlyscience
R Core Team. (2018). R: A language and environment for statistical computing (version 3.4.4) [Programa de computadora]. Viena: R Foundation of Statistical Computing. https://www.r-project.org/
Raykov, T. (2012). Scale construction and development using structural equation modeling. En R. H. Hoyle (Ed.), Handbook of structural equation modeling. (pp. 472-492). Nueva York: Guilford Press.
Raykov, T., & Marcoulides, G. A. (2017). Thanks coefficient alpha, we still need you! Educational and Psychological Measurement. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164417725127
Revelle, W. (2018). psych: Procedures for Personality and Psychological Research. Paquete de R, versión 1.8.4. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=psych
Romero-Moreno, R., Márquez-González, M., Losada, A., Gillanders, D., & Fernández-Fernández, V. (2014). Cognitive fusion in dementia caregiving: Psychometric properties of the Spanish version of the “Cognitive Fusion Questionnaire”. Psicología Conductual, 22(1), 117-132.
Rosseel, Y. (2012). lavaan: An R package for structural equation modeling. Journal of Statistical Software, 48(2), 1-36. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v048.i02
Ruiz, F. J., Suárez-Falcón, J. C., Riaño-Hernández, D., & Gillanders, D. (2017). Psychometric properties of the Cognitive Fusion Questionnaire in Colombia. Revista Latinoamericana de Psicología, 49(1), 80-87. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.RLP.2016.09.006
Satorra, A., & Bentler, P. M. (2001). A scaled difference chi-square test statistic for moment structure analysis. Psychometrika, 66(4), 507-514. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02296192
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.
Sidman, M. (2009). Equivalence relations and behavior: An introductory tutorial. The Analysis of Verbal Behavior, 25(1), 5-17. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03393066
Solé, E., Racine, M., Castarlenas, E., de la Vega, R., Tomé-Pires, C., Jensen, M., & Miró, J. (2016). The psychometric properties of the Cognitive Fusion Questionnaire in adolescents. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 32(3), 181-186. https://doi.org/10.1027/1015-5759/a000244
Törneke, N. (2015). Aprendiendo TMR: una introducción a la Teoría del Marco Relacional y sus aplicaciones clínicas. Jaén: MICPSY.
Törneke, N., Luciano, C., Barnes-Holmes, Y., & Bond, F. W. (2015). RFT for Clinical Practice. En R. D. Zettle, S. C. Hayes, D. Barnes-Holmes, & A. Biglan (Eds.), The Wiley Handbook of Contextual Behavioral Science (pp. 254-272). Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118489857.ch12
Tyndall, I., Waldeck, D., Pancani, L., Whelan, R., Roche, B., & Dawson, D. L. (2018). The Acceptance and Action Questionnaire-II (AAQ-II) as a measure of experiential avoidance: Concerns over discriminant validity. Journal of Contextual Behavioral Science. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JCBS.2018.09.005
Wilson, K. G., & Hayes, S. C. (2000). Why it is crucial to understand thinking and feeling: An analysis and application to drug abuse. The Behavior Analyst, 23(1), 25-43. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03391997
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.2014.07.002
Yuan, K.-H., & Bentler, P. M. (2000). Three likelihood-based methods for mean and covariance structure analysis with nonnormal missing data. Sociological Methodology, 30(1), 165-200. https://doi.org/10.1111/0081-1750.00078
Zettle, R. D., & Hayes, S. C. (1986). Dysfunctional control by client verbal behavior: The context of reason-giving. The Analysis of Verbal Behavior, 4(1), 30-38. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03392813
Copyright (c) 2019 Interacciones
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
The authors retain the copyright and give the journal the right of the first publication and that they can edit it, reproduce it, distribute it, exhibit it and communicate it in the country and abroad through printed and digital media.
The digital version of the journal is registered under a Creative Commons license (Under Creative Commons License): Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0). Therefore, this work can be reproduced, distributed and publicly communicated in digital format, provided that the names of the authors and Interacciones.
Therefore, it is established that authors can make other independent and additional behavioural agreements for the non-exclusive distribution of the version of the article published in this journal (eg, include it in institutional repositories or publish it in a book) as long as it is clearly indicated that the work was published for the first time in this journal.
