A number of instruments have been developed to measure ACT-specific processes. This section of the site will provide more information about these instruments, including downloads when available.
Measures are being developed very rapidly, and we encourage developers to contribute updates to this section of the site as often as possible. Interested parties are also encouraged to join the ACT listserv to learn of updated measures. Click on an instrument below to learn more about it.
ACBS Members: If you have an ACT-specific measure you would like listed here, click on the "add child page" link at the bottom of this page. When adding your content, remember that you can attach relevant files and documents.
Acceptance and Action Questionnaire – II (AAQ-II)
The AAQ-II was developed in order to establish an internally consistent measure of ACT’s model of mental health and behavioral effectiveness. Although the original AAQ (Hayes, Strosahl, Wilson, Bissett, Pistorello et al., 2004) has proved broadly useful (see Hayes, Luoma, Bond, Masuda and Lillis, 2006), obtaining sufficient alpha levels for it has at times been a problem. It appears that there are several reasons for this (e.g., scale brevity, item wording, item selection procedures), and they were addressed in developing the AAQ-II. As a result, it is recommended that researchers and practitioners use this newer scale instead of the original AAQ (which from here forward will be termed the AAQ-I). The AAQ-II was designed to assess the same construct as the AAQ-I and, indeed, the two scales correlate at .82. Thus, the AAQ-I can still be used, and findings based on it are still relevant, but it is perhaps psychometrically safer to use the AAQ-II.
The reference for the AAQ-II is:
Bond, F.W., Hayes, S.C., Baer, R.A., Carpenter, K.M., Orcutt, H.K., Waltz, T. & Zettle, R.D. (Submitted). Preliminary psychometric properties of the Acceptance and Action Questionnaire – II: A revised measure of psychological flexibility and acceptance.
(Note that authorship order was alphabetically determined for Carpenter, Orcutt, Waltz, and Zettle.)
What do we call ACT’s model of mental health and behavioral effectiveness? (Or, what does the AAQ-I and -II measure?)
[Taken from Bond et al. (Submitted)]
When ACT was originally developed, the overarching term for its underlying model was experiential avoidance – the attempt to alter the form, frequency, or situational sensitivity of negative private events (e.g., thoughts, feelings, and physiological sensations), even when doing so leads to behavioral difficulties (Hayes, Wilson, Gifford, Follette, & Strosahl, 1996). Acceptance was the term used to positively describe this model; thus, it is defined as the willingness to experience (i.e., not alter the form, frequency, or sensitivity of) unwanted private events, in the pursuit of one’s values and goals.
The ACT model has matured over the years, with more emphasis on the dynamic and flexible fit between context, private experiences and valued action, which have always been inherent in the model. Such flexibility is seen when ACT therapists note that sometimes persisting in behavior is helpful, while at other times changing it is helpful: it depends upon the value- and goal-related opportunities that are available in a given context. Furthermore, as other parts of the ACT model are now given emphasis (e.g., cognitive defusion, contacting the present moment, mindfulness, and perspective-taking), experiential avoidance and, hence, acceptance are taking on a narrower meaning and are being used less often as terms for the overarching model (Hayes et al., 2006). Instead, the term psychological flexibility (or flexibility) is now being used to describe this model. It is defined as the ability to fully contact the present moment and the thoughts and feelings it contains without needless defense, and, depending upon what the situation affords, persisting or changing in behavior in the pursuit of goals and values (Hayes et al., 2006). While experiential avoidance and acceptance are still useful and acceptable ways to describe this construct, psychological flexibility is the more current and overarching term. In addition, it needs to be acknowledged that in some contexts (e.g., industrial-organizational psychology) it is important to speak of this domain positively (acceptance or flexibility) and in other contexts (e.g., psychopathology) it is easier to speak of it negatively (experiential avoidance or psychological inflexibility). These differences are terminological, not substantive.
The AAQ-II and key psychometric findings for the scale can be found here. Older versions of the AAQ (i.e., AAQ-9, AAQ-16 and AAQ-49) are also listed below.
There are more specific acceptance and defusion measures available. A good measure has been developed in the area of smoking (contact Elizabeth Gifford for more information: elizgifford@earthlink.net); a pain measure developed from the earliest versions of the AAQ called the Chronic Pain Acceptance Questionnaire (CPAQ; see attachments below) has been published and worked very well in this area (contact Lance McCracken for more information: Lance.McCracken@rnhrd-tr.swest.nhs.uk).
Several AAQ measures for specific problems and populations are posted under Disease and disorder specific AAQ variations.
There are also a variety of translated versions of the AAQ and AAQ-II posted under ACT measures in Languages Other than English.
Other values measures are under development. Kelly Wilson (kwilson@olemiss.edu) or Matthew Smout (matthew.smout@saugov.sa.gov.au) are working on other approaches, and you may want to contact them.
This is a new approach developed by J. T. Blacklege and Joe Ciarocchi at the University of Wollongong.
In an August 2005 email J. T. said this
Joseph Ciarrochi & I (with invaluable suggestions from Steve) have just finished designing two new ACT values questionnaires that borrow elements from Sheldon's Personal Striving assessment form (Joseph discovered Kennon Sheldon's work a while back and it pointed us in a direction we felt might enhance ACT values assessment).
One is a full-length form called the Personal Values Questionnaire (which measures all 9 ACT values domains); the second is called the Social Values Survey (which measures only social, family, and couples relationships) that we tailored for a brief intervention with young adolescents.
There is currently no psychometric data for either (they are changed enough that Sheldon's Personal Striving data is largely irrelevant), though we will be validating the SVS on a sample of 8th graders in a few weeks, and validating the PVQ on a university student sample early next year. Please feel more than free to validate these questionnaires on any samply you see fit (just let us know--we'd love to see the data). The format of the questionnaire is close enough to Sheldon's for us to expect the measures to have similarly reasonable psychometric properties, but, of course, who knows until we see data.
We had two primary purposes in mind while we were designing these instruments. First, we wanted to describe each values domain in a way likely to influence subjects to write relatively ACT-consistent values--even if these subjects had not been exposed to ACT therapy. As we all know, ACT talks about values in a different way than the term is usually used--and it's thus hard to expect someone not familiar with ACT to state a value in an ACT-consistent way without interacting with a therapist.. We wanted to make it clear to subjects that by value, we are referring to unilateral actions that are likely to lead to increased vitality, meaning, purpose--not static end states that appear implicitly out of one's control. In other words, to avoid getting responses like "I value close friendships", we included prompts like, "What kinds of friendships would you most like to build? If you were able to be the best friend possible, how would you behave toward your friends? For example, you might value building friendships that are supportive, considerate, caring, accepting, loyal, or honest—but choose for yourself which qualities you would most like to bring to your friendships. " Some subtle changes from wording used on previous versions of values questionnaires, but we felt the 'build' theme, along with examples, seemed to provide the kind of prompts that might be more helpful.
Second, we wanted to include Likert-scale questions that assessed things like how much each stated value might be a function of things like pliance or experiential avoidance. Steve oriented us back toward RFT/rule governed behaviour terms that capture what we were trying to assess: as it stands now, question one under each values domain on the SVS and PVQ assesses pliance, question 2 assesses avoidant tracking, and questions 3 & 4 assess augmentals. There are also items that get at importance of each value, effectiveness in moving toward it, etc. As it stands (using Sheldon's scoring algorithms and common sense), subtracting the sum of items 1 & 2 from the sum of items 3 & 4 would yield a sort of 'value purity' score that tells us to what degree a subject/client values the stated value for the reasons we'd hope for from an ACT perspective (higher positive score = greater 'purity' of the value; negative score means the 'value' is actually a function of pliance and/or avoidance).
We've also similarly updated the SVS. Please use this version rather than the previously posted one.
We've tinkered with the instrument instructions a bit. Please use this version instead of the previously posted one.
This is an approach developed by Tobias Lundgren and JoAnne Dahl at the University of Uppsala and successful used in a recent study on reducing epileptic seizures with ACT.
see attachement - & feel free to change it as you like - one is a word doc. & then a jpeg
The Valued Living Questionnaire is a simple questionnaire originally developed as a clinical tool. It's categories map relatively closely to the categories in the original ACT book (no surprise, since I authored both). I have also added a short working guide to its use. We have a paper describing its basic psychometric properties. A preprint is available here on the ACBS site Download Manuscript. The manuscript contains a copy of the VLQ. Feel free to email me Kelly G. Wilson for any updates. Also, to get a better flavor of the values work, I would recommend reading my chapter with Amy Murrell in the Mindfulness and Acceptance book. The chapter is also available here on this site: Values Work in ACT.
peace all,
Kelly
The ACT daily diary and weekly report (see attachments below) can be clinically useful in monitoring progress.
This page includes a list of translated ACT measures. As a courtesy, if you use these versions in research it is common to contact the translator and let them know of the study -- certainly before publishing it.
AAQ translated in Chinese.
Author contact information:
Ai-Ti Tseng
Department of Psychology
National Cheng Chi University, Taiwan
93752006@nccu.edu.tw
Also here: http://www.contextualpsychology.org/questionnaire_dacceptation_et_daction
AAQ translated in Hebrew.
Liad Bareket-Bojmel
Department of Behavioral Sciences
Ben-Gurion University
liadbar@bgu.ac.il
Spanish version of the AAQ.
References:
Barraca, J. (2004). Spanish Adaptation of the Acceptance and Action Questionnaire (AAQ). International Journal of Psychology and Psychological Therapy, 4, (3), 505-515.
16 question AAQ in Korean.
Courtsey of HEO, Jaehong.
AAQ-II translated in Dutch.
Version française de l'AAQ-II. Les résultats préliminaires indiquent que la version française du questionnaire d'acceptation et d'action-II est fiable et valide. Elle peut donc être utilisée en recherche comme en clinique. L'article est en préparation.
AAQ-II translated in Japanese.
Naoko Kishita, Tetsuya Yamamoto, & Hironori Shimada
Author contact information:
Naoko Kishita
Graduate School of Human Sciences,
Waseda University, Japan
sun_village@suou.waseda.jp
Translated AAQ-II in Norwegian.
Translated by Trym N. Jacobsen and Ayna B.Johansen(can be reached at trym_n_jacobsen@yahoo.no)
AAQ-II translated in Portuguese.
German 22-item AAQ.
This German version of the AAQ was used in an upcoming study by these authors
The 22 item version (the one you can score all vaidated ways) of the AAQ-I in Swedish.
Translated by Rikard Calmbro and Henrik Torneskog. The translators can be reached at calmbro@hotmail.com.
This page includes behavioral measures used in laboratory-based studies.
The Center for Addictions, Personality, and Emotion Research has several computerized behavioral measures available for download including the PASAT-C (a distressing math task) and the mirror tracing task. You can access these programs by clicking here.
This page contains a working list of child and adolescent specific measures related to ACT processes.
The WAM and AFQ were derived from an initial pool of 50 items developed to measure psychological acceptance, conceptualized as an active and multidimensional process involving high or low levels of: willingness to experience private events, values-oriented action, experiential avoidance, and cognitive and emotional fusion. Results of exploratory factor analysis on these initial 50 items supported a three-factor solution. Factor one consisted of 25 items, all negatively worded. Conceptually, this factor seems to tap into experiential avoidance and fusion and is now the Avoidance and Fusion Questionnaire for Youth (AFQ-Y). Factors two and three were combined into a single measure – the Willingness and Action Measure for Children and Adolescents (WAM-C/A). The WAM can be broken down into a 9-item Action Scale and a 5-item Willingness Scale. The WAM total and subscale scores correlate with each other but not with the AFQ-Y. Perhaps unsurprisingly, the Action Scale seems to be driving the results of the WAM. A validation study is currently underway and will help determine which version of the WAM is most useful and psychometrically sound. At this point, we suggest using the 14-item WAM to measure willingness and ability to take action.
We have used the WAM and AFQ with children and adolescents 9-17 years old. Based on results from school studies in middle Tennessee, children report good comprehension of items. Though preliminary, our findings suggest that the WAM may be a stronger predictor of positive outcomes such as quality of life and social effectiveness, whereas the AFQ may be a stronger predictor of negative outcomes such as physical and emotional symptoms. As noted above, the nine Action items seem to be driving the predictive utility of the WAM (Greco, Dew, & Baer, in progress). If you’d like more information regarding these scales, please contact Laurie.Greco@Vanderbilt.Edu.
WAM-C/A and AFQ-Y References:
Greco, L. A., Murrell, A. R., & Coyne, L. W. (2004). The Willingness and Action Measure for Children and Adolescents. Available from the first author at the Division of Adolescent Medicine and Behavioral Science, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN.
"The CAMM is a 25-item measure of mindfulness and assesses the degree to which children and adolescents observe internal experiences, act with awareness, and accept internal experiences without judging them.
Scoring: Respondents are asked to indicate how true each item reflects their experience using a 5-point scale ranging from 0 (Never true) to 4 (Always true). A total acceptance-mindfulness score can be generated by reverse scoring negatively worded items (see below) and summing the item total, yielding a possible range in scores from 0-100. Higher scores indicate higher levels of acceptance and mindfulness.
Reverse-scored items: 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10, 11, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 25
Reliability: The CAMM demonstrates good internal consistency, with Cronbach’s alpha = .87.
Validity: Research using the CAMM suggests the measure has good concurrent validity.
Reference:
Greco, L. A., Dew, S. E., & Ball, S. (2005). Acceptance, mindfulness, and related processes in childhood: Measurement issues, clinical relevance, and future directions. In S.E. Dew & R. Baer (Chairs), Measuring Acceptance, Mindfulness, and Related Processes: Empirical Findings and Clinical Applications across Child, Adolescent, and Adult Samples. Symposium presented at the Association for Behavior and Cognitive Therapies, Washington, DC."
Information quoted from Ciarrochi, J. & Bilich, L. (2006). Process measures of potential relevance to ACT. Unpublished manuscript, University of Wollongong, Australia.
"Authors: L. A. Greco & Hart
The Diabetes Acceptance and Action Scale for Children and Adolescents is a 42-item measure that is being used to indicate levels of psychological flexibility in youth with Type 1 diabetes.
Scoring: To score the DAAS, first reverse score negatively worded items (see below), then sum all items. Higher scores on the DAAS should reflect higher levels of diabetes-related acceptance and action.
Reverse score key: 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11, 13, 14, 17, 18, 19, 21, 22, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42.
The authors are still in the process of collecting data. Preliminary data obtained thus far reveals statistically significant correlations:
Diabetes-related quality of life = .36 (higher acceptance correlates with higher Quality of Life)
Diabetes-related worry = -.41
Social anxiety = -.36
Adherence to medical regimen = .30"
Information quoted from Ciarrochi, J. & Bilich, L. (2006). Process measures of potential relevance to ACT. Unpublished manuscript, University of Wollongong, Australia.
The Avoidance and Fusion Questionnaire for Youth (AFQ-Y; Greco, Murrell, & Coyne, 2005) is a 17-item measure that asks respondents to rate how true each item is for them (0 = Not at All True; 4 = Very True). Items are tied to ACT’s model of human suffering and were generated to represent a theoretically cohesive conceptualization of psychological inflexibility fostered by: (1) Cognitive fusion (e.g., “My thoughts and feelings mess up my life,” “The bad things I think about myself must be true”); (2) Experiential avoidance (e.g., “I push away thoughts and feelings that I don’t like”); and (3) Inaction or behavioral ineffectiveness in the presence of unwanted internal experiences (e.g., “I can’t be a good friend when I feel upset”).
Consistent with the theory underlying acceptance and commitment therapy (ACT), items converged into a 17-item scale (AFQ-Y) and an 8-item short form (AFQ-Y8). Results of classical test theory, factor analysis, and item response theory support the psychometric properties of the 17-item version of the AFQ-Y and AFQ-Y8. Overall, research suggests that the AFQ-Y may be a useful and child-friendly measure of core ACT processes.
Reference
Greco, L. A., Lambert, W., & Baer, R. A. (2008). Psychological inflexibility in childhood and adolescence: Development and evaluation of the Avoidance and Fusion Questionnaire for Youth. Psychological Assessment. 20(2), 93-102.
There are many measures of ACT concepts that have been developed for specific disorders, syndromes, and types of chronic disease.
Diabetes specific AAQ
Trauma specific AAQ
Acceptance and Action Questionnaire for Weight-Related Difficulties.
Reference: Lillis, J. & Hayes, S.C. (under review). Measuring avoidance and inflexibility in weight related problems.
The Avoidance and Inflexibility Scale (AIS) assesses ACT processes in the context of cigarette smoking.
Reference:
Gifford, E. V., Antonuccio, D.O, Kohlenberg, B.S., Hayes, S.C., & Piasecki, M.M. (2002). Combining Bupropion SR with acceptance and commitment-based behavioral therapy for smoking cessation: Preliminary results from a randomized controlled trial. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Association for Advancement of Behavioral Therapy, Reno, NV.
Sandoz, E. K., Wilson, K. G., & Merwin, R. M. (under review). Assessing Body Image Acceptance: The Body Image - Acceptance and Action Questionnaire.
Abstract
As acceptance and mindfulness are increasingly emphasized in body image and disordered eating interventions, the development of measures of proposed change processes related to these skills become necessary. The current study evaluated one such instrument, the Body Image – Acceptance and Action Questionnaire (BI-AAQ), which was designed to measure body image acceptance. One hundred eighty-two undergraduates completed the BI-AAQ along with measures of general distress, body image dissatisfaction, eating pathology, mindfulness, and acceptance. The BI-AAQ was shown to have good internal consistency, as well as concurrent, criterion-related, and incremental validity. Body image acceptance seems to be important in predicting eating pathology above and beyond body image distress, and the BI-AAQ is a psychometrically sound instrument for measuring it. Thus, the BI-AAQ is proposed as a measure of body image acceptance, a potential change process in acceptance-oriented treatments of negative body image and eating disorders.
Scale is linked in .pdf format below and is downloadable for members. All items are reverse-scored to yield a score for body image acceptance.
Contact Emily Sandoz with questions, comments, or requests for the working manuscript: eksandoz@olemiss.edu
Chronic Pain version of the AAQ
Tinnitus specific AAQ.
Reference:
Westin, V., Hayes, S. C., & Andersson, G. (in press). Is it the sound or your relationship to it? The role of acceptance in predicting tinnitus impact. Behaviour Research and Therapy.
The Voices Acceptance and Action Questionnaire.
Reference: Shawyer, F., Ratcliff, K., Mackinnon, A., Farhall, J., Hayes, S.C. & Copolov, D. (2007). The
voices acceptance and action scale (VAAS): Pilot data. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 63(6), 593–606.
Partial list of fusion measures.
Automatic Thoughts-Believability measure.
Reference: Zettle, R. D. & Hayes, S. C. (1986). Dysfunctional control by client verbal behavior: The context
of reason giving. The Analysis of Verbal Behavior, 4, 30 38.
Assesses believability of negative thoughts towards clients.
Reference: Hayes, S. C., Bissett, R., Roget, N., Padilla, M., Kohlenberg, B. S., Fisher, G., Masuda, A.,
Pistorello, J., Rye, A. K., Berry, K. & Niccolls, R. (2004). The impact of acceptance and commitment training and multicultural training on the stigmatizing attitudes and professional burnout of substance abuse counselors. Behavior Therapy, 35, 821-835.
Partial list of available mindfulness measures.
The Five Facet Mindfulness Questionnaire is a 39 item measure consisting of five subscales (observing, describing, acting with awareness, non-judging of inner experience, and non-reactivity to inner experience).
Reference:
Baer, R. A., Smith, G. T., Hopkins, J., Krietemeyer, J., & Toney, L. (2006). Using self-report assessment methods to explore facets of mindfulness. Assessment, 13, 27-45.
Baer, R. A., Smith, G. T., Lykins, E., Button, D., Krietemeyer, J., Sauer, S., et al. (2008). Construct validity of the five facet mindfulness questionnaire in meditating and nonmeditating samples. Assessment, 15, 329-342.
The scale and measure development article are included below.
The Mindful Attention Awareness Scale (MAAS) is a 15 item measure assessing mindfulness of moment to moment experience.
Reference:
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.
The Philadelphia Mindfulness Scale is a 20 item measure consisting of 2 sub-scales (acceptance and present moment awareness).
Reference:
Cardaciotto, L., Herbert, J. D., Forman, E. M., Moitra, E., & Farrow, V. (2008). The assessment of present-moment awareness and acceptance: The Philadelphia mindfulness scale. Assessment, 15, 204-223.
This page is a working list of other measures related to ACT processes.
Reference: Carver, C. S., Scheier, M. F., & Weintraub, J. K. (1989). Assessing coping strategies: A theoretically based approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56(2), 267-283.
Description from abstract of original paper:
"We developed a multidimensional coping inventory to assess the different ways in which people respond to stress. Five scales (of four items each) measure conceptually distinct aspects of problem-focused coping (active coping, planning, suppression of competing activities, restraint coping, seeking of instrumental social support); five scales measure aspects of what might be viewed as emotion-focused coping (seeking of emotional social support, positive reinterpretation, acceptance, denial, turning to religion); and three scales measure coping responses that arguably are less useful (focus on and venting of emotions, behavioral disengagement, mental disengagement). Study 1 reports the development of scale items. Study 2 reports correlations between the various coping scales and several theoretically relevant personality measures in an effort to provide preliminary information about the inventory's convergent and discriminant validity. Study 3 uses the inventory to assess coping responses among a group of undergraduates who were attempting to cope with a specific stressful episode. This study also allowed an initial examination of associations between dispositional and situational coping tendencies."
Internalized Shame Scale.
Reference:
Rosario, P.M. & White, R.M. (2006). The Internalized Shame Scale: Temporal stability, internal
consistency, and principal components analysis. Personality and Individual Differences, 41, 95–103.
The Psychological Inflexibility in Pain Scale (PIPS) assesses both avoidance of pain and cognitive fusion with pain.
Reference:
Wicksell, R. K., Renöfält, J., Olsson, G. L., Bond, F.W. & Melin, L. (2008). Avoidance and cognitive fusion - central components in pain related disability? Development and preliminary validation of the Psychological Inflexibility in Pain Scale (PIPS). European Journal of Pain, 12, 491-500.
Scale for personality rigidity.
Reference: Rehfisch, J.M. (1958). A scale for personality rigidity. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 22, 11-15.
This scale has been found to relate to rule governed behavior in laboratory studies.
Wulfert, E., Greenway, D. E., Farkas, P., Hayes, S. C., & Dougher, M. J. (1994). Correlation between a personality test for rigidity and rule-governed insensitivity to operant contingencies. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 27, 659-671.
From abstract:
"Adults were selected on the basis of their scores on the Scale for Personality Rigidity (Rehfisch, 1958). Their scores served as a measure of hypothesized rule governance in the natural environment. Experiment 1 studied the effects of accurate versus minimal instructions and high versus low rigitidy on performance on a multiple differential-reinforcement-of-low-rate (DRL) 4-s fixed-ratio (FR) 18 schedule. When the schedule was switched to extinction, accurate instructions and high rigidity were associated with greater perseveration in the response pattern subjects developed during the reinforcement phase. In Experiment 2, the effects of rigidity and of accurate versus inaccurate instructions were studied. Initially, all subjects received accurate instructions about an FR schedule. The schedule was then switched to DRL, but only half of the subjects received instructions about the DRL contingency, and the other half received FR instructions as before. Accurate instructions minimized individual differences because both high and low scorers on the rigidity scale earned points in DRL. However, when inaccurate instructions were provided, all high-rigidity subjects follow them although they did not earn points on the schedule, whereas most low-rigidity subjects abandoned them and responded appropriately to DRL. The experiments demonstrate a correlation between performances observed in the human operant laboratory and a paper-and-pencil test of rigidity that purportedly reflects important response styles that differentiate individuals in the natural environment. Implications for applied research and intervention are discussed."
Reference:
Neff, K. D. (2003). Development and validation of a scale to measure self-compassion. Self and Identity, 2, 223-250.
Coding Key:
Self-Kindness Items: 5, 12, 19, 23, 26
Self-Judgment Items: 1, 8, 11, 16, 21
Common Humanity Items: 3, 7, 10, 15
Isolation Items: 4, 13, 18, 25
Mindfulness Items: 9, 14, 17, 22
Over-identified Items: 2, 6, 20, 24
Subscale scores are computed by calculating the mean of subscale item responses. To compute a total self-compassion score, reverse score the negative subscale items - self-judgment, isolation, and over-identification - then compute a total mean.
(This method of calculating the total score is slightly different than that used in the article referenced above, in which each subscale was added together. However, I find it is easier to interpret the scores if the total mean is used.)
The Thought Control Questionnaire assesses different methods used to control unwanted/aversive thoughts. The measure can be downloaded here.
Reference:
Wells, A., & Davies, M. I. (1994). The thought control questionnaire: A measure of individual differences in the control of unwanted thoughts. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 32, 871–878.
"Authors: R. Michael Bagby, James D. A. Parker and Graeme J. Taylor
The TAS is a 20-item instrument that is one of the most commonly used measures of alexithymia. Alexithymia refers to people who have trouble identifying and describing emotions and who tend to minimise emotional experience and focus attention externally.
The TAS-20 has 3 subscales:
• Difficulty Describing Feelings subscale is used to measure difficulty describing emotions. 5 items – 2, 4, 7, 12, 17.
• Difficulty Identifying Feeling subscale is used to measure difficulty identifying emotions. 7 items – 1, 3, 6, 11, 9, 13, 14.
• Externally-Oriented Thinking subscale is used to measure the tendency of individuals to focus their attention externally. 8 items – 5, 8, 10, 15, 16, 18, 19, 20.
Scoring: The TAS-20 is a self-report scale that is comprised of 20 items. Items are rated using a 5-point Likert scale whereby 1 = strongly disagree and 5 = strongly agree. There are 5 items that are negatively keyed (items 4, 5, 10, 18 and 19). The total alexithymia score is the sum of responses to all 20 items, while the score for each subscale factor is the sum of the responses to that subscale.
The TAS-20 uses cutoff scoring: equal to or less than 51 = non-alexithymia, equal to or greater than 61 = alexithymia. Scores of 52 to 60 = possible alexithymia.
Reliability: Demonstrates good internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha = .81) and test-retest reliability (.77, p<.01).
Validity: Research using the TAS-20 demonstrates adequate levels of convergent and concurrent validity. The 3 factor structure was found to be theoretically congruent with the alexithymia construct. In addition, it has been found to be stable and replicable across clinical and nonclinical populations.
Reference:
Bagby, R. M., Parker, J. D. A. & Taylor, G. J. (1994). The twenty-item Toronto Alexithymia Scale-I. Item selection and cross-validation of the factor structure. Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 38, 23-32."
Information quoted from Ciarrochi, J. & Bilich, L. (2006). Process measures of potential relevance to ACT. Unpublished manuscript, University of Wollongong, Australia.
"Authors: Daniel M. Wegner & Sophia Zanakos
The WBSI is a 15-item questionnaire that is designed to measure thought suppression. Chronic thoughts suppression is a variable that is related to obsessive thinking and negative affect associated with depression and anxiety. The WBSI can help to identify individuals who are more prone to develop chronic thought suppression as well as individuals who express wishing they were not depressed, but are in fact depressed. The measure can also be used by practitioners to evaluate changer over time.
Scoring: The scoring of the WBSI is based on a 5 point scale from Strongly disagree (1) to Strongly agree (5). The total score is obtained by summing up the responses that are provided by respondents. The total score can range from 15 to 75. Higher scores on the WBSI indicate greater tendencies to suppress thoughts.
Reliability: The WBSI has very good internal consistency, with alphas ranging from .87 to .89. The WBSI has also been found to have good stability with a 1 week test-retest correlation of .92, and a 3 week to 3 month test-retest correlation of .69.
Validity: Demonstrates excellent convergent validity with significant correlations between the WBSI and several measures including Beck’s Depression Inventory (BDI), the Maudsley Obsessive-Compulsive Inventory, and the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI). It has also been found that the WBSI correlates negatively with repression, thus suggesting that the WBSI measures a characteristic that is different to traditional concepts of repression.
Reference:
Wegner, D. M. & Zanakos, S. (1994). Chronic thought suppression. Journal of Personality, 62, 615-640."
Information quoted from Ciarrochi, J. & Bilich, L. (2006). Process measures of potential relevance to ACT. Unpublished manuscript, University of Wollongong, Australia.
Ciarrochi, J. & Bilich, L. (2006). Process measures of potential relevance to ACT. Unpublished manuscript, University of Wollongong, Australia.
This document contains a large collection of ACT-relevant measures
Attached, please find a copy of self-monitoring forms I use with a wide range of patients. I direct patients to monitor those self-care behaviors relevant to their treatment (hygiene, eating, going to sleep at reasonable hour, exercise, meditation/centering, alcohol use). There is ample room for adding other behaviors or to permit some journaling/notes. *I recently replaced the GIF formatted forms with forms converted to PDF format (using free PDF writer at www.gohtm.com).