Table of Contents

The Acceptance and Action Questionnaire (AAQ-2)

Here in this post, we are sharing the “The Acceptance and Action Questionnaire”. You can read psychometric and Author information. We have thousands of Scales and questionnaires in our collection (See Scales and Questionnaires). You can demand us any scale and questionnaires related to psychology through our community, and we will provide you with a short time. Keep visiting Psychology Roots.

About the Acceptance and Action Questionnaire

Author:

Frank Bond leads the way with this measure, but many in the ACT community have been involved in the development. The AAQ-2 assesses a person’s experiential avoidance and immobility and acceptance and action.

Revised Death Anxiety Scale

Fatalism Scale

Scoring:

The items on the AAQ-2 are rated on a 7 point Likert-type scale from 1 (never true) to 7 (always true). High scores on the AAQ-2 are reflective of greater experiential avoidance and immobility, while low scores reflect greater acceptance and action.
Reliability and validity: (the following is taken directly from the ACBS website).

“Acceptance has been difficult to measure but we are making progress. The Acceptance & Action Questionnaire (AAQ) is our major effort so far. The primary AAQ validation study is (see attachments below):

Hayes, S. C., Strosahl, K. D., Wilson, K. G., Bissett, R. T., Pistorello, J., Toarmino, D., Polusny, M., A., Dykstra, T. A., Batten, S. V., Bergan, J., Stewart, S. H., Zvolensky, M. J., Eifert, G. H., Bond, F. W., Forsyth J. P., Karekla, M., & McCurry, S. M. (2004). Measuring experiential avoidance: A preliminary test of a working model. The Psychological Record, 54, 553-578.

It yields a single factor solution: a 9 item solution, and a similar 16 item solution that drops 2 of the 9 items and adds 9 more. There is a second validation study that yields a two factor 16 item solution with a latent single factor.

Bond, F. W. & Bunce, D. (2003). The role of acceptance and job control in mental health, job satisfaction, and work performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 1057-1067.

Unlike the primary AAQ, it is keyed positively because it has primarily been used in nonclinical contexts. A couple of the items were reworded.

In population-based studies, the AAQ-9 seems to work well as a measure of acceptance. Its alpha is sometimes marginal because the items are too darned complex. We are solving that in the AAQ-II. The AAQ-9 sometimes does not work well as a therapeutic process measure, in part because it is so short. Either AAQ-16 may work better as a process measure for that reason but they are a bit longer and again alpha is not always great. If you want to decide about which way to score it later, you will be able to score all of the three available AAQ versions if you use the 22-item version that combines all of the items in these two validation studies (see attachments below).

The AAQ-II is under development. We seem to now have a stable factor structure with 10 items (again a single factor scale with a collection of items very similar to the original AAQ-9 — it correlates with that version around .9). That version is attached below. Frank Bond at Goldsmiths College at the University of London is heading up the international development effort. Please contact him for the current status and if you are willing to help us work on validity and reliability please let us know. There are also Swedish, Dutch, Spanish, and Japanese versions of the AAQ. (Cited from the ACBS website)”.

*The AAQ-revised and the AAQ (49 items) are also included in this package and follow after the AAQ-2.

Ask about any scale, article, or other research material in our Community.

References:
Hayes, S. C., Strosahl, K. D., Wilson, K. G., Bissett, R. T., Pistorello, J., Toarmino, D., et al. (2004). Measuring experiential avoidance: A preliminary test of a working model. The Psychological Record, 54, 553-578.
Bond, F. W., and D. Bunce (2003). The Role of Acceptance and Job Control in Mental Health, Job Satisfaction, and Work Performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(6): 1057-1067.

About Professor Frank Bond

Professor Frank Bond is the Director of the Institute of Management Studies and was previously Head of the Department of Psychology at Goldsmiths, University of London. His research and consultancy focus on identifying and enhancing the organizational and psychological factors that determine work effectiveness (e.g., productivity, innovation), leadership skills, and employee health (e.g., mental/physical health). Currently, he is developing methods to assess psychological processes, such as psychological flexibility (or psychological acceptance), in the workplace. He is also developing and testing theory-driven interventions for improving work-related productivity and health (e.g., through leadership training).

Frank has published widely in the fields of applied psychology and organizational behavior, and his research has been funded by charities, industry, government, and the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC). Frank has consulted with a wide range of organizations, for example, to enhance leadership skills in investment bankers and innovation potential at the BBC. He is a trustee of the European Association of Occupational Health Psychology and was recently President of the Association of Contextual Behavioural Sciences. Frank is currently on the editorial boards of a number of academic journals, including Work & Stress.

Read More about Professor Frank Bond Click here

Information:

The purpose of our website is only to help students to assist them in finding the best suitable instrument for their research especially in Pakistan where students waste a lot of time in search of the instruments. It is totally free of cost and only for creating awareness and assisting students and researchers for good researches. Moreover, it is necessary for you to take the permission of scales from their representative authors before use because copyrights are reserved by the respected authors.

Help Us Improve This Article

Did you find an inaccuracy? We work hard to provide accurate and scientifically reliable information. If you have found an error of any kind, please let us know.

Add comment. we appropriate your effort.