Çok Boyutlu Psikolojik Esneklik Envanterinin Türkçe Uyarlama Çalışması

Öz

Psikolojik esneklik ve psikolojik katılık süreçleri, Kabul ve Kararlılık Terapisinin (ACT) temelini oluşturmaktadır. Hexaflex modeline göre, bu süreçler 12 boyuttan oluşmaktadır. Altı alt-süreç psikolojik esnekliğine katkı yaparken, altı farklı alt-süreç ise psikolojik katılıga katkı yapmaktadır. Çok Boyutlu Psikolojik Esneklik Envanteri (MPFI; Rolffs ve ark., 2016), tüm bu alt-süreçleri değerlendirecek maddeler içermektedir. Bu çalışmanın amacı, MPFI’yi Türkçeye uyarlamak ve Türkçe formun psikometrik özelliklerini araştırmaktır. Araştırmanın örneklemi (N = 603, 𝑀𝑦𝑎ş= 39, SD = 12.3) kolay ulaşılabilir örnekleme yoluyla oluşturulmuş ve veriler çevrimiçi olarak toplanmıştır. Türkçe MPFI’nin psikometrik özelliklerini incelemek adına, güvenirligi için içtutarlılık analizi, geçerliği kapsamında doğrulayıcı faktör analizi, ölçüm değişmezliğinin test edilmesi, aynı yapıyı ölçen başka bir ölçüm aracıyla ilişkisinin incelenmesi ve depresyon, anksiyete ve stres gibi teorik olarak ilişkili diğer yapılar üzerindeki etkileri analiz edilmiştir. Doğrulayıcı faktör analizi sonuçlarına göre, orijinal ölçekteki gibi üst boyutlu bir yapı Türkçe MPFI’de de desteklenmektedir. Bu üst boyutlu yapı, küresel esneklik ve katılığı temsil eden ikinci dereceden faktörler ve her birini oluşturan altışar tane birinci derece faktörden oluşan iki dereceli bir faktör yapısıdır. Küresel esneklik ölçeği ( 𝛼 = .96) ve küresel katılık ölçeği ( 𝛼 = .93) iç tutarlılık göstergeleri çok yüksek seviyede çıkmıştır. Ölçek, yakınsak geçerliği destekleyen psikolojik katılık ile güçlü korelasyonlar göstermiştir. Küresel esneklik, daha düşük depresyon, anksiyete ve stres seviyelerini yordarken, küresel katılık daha yüksek seviyeleri yordamıştır ve yapı geçerliğini desteklemiştir. Ayrıca ölçek, cinsiyet ve ruh sağlığı durumu açısından ölçüm değişmezliği göstermiştir. Sonuç olarak bu bulgular, MPFI’nin Türkçe formundan elde edilen puanların güvenirlik ve geçerliğine ilişkin kanıtlar sunmaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Psikolojik esneklik
• psikolojik katılık
• Kabul ve Kararlılık Terapisi
• Çok Boyutlu Psikolojik Esneklik Envanteri

Turkish Adaptation of the Multidimensional Psychological Flexibility Inventory

Öz

Psychological flexibility and inflexibility are the foundational processes of Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (ACT). According to the Hexaflex model, these processes are composed of twelve dimensions; six sub-processes contribute to psychological flexibility and six sub-processes contribute to psychological inflexibility. The Multidimensional Psychological Flexibility Inventory (MPFI; Rolffs et al., 2016) includes items that assess all these sub-processes. The aim of the current study was to adapt the MPFI into Turkish and explore the psychometric properties of the Turkish MPFI. The sample (N = 603, 𝑀𝑎𝑔𝑒= 39, SD = 12.3) of the study was recruited online through convenience sampling. The psychometric properties of the Turkish MPFI were examined by assessing internal consistency for reliability, performing confirmatory factor analysis regarding validity, testing measurement invariance, examining its relationship with another tool measuring the same construct, and analyzing its effects on other theoretically related constructs such as depression, anxiety, and stress. The results of the confirmatory factor analysis supported the original higher order factor structure in the Turkish version with 12 first-order factors, half and half distributed into second-order global flexibility and inflexibility factors. The internal consistencies for the global flexibility scale (𝛼 = .96) and the global inflexibility scale (𝛼 = .93) were very high. The scale demonstrated strong correlations with psychological inflexibility, supporting its convergent validity. Global flexibility predicted lower levels of depression, anxiety, and stress, whereas global inflexibility predicted higher levels, supporting the construct validity. Additionally, the scale showed measurement invariance across gender and mental health status. Overall, these findings provide evidence for the reliability and validity of the scores obtained from the Turkish MPFI.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Psychological flexibility
• psychological inflexibility
• Acceptance and Commitment Therapy
• Multidimensional Psychological Flexibility Inventory

Kaynakça

1. Angelakis, I., & Pseftogianni, F. (2021). Association between obsessive-compulsive and related disorders and experiential avoidance: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Psychiatric Research, 138, 228-239. doi:10.1016/j.jpsychires.2021.03 google scholar
2. Arch, J. J., Fishbein, J. N., Finkelstein, L. B., & Luoma, J. B. (2023). Acceptance and commitment therapy processes and mediation: Challenges and how to address them. Behavior Therapy, 54(6), 971-988. doi:10.1016/j.beth.2022.07.005. google scholar
3. 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. doi:10.1177/1073191105283504 google scholar
4. Baker, L. D., & Berghoff, C. R. (2022). Embracing complex models: Exploratory network analyses of psychological (in) flexibility processes and unique associations with psychiatric symptomology and quality of life. Journal of Contextual Behavioral Science, 23 64-74. doi:10.1016/j.jcbs.2021.12.002 google scholar
5. Barnes-Holmes, Y., Hayes, S. C., Barnes-Holmes, D., & Roche, B. (2002). Relational frame theory: A post-Skinnerian account of human language and cognition. Advances in Child Development and Behavior, 28, 101-138. doi:10.1016/S0065-2407(02)80063-5 google scholar
6. Bond, F. W., Hayes, S. C., Baer, R. A., Carpenter, K. M., Guenole, N., Orcutt, H. K., Waltz, T., & Zettle, R. D. (2011). Preliminary psychometric properties of the Acceptance and Action Questionnaire-II: A revised measure of psychological inflexibility and experiential avoidance. Behavior Therapy, 42(4), 676-688. doi:10.1016/j.beth.2011.03.007 google scholar
7. Borgogna, N. C., McDermott, R. C., Berry, A., Lathan, E.C., & Gonzales, J. (2020). A multicultural examination of experiential avoidance: AAQ-II measurement comparisons across Asian American, Black, Latinx, Middle Eastern, and White college students. Journal of Contextual Behavioral Science, 16, 1-8. doi:10.1016/j.jcbs.2020.01.011 google scholar
8. Brown, T. (2006). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research. Guildford. google scholar

9. Chen, F. F. (2007). Sensitivity of goodness of fit indexes to lack of measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 14(3), 464-504. doi:10.1080/10705510701301834 google scholar
10. Christodoulou, A., Michaelides, M., & Karekla, M. (2018). Network analysis: A new psychometric approach to examine the underlying ACT model components. Journal of Contextual Behavioral Science, 12, 285-289. doi:10.1016/J.JCBS.2018.10.002 google scholar
11. D’Agostino, R. B., Belanger, A., Ralph, B., & D’Agostino, R. B. Jr. (1990). A suggestion for using powerful and informative tests of normality. The American Statistician, 44, 316-321. google scholar
12. Di Sante J., Akeson, B., Gossack, A., & Knauper, B. (2022). Efficacy of ACT-based treatments for dysregulated eating behaviours: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Appetite, 171, Article e105929. doi:10.1016/j.appet.2022.105929 google scholar
13. Eisenbeck, N., Carreno, D. F., & Ucles-Juarez, R. (2019). From psychological distress to academic procrastination: Exploring the role of psychological inflexibility. Journal of Contextual Behavioral Science, 13, 103-108. doi:10.1016/j.jcbs.2019.07.007 google scholar
14. Francis, A., Dawson, D., & Golijani-Moghaddam, N. (2016). The development and validation of the Comprehensive Assessment of Acceptance and Commitment Therapy Processes (CompACT). Journal of Contextual Behavioral Science, 5(3), 134-145. doi:10.1016/j.jcbs.2016.05.003 google scholar
15. Gamez, W., Chmielewski, M., Kotov, R., Ruggero, C., & Watson, D. (2011). Development of a measure of experiential avoidance: The Multidimensional Experiential Avoidance Questionnaire. Psychological Assessment, 23(3), 692-713. doi:10.1037/a0023242 google scholar
16. Gregoire, S., Gagnon, J., Lachance, L., Shankland, R., Dionne, F., Kotsou, I., Monestes, J. L., Rolffs, J. L., & Rogge, R. D. (2020). Validation of the English and French versions of the Multidimensional Psychological Flexibility Inventory Short Form (MPFI-24). Journal of Contextual Behavioral Science, 18, 99-110. doi:10.1016/j.jcbs.2020.06.004 google scholar
17. Hayes, S. C., Luoma, J. B., Bond, F. W., Masuda, A., & Lillis, J. (2006). Acceptance and commitment therapy: Model, processes and outcomes. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 44(1), 1-25. doi:10.1016/j.brat.2005.06.006 google scholar
18. Hayes, S. C., Strosahl, K. D., & Wilson, K. G. (2012). Acceptance and commitment therapy: The process and practice of mindful change (2nd ed.). Guildford Press. google scholar
19. Hayes, S. C., Wilson, K. G., Gifford, E. V., Follette, V. M., & Strosahl, K. D. (1996). Experiential avoidance and behavioral disorders: A functional dimensional approach to diagnosis and treatment. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 64(6), 1152-1168. doi:10.1037/0022-006X.64.6.1152 google scholar
20. Hsu T., Adamowicz, J. L., & Thomas, E. B. K. (2023). The effect of acceptance and commitment therapy on the psychological flexibility and inflexibility of undergraduate students: A systematic review and three-level meta-analysis. Journal of Contextual Behavioral Science, 30, 169-180. doi:10.1016/j.jcbs.2023.10.006. google scholar
21. Landi, G., Pakenham, K. I., Crocetti, E., Grandi, S., & Tossani, E. (2021a). The Multidimensional Psychological Flexibility Inventory (MPFI): Discriminant validity of psychological flexibility with distress. Journal of Contextual Behavioral Science, 21, 22-29. doi:10.1016/j.jcbs.2021.05.004 google scholar
22. Landi, G., Pakenham, K. I., Giovennetti, A. M., Presti, G., Boccolini, G., Cola, A., Grandi, S., & Tossani, E. (2021b). Italian validation of the Italian multidimensional psychological flexibility inventory (MPFI). Journal of Contextual Behavioral Science, 21, 57-65. doi:10.1016/j.jcbs.2021.05.007 google scholar
23. Lau, M. A., Bishop, S. R., Segal, Z. V., Buis, T., Anderson, N. D., Carlson, L., Shapiro, S., Carmody, J, Abbey, S., & Devins, G. (2006). The Toronto Mindfulness Scale: Development and validation. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 62, 1445-1467. doi:10.1002/jclp.20326 google scholar
24. Levin, M. E., MacLane, C., Daflos, S., Seeley, J. R., Hayes, S. C., Biglan, A., & Pistorello, J. (2014). Examining psychological inflexibility as a transdiagnostic process across psychological disorders. Journal of Contextual Behavioral Science, 3(3), 155-163. doi:10.1016/j.jcbs.2014.06.003 google scholar
25. Lin, Y., Rogge, R.D., & Swanson, D. P. (2020). Cross-cultural flexibility: Validation of the traditional Mandarin, simplified Mandarin, and Japanese translations of the Multidimensional Psychological Flexibility Inventory. Journal of Contextual Behavioral Science, 15, 73-84. doi:10.1016/j.jcbs.2019.11.008 google scholar
26. Lovibond, S. H., & Lovibond, P. F. (1995). Manual for the Depression Anxiety Stress Scales (2nd. ed.). Psychology Foundation. google scholar
27. Mardia, K. V. (1970). Measures of multivariate skewness and kurtosis with applications. Biometrika, 57(3), 519-530. google scholar
28. Marsh, H. W., Hau, K. T., & Grayson, D. (2005). Goodness of fit evaluation in structural equation modeling. In A. Maydeu-Olivares, & J. McArdle (Eds.), Contemporary psychometrics (pp. 275-340). Psychology Press. google scholar
29. Neff, K. D. (2003). The development and validation of a scale to measure self-compassion. Self and Identity, 2, 223-250. doi: 10.1080/15298860390209035 google scholar
30. Orcan, F. (2018). Exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis: Which one to use first? Eğitimde ve Psikolojide Ölçme ve Değerlendirme Dergisi, 9(4), 414-421. doi:10.21031/epod.394323 google scholar
31. Putnick, D. L., & Bornstein, M. H. (2016). Measurement invariance conventions and reporting: The state of the art and future directions for psychological research. Developmental Review, 41, 71-90. doi:10.1016/j.dr.2016.06.004 google scholar
32. R Core Team (2016). R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. Available at https://www.R-project.org/ google scholar
33. Rogge R. D., Daks J. S., Dubler B. A., & Saint, K. J. (2019). It’s all about the process: Examining the convergent validity, conceptual coverage, unique predictive validity, and clinical utility of ACT process measures. Journal of Contextual Behavioral Science, 14, 90-102. doi:10.1016/j.jcbs.2019.10.001 google scholar
34. Rolffs, J. L., Rogge, R. D., & Wilson, K. G. (2016). Disentangling components of flexibility via the Hexaflex model: Development and validation of the multidimensional psychological flexibility inventory (MPFI). Assessment, 25(4), 458-482. doi:10.1177/107319111664590 google scholar
35. Rosseel, Y. (2012). “Lavaan: An R package for structural equation modeling.” Journal of Statistical Software, 48(2), 1-36. doi:10.18637/jss.v048.i02. google scholar
36. Sariçam, H. (2018). The psychometric properties of Turkish version of Depression Anxiety Stress Scale-21 (DASS-21) in health control and clinical samples. Journal of Cognitive Behavioral Psychotherapy and Research, 7(1), 19-30. doi: 10.5455/JCBPR.274847 google scholar
37. Seidler, D., Stone, B., Clark, B. E., Koran, J., & Drake, C. E. (2020). Evaluating the factor structure of the Multidimensional Psychological Flexibility Inventory: An independent replication and extension. Journal of Contextual Behavioral Science, 17, 23-31. doi:10.1016/j.jcbs.2020.04.007 google scholar
38. Sousa, V. D., & Rojjanasrirat, W. (2010). Translation, adaptation and validation of instruments or scales for use in cross-cultural health care research: A clear and user-friendly guideline. Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice, 17(2), 268-74. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2753.2010.01434.x google scholar
39. Stockton, D., Kellett, S., Berrios, R., Sirois, F., Wilkinson, N., & Miles, G. (2018). Identifying the underlying mechanisms of change during Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (ACT): A systematic review of contemporary mediation studies. Behavioural and Cognitive Psychotherapy, 47(3), 332-362. doi:10.1017/s1352465818000553 google scholar
40. Sundström, F. T. A., Lavefjord, A., Buhrman, M., & McCracken, L. M. (2023). Assessing psychological flexibility and inflexibility in chronic pain using the Multidimensional Psychological Flexibility Inventory (MPFI). The Journal of Pain, 24(5), 770-781. https: //doi.org/10.1016/j.jpain.2022.11.010. google scholar
41. Tavakoli, N., Broyles, A., Reid, E., Sandoval, J. R., & Correa-Fernandez, V. (2018). Psychological inflexibility as it relates to stress, worry, generalized anxiety, and somatization in an ethnically diverse sample of college students. Journal of Contextual Behavioral Science, 11, 1-5. doi:10.1016/j.jcbs.2018.11.001 google scholar
42. Thompson, E. M., Destree, L., Albertella, L., & Fontenelle, L. F. (2020). Internet-based Acceptance and Commitment Therapy: A transdiagnostic systematic review and meta-analysis for mental health outcomes. Behavior Therapy, 52(2), 492-507. doi:10.1016/j.beth.2020.07.002 google scholar
43. Tyndall, I., Waldeck, D., Pancani, L., Whelan, , Roche, B., & Pereira, A. (2020). Profiles of psychological flexibility: A latent class analysis of the Acceptance and Commitment Therapy model. Behavior Modification, 44(3), 365-393. doi:10.1177/0145445518820036 google scholar
44. Ulubay, G. (2020). Çok Boyutlu Psikolojik Esneklik Envanterinin Türkçe’ye uyarlanması [Unpublished master’s dissertation]. Balikesir University. google scholar
45. Wild, D., Grove, A., Martin, M., Eremenco, S., McElroy, S., Verjee-Lorenz, A., & Erikson, P. (2005). Principles of good practice for the translation and cultural adaptation Process for Patient-Reported Outcomes (PRO) Measures: Report of the ISPOR Task Force for translation and cultural adaptation. Value in Health, 8(2), 94-104. doi:10.1111/j.1524-4733.2005.04054.x google scholar
46. Yavuz, F., Ulusoy, S., Iskin, M., Esen, F. B., Burhan, H. S., Karadere, M. E., & Yavuz, N. (2016). Turkish version of Acceptance and Action Questionnaire-II (AAQ-II): A reliability and validity analysis in clinical and non-clinical samples. Klinik Psikofarmakoloji Bülteni / Bulletin of Clinical Psychopharmacology, 26(4), 397-408. doi:10.5455/bcp.20160223124107 google scholar