Una Adaptación y traducción del Psy-Flex en estudiantes universitarios de Lima Metropolitana

Pedro Luis Arroyo Pizarro; Gonzalo Peña-Muñante; Margot Osorio Chipana; Esteban Moreno-Montero

doi:10.52379/mcs.v9.549

Authors

Pedro Luis Arroyo Pizarro Universidad Nacional Federico Villarreal, Facultad de Psicología, Lima, Perú https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7587-1308
Gonzalo Peña-Muñante Universidad de Almería
Margot Osorio Chipana Hospital San José del Callao
Esteban Moreno-Montero Universidad de La Coruña

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.52379/mcs.v9.549

Keywords:

Psychometrics, Acceptance and Commitment Therapy, Clinical Psychology, Perú, Students

Abstract

Introduction: The PsyFlex is a relevant measure for clinical practice given that it facilitates therapeutic planning and represents a measure of change in intervention sessions; however, it is not adapted to the Peruvian context. Objective: To adapt and translate the Psy-Flex in a sample of Peruvian university students. Methodology: Two samples of 273 participants, each aged 18 to 59 years of both sexes, were used. Results: Absolute (RMSEA=.000 to .074; SRMR=.014 to .031) and relative (CFI=.977 to 1.000; TLI=.962 to 1.005) optimal fit indices and reliability indices above .85 for the one-factor structure were identified, thus, the instrument has optimal evidence of validity and reliability. Discussion: The findings are partially consistent with other studies due to morpho-syntactic characteristics of the translation process from English to Spanish, reflecting the unidimensional nature of the test.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

1. Bond FW, Hayes SC, Barnes-Holmes D. Psychological Flexibility, ACT, and Organizational Behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior Management. 2006;26(1-2):25‑54. https://doi.org/10.1300/J075v26n01_02

2. Gloster AT, Block VJ, Klotsche J, Villanueva J, Rinner MTB, Benoy C, et al. Psy‑Flex: A contextually sensitive measure of psychological flexibility. Journal of Contextual Behavioral Science. 2021;22:13‑23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcbs.2021.09.001

3. Kashdan TB, Rottenberg J. Psychological flexibility as a fundamental aspect of health. Clinical Psychology Review. 2010;30(7):865‑78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2010.03.001

4. Lucas JJ, Moore KA. Psychological flexibility: positive implications for mental health and life satisfaction. Health Promotion International. 2020;35(2):312‑20. https://doi.org/10.1093/heapro/daz036

5. Wang J, Fang S, Yang C, Tang X, Zhu L, Nie Y. The Relationship Between Psychological Flexibility and Depression, Anxiety and Stress: A Latent Profile Analysis. PRBM. 2023;16:997‑1007. https://doi.org/10.2147/prbm.s400757

6. Hayes SC, Strosahl K, Wilson KG. Terapia de aceptación y compromiso: proceso y práctica del cambio consciente (mindfulness). Bilbao: Desclée De Brouwer; 2015.

7. Cherry KM, Hoeven EV, Patterson TS, Lumley MN. Defining and measuring “psychological flexibility”: A narrative scoping review of diverse flexibility and rigidity constructs and perspectives. Clinical Psychology Review. 2021;84:101973. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2021.101973

8. Ong CW, Skolnik A, Lee E. Examining Content Overlap Among Nine Psychological (In)flexibility Scales: Do They Measure the Same Construct? 2023. https://osf.io/wur26

9. Jo D, Seong B, Yang E. Psychometric properties of the Psy‑Flex scale: A validation study in a community sample in Korea. Journal of Contextual Behavioral Science. 2023;30:70‑9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcbs.2023.09.004

10. Yildirim M, Aziz IA. Turkish validation of the Psy‑Flex Scale and its association with resilience and social support. Environ Soc Psychol. 2023;8(1). https://doi.org/10.18063/esp.v8.i1.1513

11. Goretzko D, Siemund K, Sterner P. Evaluating Model Fit of Measurement Models in Confirmatory Factor Analysis. Educational and Psychological Measurement. 2024;84(1):123-44. https://doi.org/10.1177/00131644231163813

12. Cunha M, Temido A, Pinto-Gouveia A, Galhardo A. Assessing psychological flexibility by the Psy-Flex and its relationship with mental health. European Psychiatry. 2023;66(Suppl 1):S368-9. URL

13. Gur A, Mouadeb D, Reich A, Atar L. Translation and psychometric evaluation of the Hebrew version of Psy-Flex to assess psychological flexibility. Journal of Behavioral and Cognitive Therapy. 2024;34(1):100483. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbct.2023.100483

14. Lemos N. Adaptação transcultural do instrumento Psy-Flex em Portugal e no Brasil (Tesis de maestría). ISPA Instituto Universitário; 2024. URL

15. Freymann J, Morroni D, Kleinbub JR, Karekla M. Examining psychological flexibility in unaccompanied refugee minors: A network analysis. Journal of Contextual Behavioral Science. 2024;33:100808. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcbs.2024.100808

16. Karagiorga VE, Schafer JL, Marchionatti LE, Caye A, Serdari A, Kotsis K, et al. Translation and cross-cultural adaptation of seventeen widely-used assessment instruments for child and adolescent mental health in Greece. J Patient Rep Outcomes. 2024;8(1):18. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41687-024-00693-0

17. Gilmoor AR, Adithy A, Regeer B. The Cross-Cultural Validity of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder and Post-Traumatic Stress Symptoms in the Indian Context: A Systematic Search and Review. Front Psychiatry. 2019;10:439. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyt.2019.00439

18. Hernández-Sampieri R, Mendoza C. Metodología de la investigación. Las rutas cuantitativa, cualitativa y mixta. Editorial Mc Graw Hill Education; 2018. URL

19. MacCallum RC, Browne MW, Sugawara HM. Power analysis and determination of sample size for covariance structure modeling. Psychological Methods. 1996;1(2):130-49. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.1.2.130

20. Preacher KJ, Coffman DL. Computing power and minimum sample size for RMSEA. URL

21. Ullman J. Structural Equation Modeling. En: Tabachnick B, Fidell L, editores. Using Multivariate Statistics. Pearson Education Inc.; p. 681-785.

22. Halabí TV, Esquivel RM. Tamaño de la muestra en modelos de ecuaciones estructurales con constructos latentes: Un método práctico. Actualidades Investigativas en Educación. 2017;17(1). https://doi.org/10.15517/aie.v17i1.27294

23. Murphy KR, Myors B, Wolach AH. Statistical power analysis: A simple and general model for traditional and modern hypothesis tests. Fourth edition. Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group; 2014. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315773155

24. Otzen T, Manterola C. Sampling Techniques on a Population Study. International Journal of Morphology. 2017;35(1):227-32. http://dx.doi.org/10.4067/S0717-95022017000100037

25. Bond FW, Hayes SC, Baer RA, Carpenter KM, Guenole N, Orcutt HK, et al. Preliminary psychometric properties of the Acceptance and Action Questionnaire-II: a revised measure of psychological inflexibility and experiential avoidance. Behav Ther. 2011;42(4):676-88. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.beth.2011.03.007

26. Valencia P, Falcón C. Validez y confiabilidad del Cuestionario de Aceptación y Acción II (AAQ-II) en universitarios de Lima. PSIENCIA Revista Latinoamericana de Ciencia Psicológica. 2022;14:176-219. URL

27. Gillanders DT, Bolderston H, Bond FW, Dempster M, Flaxman PE, Campbell L, et al. The development and initial validation of the cognitive fusion questionnaire. Behav Ther. 2014;45(1):83-101. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.beth.2013.09.001

28. Valencia PD, Falcón C. Estructura factorial del Cuestionario de Fusión Cognitiva en universitarios de Lima. Interacciones Revista de Avances en Psicología. 2019;5(2):1-9. URL

29. Kroenke K, Spitzer RL, Williams JBW. The PHQ-9: Validity of a brief depression severity measure. J Gen Intern Med. 2001;16(9):606-13. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1525-1497.2001.016009606.x

30. Baños-Chaparro J, Ynquillay-Lima P, Lamas F, Fuster F. Evidencias psicométricas del Patient Health Questionnarie-2 para la evaluación de síntomas depresivos en adultos peruanos. Revista de Ciencias Médicas de Pinar del Río. 2021;25(5):e5064. URL

31. Spitzer RL, Kroenke K, Williams JBW, Löwe B. A Brief Measure for Assessing Generalized Anxiety Disorder: The GAD-7. Arch Intern Med. 2006;166(10):1092. https://doi.org/10.1001/archinte.166.10.1092

32. Franco-Jimenez RA, Nuñez-Magallanes A. Propiedades psicométricas del GAD-7, GAD-2 y GAD-Mini en universitarios peruanos. PYR. 2022;10(1). https://doi.org/10.20511/pyr2022.v10n1.1437

33. Ramada-Rodilla JM, Serra-Pujadas C, Delclós-Clanchet GL. Adaptación cultural y validación de cuestionarios de salud: revisión y recomendaciones metodológicas. Salud pública Méx. 2013;55:57-66. URL

34. Almanasreh E, Moles R, Chen TF. Evaluation of methods used for estimating content validity. Research in Social and Administrative Pharmacy. 2019;15(2):214-21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sapharm.2018.03.066

35. Ventura-León J. Instrumentos breves: Un método para validar el contenido de los ítems. Andes pediatr. 2021;92(5):812. https://doi.org/10.32641/andespediatr.v92i5.3961

36. Aiken LR. Content Validity and Reliability of Single Items or Questionnaires. Educational and Psychological Measurement. 1980;40(4):955-9. https://doi.org/10.1177/001316448004000419

37. Merino-Soto C. Coeficientes V de Aiken: diferencias en los juicios de validez de contenido. MHSalud: Revista en Ciencias del Movimiento Humano y Salud. 2023;20(1):1-10. https://doi.org/10.15359/mhs.20-1.3

38. Napitupulu D, Syafrullah M, Rahim R, Amar A, Sucahyo YG. Content validity of critical success factors for e-Government implementation in Indonesia. IOP Conf Ser: Mater Sci Eng. 2018;352(1):012058. https://doi.org/10.1088/1757-899X/352/1/012058

39. Sánchez-Mendoza V, Soriano-Ayala E, Vallejo-Medina P. A visual way to represent content validity and item properties. Revista de Psicología. 2022;40(2):831-50. http://dx.doi.org/10.18800/psico.202202.007

40. Kline R. Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. 4th ed. Guilford Press; 2016. URL

41. Rodriguez Ayan MN, Ruiz M. Atenuación de la asimetría y de la curtosis de las puntuaciones observadas mediante transformaciones de variables: Incidencia sobre la estructura factorial. Psicológica. 2008;29:205-27. URL

42. Brown T. Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research. 2nd ed. Guilford Press; 2015.

43. Hu L, Bentler PM. Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal. 1999;6(1):1-55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118

44. DiStefano C, Liu J, Jiang N, Shi D. Examination of the Weighted Root Mean Square Residual: Evidence for Trustworthiness? Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal. 2018;25(3):453-66. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10705511.2017.1390394

45. Dominguez-Lara S. Propuesta de puntos de corte para cargas factoriales: una perspectiva de fiabilidad de constructo. Enfermería Clínica. 2018;28(6):401-2. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enfcli.2018.06.002

46. Ventura-León JL, Caycho-Rodríguez T. El coeficiente Omega: un método alternativo para la estimación de la confiabilidad. Revista Latinoamericana de Ciencias Sociales, Niñez y Juventud. 2017;15(1):625-7. URL

47. Campo-Arias A, Oviedo HC. Propiedades psicométricas de una escala: la consistencia interna. Rev salud pública. 2008;831-9. URL

48. Manzini JL. DECLARACIÓN DE HELSINKI: PRINCIPIOS ÉTICOS PARA LA INVESTIGACIÓN MÉDICA SOBRE SUJETOS HUMANOS. Acta bioeth. 2000;6(2). http://dx.doi.org/10.4067/S1726-569X2000000200010

49. Soares R, Cunha M, Massano-Cardoso I, Galhardo A. Assessing psychological flexibility in adolescents: Validation of PsyFlex-A. Rev Port Inv Comp Soc. 2023;9(1). https://doi.org/10.31211/rpics.2023.9.1.284

50. Cueva E, Álvarez-Cañizo M, Suárez-Coalla P. Reading Comprehension in Both Spanish and English as a Foreign Language by High School Spanish Students. Front Psychol. 2022;12:789207. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.789207

51. Hayes SC, Luoma JB, Bond FW, Masuda A, Lillis J. Acceptance and Commitment Therapy: Model, processes and outcomes. Behaviour Research and Therapy. 2006;44(1):1-25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brat.2005.06.006

52. Ciarrochi J, Ciarrochi J, Bilich L, Godsel C. Psychological flexibility as a mechanism of change in Acceptance and Commitment Therapy. En: Assessing Mindfulness and Acceptance Processes in Clients: Illuminating the Theory and Practice of Change (The Context Press Mindfulness and Acceptance Practica Series). New Harbinger Publications, Inc.; 2010. p. 51-75. URL

53. Neto DD, Mouadeb D, Lemos N, Da Silva AN, Gloster AT, Perez WF. Contextual similarities in psychological flexibility: the Brazil-Portugal transcultural adaptation of Psy-Flex. Curr Psychol. 2024;43(31):25595-603. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12144-024-06241-9