Article ID: WMC004606 ISSN 2046-1690

The Psychological Flexibility Questionnaire (PFQ):

Development, Reliability and Validity
Peer review status:
No

Corresponding Author:
Dr. Maya Maor,
Lecturer, Gender studies progrma, Ben Gurion univeristy of the Negev - Israel

Submitting Author:
Dr. Maya Maor,
Lecturer, Gender studies progrma, Ben Gurion univeristy of the Negev - Israel

Other Authors:
Dr. Shulamit Ben-Itzhak ,
Clinical psychologist , Tel-Aviv Sourasky Medical Center, Psychological Service, Tel-Aviv, Israel - Israel
Dr. Irit Bluvstein,
Lecturer, Department of Social Work Tel-Aviv university - Israel

Article ID: WMC004606

Article Type: Research articles
Submitted on:19-Apr-2014, 01:21:02 PM GMT Published on: 21-Apr-2014, 07:07:09 AM GMT
Article URL: http://www.webmedcentral.com/article_view/4606
Subject Categories:PSYCHOLOGY
Keywords:Personality factors, Personality issues, Psychological flexibility, Adjustment
How to cite the article:Ben-Itzhak S, Bluvstein I, Maor M. The Psychological Flexibility Questionnaire (PFQ):
Development, Reliability and Validity. WebmedCentral PSYCHOLOGY 2014;5(4):WMC004606
Copyright: This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution
License(CC-BY), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the
original author and source are credited.
Source(s) of Funding:
This reserach recived no funding.

Competing Interests:
No competing interests

WebmedCentral > Research articles Page 1 of 10

WMC004606 Downloaded from http://www.webmedcentral.com on 21-Apr-2014, 07:07:10 AM
The Psychological Flexibility Questionnaire (PFQ):
Development, Reliability and Validity
Author(s): Ben-Itzhak S, Bluvstein I, Maor M
Abstract
The article presents the development of the
Psychological Flexibility Questionnaire (PFQ) on the
basis of two studies. Reliability was demonstrated by a
Cronbach alpha coefficient of 0.918. Convergent
validity was confirmed by the findings of a positive
correlation between the PFQ and three other related
questionnaires.
Introduction
Psychological flexibility refers to the ability to be open,
present-focused, and to change or persist in behavior
according to changing internal and external
circumstances. It is a complex psychological construct
encompassing emotional, cognitive and behavioral
aspects. Psychological flexibility has demonstrated
longitude and cross-sectional connections to mental
health and resilience, while a lack of psychological
flexibility is associated with psychopathology
(Galatzer-Levy, Burton, & Bonanno, 2012; Landstra,
Ciarrochi, Deane, & Hillman, 2013). Psychological
flexibility is simultaneously intrapersonal as well as
interpersonal and enables adaptation to
ever?changing circumstances. It is a way of
expressing the individual’s wish to experience a
variety of conditions in the real world, while staying
tuned to the variety of "inner voices". For an individual
with a higher level of psychological flexibility, the quest
for divergence and changes is an active one, and is
perceived as a positive experience.
The importance of the concept to mental health led to
vibrant scholarly interest in examining the correlations
of psychological flexibility with other psychological
traits and outcomes. At the same time, existing
assessment tools of psychological flexibility either (1)
measure traits that partially overlap with psychological
flexibility, i.e. share some aspects with psychological
flexibility but diverge in others, therefore, measuring in
addition elements that are not directly related to
flexibility; or (2) measure psychological flexibility only
partially, leaving out important aspects of the trait.
Furthermore, the lack of a consistent standard for
measuring psychological flexibility makes it hard to link
WebmedCentral > Research articles
the findings of different studies of psychological
flexibility and to integrate the various theoretical as
well as empirical studies of psychological flexibility.
Therefore, a measurement tool that measures
psychological flexibility directly and comprehensively is
needed. The current article presents the development
of the Psychological Flexibility Questionnaire (PFQ)
and evaluates its reliability and validity.
Literature review
Kashdan and Rottenberg (2010) define psychological
flexibility as the ability to "recognize and adapt to
various situational demands; shift mindsets or
behavioral repertoires when these strategies
compromise personal or social functioning; maintain
balance among important life domains; and be aware,
open, and committed to behaviors that are congruent
with deeply held values". Their definition captures two
significant points about psychological flexibility: that it
is a multifaceted trait, manifesting across many life
domains, and that it is a dynamic that expresses itself
through "repeated transactions between people and
their environmental contexts" (Kashdan & Rottenberg,
2010; Williams, Ciarrochi, & Heaven, 2012).
The concept of psychological flexibility signals a move
from "simple, universal accounts or theories of positive
versus negative emotions" to a more contextual
assessment of the functionality of a specific emotion or
coping style. According to the concept, no single
experience, emotion or coping style is optimal on its
own: its usefulness is tested in relation to other
experiences, emotions or coping styles the person
possesses, as well as in relation to the specific
circumstances that give it its context (Kashdan &
Rottenberg, 2010). For example, when confronting
someone who persistently is in denial regarding a
pressing problem, anger and confrontational styles
may be more functional than emotions and coping
styles that are normally evaluated as more positive.
An individual’s potential for adaptation is inextricably
related to the use of emotion?regulating techniques,
i.e., increasing, maintaining and decreasing positive
and negative emotions according to changing
circumstances. The enhancement of flexible emotional
patterns increases the potential for adaptation, which
in turn would enable increased wellbeing (Matsumoto,
Page 2 of 10
WMC004606 Downloaded from http://www.webmedcentral.com on 21-Apr-2014, 07:07:10 AM
LeRoux, Robles and Campos, 2007).
Since psychological flexibility allows access to a wide
range of modes relating to internal and external
demands, which in turn increases adjustment to
changing reality, we can assume that psychological
flexibility will be positively correlated with mental
health and well-being. Indeed, studies repeatedly
show that psychological flexibility improves mental
health (e.g. McCracken, Gutierrez-Martinez, & Smyth,
2013), whether by enhancing the ability to distinguish
and identify emotions and thoughts (Landstra,
Ciarrochi, Deane, & Hillman, 2013) or by enhancing
the ability to shift attention and focus according to
changing circumstances (Galatzer-Levy, Burton, &
Bonanno, 2012). Lack of flexibility, on the other hand,
is associated with depression, anxiety, rumination,
worry and inability to plan for distant goals (Kashdan &
Rottenberg, 2010; Nolen-Hoeksema, Wisco, &
Lyubomirsky, 2008). Since psychological flexibility is
correlated with mental health, it is important to aim
clinical interventions to enhance psychological
flexibility.
In order to research psychological flexibility, reliable
and valid assessment tools are needed. The
development of concrete guidelines defining optimal
translation of theoretical concepts into measurable
units is a necessary bridge between theory and
empirical study, vital for accumulation of knowledge
(Sfard & Prusak, 2005; Stryker & Burke, 2000).
A review of the literature reveals that most studies that
measure psychological flexibility employed one of two
categories of measurement tools:
The first category includes tools that measure
psychological flexibility only partially, such as the
Openness Scale (Norman, 1963), Communication
Flexibility Measure (Martin & Rubin, 1994), the
Communicative Adaptive Scale of Duran (1983), the
Rhetoric Sensibility Scale (Hart, Carlson, & Eadie,
1980), Coping Flexibility (Bonanno et al., 2004; Cheng,
2003) and The Cognitive Flexibility Scale (Martin &
Anderson, 1998). The problem with these types of
measurement tools is that they leave out important
aspects of the trait (Williams, Ciarrochi & Heaven,
2012).
The second category includes tools that measure traits
or concepts that partially overlap with psychological
flexibility but also include facets unrelated to
psychological flexibility, such as “decentering”
(McCracken, Gutierrez-Martinez & Smyth, 2013), and
the Acceptance and Action Questionnaire II (AAQ-II)
tool (Landstra, Ciarrochi, Deane, & Hillman, 2013, p.
5). Likewise, Kashdan & Rottenberg (2010) list the
WebmedCentral > Research articles
different parallel concepts used to describe
psychological flexibility: "psychological flexibility has
for the past five decades traveled by a multitude of
different names, among them ego-resiliency (Block,
1961), executive control (Posner & Rothbart, 1998),
response modulation (Patterson & Newman, 1993),
and self-regulation (Carver & Scheier, 2001; Muraven
& Baumeister, 2000)". The problem with these
measures is that they measure concepts that may
appear similar to flexibility, but include facets that are
not relevant to psychological flexibility per-se.
The present investigation is an attempt to develop an
assessment tool that will measure psychological
flexibility comprehensively and exclusively, and to test
its validity and reliability.
Method
Design
There were three phases in the development of the
PFQ: (1) production of a preliminary questionnaire, (2)
construction of the PFQ and assessment of its
reliability, and (3) assessment of the of its construct
and convergence validity.
The Preliminary Questionnaire
We presented twenty senior and experienced health
professionals consisting of psychiatrists, clinical
psychologists and clinical social workers general
descriptions of psychological flexibility that refer to its
emotional, cognitive and behavioral aspects, as
presented in the introduction. After they read these
definitions, we asked these health professionals to
compose a number of sentences that they felt would
best illustrate the concept of flexibility. They were also
asked to think of additional aspects of personal
flexibility and briefly describe them. Their reports were
summed up and a total of 60 sentences were
subsequently compiled that reflected what our
professional cohort believed to be the essence of the
term “flexibility”.
Participants
All research subjects were undergraduate students in
the school of behavioral and social sciences who gave
their informed consent to participate in the study. The
studies were approved by the Ethics Committee of the
Tel Aviv-Yaffo Academic College.
Constructing the PFQ and assessing its reliability
The preliminary questionnaire constructed on the
basis of the input from the health professionals
included 60 items and was completed by 90
volunteers (graduate students of behavioral and social
Page 3 of 10
WMC004606 Downloaded from http://www.webmedcentral.com on 21-Apr-2014, 07:07:10 AM
sciences). They were asked to indicate to what extent
each sentence characterized them on a Likert scale
from 1?6, with 1 = not at all and 6 = very much. Forty
items were deleted due to statistical considerations (as
detailed in the results section).
Assessment of construct and convergent validity
of the PFQ.
Construct validity: In order to test PFQ's construct
validity, a 20?item questionnaire was given to a
second sample of 107 graduate students of behavioral
and social sciences. They were asked to describe how
much each of the sentences characterized them on
the same Likert scale as described above. The
reliability index of the questionnaire resulted in alpha
Kronbach = 0.918. These students also filled in 3 more
similar questionnaires (described below) in order to
further establish the validity of the tool.
Since there is no prior theory regarding data structure
in regards to this emerging subject, we followed
Henson and Roberts’ (2006) recommendations and
used exploratory factor analysis to examine the
structure of relationships between the items on the
questionnaire. Varimax with Kaiser Normalization
analysis was used to extract the factors.
Convergent validity: Convergent validity was
examined by applying a comparison of the correlations
between the PFQ and relevant questionnaires:
Dogmatism (Adorno et al., 1950), Generalized
Perceived Self?Efficacy (Jerusalem & Schwarzer,
1986; Leganger, Kraft, & Roysamb, 2000), and the
Openness Scale (from the FFM developed by Scholte
et al. (1997). Specifically, the scale for dogmatism that
measures conventionalism, submission to authority,
stereotypical thinking, etc., is supposed to relate
negatively to the PFQ. A positive correlation is
hypothesized between the PFQ and the other two
measures, i.e., the Openness Scale (taken from the
Five Factor Model, FFM (Scholte et al. 1997)), which
measures the extent to which a person is open to new
experiences; and the Generalized Self?Efficacy (GSE)
scale, which is designed to measure perceived
self?efficacy. Psychometric data of the questionnaires
is presented below.
Results
Construction of the PFQ and Assessment of Its
Reliability
The 60?item questionnaire was completed by 90
graduate students: average age of 25 years, 80%
female, 2% self?defined as being religious, 71%
unmarried, and 84% in their second or third (last) year
WebmedCentral > Research articles
of behavioral and social sciences studies. The initial
reliability index of the questionnaire resulted in an
alpha Kronbach score of 0.898. Forty items were
deleted due to correlations lower than 0.436 with other
items, leaving a revised 20?item questionnaire with an
alpha Kronbach score of 0.918 for reliability.
Assessment of Construct and Convergent Validity
of the PFQ
Construct Validity: In order to examine the PFQ’s
construct validity, the 20 items were given to a second
sample of 107 graduate students in behavioral and
social sciences who were demographically similar to
the other group of participants: average age of 25
years, 62% female, 4% self?defined as being religious,
70% unmarried. No significant differences were found
between the demographic characteristics of both
samples.
Factor analysis using a principal components
extraction method was performed on the 20 items,
identifying 5 factors with eigenvalues greater than one.
66.8% of the total variance was explained. Varimax
with Kaiser Normalization was performed to facilitate
interpretation of the components. The loadings on
each component after rotation showed a fairly clear
correspondence between items and components, as
shown in Table 1. An examination of the items in each
factor revealed that each of the factors related to a
significant domain of flexibility as a concept. Two
senior psychologists who independently defined these
factors fully agreed on the essence of each factor. The
factors were defined as follows: (1) positive perception
of change: perceiving change as a positive challenge
and having the ability to adapt to changes. (5 items);
(2) characterization of the self as flexible: the person's
self?perception as having a flexible personality, that is
attentive and reactive to internal and external changes
(5 items); (3) characterization of the self as open and
innovative: the person's self?perception as open to
and interested in new and different experiences (3
items); (4) a perception of reality as dynamic and
changing: reality is seen as relative, changeable, and
characterized by conflicts (4 items); (5) a perception of
reality as multifaceted: believing that there is more
than one way to understand or handle a situation (3
items).
See Illustration 1
Convergent Validity.
The convergence validity of the PFQ was examined by
correlation coefficients (Table 2).
See Illustration2
As shown in Table 2, the results confirmed the
Page 4 of 10
WMC004606 Downloaded from http://www.webmedcentral.com on 21-Apr-2014, 07:07:10 AM
expected findings in two of the three questionnaires
used in this study. The openness scale correlated
positively with flexibility, meaning that a person who is
open to new experiences is also flexible. Perceived
self-efficacy related positively to flexibility, meaning
that a person who perceived himself as being high in
self?efficacy will also show high levels of flexibility.
However, the rigidity scale failed to correlate
significantly with flexibility. We explain this lack of
correlation in the discussion.
Discussion
The purpose of the present research was to develop a
psychological flexibility questionnaire (PFQ), which is
short enough to allow convenient use (yet still be
comprehensive), , which and to evaluate its reliability
and validity. After removing items due to correlations
lower than 0.436 with other items, 20 items were left.
The 20 items yielded 5 factors, each relating to a
significant domain of psychological flexibility: (1)
positive perception of change; (2) characterization of
the self as flexible; (3) self-characterization as open
and innovative; (4) a perception of reality as dynamic
and changing, and (5), a perception of reality as
multifaceted.
The 5 factors are complementary: a person who
positively values change will tend to regard himself as
being flexible and open to innovations, while, at the
same time, regarding reality as dynamic, changing and
multi faceted. Psychological flexibility encompasses a
positive view of change, a cognitive ability to perceive
changes paired with an emotional ability to contain
and regulate their implications, and accordingly resort
to a wide and renewing range of behavioral responses.
Separating the concept of flexibility into its different
factors is theoretically important as it allows for a
comprehensive understanding of the phenomenon and
its components.
In testing for convergent validity, a positive correlation
was found between the flexibility questionnaire and the
openness scale (Scholte et al. 1997), and between the
questionnaire and the generalized self?efficacy scale
(Jerusalem & Schwarzer, 1986; Leganger, Kraft, &
Roysamb, 2000). The questionnaire also
demonstrates satisfactory inner consistency scores
and construct validity scores. Based on the results of
this research, we conclude that the Psychological
Flexibility Questionnaire (PFQ) can successfully
measure psychological flexibility directly and
comprehensively.
Unexpectedly, no correlation was found between the
WebmedCentral > Research articles
flexibility questionnaire and the questionnaire on
authoritarian/rigid personality (Adorno et al., 1950). A
possible explanation for this is that the
authoritarian/rigid personality questionnaire and the
personality type to which it refers (i.e., authoritarian
personality) are the products of a specific cultural
background and circumstances that are not relevant to
contemporary culture (Fukuyama, 1992).
It is important to note that the ability to be flexible and
modify behavior does not indicate a lack of internal
consistency (Funder, 2006). The opposite may be true:
a strong and coherent sense of self may be needed to
avoid fear of changes. Just as pluralism does not
indicate anarchy, a multitude of internal voices does
not contradict a consolidated personal identity. In fact,
flexibility may enable a person to build resilience and
to develop a "spine" suitable to changing conditions,
facilitating better adjustment to a changing reality.
Life is full of developmental changes, such as entering
adolescence or old age, becoming a parent, marriage
or being promoted at work. Negative events such as a
death of a close relative, divorce, losing a job and
other significant losses are also unavoidable.
Psychological flexibility can facilitate coping with
phases and events - positive and negative - that life
presents, functioning as a catalyst for processes of
mental growth and development. (Bond & Bunce,
2003; Broenen, 2005; Eggerth, 2008; Hollenstein,
2006; Kashdan & Rottenberg, 2010; Landstra et al.
2013). Although the capacity for flexible coping
appears early in life, it can be changed over time in
response to environmental interactions (Bonanno &
Mancini, 2008). Therefore, the development and
improvement of personal flexibility can be regarded as
important and as an appropriate therapeutic goal.
The PFQ is relevant and can be implemented in a
number of settings: in therapeutic settings, it can help
determine the suitability of different patients to
different types of psychotherapies. For example,
Hatchett & Han (2006) found that a patient's level of
"openness" (as measured by the "openness" scale of
the Big Five Theory) was positively correlated with his
expectations for active participation during the course
of therapy. The fact that the questionnaire is
comprised of 5 elements can enable a
psychotherapist/researcher to construct a "profile" of
the patient's flexibility, and help him focus
psychotherapy to strengthen weaker elements of his
psychological flexibility. The questionnaire can also be
utilized to measure the affectivity of psychotherapy in
enhancing the patient's flexibility. Additionally, the
PFQ might be relevant to many fields outside
psychotherapy. Future studies could examine its
Page 5 of 10
WMC004606 Downloaded from http://www.webmedcentral.com on 21-Apr-2014, 07:07:10 AM
application in human resources (screening for
psychological flexibility might improve employee
recruitment, predicting candidates' potential adaptation
to the position, especially in cases of positions that
require flexibility), in education (development of
educational methods, etc.), and a range of other fields.
Further research on larger and diverse samples,
examining flexibility under a wide range of
circumstances, would enrich the understanding of
flexibility as a theoretical concept and its practical
implications.
References
1. Adorno, T. W., Frenkel-Brunswik, E., Levinson, D.,
J. & Sanford, R. N. (1950). The authoritarian
personality. New York: Harper and Row.
2. Block, J. (1961). The Q-sort method in personality
assessment and psychiatric research (No. 457).
Springfield, IL: Thomas.
3. Bonanno, G. A., & Mancini, A. D. (2008). The
human capacity to thrive in the face of potential
trauma. Pediatrics, 121(2), 369-375.
4. Bonanno, G. A., Papa, A., Lalande, K., Westphal,
M., & Coifman, K. (2004). The Importance of
Being Flexible The Ability to Both Enhance and
Suppress Emotional Expression Predicts
Long-Term Adjustment. Psychological Science,
15(7), 482-487.
5. 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(6), 1057.
6. Broenen, P. T. (2005). Transpersonal and
cross-cultural adaptability factors in white
European American men: A descriptive and
correlational analysis. Unpublished doctoral
dissertation, Institute of Transpersonal Psychology,
Palo Alto, CA.
7. Carver, C. S., & Scheier, M. F. (2001). On the
self-regulation of behavior. Cambridge University
Press.
8. Cheng, C. (2003). Cognitive and motivational
processes underlying coping flexibility: A
dual-process model. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 84(2), 425.
9. Duran, R. L. (1983). Communicative adaptability:
A measure of social communicative competence.
Communication Quarterly, 31(4), 320-326.
10. Eggerth, D. E. (2008). From theory of work
adjustment to person–environment
correspondence counseling: Vocational
psychology as positive psychology. Journal of
career assessment, 16(1), 60-74.
11. Fukuyama, F. (1992). The End of History and the
Last Man. New York: Free press.
12. Funder, D. C. (2006). Towards a resolution of the
personality triad: Persons, situations, and
behaviors. Journal of Research in Personality
, 40(1), 21-34.
WebmedCentral > Research articles
13. Galatzer-Levy, I. R., Burton, C. L., & Bonanno, G.
A. (2012). Coping flexibility, potentially traumatic
life events, and resilience: a prospective study of
college student adjustment. Journal of Social and
Clinical Psychology, 31(6), 542-567.
14. Griffin, B., & Hesketh, B. (2004). Why openness to
experience is not a good predictor of job
performance. International Journal of Selection
and Assessment, 12(3), 243-251.
15. Hart, R. P., Carlson, R. E., & Eadie, W. F. (1980).
Attitudes toward communication and the
assessment of rhetorical sensitivity.
Communications Monographs, 47(1), 1-22.
16. Hatchett, G. T., & Han, K. (2006). Development
and evaluation of new factor scales for the
expectations about counseling inventory in a
college sample. Journal of clinical psychology
, 62(10), 1303-1318.
17. Henson, R. K., & Roberts, J. K. (2006). Use of
Exploratory Factor Analysis in Published
Research Common Errors and Some Comment
on Improved Practice. Educational and
Psychological measurement, 66(3), 393-416.
18. Hollenstein, T. (2005). Socioemotional flexibility at
the early adolescent transition. University of
Toronto.
19. Jerusalem, M. & Schwarzer, R. (1986)
Selbstwirksamkeit [Self-efficacy] . In: R.
Schwarzer (Ed.), Skalen zur Befindlichkeit und
Personlichkeit, Research Report vol. 5. (pp. 15–28)
Berlin: Freie Universitat, Institut fur Psychologie.
20. Kashdan, T. B., & Rottenberg, J. (2010).
Psychological flexibility as a fundamental aspect
of health. Clinical psychology review, 30(7),
865-878.
21. Landstra, J., Ciarrochi, J., Deane, F. P., & Hillman,
R. J. (2013). Identifying and describing feelings
and psychological flexibility predict mental health
in men with HIV. British journal of health
psychology, DOI: 10.1111/bjhp.12026.
22. Leganger, A., Kraft, P., & Roysamb, E. (2000).
Perceived self-efficacy in health behavior research:
Conceptualization, measurement and correlates.
Psychology and Health, 15(1), 51-69.
23. Martin, M. M., & Anderson, C. M. (1998). The
cognitive flexibility scale: Three validity studies.
Communication Reports, 11(1), 1-9.
24. Martin, M. M., & Rubin, R. B. (1994). Development
of a communication flexibility measure. Southern
Journal of Communication, 59(2), 171-178.
25. Matsumoto, D., LeRoux, J.A., Robles, Y. &
Campos, G. (2007). The Intercultural Adjustment
Potential Scale (ICAPS) predicts adjustment
above and beyond personality and general
intelligence. International Journal of Intercultural
Relations, 31, 747-759.
26. McCracken, L. M., Gutiérrez-Martínez, O., &
Smyth, C. (2013). “Decentering” Reflects
Psychological Flexibility in People With Chronic
Pain and Correlates With Their Quality of
Functioning. Health Psychology, 32(7), 820-823.
27. Muraven, M., & Baumeister, R. F. (2000).
Self-regulation and depletion of limited resources:
Does self-control resemble a muscle?.
Psychological bulletin, 126 (2), 247.
28. Nolen-Hoeksema, S., Wisco, B. E., & Lyubomirsky,
Page 6 of 10
WMC004606 Downloaded from http://www.webmedcentral.com on 21-Apr-2014, 07:07:10 AM

S. (2008). Rethinking rumination. Perspectives on

psychological science, 3(5), 400-424.
29. Norman, W. T. (1963). Toward an adequate
taxonomy of personality attributes: Replicated
factor structure in peer nomination personality
ratings. The Journal of Abnormal and Social
Psychology, 66(6), 574.
30. Pat-Horenczyk, R. & Bonnano, G.A. (unpublished
data) Coping flexibility and potential trauma.
31. Patterson, C. M., & Newman, J. P. (1993).
Reflectivity and learning from aversive events:
toward a psychological mechanism for the
syndromes of disinhibition. Psychological review
, 100(4), 716.
32. Posner MI, Rothbart MK.(1998). Attention,
self-regulation, and consciousness. Philosophical
Transactions of the Royal Society of London, B
1998; 353:1915–1927.
33. Scholte, R. H., van Aken, M. A., & van Lieshout, C.
F. (1997). Adolescent personality factors in
self-ratings and peer nominations and their
prediction of peer acceptance and peer rejection.
Journal of Personality Assessment, 69, 534-554.
34. Sfard, A., & Prusak, A. (2005). Telling identities: In
search of an analytic tool for investigating learning
as a culturally shaped activity. Educational
Researcher, 34(4), 14-22.
35. Stryker, S., & Burke, P. J. (2000). The past,
present, and future of an identity theory. Social
psychology quarterly, 63(4), 284-297.
36. Williams, K. E., Ciarrochi, J., & Heaven, P. C.
(2012). Inflexible parents, inflexible kids: A 6-year
longitudinal study of parenting style and the
development of psychological flexibility in
adolescents. Journal of youth and adolescence,
41(8), 1053-1066.

WebmedCentral > Research articles Page 7 of 10

WMC004606 Downloaded from http://www.webmedcentral.com on 21-Apr-2014, 07:07:10 AM

Illustrations
Illustration 1

Table 1: Factor analysis: rotated component matrix, variance explained and reliability of each component

Item number 1 2 3 4 5

10. I often find a change to be a challenge .781 .112 .221 .168 .027

3. When times are hard, even very hard, I am able to .765 .083 .103 .088 .198
remember that there are better times ahead
2.In situations of changeable reality I am able to .641 -.086 .080 .157 .380

initiate the required changes

15. I feel ready to accept future changes .629 .358 .238 .278 .019

14. I recognize myself as someone who is able to .431 .377 .206 .290 .063
change his/her position and modify him/herself
accordingly

18. It is easy for me to think of ways of conduct that -.027 .804 .023 .248 .128

are very unconventional

20. When given an assignment I am able to come up .115 .719 .229 -.040 .333

with original ways of completing it, in comparison

with how I used to approach it before

17. When I encounter difficulties in achieving a goal, .342 .613 .356 .091 .244
I am able to try numerous different solutions

WebmedCentral > Research articles Page 8 of 10

WMC004606 Downloaded from http://www.webmedcentral.com on 21-Apr-2014, 07:07:10 AM

19. I feel open to changes .520 .556 .172 .076 .142

16. At times I can make significant decisions, based .417 .463 .344 .198 .283
on my need to change
8. I am an open person in comparison with others .213 -.039 .745 .125 .262
11. I think of myself as a person who is attentive to a .247 .313 .738 .022 -.114
variety of different messages and ideas
13. It is important to me to learn from each and every .121 .436 .720 .105 -.027
person
1. Reality is never absolute .128 .006 -.036 .849 .141

9. Reality has many different aspects .292 .224 .045 .775 .058
7.In a disagreement there are always numerous .079 .085 .410 .629 .317

possible solutions - you just have to find them

12. I find it easy to acknowledge reality's multiversity .418 .314 .190 .473 .005
of manifestations, manifestations that may often be
significantly divergent, or even conflict with one
another
4. Concepts may possess different meanings when .137 .317 -.039 .158 .748
perceived in different contexts
5. There are usually many possible ways to do things .170 .338 .022 .232 .701

6.I am open to experiencing the different and the .205 .023 .506 .008 .631
exceptional
Variance explained 38.8% 8.5% 7.5% 6.3% 5.6%

1- positive perception of change; 2- characterization of the self as flexible; 3 -

characterization of the self as open and innovative; 4 - perception of reality as
dynamic and changing; 5 - a perception of reality as multifaceted

WebmedCentral > Research articles Page 9 of 10

WMC004606 Downloaded from http://www.webmedcentral.com on 21-Apr-2014, 07:07:10 AM

Illustration 2

Table 2: Correlations between flexibility and the questionnaires used for validation

Efficacy Openness Dogmatism

.461* .355* .050 Pearson Correlation

.000 .000 .610 Significance (2-tailed)

107 106 105 N

*Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

WebmedCentral > Research articles Page 10 of 10