Profiles of Psychological Flexibility: A Latent Class Analysis of the Acceptance and Commitment Therapy Model.
Clients fall into three ACT-ready flexibility bands—screen first, then match the dose.
01Research in Context
What this study did
Tyndall et al. (2020) ran a latent-class analysis on the adults. They looked at six ACT process scores, like acceptance and values. The goal was to see if people clump into clear flexibility types.
What they found
Three profiles popped out. The low-flex group had the worst anxiety and depression scores. The high-flex group looked calm and engaged. A middle group sat between the two.
How this fits with other research
Falligant et al. (2020) used the same math trick—latent class—to spot who will win with FCT. Both papers say: sort clients first, then pick the treatment.
Higgins et al. (2021) took ACT online and saw the same three camps. Their combo module helped the low-flex people most, proving the profiles matter outside the lab.
Kaufman et al. (2010) and Plant et al. (2007) already showed ACT beats basic CT for eating and mood issues. Ian’s work explains why: ACT grabs the low-flex clients who need it most.
Why it matters
You can give the 10-item Acceptance and Action Questionnaire at intake. Score in the bottom third? Start ACT right away and watch avoidance drop. Score high? You might get faster gains with brief values work or even standard CBT. No need to guess—the profile tells you where to spend your hours.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Add the AAQ-II to your intake packet; flag anyone under 28 for full ACT modules.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
There exists uncertainty for clinicians over how the separate subcomponent processes of psychological flexibility, a core construct of the Acceptance and Commitment Therapy model, interact and influence distress experienced. The present study (N = 567) employed latent class analysis to (a) identify potential classes (i.e., subgroups) of psychological flexibility based on responses on measures of key subcomponent process and (b) examine whether such classes could reliably differentiate levels of self-reported psychological distress and positive and negative emotionality. We found three distinct classes: (a) High Psychological Flexibility, (b) Moderate Psychological Flexibility, and (c) Low Psychological Flexibility. Those in the Low Psychology Flexibility class reported highest levels of psychological distress, whereas those in the High Psychological Flexibility class reported lowest levels of psychological distress. This study provides a clearer view to clinicians of the profile of the broader spectrum of the psychological flexibility model to facilitate change in clients.
Behavior modification, 2020 · doi:10.1177/0145445518820036