Acceso usuarios
Santiago Barajas, Luis Garra Palud, Laura Ros Segura
This study examines how cognitive, behavioral and experiential avoidance differs between clinical patients (N = 100), the general population (N = 100), and undergraduate students (N = 54). For this purpose, a Spanish adaptation of the Cognitive-Behavioral Avoidance Scale (CBAS; Ottenbreit & Dobson, 2004) was made. Confirmatory factor analysis supports the four factors structure similar to the original one, yet question the value of three of the items (CFI = .929, RMSEA = .057, SRMR = .051, χ2(333) = 603.28, p < .001, χ2/df = 1.81). Effect sizes calculated using Cohen’s ƒ2 were between 0.30 and 2.57 in all cases, and only one item showed value < 0.35. The internal consistency for the total scale was .95, and adequate alpha values for the four subscales were found (α between .74 and .93). Statistical differences were found between the clinical and non-clinical groups, and also between the clinical and undergraduate groups (GLM, p < .001). The validity was verified using correlations with AAQ-II, MAAS, BDI-II and BAI. There is a correlation between cognitive-behavioral avoidance and experiential avoidance in both the clinical and control groups (rho = .382, rho = .361, p < .01). Patients with higher levels of cognitive-behavioral avoidance have higher levels of depression (rho = .36, p < .01). A score of 53 is suggested as the optimum cut-off point, because at this point, sensitivity and specificity are both 86%. The results suggest that cognitive-behavioral avoidance represents a significant factor in psychopathology. Recommendations for future studies are discussed.
