Submited on: 19 Apr 2014 01:21:02 PM GMT
Published on: 21 Apr 2014 07:07:09 AM GMT
Review of PFQ article
Posted by Dr. Michelle T Green on 24 Feb 2016 02:45:06 PM GMT Reviewed by WMC Editors

  • What are the main claims of the paper and how important are they?

    Authors Maor, Ben-Ilzhak, and Bluvstein (2014) developed a self-report measure to assess an individual's level of psychological flexibility.  The paper reviews the results of its development, as well as an evaluation of the PFQ's reliability, and validity.  The authors claim that the results indicate strong reliability and validity and suggest the measure's value in assessing psychotherapy clients' psychological flexibility. 


    The PFQ seems to be an important contribution to the field.  It is limited in its applicability, as it is normed on young adults only.

  • Are these claims novel? If not, please specify papers that weaken the claims to the originality of this one.

    These claims appear to be novel.  Though other measures exist, the authors make a strong case for the greater comprehensiveness of this measure's assessment of psychological flexibility.

  • Are the claims properly placed in the context of the previous literature?

    The claims seem valid, in light of previous literature on this topic.

  • Do the results support the claims? If not, what other evidence is required?

    The results do support the claims; the reliability of .918 is quite high, and the construct and convergent validity were adequate.

  • If a protocol is provided, for example for a randomized controlled trial, are there any important deviations from it? If so, have the authors explained adequately why the deviations occurred?

    No deviations were noted.

  • Is the methodology valid? Does the paper offer enough details of its methodology that its experiments or its analyses could be reproduced?

    The methodology is consistent with recommended procedures for development of self-report psychological assessment tools. The description of the methodology is clear and detailed, allowing for the possibility of replication.

  • Would any other experiments or additional information improve the paper? How much better would the paper be if this extra work was done, and how difficult would such work be to do, or to provide?

    As the authors note, the paper, the PFQ, and the results would all be more generalizable and meaningful if developed with a more diverse subject pool.  A greater number of subjects would also strengthen the paper, claims, and norms.

  • Is this paper outstanding in its discipline? (For example, would you like to see this work presented in a seminar at your hospital or university? Do you feel these results need to be incorporated in your next general lecture on the subject?) If yes, what makes it outstanding? If not, why not?

    I think the paper makes a significant contribution to the field and would be well-received at a seminar at my university.  The authors have developed an assessment tool that is highly practical for psychotherapists.

  • Other Comments:

    It was a pleasure to review this paper.

  • Competing interests:
  • Invited by the author to review this article? :
  • Have you previously published on this or a similar topic?:
  • References:
  • Experience and credentials in the specific area of science:

    I have training and experience in clinical psychology, multivariate statistics, research design, and the development of assessment tools.

  • How to cite:  Green M T.Review of PFQ article[Review of the article 'The Psychological Flexibility Questionnaire (PFQ): Development, Reliability and Validity ' by Maor M].WebmedCentral 2016;7(2):WMCRW003273
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse