Validation of the Malay Version of the Cognitive Fusion Questionnaire-7 (CFQ-7-M)

Le résumé fourni par la source

Introduction/ Objective This study aimed to translate and validate the Malay version of the Cognitive Fusion Questionnaire-7 (CFQ-7-M) among Malay-speaking, Malaysian university students. The CFQ-7 measures cognitive fusion, a key ACT process that reflects the extent to which individuals become entangled with their thoughts and treat them as literal truths, which contribute to psychological inflexibility and emotional distress. Methods The questionnaire was translated using a rigorous forward-backward protocol, followed by pilot testing. Then, a total of 220 participants completed the CFQ-7-M, the Malay Acceptance and Action Questionnaire-II (AAQ-II-M), and the Depression, Anxiety, and Stress Scale-21 (DASS-21). Internal consistency reliability, Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA), convergent validity, and measurement invariance across gender were examined. Results The CFQ-7-M demonstrated excellent internal consistency (α = 0.936; ω = 0.937; GLB = 0.956). CFA supported a unidimensional structure, with strong incremental fit (CFI = 0.998, TLI = 0.997) and low residual misfit (SRMR = 0.039), although RMSEA was elevated (0.102). Standardized factor loadings were strong, ranging from 0.796 to 0.901. Convergent validity was supported by strong correlations with AAQ-II-M (Spearman ρ = 0.788; Pearson r = 0.788) and moderate-to-strong correlations with depression, anxiety, and stress (all p < 0.001). Measurement invariance across gender was also established. Discussion The findings support the cross-cultural applicability of the CFQ-7-M. However, the elevated RMSEA warrants cautious interpretation, and further validation in more diverse clinical and community samples is needed. Conclusion The CFQ-7-M is a reliable and valid instrument for assessing cognitive fusion among Malay-speaking Malaysian university students and shows potential for broader use in Malay-speaking populations.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.