The development and validation of the experiential avoidance rating scale (EARS): A self-report questionnaire that might actually measure experiential avoidance

Abstract

Serious concerns have been raised regarding the validity of popular experiential avoidance measures. We developed a new “experiential avoidance rating scale” (EARS) to address some of the psychometric concerns with existing measures. Candidate items were generated according to the original functional contextual definition of experiential avoidance and reviewed by experts and public members for content validity and readability. Items then underwent validation involving n = 3628 participants. Exploratory factor analyses (n = 1069) identified six items with good underlying common variance. Confirmatory factor analyses from college student (n = 1068) and community samples (n = 1413) demonstrated excellent fit. In all samples, the EARS demonstrated evidence of content, factorial, concurrent, convergent, and discriminant validity. The EARS also demonstrated evidence of incremental validity by predicting significant additional variance above-and-beyond neuroticism and extant experiential avoidance measures in depression, anxiety, post-traumatic stress, alcohol use problems, and general mental health measures. Measurement invariance analyses indicated that the EARS demonstrated residual (strict) invariance between cisgender men and women; clinical and non-clinical participants; White Non-Hispanic, White Hispanic, Black, and Asian participants; and heterosexual and bisexual individuals. We suggest that the EARS be further investigated as a brief measure of experiential avoidance in additional studies, particularly with clinical populations. We also discuss areas of future psychometric study and implications.