Estructura factorial del Cuestionario de Fusión Cognitiva en universitarios de Lima

Palabras clave: Análisis factorial, pensamiento, salud mental, psicometría, test psicológico


Introducción: La fusión cognitiva es un concepto central dentro de la terapia de aceptación y compromiso. El Cuestionario de Fusión Cognitiva (CFQ) fue desarrollado como una medida unidimensional que superaría las limitaciones de las propuestas previas. Método: El presente estudio analizó la estructura factorial del CFQ en universitarios peruanos (n = 450, 53 % mujeres). También examinó si dicha estructura era invariante entre varones y mujeres. Resultados: Los datos apoyaron la unidimensionalidad hipotetizada, así como la invarianza estricta. No se hallaron diferencias entre varones y mujeres en relación a las medias latentes de fusión cognitiva. La confiabilidad de la escala fue alta (ω = .916). Conclusiones: Se sugiere que futuros estudios a) incluyan otras medidas junto con el CFQ, b) examinen la calidad del CFQ en distintos niveles del constructo, y c) analicen si otras medidas de (de)fusión cognitiva miden o no el mismo constructo.


La descarga de datos todavía no está disponible.


Bardeen, J. R., & Fergus, T. A. (2016). The interactive effect of cognitive fusion and experiential avoidance on anxiety, depression, stress and posttraumatic stress symptoms. Journal of Contextual Behavioral Science, 5(1), 1-6.

Barnes-Holmes, D., Finn, M., McEnteggart, C., & Barnes-Holmes, Y. (2018). Derived stimulus relations and their role in a behavior-analytic account of human language and cognition. Perspectives on Behavior Science, 41(1), 155-173.

Barnes-Holmes, Y., Barnes-Holmes, D., & McEnteggart, C. (en prensa). Relational Frame Theory: Description, evidence, and clinical applications. En P. Lucena-Santos, S. Carvalho, J. Pinto-Gouveia, M. Silva Oliveira, & J. Pistorello (Eds.), International ACT practical handbook. Reno: TBC Press.

Blackledge, J. T. (2015). Cognitive defusion in practice: a clinician’s guide to assessing, observing, supporting change in your client. Oakland: Context Press.

Bolderston, H., Gillanders, D. T., Turner, G., Taylor, H. C., Ní Mhaoileoin, D., & Coleman, A. (2018). The initial validation of a state version of the Cognitive Fusion Questionnaire. Journal of Contextual Behavioral Science.

Brosseau-Liard, P. E., & Savalei, V. (2014). Adjusting incremental fit indices for nonnormality. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 49(5), 460-470.

Brosseau-Liard, P. E., Savalei, V., & Li, L. (2012). An investigation of the sample performance of two nonnormality corrections for RMSEA. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 47(6), 904-930.

Brown, T. A. (2015). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research (2.a ed.). Nueva York: Guilford Press.

Byrne, B. M. (2012). Structural equation modeling with Mplus: Basic concepts, applications, and programming. Nueva York: Routledge.

Cheung, G. W., & Rensvold, R. B. (2002). Evaluating goodness-of-fit indexes for testing measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 9(2), 233-255.

China, C., Hansen, L. B., Gillanders, D. T., & Benninghoven, D. (2018). Concept and validation of the German version of the Cognitive Fusion Questionnaire (CFQ-D). Journal of Contextual Behavioral Science, 9, 30-35.

Costa, J. A., Marôco, J., & Pinto-Gouveia, J. (2017). Validation of the psychometric properties of cognitive fusion questionnaire. A study of the factorial validity and factorial invariance of the measure among osteoarticular disease, diabetes mellitus, obesity, depressive disorder, and general populations. Clinical Psychology & Psychotherapy, 24(5), 1121-1129.

Critchfield, T. S., Barnes-Holmes, D., & Dougher, M. J. (2018). Editorial: What Sidman did -- Historical and contemporary significance of research on derived stimulus relations. Perspectives on Behavior Science, 41(1), 9-32.

Dionne, F., Gagnon, J., Balbinotti, M., Peixoto, E. M., Martel, M. E., Gillanders, D., & Monestès, J. L. (2016). “Buying into thoughts”: Validation of a French translation of the Cognitive Fusion Questionnaire. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, 48(4), 278-285.

Dominguez-Lara, S. A. (2016). Evaluación de la confiabilidad del constructo mediante el coeficiente H: breve revisión conceptual y aplicaciones. Psychologia. Avances en la Disciplina, 10(2), 87.

Domínguez-Lara, S. A. y Merino-Soto, C. (2015). ¿Por qué es importante reportar los intervalos de confianza del coeficiente alfa de Cronbach? Revista Latinoamericana de Ciencias Sociales, Niñez y Juventud, 13(2), 1326-1328.

Dunn, T. J., Baguley, T., & Brunsden, V. (2014). From alpha to omega: A practical solution to the pervasive problem of internal consistency estimation. British Journal of Psychology, 105(3), 399-412.

Flynn, M. K., Hernandez, J. O., Hebert, E. R., James, K. K., & Kusick, M. K. (2018). Cognitive fusion among hispanic college students: Further validation of the Cognitive Fusion Questionnaire. Journal of Contextual Behavioral Science, 7, 29-34.

Forman, E. M., Herbert, J. D., Juarascio, A. S., Yeomans, P. D., Zebell, J. A., Goetter, E. M., & Moitra, E. (2012). The Drexel defusion scale: A new measure of experiential distancing. Journal of Contextual Behavioral Science, 1(1-2), 55-65.

Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39.

Freixa i Baqué, E. (2003). ¿Qué es conducta? International Journal of Clinical and Health Psychology, 3(3), 595-613. Recuperado a partir de

Gillanders, D. T., Bolderston, H., Bond, F. W., Dempster, M., Flaxman, P. E., Campbell, L., … Remington, B. (2014). The development and initial validation of the Cognitive Fusion Questionnaire. Behavior Therapy, 45(1), 83-101.

Hadash, Y., Lichtash, Y., & Bernstein, A. (2017). Measuring decentering and related constructs: Capacity and limitations of extant assessment scales. Mindfulness, 8(6), 1674-1688.

Hayes, S. C., Barnes-Holmes, D., & Roche, B. (Eds.). (2001). Relational Frame Theory: A Post-Skinnerian account of human language and cognition. Nueva York: Plenum Press.

Hayes, S. C., Barnes-Holmes, D., & Wilson, K. G. (2012). Contextual Behavioral Science: Creating a science more adequate to the challenge of the human condition. Journal of Contextual Behavioral Science, 1(1-2), 1-16.

Hayes, S. C., & Brownstein, A. J. (1986). Mentalism, behavior-behavior relations, and a behavior-analytic view of the purposes of science. The Behavior Analyst, 9(2), 175-190.

Hayes, S. C., Hayes, L. J., & Reese, H. W. (1988). Finding the philosophical core: A review of Stephen C. Pepper’s World Hypotheses: A Study in Evidence. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 50(1), 97-111.

Hayes, S. C., Strosahl, K. D., & Wilson, K. G. (1999). Acceptance and Commitment Therapy: An experiential approach to behavior change. Nueva York: Guilford Press.

Hayes, S. C., Strosahl, K. D., & Wilson, K. G. (2014). Terapia de aceptación y compromiso. Proceso y práctica del cambio consciente (Mindfulness). Bilbao: Desclée de Brouwer.

Hayes, S. C., & Wilson, K. G. (1995). The role of cognition in complex human behavior: A contextualistic perspective. Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry, 26(3), 241-248.

Herzberg, K. N., Sheppard, S. C., Forsyth, J. P., Credé, M., Earleywine, M., & Eifert, G. H. (2012). The Believability of Anxious Feelings and Thoughts Questionnaire (BAFT): A psychometric evaluation of cognitive fusion in a nonclinical and highly anxious community sample. Psychological Assessment, 24(4), 877-891.

Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1-55.

Kim, B.-O., & Cho, S. (2015). Psychometric properties of a Korean version of the Cognitive Fusion Questionnaire. Social Behavior and Personality: an international journal, 43(10), 1715-1723.

Krafft, J., Haeger, J. A., & Levin, M. E. (2018). Comparing cognitive fusion and cognitive reappraisal as predictors of college student mental health. Cognitive Behaviour Therapy, 1-12.

Larsson, A., Hooper, N., Osborne, L. A., Bennett, P., & McHugh, L. (2016). Using brief cognitive restructuring and cognitive defusion techniques to cope with negative thoughts. Behavior Modification, 40(3), 452-482.

López-López, J. C., & Luciano, C. (2017). An experimental analysis of defusion interactions based on deictic and hierarchical framings and their impact on cognitive performance. The Psychological Record, 67(4), 485-497.

Lucena-Santos, P., Carvalho, S., Pinto-Gouveia, J., Gillanders, D., & Silva Oliveira, M. (2017). Cognitive Fusion Questionnaire: Exploring measurement invariance across three groups of Brazilian women and the role of cognitive fusion as a mediator in the relationship between rumination and depression. Journal of Contextual Behavioral Science, 6(1), 53-62.

Luciano, C. (2016). Evolución de ACT. Análisis y Modificación de Conducta, 42(165-166), 3-14. Recuperado a partir de

Mardia, K. V. (1970). Measures of multivariate skewness and kurtosis with applications. Biometrika, 57(3), 519-530.

McCracken, L. M., DaSilva, P., Skillicorn, B., & Doherty, R. (2014). The Cognitive Fusion Questionnaire: A preliminary study of psychometric properties and prediction of functioning in chronic pain. The Clinical Journal of Pain, 30(10), 894-901.

McEnteggart, C. (2018). A brief tutorial on acceptance and commitment therapy as seen through the lens of derived stimulus relations. Perspectives on Behavior Science, 41(1), 215-227.

McNeish, D. (2018). Thanks coefficient alpha, we’ll take it from here. Psychological Methods, 23(3), 412-433.

Meyer, J. P. (2010). Reliability. Nueva York: Oxford University Press.

Montero, I., & León, O. G. (2007). A guide for naming research studies in Psychology. International Journal of Clinical and Health Psychology, 7(3), 847-862. Recuperado a partir de

Ong, C. W., Pierce, B. G., Woods, D. W., Twohig, M. P., & Levin, M. E. (2018). The Acceptance and Action Questionnaire – II: An item response theory analysis. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 1-12.

Peters, G. (2018). Userfriendlyscience: Quantitative analysis made accessible. Paquete de R, versión 0.7.2.

R Core Team. (2018). R: A language and environment for statistical computing (version 3.4.4) [Programa de computadora]. Viena: R Foundation of Statistical Computing.

Raykov, T. (2012). Scale construction and development using structural equation modeling. En R. H. Hoyle (Ed.), Handbook of structural equation modeling. (pp. 472-492). Nueva York: Guilford Press.

Raykov, T., & Marcoulides, G. A. (2017). Thanks coefficient alpha, we still need you! Educational and Psychological Measurement.

Revelle, W. (2018). psych: Procedures for Personality and Psychological Research. Paquete de R, versión 1.8.4.

Romero-Moreno, R., Márquez-González, M., Losada, A., Gillanders, D., & Fernández-Fernández, V. (2014). Cognitive fusion in dementia caregiving: Psychometric properties of the Spanish version of the “Cognitive Fusion Questionnaire”. Psicología Conductual, 22(1), 117-132.

Rosseel, Y. (2012). lavaan: An R package for structural equation modeling. Journal of Statistical Software, 48(2), 1-36.

Ruiz, F. J., Suárez-Falcón, J. C., Riaño-Hernández, D., & Gillanders, D. (2017). Psychometric properties of the Cognitive Fusion Questionnaire in Colombia. Revista Latinoamericana de Psicología, 49(1), 80-87.

Satorra, A., & Bentler, P. M. (2001). A scaled difference chi-square test statistic for moment structure analysis. Psychometrika, 66(4), 507-514.

Schermelleh-Engel, K., Moosbrugger, H., & Müller, H. (2003). Evaluating the fit of structural equation models: Tests of significance and descriptive goodness-of-fit measures. Methods of Psychological Research, 8(2), 23-74.

Sidman, M. (2009). Equivalence relations and behavior: An introductory tutorial. The Analysis of Verbal Behavior, 25(1), 5-17.

Solé, E., Racine, M., Castarlenas, E., de la Vega, R., Tomé-Pires, C., Jensen, M., & Miró, J. (2016). The psychometric properties of the Cognitive Fusion Questionnaire in adolescents. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 32(3), 181-186.

Törneke, N. (2015). Aprendiendo TMR: una introducción a la Teoría del Marco Relacional y sus aplicaciones clínicas. Jaén: MICPSY.

Törneke, N., Luciano, C., Barnes-Holmes, Y., & Bond, F. W. (2015). RFT for Clinical Practice. En R. D. Zettle, S. C. Hayes, D. Barnes-Holmes, & A. Biglan (Eds.), The Wiley Handbook of Contextual Behavioral Science (pp. 254-272). Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Tyndall, I., Waldeck, D., Pancani, L., Whelan, R., Roche, B., & Dawson, D. L. (2018). The Acceptance and Action Questionnaire-II (AAQ-II) as a measure of experiential avoidance: Concerns over discriminant validity. Journal of Contextual Behavioral Science.

Wilson, K. G., & Hayes, S. C. (2000). Why it is crucial to understand thinking and feeling: An analysis and application to drug abuse. The Behavior Analyst, 23(1), 25-43.

Wolgast, M. (2014). What does the Acceptance and Action Questionnaire (AAQ-II) really measure? Behavior Therapy, 45(6), 831-839.

Yuan, K.-H., & Bentler, P. M. (2000). Three likelihood-based methods for mean and covariance structure analysis with nonnormal missing data. Sociological Methodology, 30(1), 165-200.

Zettle, R. D., & Hayes, S. C. (1986). Dysfunctional control by client verbal behavior: The context of reason-giving. The Analysis of Verbal Behavior, 4(1), 30-38.

Cómo citar
Valencia, P., & Falcón, C. (2019). Estructura factorial del Cuestionario de Fusión Cognitiva en universitarios de Lima. Interacciones, 5(2), e167.
Artículos originales