Reliability and Validity of the Implicit Relational Assessment Procedure (IRAP) as a Measure of Change Agenda

This research examined the reliability and validity of the Change Agenda Implicit Relational Assessment Procedure (CA-IRAP). Change agendas that lead people to think that “reducing or removing undesirable thoughts and feelings will solve problems and lead to a more successful life” are considered unworkable in acceptance and commitment therapy (ACT). For acceptance-based interventions to succeed, relinquishing change agendas is important. However, currently available methods for measuring these types of change agendas are limited to explicit measures, which are vulnerable to distortion from social desirability and demand characteristics. The authors attempted to measure change agendas using the IRAP. A total of 131 undergraduate and graduate students (40 male, 91 female; mean age = 21.93, SD = 3.19) participated. First, we examined the CA-IRAP’s discriminant validity in relation to explicit measures such as the Acceptance and Action Questionnaire-II in 83 participants who were able to pass the CA-IRAP. The correlations between the CA-IRAP and the explicit measures were low, confirming the discriminant validity of the CA-IRAP. Second, we examined the predictive validity of the CA-IRAP. Nineteen respondents had learned ACT and 34 respondents had never learned ACT. Non-ACT learners’ CA-IRAP scores were higher than those of ACT learners, which confirmed the CA-IRAP’s predictive validity. Finally, we examined the CA-IRAP’s test–retest reliability, which was confirmed across some CA-IRAP trial types. In conclusion, the authors submit that the CA-IRAP has strong potential as a valid instrument for measuring the relative strength of relational responses around change agendas while controlling for variables such as demand characteristics.