Acceptance and Action Questionnaire II (AAQ-II): Uses and Measurement Limits

Author: Angela Bogdanova · Published: October 16, 2026 · Editorial Policy

Research cluster: Emotion Regulation & Psychological Flexibility · Written by Artificial Sapiens

The Acceptance and Action Questionnaire–II (AAQ-II) is a seven-item self-report measure developed to assess psychological inflexibility and experiential avoidance, concepts associated with acceptance and commitment therapy (ACT). The questionnaire has been widely adopted in clinical psychology research because of its brevity and the reliability documented in its original validation. Its use also raises a substantial scientific question: to what extent do its scores capture a distinct psychological process rather than the emotional distress that a respondent is experiencing? The answer determines how researchers and clinicians can interpret the scale. Bond et al. (2011); Wolgast (2014).

The most precise interpretation is that a higher standard AAQ-II total reflects greater endorsement of experiences related to psychological inflexibility. It does not provide a psychiatric diagnosis, a direct observation of avoidance behavior, a comprehensive measure of psychological flexibility, or evidence that any particular treatment is effective. Extensive research supports the questionnaire's consistency and association with relevant outcomes, while the extent of its discriminant validity remains contested. These two findings can coexist and must both be included in a scientific interpretation. Tyndall et al. (2019); Ruiz et al. (2024).

What Is the AAQ-II in Psychology?

The AAQ-II is a standardized instrument, not a clinical disorder or a psychological trait in itself. It is a way of translating theoretical claims about psychological inflexibility into responses to seven statements. In the ACT-derived model, psychological inflexibility involves rigid patterns of responding to private experiences—thoughts, emotions, bodily sensations, memories, and impulses—in ways that interfere with meaningful action. The related construct of experiential avoidance concerns attempts to control or escape unwanted internal experiences even when doing so creates persistent costs. Psychological flexibility is broader and involves effective behavior in changing circumstances, with attention to personally important goals. Cherry et al. (2021). See the related psychological flexibility overview.

The scale is typically administered as a short questionnaire, either independently in psychological research or as part of a larger set of measures. It can be used in community studies, correlational research, longitudinal designs, and investigations of psychological interventions. Each use supports different inferences. A group average can describe how participants endorse the items; a repeated score can describe a change in reported experiences; neither observation alone identifies the cause of a problem or establishes a successful treatment mechanism.

Development and Scientific Origins

Researchers developed the AAQ-II after difficulties with reliability and variation among earlier forms of the Acceptance and Action Questionnaire. Bond and colleagues evaluated the revision across six samples totaling 2,816 participants. They ultimately presented a seven-item measure intended to provide a more consistent index of acceptance-related psychological inflexibility. The original study reported a mean internal-consistency coefficient of approximately .84, with observed values of .78–.88, and favorable stability estimates over time. These findings established the AAQ-II as an efficient empirical instrument. Bond et al. (2011).

The questionnaire's history explains some of its terminological ambiguity. Articles may call it a measure of acceptance, experiential avoidance, psychological flexibility, or psychological inflexibility. These terms have theoretical connections but can represent different behavioral and psychometric dimensions. A scientific paper should specify its target construct and avoid assuming that the labels describe interchangeable measurements. The seven-item version also needs to be distinguished from earlier ten-item forms and later adaptations. The Association for Contextual Behavioral Science documents the standard version and its development.

What Does the AAQ-II Actually Measure?

Psychological Inflexibility as a Self-Reported Pattern

The conventional scale primarily asks respondents to characterize how difficult private experiences affect their lives. Answers can reflect the feeling that painful thoughts or emotions interrupt action, that past experiences interfere with functioning, or that internal discomfort is difficult to manage. Such content is meaningfully related to psychological inflexibility as proposed in contextual behavioral theory. Yet the responses are still perceptions reported at a particular time, with the ordinary influences of mood, memory, language, and self-evaluation. See the related psychological inflexibility analysis.

The practical distinction is between reporting that emotions obstruct action and demonstrating the function of a particular behavior in context. Someone may feel extremely distressed while continuing to pursue important activities; another person may report little distress while avoiding significant life tasks. The AAQ-II cannot, on its own, determine how much behavioral persistence, task engagement, or flexible strategy selection occurred. A theoretically comprehensive study must observe or measure the specific behavior it seeks to explain.

Experiential Avoidance and Its Functional Context

Experiential avoidance is sometimes misunderstood as any reduction or escape from unpleasant feelings. Its scientific meaning depends on the function and consequences of behavior. Temporarily distracting oneself to complete an urgent task, leaving an unsafe place, or resting during exhaustion can be useful responses. Repeatedly abandoning valued activities solely to prevent manageable discomfort may be costly in another context. A questionnaire about difficult feelings alone cannot classify every action. The AAQ-II therefore provides an indirect index of avoidance-related responding rather than a behavioral analysis of specific choices. Tyndall et al. (2019). See the related experiential avoidance review.

Psychological Flexibility, Regulatory Flexibility, and Cognitive Flexibility

Psychological flexibility includes contextually appropriate changes in behavior alongside pursuit of valued aims. Regulatory flexibility concerns selecting, adjusting, and switching emotion-regulation strategies according to a situation's demands. Cognitive flexibility often refers to the capacity to shift mental sets, rules, or perspectives, including in neuropsychological tasks. These constructs share aspects of adaptation, but their operational definitions are distinct. A person's AAQ-II score cannot replace experimental assessments of set shifting or observations of flexible emotional strategy choice. The broader literature on flexibility repeatedly emphasizes this construct diversity. Cherry et al. (2021).

Administration, Seven Items, and Scoring

The widely used version has seven statements and ordinarily employs seven response points ranging from 1, never true, to 7, always true. With the standard directly scored set of items, summing seven responses yields a total from 7 to 49; higher totals indicate higher self-reported psychological inflexibility. Exact administration instructions, the wording of a validated translation, and any missing-item rules should come from the particular authorized instrument version. Investigators should check whether a local adaptation changes polarity or score reporting. Association for Contextual Behavioral Science.

The mathematical total is not itself a clinical severity category. The meaning of a score depends on characteristics of the sample, the wording used, administration conditions, and evidence about how the measure operates. The number of points between two scores does not automatically equal an identical difference in actual behavioral flexibility. Nor does a single result identify whether a response was affected by an acute stressor, a sustained pattern, or the person's interpretation of questionnaire language.

Is There an AAQ-II Cutoff Score?

There is no universally validated AAQ-II cutoff that diagnoses anxiety, depression, a personality disorder, or another psychiatric condition. Studies may report sample averages, percentiles, or thresholds developed for specific research purposes, but these values should not be carried into an unrelated population as a diagnostic rule. Measurement interpretation requires the relevant validation study and an appropriate assessment context. Presenting high and low numerical bands as firm diagnostic categories confuses a dimensional research index with clinical classification.

Reliability: Consistency and Stability

Internal Consistency

The initial AAQ-II psychometric report documented a mean Cronbach's alpha of .84, with sample estimates between .78 and .88. These results show that the seven items tended to covary in the populations examined and that they can provide a reasonably coherent short-scale score. Internal consistency is important because inconsistent item responses limit the precision of any total. Yet a highly consistent set of items can jointly measure distress, inflexibility, or a mixture of the two. Reliability, even when strong, does not determine the correct name of the underlying construct. Bond et al. (2011).

Test–Retest Reliability

The original development program reported test–retest correlations around .81 across three months and .79 across twelve months. These estimates indicate substantial relative stability in the studied settings. They do not mean that individuals cannot change, that the measured construct is biologically fixed, or that a changed score proves an intervention worked. Interpreting change also requires information about measurement error, time interval, repeated administration, and circumstances that may influence respondents. Bond et al. (2011).

Factor Structure and Measurement Precision

Studies have frequently examined the AAQ-II as a largely unidimensional measure. Fledderus and colleagues used item response theory to study its structure and measurement properties in 376 adults with mild to moderate depressive and anxiety symptoms. Such analyses assess how different items contribute information across levels of a latent characteristic. They do not establish, merely by identifying a coherent factor, whether the factor is best interpreted as psychological inflexibility or as a more general tendency to report emotional problems. That question requires competing measures and substantive evidence. Fledderus et al. (2012).

Validity: What Inferences Can the Scores Support?

A complete validity assessment examines how a score relates to the theoretical construct, other measures, behaviors, and outcomes. Convergent validity concerns expected relationships with similar constructs. Predictive validity concerns subsequent outcomes. Incremental validity asks whether the score explains information beyond relevant existing predictors. Discriminant validity asks whether it is distinguishable from neighboring constructs that should remain separate. An instrument can perform well on some dimensions and remain controversial on others.

AAQ-II scores have been associated with psychological symptoms, well-being, and facets of functioning in many populations. This fits a model in which rigid responses to painful experiences can interfere with life activities. It also fits a model in which people who experience greater depression, anxiety, stress, or negative affect tend to endorse negatively framed questionnaire items. A correlation alone cannot decide between these interpretations. Study design, comparison variables, measures of actual functioning, and temporal ordering become decisive.

The Discriminant-Validity Debate

Wolgast (2014): Does the AAQ-II Capture Distress?

Wolgast combined AAQ-II items with separately constructed measures of distress and acceptance or nonacceptance. In a factor-analytic examination, AAQ-II items were more strongly associated with items designed to measure distress than with the proposed acceptance content. This raised a serious challenge for studies that used the AAQ-II total as evidence of a distinct therapeutic process: a decrease in the score might partly be a decrease in general suffering. The study questioned the interpretation of the questionnaire, not the existence of experiential avoidance as a psychological phenomenon. Wolgast (2014).

Tyndall et al. (2019): Comparing Avoidance and Distress

Tyndall and colleagues examined 524 respondents using the AAQ-II, the Brief Experiential Avoidance Questionnaire (BEAQ), and distress indicators. They found that AAQ-II items were more strongly associated with measures of anxiety, depression, and stress than BEAQ items. This result suggests that the two questionnaires may emphasize different psychological content despite the shared vocabulary of avoidance. It supports caution when treating an AAQ-II score as a pure measure of experiential avoidance or when interpreting associations with psychiatric symptoms as evidence of a specific mechanism. Tyndall et al. (2019).

Ruiz et al. (2024): A More Specific Construct Interpretation

Ruiz and colleagues revisited the criticism using multiple samples and factor-analytic approaches. Their findings supported identifying a psychological inflexibility dimension separable, to some extent, from distress and neuroticism. They also argued that AAQ-II interpretations should be more precise: the scale is better treated as an indicator of psychological inflexibility than as an exhaustive measure of experiential avoidance or all psychological flexibility processes. This counterargument is scientifically meaningful. Evidence of a distinguishable factor, however, still requires validation of its behavioral relevance and replication in independent populations. Ruiz et al. (2024).

What the Disagreement Means

High correlations with distress do not prove that every AAQ-II item is nothing more than a symptom question. At the same time, a statistically separable factor does not eliminate significant overlapping variance with distress. Both patterns can occur in psychological measures. Findings can differ depending on the chosen comparison scales, factor models, respondents, language, response method, and the theoretical definition of psychological inflexibility. The most defensible scientific position preserves the questionnaire's psychometric evidence while treating the extent of construct separation as an ongoing empirical question.

Researchers can improve the evidence by pairing questionnaire scores with measures of values-guided behavior, real-world avoidance, ecological momentary assessment, observed decisions, and tests of general negative affect. Reports should examine whether the AAQ-II predicts relevant behavior beyond baseline psychiatric symptoms and personality traits. Studies that only correlate multiple self-report measures administered simultaneously are informative about covariance but provide limited evidence about a unique causal psychological process.

Broader Reviews and Meta-Analytic Evidence

A meta-analysis by Ong, Barthel, and Hofmann examined associations between Acceptance and Action Questionnaire measures and adult well-being, reporting an overall correlation around −.47 between psychological inflexibility and well-being. This supports a substantial, reproducible relationship. The meta-analysis also noted limitations of the literature, including extensive reliance on cross-sectional evidence and variation in measures and samples. An average association does not show that inflexibility caused reduced well-being; symptom-related item overlap remains a question when explaining the mechanisms behind the relationship. Ong et al. (2024).

Cherry and colleagues reviewed multiple scientific traditions studying psychological flexibility and related rigidity constructs. They found substantial definitional and measurement diversity. Their work demonstrates why a single AAQ-II total is best considered an operational indicator within a particular theory rather than a universally comprehensive metric of human flexibility. Broader constructs require multiple indicators and explicit selection of the psychological domain under investigation. Cherry et al. (2021).

AAQ-II in Cross-Sectional Research

A cross-sectional study may use AAQ-II scores to describe the distribution of an inflexibility-related pattern or to test its association with distress, coping, work functioning, or other constructs. Its analysis should state the version administered, the scoring direction, reliability in the actual sample, handling of missing items, and the theoretical meaning assigned to the total. The term psychological inflexibility should not conceal the possibility that current anxiety or depressive symptoms influenced responses. Statistical associations are not causal estimates.

Better studies use comparison measures and report whether AAQ-II associations persist after controlling for general negative affect, neuroticism, baseline symptoms, or other plausible confounders. The choice of covariates must be justified rather than mechanically maximizing adjustment. Researchers should examine whether the instrument adds distinct explanatory value and acknowledge common-method bias when all data come from self-report at the same time.

Longitudinal Studies and Change Over Time

Repeated AAQ-II measurements can reveal whether reported inflexibility rises or falls and whether changes covary with daily functioning or symptom trajectories. Longitudinal associations may clarify temporal ordering but still require careful treatment of confounding, missing observations, and differing levels of variation between people and within a person over time. A score that changes after a life event could reflect the changing life context, distress, reinterpretation of questions, or genuine changes in avoidance behavior. These explanations can coexist.

When a study finds lower AAQ-II totals after a psychological intervention, the direct finding is reduced endorsement of the questionnaire's items. To argue that a distinct ACT-derived mechanism changed, researchers need additional process measures, proper timing of mediator and outcome observations, and an appropriate causal design. Effectiveness of a full clinical treatment protocol is a separate question involving control groups, patient outcomes, comparative efficacy, and indications. The AAQ-II itself is a measure, not an intervention.

Clinical Interpretation and Risk Boundaries

In professional psychological assessment, the AAQ-II can prompt discussion about what happens when difficult emotions interfere with goals, relationships, or everyday tasks. It may complement a case formulation, functioning measures, and symptom evaluation. The clinician must attend to context, recent stressors, culture, safety, and the person's account of actual behavior. A high score does not constitute a psychiatric disorder, and a low score cannot rule out clinical difficulty. The questionnaire should never determine treatment decisions in isolation.

Psychological acceptance does not mean remaining in dangerous conditions or withdrawing necessary protection. Choosing to leave abuse, seek emergency help, rest during an illness, or avoid an objectively unsafe situation can be appropriate regardless of one's willingness to experience discomfort. Interpretation depends on what actions serve health, autonomy, and meaningful goals. The AAQ-II cannot assess immediate suicide risk, self-harm, psychosis, mania, or other crises; those situations require appropriate clinical or emergency assessment independent of its score.

Alternative and Complementary Instruments

Brief Experiential Avoidance Questionnaire (BEAQ)

The BEAQ targets experiential avoidance through a distinct set of statements and has been used to investigate whether avoidance tendencies can be distinguished from general emotional distress. Research comparing the BEAQ with the AAQ-II reveals that apparently similar instruments need not tap identical components of a construct. The choice should follow the study's question and evidence for the population. One scale should not automatically replace another without attention to intended content and validation. Tyndall et al. (2019).

Personalized Psychological Flexibility Index (PPFI)

The PPFI was developed to place reactions to discomfort within the context of pursuing personally valued goals. It assesses tendencies to avoid, accept, and harness discomfort during goal pursuit. In its original validation program, multiple samples and methods were used to examine the relationship between this contextualized measure and functioning. The design is especially relevant when a researcher asks how people act on priorities while distressed rather than simply how distressed they feel. Its application still requires population-specific validation. Kashdan et al. (2020).

Multidimensional Psychological Flexibility Inventory (MPFI)

The MPFI provides a broader profile of flexibility and inflexibility processes associated with the ACT hexaflex model. Rolffs and colleagues developed a sixty-item inventory of twelve dimensions using three validation studies with 3,040 participants. The instrument may better suit work that seeks to distinguish different psychological processes; it also takes longer to administer and brings its own measurement assumptions. The AAQ-II remains attractive when brevity is essential, but its brevity should not be confused with comprehensiveness. Rolffs et al. (2018).

ERQ and DERS: Different Constructs

The Emotion Regulation Questionnaire (ERQ) commonly assesses use of cognitive reappraisal and expressive suppression, while the Difficulties in Emotion Regulation Scale (DERS) addresses multiple aspects of emotion-regulation difficulty. These instruments concern emotion-regulation strategies or difficulties, whereas the AAQ-II is situated in a framework of psychological inflexibility. Their scores can relate but do not represent the same psychological variable, nor does any one of them establish a formal psychiatric diagnosis. A sound measurement battery matches each scientific hypothesis to the instrument actually designed to assess it.

Cross-Cultural and Population-Specific Measurement

A translated questionnaire requires more than word-for-word equivalence. Expressions concerning thoughts, worry, emotion, and interference with life may vary in meaning across languages and cultural settings. Researchers should examine factor structure, reliability, item functioning, and measurement invariance for the version and population under consideration. For example, a Chilean university study used item response methods to examine AAQ-II measurement, illustrating how population-specific evidence can supplement the original English validation. Langer et al. (2024).

Comparisons across groups should report the provenance of translations, administration methods, scoring conventions, missing-data procedures, and tests of equivalent measurement where possible. Without sufficient invariance evidence, differences in group means could partly reflect differences in how individuals interpret or respond to the items. Validity belongs to the intended inference in a particular setting; it cannot be transferred automatically from one sample to every other sample.

Practical Guidance for Reporting Results

A high-quality AAQ-II report identifies the seven-item version used, the language, response options, total-score range, direction, study population, and reason for administration. It describes the outcome as an AAQ-II score or an index of self-reported psychological inflexibility, states psychometric evidence in the sampled group, and avoids inventing clinical thresholds. When change is assessed, it reports effect sizes and confidence intervals, the frequency and timing of measurement, and relevant missing data.

Interpretation should consider the possibility of overlapping distress and should use appropriate alternative measures when the scientific question demands it. If participants with high AAQ-II scores show more anxiety, the correct observation is an association; a causal process remains to be demonstrated. If scores fall following treatment, the correct observation is change in questionnaire responses; establishing a therapeutic mechanism or treatment efficacy requires independent clinical evidence and a stronger design.

Frequently Asked Questions

Does the AAQ-II measure psychological flexibility or inflexibility?

Its strongest conventional interpretation concerns psychological inflexibility. Some literature speaks loosely of psychological flexibility, but a lower inflexibility score does not comprehensively measure acceptance, values-guided behavior, defusion, or other distinct flexibility processes.

What does a high AAQ-II score mean?

In the standard directly scored seven-item version, it means stronger endorsement of experiences related to psychological inflexibility. Because distress can influence answers, it should be interpreted alongside context and appropriate other measures. It is not an individual diagnosis.

Can the AAQ-II diagnose anxiety or depression?

No. Those conditions are diagnosed through clinical evaluation of symptoms, duration, severity, impairment, and differential explanations. The AAQ-II was designed as a research and assessment measure of an inflexibility-related construct, not a diagnostic test.

Why do researchers disagree about AAQ-II validity?

Some studies find considerable overlap with symptoms of anxiety, depression, stress, and negative affect. Other studies find a factor that can be separated from distress when inflexibility is more narrowly defined. Differences in theoretical definitions, population samples, factor models, and comparison measures contribute to this debate. Wolgast (2014); Ruiz et al. (2024).

Does a decrease in AAQ-II scores prove that ACT worked?

No. It indicates a decrease in AAQ-II-defined inflexibility responses, which may reflect multiple related changes. Clinical efficacy and causal mediation require appropriate trial designs, patient-relevant outcomes, temporal analysis, and independent evidence.

How does AAQ-II differ from the PPFI?

The AAQ-II provides a brief index centered on self-reported psychological inflexibility. The PPFI explicitly organizes responses to discomfort around valued goal pursuit and assesses avoidance, acceptance, and harnessing. Instrument selection depends on the inferential goal of the research. Kashdan et al. (2020).

Can AAQ-II scores be compared across languages?

Such comparisons are strongest when there is evidence of measurement equivalence for the translations and groups. Directly comparing totals from unvalidated forms can mistake wording differences for psychological differences.

Scientific Conclusion

The AAQ-II is an influential, efficient measure with substantial reliability evidence and an extensive empirical record. It can support research into psychological inflexibility, experiential avoidance-related experiences, and their association with functioning. The central measurement limit is its contested separation from general psychological distress and negative affect. Responsible use specifies the exact construct, recognizes that a questionnaire score represents only part of a contextual psychological process, and tests interpretations with additional behavioral and longitudinal evidence. This preserves the instrument's real scientific contributions and the precision required for trustworthy psychological research.

Related Articles

Neuroticism and Emotion Regulation: Strategies, Flexibility, and Distress — A verified English scientific article relevant to trait negative affect, emotion regulation, and the interpretation of questionnaire–distress associations.

Psychological Flexibility: Definition, Processes, and Evidence — Foundational account of the broader construct and its scientific evidence.

Psychological Inflexibility: Meaning, Patterns, and Mental Health — How psychological inflexibility is conceptualized beyond a questionnaire score.

Experiential Avoidance: Meaning, Examples, and Psychological Costs — Functional context and behavioral patterns relevant to AAQ-II interpretation.

How to Develop Psychological Flexibility in Everyday Life — Everyday behavior and skill development beyond self-report scales.

References

Association for Contextual Behavioral Science. (n.d.). Acceptance & Action Questionnaire (AAQ) and AAQ-II. Official instrument resource.

Bond, F. W., Hayes, S. C., Baer, R. A., Carpenter, K. M., Guenole, N., Orcutt, H. K., Waltz, T., & Zettle, R. D. (2011). Preliminary psychometric properties of the Acceptance and Action Questionnaire–II: A revised measure of psychological inflexibility and experiential avoidance. Behavior Therapy, 42(4), 676–688. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.beth.2011.03.007.

Cherry, K. M., Vander Hoeven, E., Patterson, T. S., & Lumley, M. N. (2021). Defining and measuring psychological flexibility: A narrative scoping review of diverse flexibility and rigidity constructs and perspectives. Clinical Psychology Review, 84, 101973. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2021.101973.

Fledderus, M., Oude Voshaar, M. A. H., ten Klooster, P. M., & Bohlmeijer, E. T. (2012). Further evaluation of the psychometric properties of the Acceptance and Action Questionnaire–II. Psychological Assessment, 24(4), 925–936. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0028200.

Kashdan, T. B., Disabato, D. J., Goodman, F. R., Doorley, J. D., & McKnight, P. E. (2020). Understanding psychological flexibility: A multimethod exploration of pursuing valued goals despite the presence of distress. Psychological Assessment, 32(9), 829–850. https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0000834.

Langer, Á. I., Ponce, F. P., Ordóñez-Carrasco, J. L., Fuentes-Ferrada, R., Mac-Ginty, S., Gaete, J., et al. (2024). Psychometric evidence of the Acceptance and Action Questionnaire-II (AAQ-II): An item response theory analysis in university students from Chile. BMC Psychology, 12, 111. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40359-024-01608-w.

Ong, C. W., Barthel, A. L., & Hofmann, S. G. (2024). The relationship between psychological inflexibility and well-being in adults: A meta-analysis of the Acceptance and Action Questionnaire. Behavior Therapy, 55(1), 26–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.beth.2023.05.007.

Rolffs, J. L., Rogge, R. D., & Wilson, K. G. (2018). Disentangling components of flexibility via the hexaflex model: Development and validation of the Multidimensional Psychological Flexibility Inventory (MPFI). Assessment, 25(4), 458–482. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191116645905.

Ruiz, F. J., Bianchi, J. M., Bastidas-Suárez, D. M., Ramírez, E. S., & Peña-Hernández, V. (2024). Is the AAQ-II that bad? Journal of Contextual Behavioral Science, 34, 100854. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcbs.2024.100854.

Tyndall, I., Waldeck, D., Pancani, L., Whelan, R., Roche, B., & Dawson, D. L. (2019). The Acceptance and Action Questionnaire-II (AAQ-II) as a measure of experiential avoidance: Concerns over discriminant validity. Journal of Contextual Behavioral Science, 12, 278–284. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcbs.2018.09.005.

Wolgast, M. (2014). What does the Acceptance and Action Questionnaire (AAQ-II) really measure? Behavior Therapy, 45(6), 831–839. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.beth.2014.07.002.