J Ra -Emo Cogni i e-Beha The (2025) 43:23
h ps://doi.o g/10.1007/s10942-025-00583-4
Abs ac
The aim o he s udy is he adap a ion o he 7-i em e sion o he Cogni i e Fusion
Ques ionnai e (CFQ-7) o he Hunga ian sample. The ac o s uc u e o CFQ-7,
he in a iance o he s uc u e in di e en g oups, and i s ela ionship wi h dep es-
sion, anxie y and s ess we e p e iously con i med by se e al di e en s udies.
This s udy discusses hese analyses wi hin one amewo k, and he in a iance be-
ween he di e en subg oups in a b oade con ex . The sample consis ed o 1231
pa icipan s (a e age age 29.35, SD = 11.10). Mainly women ook pa in he s udy
(n = 805, 75.56%). Mos pa icipan s we e single (n = 494, 41.1%) and had a second-
a y school deg ee (714, 58.0%). The pa icipan s comple ed he Cogni i e Fusion
Ques ionnai e (CFQ-7), Accep ance and Ac ion Ques ionnai e-II (AAQ-II), De-
p ession Anxie y S ess Scale (DASS-21), Sa is ac ion Wi h Li e Su ey (SWLS)
and Whi e Bea Supp ession In en o y (WBSI). The esul s con i m he one- ac-
o s uc u e o he CFQ-7 (χ2 = 69.24, d = 12, p <.001, χ2/d = 5.37, CFI = 0.985,
TLI = 0.974, RMSEA = 0.062 [90% CI 0.048, 0.077], SRMR = 0.020.) wi h adequa e
in e nal consis ency (C onbach’s alpha = 0.918) and es - e es eliabili y ( =.665).
The measu emen ool shows con igu al, me ic, and scala in a iance in g oups
sepa a ed by age, gende , educa ion and psychological ea men his o y. I s s ong
co ela ion wi h psychological in lexibili y (AAQ-II) and gene al endency o sup-
p ess hough s (WBSI) ( =.79 and =.62); mode a e co ela ion wi h gene al psy-
chological dis ess (DASS-21; =.59), dep ession ( =.57), anxie y ( =.59) and
s ess ( =.61); inally li e sa is ac ion (SWLS; = −.38) p o es ex e nal alidi y o
he CFQ-7. The one- ac o s uc u e o he ques ionnai e was con i med, and i s
i ems can be well adap ed o Accep ance Commi men The apy, and also o Cogni-
i e The apy in e en ions. I s ac o ial in a iance can be con i med in di e en
g oups. Howe e due o he cha ac e is ics o he sample - mainly women, young
adul s and hose wi hou a psychia ic his o y pa icipa ed in he s udy -, u he
examina ion o he CFQ-7 in a clinical sample wi h cu en psychia ic condi ions
would be use ul.
Accep ed: 4 Feb ua y 2025
© The Au ho (s) 2025
Valida ion o he Hunga ian Ve sion o he Cogni i e Fusion
Ques ionnai e (CFQ-7)
Ane Szabó-Ba ha1· Nikole Eisenbeck2· Sándo Rózsa1,3 ·
Má éSzondy4,5 · Ve onikaMészá os1
Ex ended au ho in o ma ion a ailable on he las page o he a icle
1 3
A. Szabó-Ba ha e al.
Keywo ds Cogni i e usion ques ionnai e (CFQ-7) · Fac o analysis · Validi y ·
Reliabili y
In oduc ion
The hi d wa e o beha io al psycho he apy ep esen s an impo an a ea o mod-
e n psycho he apy. ‘Thi d wa e psycho he apies’ comp ise a he e ogeneous g oup
o ea men s, including Accep ance and Commi men The apy (ACT; Hayes e al.,
1999), Dialec ical Beha io The apy (DBT; Linehan, 1993), In eg a i e Beha io al
Couples The apy (IBCT; Ch is ensen & Doss, 2017), Mind ulness-Based Cogni i e
The apy (MBCT; Segal e al., 2018) and se e al o he s. The ac o s ha uni e hese
new me hods a e accep ance, mind ulness, cogni i e de usion, dialec ics and alues.
These me hods open up ea men possibili ies o a ious condi ions, including pe -
sonali y diso de s, ch onic dep ession, anxie y diso de s, ea ing diso de s, and many
o he s (Kahl e al., 2012).
Accep ance and Commi men The apy (ACT) is a ansdiagnos ic ea men
app oach ( amed in he cogni i e beha io al adi ion), whe e he cen al sou ce o
psychopa hology is he cons uc o psychological in lexibili y (Glos e e al., 2020).
Psychological in lexibili y is de ined as “ he igid dominance o psychological eac-
ions o e chosen alues and con ingencies in guiding ac ion” (p. 678, Bond e al.,
2011), which o en occu s when indi iduals a emp o a oid expe iencing unwan ed
in e nal e en s. The e o e, he gene al goal o ACT is o inc ease psychological lex-
ibili y, ha is diminishing he ole o li e al hough (“cogni i e de usion”) and o
encou age he pe son o con ac psychological expe ience - di ec ly, ully, and wi h-
ou needless de ense (“psychological accep ance”) - while a he same ime beha ing
consis en ly wi h one’s chosen alues (Hayes e al., 2004).
Cogni i e Fusion, De usion and hei Co ela es
Cogni i e usion is a key aspec o psychological in lexibili y in he amewo k o
ACT. I can be desc ibed as he p ocess by which hough s abou an e en me ge wi h
he ac ual e en (Assaz e al., 2023; Hayes e al., 1999). Cogni i e usion implies
ha people eac o hough s as i hey we e li e al eali y and hus may ac in a
way ha is inconsis en wi h hei ac ual en i onmen and a ailable choices (Gil-
lande s e al., 2014a, b). In his sense, cogni i e usion ep esen s he phenomenon
by which indi iduals belie e he li e al meaning o hei hough s ins ead o iewing
hem as ansien in e nal s a es (e.g., he hough “I am a lose ”, is equi alen o he
psychological expe ience o ailu e) (G eco e al., 2008, p. 20). When used wi h
hei hough s, indi iduals end o espond o hem as i hey we e absolu e ac s (“I
am a lose ’’), igge ing expe ien ial a oidance s a egies (a emp s o a oid, escape,
modi y o con ol he expe ience) (e.g.: no apply o a job) and u ning hese in e nal
expe iences mo e pain ul (Hayes e al., 2006).
Va ious s udies ha e shown ha highe le els o cogni i e usion a e associa ed
wi h highe le els o dep ession, anxie y, bu nou , lowe le els o quali y o li e and
li e sa is ac ion, and maladap i e coping s a egies (e.g., expe ien ial a oidance, e-
1 3
23 Page 2 o 18
Valida ion o he Hunga ian Ve sion o he Cogni i e Fusion…
quency o au oma ic hough s) (Fe gus e al., 2012; Gillande s e al., 2014a, b; Shi
e al., 2024; Zucchelli e al., 2020). Coyne and Wilson (2004) desc ibed how pa -
en s’ usion wi h hei nega i e hough s (e.g. “I am a bad pa en .”, “I canno ole a e
my child’s beha io .”) may lead o dys unc ional pa en ing beha io s such as ange
ou bu s s, wi hd awal, o o e con ol o a oid sadness and despai . Gillande s and
his colleagues (2015) conduc ed a quan i a i e c oss-sec ional s udy among adul s
wi h a ious cance diagnoses which p o ed ha cogni i e usion was he s onges
p edic o o anxie y symp oms, while cance - ela ed cogni ions and a oidan coping
we e he s onges p edic o s o dep essi e symp oms and quali y o li e.
Measu emen o Cogni i e Fusion
Se e al scales and ques ionnai es ha e been de eloped o measu e cogni i e usion
and de usion. Mos o hem we e designed o measu e usion in speci ic popula ions:
he Belie abili y o Anxious Feelings and Though s Ques ionnai e (BAFT; He z-
be g e al., 2012) was de eloped o non-clinical unde g adua es and anxious com-
muni y samples; he Au oma ic Though s Ques ionnai e (ATQ; Hollon & Kendall,
1980) measu es dep essogenic hough equency and is widely used in dep ession
s udies o assess he impac o cogni i e he apy; ATQ was subsequen ly al e ed o
assess he belie abili y o dep essogenic hough s (ATQ-B; Ze le & Hayes, 1986);
he Cogni i e Fusion Ques ionnai e - Body Image (CFQ-BI; Lucena-San os e al.,
2017) assesses body image- ela ed cogni i e usion; he Cogni i e Fusion Ques ion-
nai e– Food C a ing (CFQ-FC; Dua e e al., 2016) was designed o assess cogni i e
usion wi h undesi able hough s ega ding ood c a ing and u ges o ea ; he S ig-
ma izing A i udes Belie abili y Scale (Hayes e al., 2004) measu es subs ance abuse
he apis s´ s igma izing hough s abou hei clien s; he A oidance and Fusion Ques-
ionnai e o You h (AFQ-Y; G eco e al., 2008) was de eloped o child en and ado-
lescen s; he AFQ-Y was ecen ly adap ed o nonclinical adul s (Schmalz & Mu ell,
2010) and o adul s wi h anxie y diso de s; D exel De usion Scale (DDS; Fo man
e al., 2012) measu es abili y o achie e psychological dis ance om 10 unpleasan
in e nal expe iences. The e is a special a ailable ins umen includes cogni i e usion
i ems as pa o measu emen o he psychological in lexibili y cons uc , in which
o he ACT p ocesses a e also p esen : he Psychological In lexibili y in Pain Scale
—Cogni i e Fusion subscale (PIPS; Wicksell e al., 2008) measu es psychological
lexibili y, including cogni i e usion, speci ically ela ed o pain.
Cogni i e Fusion Ques ionnai e (CFQ; Gillande s e al., 2014a, b) was designed
o assess usion wi h cogni ion in gene al, a he han wi h pa icula o ms o cogni-
ion (e.g., anxious hough s), and was es ed in a se ies o s udies designed o gene -
a e e idence o alidi y and eliabili y o he measu e in ol ing o e 1,800 people
ac oss di e se samples (e.g., communi y-dwelling heal hy adul s, people wi h mul i-
ple scle osis, sample o di e en men al heal h di icul ies, people wi h majo dep es-
si e diso de , and ca egi e s o people wi h demen ia). The CFQ s a ed om a pool
o 42 i ems and was p og essi ely imp o ed by educing i o a 7-i ems inal e sion
(Gillande s e al., 2014a, b). The o iginal s udies p o ide good e idence o he CFQ’s
uni ac o ial s uc u e, eliabili y, empo al s abili y, alidi y, disc iminan alidi y,
and sensi i i y o ea men e ec s. The se en-i em scale (CFQ-7) has become he
1 3
Page 3 o 18 23
A. Szabó-Ba ha e al.
mos widely used sel - epo ins umen o assessing cogni i e usion in bo h clini-
cal and esea ch se ings (Bolde s on e al., 2019).
Psychome ic P ope ies o he Se en-I em Cogni i e Fusion Ques ionnai e
The CFQ-7 has been ansla ed and alida ed in nume ous languages, including B a-
zilian Po uguese (Lucena-San os e al., 2017), Ca alan (Solé e al., 2016), Chinese
(Zhang e al., 2014), F ench (Dionne e al., 2016), Ge man (China e al., 2018), G eek
(Zacha ia e al., 2021), I alian (Dona i e al., 2021; Polica do e al., 2023), Japanese
(Shima e al., 2016), Ko ean (Kim & Cho, 2015), Pe sian (Sol ani e al., 2022), Span-
ish (Rome o-Mo eno e al., 2014; Ruiz e al., 2017) and Tu kish (Ke ancioğlu e
al., 2023). S udies usually suppo he one- ac o s uc u e, bu some s udies achie e
an adequa e- i o he one- ac o s uc u e wi h co ela ions be ween he i ems’ e o
e ms (Kim & Cho, 2015; Lucena-San os e al., 2017). Lucena-San os and colleagues
(2017) allow o co ela ions be ween i ems 1 and 2, and also i ems 2 and 3; while
Kim and Cho (2015) place a co ela ion be ween i ems 6 and 7. The in e nal consis-
ency and es - e es s abili y o a single-dimensional s uc u e a e usually adequa e.
Con igu al, scala and me ic in a iance can also be con i med on di e en samples
(Gillande s e al., 2014a, b). In La in-speaking coun ies Ruiz and colleagues (2017)
con i med gende in a iance. In addi ion o gende in a iance, Ruiz and colleagues
(2017) ound a lowe cogni i e usion mean sco e in men sample o unde g adu-
a es, and pa icipan s wi hou a psychia ic his o y also had lowe sco es. In Rome o-
Mo eno and colleagues’ (2014) and Losada and colleagues’ (2006) sugges ed ha
clinical dep essi e symp oms a e posi i ely associa ed wi h sco es on cogni i e
usion, bu only in he case o emale demen ia ca egi e s. Simila di e ences we e
ound in a p e ious s udy in which emale ca egi e s wi h sco es close o clini-
cal dep essi e symp oms p esen ed highe equencies o dys unc ional hough s.
Acco ding o Nolen-Hoeksema and Jackson (2001), umina ion as a coping s a -
egy is used mo e equen ly by women han men. I can con ibu e o hei g ea e
endency owa d cogni i e usion. Ruiz and colleagues (2017) also suppo ed he
in a iance o he measu ing ins umen in ce ain clinical condi ions, bu he e is no
in o ma ion on whe he he in a iance o CFQ-7 can be es ablished ega dless o age
and educa ion le els. Thus, in he p esen s udy, we examined he in a iance o he
Cogni i e Fusion Ques ionnai e-7 by gende , clinical condi ion, age and educa ion.
Addi ionally, some s udies ha e examined he ex e nal alidi y o he CFQ-7 in
e ms o psychological lexibili y, mind ulness, quali y o li e, li e sa is ac ion, anxi-
e y, and dep ession (e.g. Dionne e al., 2016; Dona i e al., 2021; Gillande s e al.,
2014a, b; Kim & Cho, 2015). The phenomenon o cogni i e usion occu s mo e
p e alen in s a es o anxie y and dep ession. Howe e , i can also be obse ed in li e
si ua ions cha ac e ized by low well-being o s ess. Cogni i e usion appea s du -
ing ce ain psychological challenges o in connec ion wi h ce ain clinical condi ions
(e.g. China e al., 2018; Dona i e al., 2021; Kim & Cho, 2015). The second aim o
his pape is o examine he ex e nal alidi y o he CFQ-7.
The p esen s udy ocuses on alida ing he Hunga ian e sion o he Cogni i e
Fusion Ques ionnai e in a communi y sample. The s udy examined (a) he ac o
s uc u e o he Hunga ian e sion o he CFQ-7, (b) espec i ely he measu emen
1 3
23 Page 4 o 18
Valida ion o he Hunga ian Ve sion o he Cogni i e Fusion…
in a iance ac oss age, gende , educa ion, and psychological ea men his o y o he
pa icipan s (c) e alua e i s psychome ic p ope ies (ex e nal alidi y) in ela ion o
o he cons uc s, such as psychological in lexibili y, gene al endency o supp ess
hough s, sa is ac ion wi h li e and dis ess.
Me hod
Pa icipan s
The sample consis ed o Hunga ian-speaking pa icipan s ec ui ed om communi y
samples ia email and social media. The p esen s udy was pa o a la ge online
in es iga ion abou psychological lexibili y and i s elemen s, such as mind ulness,
expe ien ial a oidance and alue-d i en li e (The e hics license was app o ed by
he Ká oli Gáspá Uni e si y o Re o med Chu ch, e hical pe mission numbe :
369/2016/2/P and BTK-PI/8323-1/2024). A e explaining he pu pose o he s udy
(i.e. o be e unde s and hei pe sonal expe iences), he pa icipan s p o ided
in o med consen , unde s anding ha pa icipa ion was olun a y and anonymous. A
o al o 1231 pa icipan s comple ed he ques ionnai es wi h a men age o 29.35 yea s
old (SD = 11.10 yea s, minimum 18, maximum 60 yea s). The majo i y o espon-
den s we e women (n = 805, 75.56%), high school g adua es (n = 714, 58.0%). The
esponden s we e mainly single (n = 494, 41.1%) o in a ela ionship (n = 324, 26,3%).
Mos o he pa icipan s did no ha e child en (n = 892, 72.5%). 77.7 (n = 956) pe -
cen o he esponden s had no p e ious psychological ea men his o y, and 22.3
(n = 275) pe cen o he esponden s had. We examined he empo al s abili y o he
CFQ-7 o e a 1-mon h in e al wi h pa o he sample. This subsample consis ed
mainly o women (n = 152, 91.6%), ma ied people (n = 59, 35.5%), and people wi h
seconda y school deg ees (n = 103, 62.0%), and people who had no child en (n = 97,
58.4%). The a e age age was 30.57 yea s (SD = 9.93 yea s), and a signi ican pe cen -
age o his subsample had p e ious psychological ea men his o y (n = 54, 32.5%)
(see de ailed in o ma ion - Table 1).
Measu es
Se en-I em Cogni i e Fusion Ques ionnai e (CFQ-7)
The Cogni i e Fusion Ques ionnai e is a 7-i em measu e ha is designed o assess
he single cons uc o cogni i e usion. Responden s a e each i em which e lec s an
aspec o cogni i e usion on a 1 o 7 Like scale, wi h 1 (ne e ue) and 7 (always
ue). Highe sco es indica e highe le els o cogni i e usion; he possible sco e
anges om 7 o 49. In ou ansla ion p ocess, we ollowed he guidelines p o ided
by he In e na ional Tes Commission (ITC Guidelines o T ansla ing and Adap ing
Tes s (2nd ed.), 2017). The ansla ion p ocess began wi h wo independen ques ion-
nai e ansla ions pe o med by sepa a e ansla o s. We employed ansla o s who
we e na i e Hunga ian speake s and esided in Hunga y o p o ide essen ial knowl-
edge and expe ise in he a ge cul u e. In addi ion o knowing he a ge language
1 3
Page 5 o 18 23

A. Szabó-Ba ha e al.
and cul u al con ex s, hey possessed knowledge o he con en o he es and gene al
es ing p inciples. Following his, a e iew eam (consis ing o bo h ansla o s and an
addi ional e iewe ) compa ed and discussed he di e en ansla ed e sions. This
collabo a i e e o aimed o econcile disc epancies and p oduced a uni ied inal
e sion o he ques ionnai e. A e he ansla ion, he ques ionnai e was e ansla ed
in o English, and a compa ison be ween he o iginal and e ansla ed e sions was
conduc ed o iden i y and add ess any inconsis encies, ensu ing concep ual equi a-
lence and linguis ic accu acy. Conce ning he cul u al adap a ion we emphasize ha
he „ a ge cul u e”—Hunga y—sha es many cha ac e is ics o wha Hen ich e al.
(2010) desc ibe as WEIRD (Wes e n, Educa ed, Indus ialized, and Democ a ic).
While Hunga y migh di e somewha in e ms o economic indica o s, hese di -
e ences a e no as p onounced in he domains o cul u al alues, cogni i e s yles
ele an o he cons uc s measu ed by he ques ionnai e.
In he ini ial alida ion o he o iginal measu emen ool, he CFQ-7 demons a ed
excellen in e nal consis ency and good es - e es eliabili y. Mo eo e , he CFQ
has a cohe en , simple, and heo e ically consis en ac o s uc u e ha appea s o
be s able ac oss di e se samples (Gillande s e al., 2014a, b). The di e en ial i em
unc ioning analysis showed ha CFQ-7 is in a ian ac oss di e en ypes o popu-
la ions; hus, i can be used in bo h clinical and non-clinical con ex s (Dona i e al.,
2021). The e was a s ong co ela ion be ween CFQ-7 and psychological in lexibili y
(AAQ-II; =.75; p <.001), and umina i e esponse s yle (RSQ; =.84; p <.001) (Gil-
lande s e al., 2014a, b).
Table 1 Demog aphic pa ame e s o he sample
To al sample Sample o empo-
al s abili y
F equency % F equency %
Gende Men 274 22.3 14 8.4
Women 957 77.7 152 91.6
Age (yea s) 18–25 689 56.0 72 43.4
26–40 292 23.7 60 36.1
41–60 250 20.3 34 20.5
Highes le el o educa ion Seconda y school deg ee 714 58.0 103 62.0
Uni e si y deg ee 517 42.0 63 38.0
Ma i al s a us Single 494 40.1 50 30.1
In ela ionship 324 26.3 39 23.5
Cohabi a ion 131 10.6 18 10.8
Ma ied 282 22.9 59 35.5
Numbe o child en 0 892 72.5 97 58.4
1116 9.4 25 15.1
2 139 11.3 26 15.7
3 63 5.1 17 10.2
4 17 1.4 0 0
5 2 0.2 1 0.6
6 2 0.2 0 0
Psychological ea men No 956 77.7 112 67.5
Yes 275 22.3 54 32.5
1 3
23 Page 6 o 18
Valida ion o he Hunga ian Ve sion o he Cogni i e Fusion…
Accep ance and Ac ion Ques ionnai e-II (AAQ-II)
The AAQ-II (Bond e al., 2011) con ains 7 i ems o measu e psychological in lexibil-
i y. Pa icipan s a e how ue each s a emen is ue o hem by using a 7-poin Like
scale anging om 1 (ne e ue) o 7 (always ue). The o al sco es ange om 7 o
49, wi h highe sco es indica ing g ea e psychological in lexibili y. The scale was
ansla ed in o Hunga ian and hen ansla ed back in o English by esea che s luen
in bo h languages. The in e nal consis ency o he ques ionnai e o he sample used
in he s udy is 0.89.
Dep ession, Anxie y and S ess Scale (DASS-21)
The Dep ession, Anxie y and S ess Scale (DASS-21; Lo ibond & Lo ibond, 1995)
was implemen ed in his s udy o measu e gene al psychological dis ess. Each i em
on his ques ionnai e desc ibes a nega i e emo ional s a e expe ienced in he las
week, a ed on a 4-poin Like scale anging om 0 (did no apply o me a all) o 3
(applied o me e y much, o mos o he ime). The measu e consis s o 21 i ems ha
a e o ganized in o h ee subscales assessing dep ession, anxie y, and s ess, wi h each
subscale con aining se en i ems. The ques ionnai e has a hie a chical s uc u e. The
subscales can also be added. In his case, he ins umen measu es gene al psycho-
logical dis ess. The maximum sco es a e 42 o each subscale and 126 o gene al
psychological dis ess. Highe sco es indica e mo e equen symp oms. As wi h he
o iginal e sion (Lo ibond & Lo ibond, 1995), he Hunga ian DASS-21 has shown
good in e nal eliabili y in he o e all sample, wi h alphas o dep ession, anxie y,
s ess and gene al psychological dis ess o 0.88, 0.83, 0.84 and 0.93, espec i ely.
Sa is ac ion wi h Li e Su ey (SWLS)
The SWLS (Diene e al., 1985) measu es sel -pe cei ed subjec i e well-being using
i e i ems such as “In mos ways, my li e is close o ideal”. The i ems we e sco ed on
a 7-poin Like - ype scale (1 = s ongly disag ee; 7 = s ongly ag ee). The maximum
sco e is 35; highe sco es indica e highe li e sa is ac ion. The SWLS has good psy-
chome ic p ope ies, wi h a C onbach’s alpha o 0.84 (Ma os e al., 2014). In he
p esen s udy, in e nal alidi y o he o al sample was 0.86.
Whi e Bea Supp ession In en o y (WBSI)
The Whi e Bea Supp ession In en o y (WBSI; Wegne & Zanakos, 1994) consis s
o 15 i ems wi h i e esponse al e na i es, anging om 1 ( o ally disag ee) o 5
(comple ely ag ee), which measu e people’s gene al endency o supp ess hough s.
Responses we e summed o yield a sco e anging om 15 o 75 (Mu is e al., 1996).
The in e nal consis ency o he WBSI was good (C onbach’s alpha = 0.89), and es -
e es co ela ion was sa is ac o y ( =.80; (Mu is e al., 1996). The sample o ou
s udy had an in e nal consis ency (C onbach’s alpha) o 0.91.
1 3
Page 7 o 18 23
A. Szabó-Ba ha e al.
Da a Analysis
Fi s , we es ed he ac o s uc u e o he CFQ-7 using con i ma o y ac o analysis
wi h he obus maximum likelihood (MLR) es ima o because iola ions o uni a i-
a e and mul i a ia e no mali y we e obse ed. Conside ing he excellen sample size
o o e 1000 people, we used he ollowing i indices du ing con i ma o y ac o
analysis (Ky iazos, 2018). The χ2- es compa es he co a iance ma ix o he ac o
model and he co a iance ma ix o he obse ed model. In case o a la ge sample, he
p obabili y o Type II e o inc eases a his index, so i is di icul o ind a p ope ly
i ing model. Thus, se e al au ho s ecommend i s dis ibu ion wi h deg ees o ee-
dom (χ2/d ), he alue o which is accep ed below 5. In case o la ge samples, he
use o he Compa a i e Fi and Tucke -Lewis indices is also an excellen choice, he
alues o which a e conside ed accep able abo e 0.900 and excellen abo e 0.950.
Compa a i e Fi Index (CFI) e alua es he i o he obse ed model on a con inuum
be ween he wo s - i ing null model and he pe ec ly i ing sa u a ed model. The
Tucke -Lewis Index (TLI) is also a compa a i e goodness-o - i index ha shows
how well he co a iance ma ix o he obse ed a iables i s he hypo he ical ac o
model. Among he e o indica o s, we conside ed SRMR and RMSEA, which calcu-
la e he di e ence be ween he obse ed co ela ions and he co ela ions assumed by
he ac o model. The smalle hei alue, he be e he model i s he assumed model,
so in he case o SRMR and RMSEA, a alue below 0.080 is accep able, and in he
case o RMSEA, a alue below 0.050 is excellen (B owne & Cudeck, 1992; Hu &
Ben le , 1998; Sch eibe e al., 2006).
Since ou sample consis ed mainly o women (n = 805, 75,56%) and younge
people (mean age o 29.35, SD = 11.10 yea s), we el i was impo an o es he
con igu al, me ic, and scala in a iance o he ac o s uc u e, which enables a mo e
de ailed analysis o he s uc u e o he ques ionnai e in di e en sub-samples.
To check o ac o ial in a iance, mul ig oup con i ma o y ac o analysis (MCFA)
was conduc ed ac oss age g oups, sex (male/ emale), educa ion (seconda y school/
uni e si y deg ee), and psychological ea men his o y (yes/no) in he en i e sample.
Mul ig oup ac o analysis is sui able o analyzing whe he he s uc u al cha ac e -
is ics o he measu ing ins umen a e he same in he compa ed g oups and whe he
i is no dis o ed by g oup-speci ic cha ac e is ics (G ego ich, 2006). Th ee nes ed
models we e adop ed: (1) a con igu al model in which all ac o pa ame e s we e
eely es ima ed; (2) a weak ac o ial in a iance model (me ic), in which i em load-
ings we e cons ained o be equal ac oss g oups; and (3) a scala in a iance model,
in which he equali y o h esholds o in e cep s o he i ems we e cons ained o
be equal ac oss g oups. We ook in o accoun Kline ‘s(2016) ecommenda ion ha
a leas 100 people pe g oup be compa ed du ing mul ig oup con i ma o y ac o
analysis. Successi ely es ic i e models we e compa ed wi h he Sa o a-Ben le
scaled χ2 di e ence es s using scaling co ec ion ac o s and wi h CFI, RMSEA,
and SRMR di e ence sco es, he la e se ing as indices o inal decisions. As he
sample size was la ge, changes o ≤ −.010 o CFI, ≤.015 o RMSEA and ≤.030 /
≤.010 o SRMR (depending on he le el o es ing) showed in a iance (Chen, 2007).
Finally, he ex e nal alidi y and es - e es eliabili y we e es ed wi h a Kendall- au
co ela ion. Taking in o accoun Cicche i’s (1994) c i e ia, he es - e es eliabili y
1 3
23 Page 8 o 18
Valida ion o he Hunga ian Ve sion o he Cogni i e Fusion…
be ween 0.4 and 0.59 is ai , be ween 0.60 and 0.74 is good, and abo e 0.75 is excel-
len . Fo he p ocedu es used, he signi icance le el was se a ≤.005. Analyses we e
pe o med using SPSS 29.0 and Mplus (Mu hén & Mu hén, 2017).
Resul s
Con i ma o y Fac o Analysis o he CFQ-7
The unidimensional s uc u e o he CFQ-7 was es ed using CFA and showed an
inadequa e i o RMSEA (χ2 = 240.85, d = 14, p <.001, χ2/d = 17.20, CFI = 0.941,
TLI = 0.911, RMSEA = 0.115 [90% CI 0.102, 0.128], SRMR = 0.036). Modi ica ion
indices we e checked o sugges ions o imp o e he model: e o co a iance was
added o i ems 1 (“My hough s cause me dis ess o emo ional pain.”) and 2 (“I ge
so caugh up in my hough s ha I am unable o do he hings ha I mos wan o do.”)
(wi h MI = 98.45), and o i ems 4 (“I s uggle wi h my hough s”) and 5 (“I ge upse
wi h mysel o ha ing ce ain hough s”) (wi h MI = 85.85). Each i em ocuses on
nega i e e en s ha can be linked o hough s (s uggle, sadness, helplessness). A e
implemen ing hese modi ica ions, an adequa e i was ound (χ2 = 64.24, d = 12,
p <.001, χ2/d = 5.35, CFI = 0.985, TLI = 0.974, RMSEA = 0.062 [90% CI 0.048,
0.077], SRMR = 0.020.) (see Table 2). In addi ion, no s anda dized ac o loading
was below 0.695, indica ing a p ope i o indi idual i ems. The in e nal consis ency
(C onbach’s alpha) was 0.918. We also examined he empo al s abili y o he ins u-
men o e a mon h in e al. The es - e es eliabili y o he CFQ-7 was =.665.
Table 2 The one- ac o model o CFQ in he en i e sample (N = 1231) - s anda dized ac o loadings (wi h
STD YX s anda diza ion) and e o co a iance es ima es a e displayed
I em S anda d
ac o
loading
E o
e m
CFQ1 My hough s cause me dis ess o emo ional pain. [A gondola aim szo-
ongás agy szen edés okoznak é zelmileg.]
.780 0.014
CFQ2 I ge so caugh up in my hough s ha I am unable o do he hings ha I
mos wan o do. [A gondola aim annyi a a ha almukba ke í enek, hogy kép elen
agyok azoka a dolgoka csinálni, amike a leginkább sze e nék.]
.737 0.017
CFQ3 I o e -analyse si ua ions o he poin whe e i ’s unhelp ul o me. [Túl-
ságosan soka elemzek helyze eke , addig a pon ig, hogy az má nem hasznos
számom a.]
.805 0.014
CFQ4 I s uggle wi h my hough s. [Küzdök a gondola aim ellen.] .759 0.016
CFQ5 ge upse wi h mysel o ha ing ce ain hough s. [Megha agszom
magam a, amié bizonyos gondola aim annak.]
.695 0.018
CFQ6 I end o ge e y en angled in my hough s. [Hajlamos agyok nagyon
belegabalyodni a gondola aimba. ]
.797 0.014
CFQ7 I ’s such a s uggle o le go o upse ing hough s e en when I know ha
le ing go would be help ul. [Rendkí ül nehéz számom a elengedni a za a ó gon-
dola oka , még akko is, ha udom, hogy hasznos lenne elengedni őke .]
.854 0.011
No es: (be ween CFQ1 and CFQ2) = 0.363; (be ween CFQ4 and CFQ5) = 0.333
1 3
Page 9 o 18 23
A. Szabó-Ba ha e al.
Fe gus, T. A., Valen ine , D. P., Gillen, M. J., Hi aoka, R., Twohig, M. P., Ab amowi z, J. S., & McG a h,
P. B. (2012). Assessing psychological in lexibili y: The psychome ic p ope ies o he a oidance
and usion ques ionnai e o you h in wo adul samples. Psychological Assessmen , 24(2), 402–408.
h ps://doi.o g/10.1037/a0025776
Fo man, E. M., He be , J. D., Jua ascio, A. S., Yeomans, P. D., Zebell, J. A., Goe e , E. M., & Moi a, E.
(2012). The D exel de usion scale: A new measu e o expe ien ial dis ancing. Jou nal o Con ex ual
Beha io al Science, 1(1–2), 55–65. h ps://doi.o g/10.1016/j.jcbs.2012.09.001
Gillande s, D. T., Bolde s on, H., Bond, F. W., Demps e , M., Flaxman, P. E., Campbell, L., Ke , S., Tan-
sey, L., Noel, P., & Fe enbach, C. (2014a). The de elopmen and ini ial alida ion o he cogni i e
usion ques ionnai e. Beha io The apy, 45(1), 83–101. h ps://doi .o g/10.101 6/j.be h.20 13.09.00
1Ge igh s and con en .
Gillande s, D. T., Bolde s on, H., Bond, F. W., Demps e , M., Flaxman, P. E., Campbell, L., Ke , S., Tan-
sey, L., Noel, P., Fe enbach, C., Masley, S., Roach, L., Lloyd, J., May, L., Cla ke, S., & Reming on,
B. (2014b). The de elopmen and ini ial alida ion o he cogni i e usion ques ionnai e. Beha io
The apy, 45(1), 83–101. h ps://doi.o g/10.1016/j.be h.2013.09.001
Gillande s, D. T., Sinclai , A. K., MacLean, M., & Ja dine, K. (2015). Illness cogni ions, cogni i e usion,
a oidance and sel -compassion as p edic o s o dis ess and quali y o li e in a he e ogeneous sample
o adul s, a e cance . Jou nal o Con ex ual Beha io al Science, 4(4), 300–311. h p s : / / d o i . o g / 1 0 .
1 0 1 6 / j . j c b s . 2 0 1 5 . 0 7 . 0 0 3
Glos e , A. T., Walde , N., Le in, M. E., Twohig, M. P., & Ka ekla, M. (2020). The empi ical s a us o
accep ance and commi men he apy: A e iew o me a-analyses. Jou nal o Con ex ual Beha io al
Science, 18, 181–192. h ps://doi.o g/10.1016/j.jcbs.2020.09.009
G eco, L. A., Lambe , W., & Bae , R. A. (2008). Psychological in lexibili y in childhood and adolescence:
De elopmen and e alua ion o he a oidance and usion ques ionnai e o you h. Psychological
Assessmen , 20(2), 93–102. h ps://doi.o g/10.1037/1040-3590.20.2.93
G ego ich, S. E. (2006). Do sel - epo ins umen s allow meaning ul compa isons ac oss di e se popu-
la ion g oups? Tes ing measu emen in a iance using he con i ma o y ac o analysis amewo k.
Medical Ca e, 44(11), S78–S94.
Hayes, S. C., S osahl, K. D., & Wilson, K. G. (1999). Accep ance and commi men he apy: An expe ien-
ial app oach o beha io change (pp. x i, 304). Guil o d P ess.
Hayes, S. C., Masuda, A., Bisse , R., Luoma, J., & Gue e o, L. F. (2004). DBT, FAP, and ACT: How
empi ically o ien ed a e he new beha io he apy echnologies? Beha io The apy, 35(1), 35–54. h
p s : / / d o i . o g / 1 0 . 1 0 1 6 / S 0 0 0 5 - 7 8 9 4 ( 0 4 ) 8 0 0 0 3 - 0
Hayes, S., Luoma, J., Bond, F., Masuda, A., & Lillis, J. (2006). Accep ance and commi men he apy:
Model, p ocess and ou comes. Beha iou Resea ch and The apy, 44, 1–25. h p s : / / d o i . o g / 1 0 . 1 0 1 6 /
j . b a . 2 0 0 5 . 0 6 . 0 0 6
Hen ich, J., Heine, S. J., & No enzayan, A. (2010). The wei des people in he wo ld? Beha io al and
B ain Sciences, 33(2–3), 61–83. h ps://doi.o g/10.1017/S0140525X0999152X
He zbe g, K. N., Sheppa d, S. C., Fo sy h, J. P., C edé, M., Ea leywine, M., & Ei e , G. H. (2012). The
belie abili y o anxious eelings and hough s ques ionnai e (BAFT): A psychome ic e alua ion o
cogni i e usion in a nonclinical and highly anxious communi y sample. Psychological Assessmen ,
24(4), 877–891. h ps://doi.o g/10.1037/a0027782
Hollon, S. D., & Kendall, P. C. (1980). Cogni i e sel -s a emen s in dep ession: De elopmen o an au o-
ma ic hough s ques ionnai e. Cogni i e The apy and Resea ch, 4(4), 383–395. h p s : / / d o i . o g / 1 0 . 1
0 0 7 / B F 0 1 1 7 8 2 1 4
Hu, L. T., & Ben le , P. M. (1998). Fi indices in co a iance s uc u e modeling: Sensi i i y o unde pa am-
e e ized model misspeci ica ion. Psychological Me hods, 3(4), 424–453.
In e na ional Tes Commission (2017). Guidelines o T ansla ing and Adap ing Tes s (Second Edi ion).
Re ie ed om www.in es com.o g
Kahl, K. G., Win e , L., & Schweige , U. (2012). The hi d wa e o cogni i e beha iou al he apies: Wha
is new and wha is e ec i e? Cu en Opinion in Psychia y, 25(6), 522–528. h p s : / / d o i . o g / 1 0 . 1 0 9
7 / Y C O . 0 b 0 1 3 e 3 2 8 3 5 8 e 5 3 1
Ke ancioğlu, A., Aydin, Y., Saka ya, D., Duymaz, G., & Özdel, K. (2023). Adap a ion o cogni i e usion
ques ionnai e o Tu kish: A alidi y and eliabili y s udy. Jou nal o Cogni i e Beha io al Psycho-
he apies and Resea ch, 12(1), 50–56.
Kim, B. O., & Cho, S. (2015). Psychome ic p ope ies o a Ko ean e sion o he cogni i e usion ques-
ionnai e. Social Beha io and Pe sonali y: an In e na ional Jou nal, 43(10), 1715–1723. h p s : / / d o
i . o g / 1 0 . 2 2 2 4 / s b p . 2 0 1 5 . 4 3 . 1 0 . 1 7 1 5
1 3
23 Page 16 o 18

Valida ion o he Hunga ian Ve sion o he Cogni i e Fusion…
Kline, R. B. (2016). P inciples and P ac ice o S uc u al Equa ion Modeling (4 h ed.). Guil o d
publica ions.
Ky iazos, T. A. (2018). Applied psychome ics: Sample size and sample powe conside a ions in ac o
analysis (EFA, CFA) and SEM in gene al. Psychology, 9(08), 2207.
Linehan, M. (1993). Cogni i e-beha io al ea men o bo de line pe sonali y diso de . Guil o d p ess. h
p s : / / w w w . g o o g l e . c o m / b o o k s ? h l = h u % 2 6 l = % 2 6 i d = U Z i m 3 O A P w e 8 C % 2 6 o i = n d % 2 6 p g = P A 3 % 2 6
d q = C o g n i i e - B e h a i o a l + T e a m e n + o + B o d e l i n e + P e s o n a l i y + D i s o d e . % 2 6 o s = q E Q A 3 0 w G 8
% 2 6 s i g = 4 6 9 7 q G M 9 b K F e 1 V T y z h F i Q 4 N m Q
Losada, A., Mon o io, I., Knigh , B. G., Má quez, M., & Izal, M. (2006). Explana ion o ca egi e s dis-
ess om he cogni i e model: The ole o dys unc ional hough s. Psicología Conduc ual, 14(1),
115–128.
Lo ibond, P. F., & Lo ibond, S. H. (1995). The s uc u e o nega i e emo ional S a es: Compa ison o he
dep ession anxie y s ess scales (DASS) wi h he Beck dep ession and anxie y in en o ies. Beha iou
Resea ch and The apy, 33(3), 335–343. h ps://doi.o g/10.1016/0005-7967(94)00075-U
Lucena-San os, P., T indade, I. A., Oli ei a, M., & Pin o-Gou eia, J. (2017). Cogni i e usion Ques ion-
nai e—Body image: Psychome ic p ope ies and i s inc emen al powe in he p edic ion o binge
ea ing se e i y. The Jou nal o Psychology, 151(4), 379–392. h p s : / / d o i . o g / 1 0 . 1 0 8 0 / 0 0 2 2 3 9 8 0 . 2 0
1 7 . 1 3 0 5 3 2 2
Ma os, T., Sallay, V., Dés al i, J., Szabó, T., & I zés, A. (2014). Az Éle el Való Elégede ség Skála Mag-
ya Vál oza ának (SWLS-H) pszichome iai jellemzői/ psychome ic cha ac e is ics o he Hunga ian
e sion o he sa is ac ion wi h li e scale (SWLS-H). Men álhigiéné És Pszichoszoma ika, 15(3),
289–303. h ps://doi.o g/10.1556/Men al.15.2014.3.9
Mu is, P., Me ckelbach, H., & Ho selenbe g, R. (1996). Indi idual di e ences in hough supp ession.
The whi e bea supp ession in en o y: Fac o s uc u e, eliabili y, alidi y and co ela es. Beha iou
Resea ch and The apy, 34(5–6), 501–513. h ps://doi.o g/10.1016/0005-7967(96)00005-8
Mu hén, B., & Mu hén, L. (2017). Mplus. In Handbook o i em esponse heo y (pp. 507–518). Chapman
and Hall/CRC. h p s : / / w w w . a y l o a n c i s . c o m / c h a p e s / e d i / 1 0 . 1 2 0 1 / 9 7 8 1 3 1 5 1 1 7 4 3 0 - 2 8 / m p l u s - b e n
g - m u h % C 3 % A 9 n - l i n d a - m u h % C 3 % A 9 n
Nolen-Hoeksema, S., & Jackson, B. (2001). Media o s o he gende di e ence in umina ion. Psychology
o Women Qua e ly, 25(1), 37–47. h ps://doi.o g/10.1111/1471-6402.00005
Polica do, G. R., Di Ges o, C., Pucce i, C., & Micheli, E. (2023). Thinking abou my body and how i
seems lawed: Psychome ic p ope ies o he I alian e sion o he cogni i e usion ques ionnai e
adap ed o body dysmo phic diso de . Medi e anean Jou nal o Clinical Psychology, 11, 459–460.
Rome o-Mo eno, R., Má quez-González, M., Losada, A., Gillande s, D., & Fe nández-Fe nández, V.
(2014). Cogni i e usion in demen ia ca egi ing: Psychome ic p ope ies o he Spanish e sion o
he cogni i e usion ques ionnai e. Beha io al Psychology/Psicología Conduc ual, 22(1). h p s : / / w w
w . e s e a c h g a e . n e / p o i l e / A n d e s - L o s a d a - 3 / p u b l i c a i o n / 2 6 6 0 3 0 6 9 5 _ C o g n i i e _ u s i o n _ i n _ d e m e n i a
_ c a e g i i n g _ p s y c h o m e i c _ p o p e i e s _ o _ h e _ S p a n i s h _ e s i o n _ o _ h e _ C o g n i i e _ F u s i o n _ Q u e s i o
n n a i e / l i n k s / 5 4 d 8 7 4 b d 0 c 2 5 0 1 3 d 0 3 d d 6 2 / C o g n i i e - u s i o n - i n - d e m e n i a - c a e g i i n g - p s y c h o m e i c - p
o p e i e s - o - h e - S p a n i s h - e s i o n - o - h e - C o g n i i e - F u s i o n - Q u e s i o n n a i e . p d
Ruiz, F. J., Suá ez-Falcón, J. C., Riano-He nández, D., & Gillande s, D. (2017). Psychome ic p ope ies
o he cogni i e usion ques ionnai e in Colombia. Re is a La inoame icana De Psicología, 49(1),
80–87. h ps://doi.o g/10.1016/j. lp.2016.09.006
Sa an, J. D., Segal, Z. V., Hill, C., & Whi en, V. (1990). Re ining s a egies o esea ch on sel - ep e-
sen a ions in emo ional diso de s. Cogni i e The apy and Resea ch, 14(2), 143–160. h p s : / / d o i . o g
/ 1 0 . 1 0 0 7 / B F 0 1 1 7 6 2 0 6
Schmalz, J. E., & Mu ell, A. R. (2010). Measu ing expe ien ial a oidance in adul s: The a oidance and
usion ques ionnai e. In e na ional Jou nal o Beha io al Consul a ion and The apy, 6(3), 198.
h ps://doi.o g/10.1037/h0100908
Sch eibe , J. B., No a, A., S age, F. K., Ba low, E. A., & King, J. (2006). Repo ing s uc u al equa ion
modeling and con i ma o y ac o analysis esul s: A e iew. The Jou nal o Educa ional Resea ch,
99(6), 323–338. h ps://doi.o g/10.3200/JOER.99.6.323-338
Segal, Z., Williams, M., & Teasdale, J. (2018). Mind ulness-based cogni i e he apy o dep ession. Guil-
o d publica ions. h p s : / / w w w . g o o g l e . c o m / b o o k s ? h l = h u & l = & i d = Q H R V D w A A Q B A J & o i = n d & p g
= P P 1 & d q = M i n d u l n e s s - B a s e d + C o g n i i e + T h e a p y + o + D e p e s s i o n : + & o s = E W y k 6 C M n 4 & s i g = y
e X J i o h T u I 3 m x A N 8 C 6 O 5 B b b 3 A
1 3
Page 17 o 18 23
A. Szabó-Ba ha e al.
Shi, C., Chen, W., Huang, J., & Ren, Z. (2024). Cogni i e usion and expe ien ial a oidance sequen ially
media e he ela ionship be ween cybe ic imiza ion and dep ession in adolescen s. The Jou nal o
Ea ly Adolescence, 44(4), 517–537. h ps://doi.o g/10.1177/02724316231186111
Shima, T., Kawai, T., Yanagiha a, M., & Kumano, H. (2016). Valida ion o he Japanese e sion o he
cogni i e usion ques ionnai e: The 13-i em con en e ised e sion and he 7-i em e sion. Japanese
Jou nal o Beha io The apy, 42(1), 73–83. h ps://doi.o g/10.24468/jjb .42.1_73
Solé, E., Tomé-Pi es, C., de la Vega, R., Racine, M., Cas a lenas, E., Jensen, M. P., & Mi ó, J. (2016).
Cogni i e usion and pain expe ience in young people. The Clinical Jou nal o Pain, 32(7), 602–608.
Sol ani, E., Izadi, S., Sha i i, P., & Pou sadegh a d, M. (2022). Psychome ic p ope ies o he Pe sian
e sion o cogni i e usion ques ionnai e-ch onic illness in mul iple scle osis. I anian Jou nal o
Psychia y and Beha io al Sciences, 16(1), e113524.
Wegne , D. M., & Zanakos, S. (1994). Ch onic hough supp ession. Jou nal o Pe sonali y, 62(4), 615–
640. h p s : / / d o i . o g / 1 0 . 1 1 1 1 / j . 1 4 6 7 - 6 4 9 4 . 1 9 9 4 . b 0 0 3 1 1 . x
Wicksell, R. K., Renö äl , J., Olsson, G. L., Bond, F. W., & Melin, L. (2008). A oidance and cogni i e
usion–cen al componen s in pain ela ed disabili y? De elopmen and p elimina y alida ion o he
psychological in lexibili y in pain scale (PIPS). Eu opean Jou nal o Pain, 12(4), 491–500. h p s : / / d
o i . o g / 1 0 . 1 0 1 6 / j . e j p a i n . 2 0 0 7 . 0 8 . 0 0 3
Zacha ia, M., Ioannou, M., Theo anous, A., Vasiliou, V. S., & Ka ekla, M. (2021). Does cogni i e usion
show up simila ly ac oss wo beha io al heal h samples? Psychome ic p ope ies and in a iance o
he G eek–Cogni i e usion ques ionnai e (G-CFQ). Jou nal o Con ex ual Beha io al Science, 21,
212–221. h ps://doi.o g/10.1016/j.jcbs.2021.01.003
Ze le, R. D., & Hayes, S. C. (1986). Dys unc ional con ol by clien e bal beha io : The con ex o
eason-gi ing. The Analysis o Ve bal Beha io , 4(1), 30–38. h ps://doi.o g/10.1007/BF03392813
Zhang, W. C., Ji, Y., Li, X., Guo, H. N., & Zhu, Z. H. (2014). Reliabili y and alidi y o he Chinese e sion
o he cogni i e usion ques ionnai e. Chinese Men al Heal h Jou nal, 10(1), 45–51.
Zucchelli, F., Whi e, P., & Williamson, H. (2020). Expe ien ial a oidance and cogni i e usion media e he
ela ionship be ween body e alua ion and unhelp ul body image coping s a egies in indi iduals wi h
isible di e ences. Body Image, 32, 121–127. h ps://doi.o g/10.1016/j.bodyim.2019.12.002
Publishe ’s No e Sp inge Na u e emains neu al wi h ega d o ju isdic ional claims in published maps
and ins i u ional a ilia ions.
Au ho s and A ilia ions
Ane Szabó-Ba ha1· Nikole Eisenbeck2· Sándo Rózsa1,3 ·
Má éSzondy4,5 · Ve onikaMészá os1
Ane Szabó-Ba ha
[email p o ec ed]
Má é Szondy
szondy[email p o ec ed]
1 Ka oli Gaspa Uni e si y o he Re o med Chu ch in Hunga y, Ins i u e o Psychology,
Budapes , Hunga y
2 Uni e sidad de Se illa, Facul y o Psychology, Se illa, Spain
3 Washing on Uni e si y in S . Louis, Depa men o Psychia y, S . Louis, US
4 Pazmany Pe e Ca holic Uni e si y, Ins i u e o Psychology, Budapes , Hunga y
5 Jewish Cha i y Hospi al, Budapes , Hunga y
1 3
23 Page 18 o 18