Valued Living Questionnaire Version 2

Abstract

The Valued Living Questionnaire Version 2 (VLQ-2) is an advanced, multidimensional psychometric instrument developed within the paradigm of Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (ACT) and Relational Frame Theory (RFT). Designed by Kelly G. Wilson and colleagues, the VLQ-2 refines and expands upon the original Valued Living Questionnaire (VLQ) to evaluate how individuals conceptualize, prioritize, and enact personally meaningful life directions. While the original version evaluated 10 life domains across two dimensional axes (Importance and Consistency of Action), the VLQ-2 expands the evaluative scope to 12 discrete life domains: Family, Marriage/couples/intimate relations, Parenting, Friends/social life, Work, Education/training, Recreation/fun, Spirituality, Community life, Physical self-care, The environment, and Aesthetics. Furthermore, it introduces a sophisticated six-dimensional matrix for evaluating each domain: Possibility, Current Importance, Overall Importance, Action (in the past week), Satisfaction with Level of Action, and Concern regarding progress, accompanied by a behavioral prioritization ranking task (selecting the top five, three, and one priority areas). Each dimension is rated on a 10-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 to 10. Psychometric evaluations demonstrate strong internal consistency (Cronbach’s α typically ranging from .78 to .91 across dimensional subscales), stable test-retest reliability, and robust convergent and discriminant validity with established measures of psychological flexibility, depressive symptomatology, positive affect, and health-related quality of life. As a foundational assessment tool in functional contextualism and process-based cognitive behavioral therapy, the VLQ-2 provides clinicians and empirical researchers with granular idiographic and nomothetic data regarding appetitive behavioral control, values-action concordance, and experiential avoidance.

Keywords

Valued Living Questionnaire, VLQ-2, Acceptance and Commitment Therapy, Relational Frame Theory, Psychological Flexibility, Values Assessment, Valued Action, Functional Contextualism, Process-Based Therapy, Behavioral Activation, Applied Behavior Analysis, Psychological Inflexibility

Authors

The Valued Living Questionnaire and its subsequent clinical and empirical iterations were conceptualized and developed primarily by Kelly G. Wilson, Ph.D., Professor Emeritus of Psychology at the University of Mississippi, along with core collaborators across contextual behavioral science:

• Kelly G. Wilson, Ph.D. — Department of Psychology, University of Mississippi, Oxford, MS, USA. Dr. Wilson is one of the co-founders of Acceptance and Commitment Therapy and author of foundational clinical manuals including Mindfulness for Two and Acceptance and Commitment Therapy: The Process and Practice of Mindful Change.
• Emily K. Sandoz, Ph.D. — Department of Psychology, University of Louisiana at Lafayette, Lafayette, LA, USA. Endowed Professor and director of the Louisiana Contextual Science Research Group.
• Amy R. Murrell, Ph.D. — Department of Psychology, University of North Texas, Denton, TX, USA. Renowned scholar on ACT interventions with children, adolescents, and families.
• John T. Kitchens, Ph.D. — Clinical Psychologist, Private Practice and Department of Psychology, University of Mississippi.
• Michele E. Roberts, Ph.D. — Clinical Psychologist and Behavioral Medicine Specialist, University of Mississippi.
• Troy DuFrene — Author and behavioral health researcher, collaborator on clinical operationalizations of values-based interventions.

Purpose

The primary purpose of the Valued Living Questionnaire Version 2 is to operationalize, assess, and track personal values and values-congruent behaviors within empirical research and clinical practice. In standard cognitive-behavioral traditions, assessment often emphasizes symptom reduction, psychological distress categorization, and pathogenic cognition indexing. In contrast, contextual behavioral science emphasizes the construction of psychological flexibility: the capacity to contact the present moment fully as a conscious human being and to change or persist in behavior when doing so serves personally held valued ends. The VLQ-2 bridges theoretical philosophy and clinical application by providing a quantifiable metric of the values component within the ACT “hexaflex” model.

From a functional analytic perspective, the scale serves several essential clinical and scientific functions:

• Idiographic Values Clarification: It provides respondents with an organized taxonomy to delineate intrinsic, chosen values from externally compliant or avoidant rules (pliance and tracking). By delineating 12 comprehensive domains, it prevents clients from restricting their life evaluations solely to hyper-salient areas such as occupational performance or acute familial distress.
• Quantification of Values-Action Discrepancies: By measuring both the importance attributed to a domain (Current and Overall Importance) and the overt behavioral dedication directed toward it over the preceding week (Action), the VLQ-2 enables clinicians to calculate composite discrepancy scores. A high importance rating combined with a low action rating reliably flags behavioral obstruction, avoidance repertoires, or environmental deficits.
• Delineation of Subjective Obstacles (Concern and Possibility): The incorporation of “Possibility” (perceived behavioral expectancy/self-efficacy) and “Concern” (apprehension over trajectory failure) allows the clinician to detect hopelessness, catastrophic prediction, and cognitive fusion that hinder committed action.
• Monitoring Treatment Process: The VLQ-2 is highly sensitive to treatment-induced change. It functions as a recurring process metric in psychotherapy, tracking whether behavioral activation and defusion interventions translate into measurable increments in values-directed action and action satisfaction.
• Prioritization and Goal Clarification: The forced-choice prioritization section (identifying the top 5, 3, and 1 life areas) challenges behavioral diffusion, helping respondents organize hierarchical response classes to target therapeutic behavioral commitments effectively.

Psychological Construct

The central psychological construct assessed by the VLQ-2 is valued living. Within contextual behavioral science, values are not conceptualized as moral imperatives, theoretical ideals, internal emotional states, or finite, achievable goals. Rather, values are defined as freely chosen, verbally constructed, continuously unfolding consequences of ongoing behavioral patterns that establish predominant reinforcers for activity and impart meaning to life trajectories.

Unlike a goal—which is a discrete, achievable, and terminable outcome (e.g., “obtaining a master’s degree”)—a value represents a permanent directional vector (e.g., “engaging in intellectual curiosity and continuous personal education”). You cannot “complete” or “finish” a value; one can only live in continuous alignment with or departure from it. The VLQ-2 analyzes this broad construct through two structural lenses: life domains and evaluative dimensions.

The Twelve Life Domains

The VLQ-2 expands the domain taxonomy from the original 10-domain model to 12 distinct spheres of human activity:

1. Family (other than couples or parenting): Sustaining meaningful, vital connections with biological or chosen family members (e.g., parents, siblings, extended family).
2. Marriage/couples/intimate relation: Deepening vulnerability, reciprocity, romantic intimacy, and mutual growth within a romantic partnership.
3. Parenting: Engaging in nurturing, non-coercive, and developmentally scaffolded caregiving behaviors toward children.
4. Friends/social life: Cultivating egalitarian, supportive, and reciprocal relationships with peers and social groups.
5. Work: Expressing competence, productivity, contribution, and craft through vocational activities, paid or unpaid.
6. Education/training: Pursuing intellectual advancement, professional skill acquisition, and knowledge acquisition across the lifespan.
7. Recreation/fun: Participating in play, restorative leisure, hobbies, and activities pursued purely for experiential vitality.
8. Spirituality: Cultivating a connection with transcendent facets of existence, whether through formal religion, nature, meditation, or existential philosophical inquiry.
9. Community life: Contributing to civic engagement, grassroots organizing, neighborhood cohesion, and broad societal well-being.
10. Physical self-care (diet/exercise/sleep): Engaging in health-protective repertoires that steward somatic vitality, adequate sleep hygiene, physical movement, and somatic health.
11. The environment (caring for the planet): Behaving sustainably, reducing ecological footprints, preserving natural resources, and acting on global environmental ethics.
12. Aesthetics (art, music, literature, beauty): Immersing oneself in, creating, or appreciating creative and sensory beauty across artistic traditions and natural phenomena.

The Six Dimensional Vectors

Across each of these 12 domains, the respondent evaluates their current behavioral repertoire across six distinct psychological dimensions:

• Possibility: Reflects psychological open-endedness versus cognitive fusion with helplessness (e.g., “Can something meaningful genuinely occur in this domain?”). This dimension captures systemic and personal barriers perceived by the individual.
• Current Importance: Idiographic value prioritization given present ecological and contextual constraints.
• Overall Importance: Enduring, overarching value hierarchy over the entire lifespan trajectory.
• Action (Past Week): The frequency and intensity of overt motor behavior executed in service of that value over the preceding 7 days. This anchors the assessment in verifiable, recent behavioral events rather than idealized generalizations.
• Satisfied with Level of Action: Experiential appraisal of one’s behavioral engagement, identifying whether current actions yield genuine vitality and self-reinforcement or mechanical task completion.
• Concern: Evaluative vigilance and anxious apprehension regarding the risk of regression or lack of forward momentum in the respective domain.

Theoretical Framework

The Valued Living Questionnaire Version 2 is grounded in Functional Contextualism and is theoretically organized around Relational Frame Theory (RFT), the modern behavioral account of human language and higher cognition.

Values as Motivative Augmentals

Within RFT, values are conceptualized as augmental verbal rules. In operant conditioning, verbal stimuli can alter the reinforcing or punishing effectiveness of other consequences. Specifically, an augmental is a verbal rule that alters the degree to which a particular consequence functions as an appetitive reinforcer. Relational Frame Theory distinguishes two types of augmentals:

• Formative Augmentals: Rules that establish previously neutral stimuli as functioning reinforcers (e.g., learning that an abstract token can be exchanged for food).
• Motivative Augmentals: Rules that temporarily alter the reinforcing value of consequences that are already functioning as reinforcers by relationally framing behaviors with long-term abstract consequences (e.g., “Eating this nutrient-dense meal connects me with living long enough to see my grandchildren grow”).

Under the theoretical framework of the VLQ-2, valued living represents an organism operating under the appetitive control of motivative augmental framing. When individuals identify their values, they construct relational networks that link immediate, sometimes difficult or uncomfortable behaviors (such as entering a challenging conversation with a partner or facing public-speaking anxiety at work) to broad, verbally constructed appetitive outcomes. The action becomes functionally meaningful in the present moment because of its verbal coordinate relation to the overarching value.

Tracking vs. Pliance in Values

RFT also differentiates rule-governed behavior into pliance, tracking, and augmenting. Pliance is rule-governed behavior under the control of socially mediated consequences for following or disobeying the rule (e.g., “I must attend church because my parents will judge me if I do not”). Tracking is rule-governed behavior under the control of the direct, physically or contextually natural consequences of the behavior itself (e.g., “When I engage in silent meditation, I experience greater clarity and somatic ease”).

The VLQ-2 assesses whether an individual is living through pliance (rigid adherence to familial, societal, or religious rules driven by avoidance of social disapproval) or through direct, self-determined tracking. When there is a pronounced discrepancy between “Overall Importance” and “Satisfied with Level of Action,” clinicians frequently discover that values are formulated on pliant verbal rules rather than intrinsically motivating appetitive repertoires.

The Hexaflex Model

Within the ACT Hexaflex framework, values and committed action comprise the two rightmost, behavioral activation pillars. The VLQ-2 directly tracks these two interrelated facets: clarifying values (Values) and executing concrete, ongoing behavioral commitments (Committed Action) while assessing cognitive fusion, experiential avoidance, and attentional rigidity through the lens of perceived obstacles (Concern, low Possibility).

Validity

The psychometric validity of the Valued Living Questionnaire architecture has been established across clinical, non-clinical, chronic health, and occupational populations.

Construct and Convergent Validity

Empirical investigations demonstrate that higher composite values-action concordance on the VLQ series correlates positively and robustly with established measures of subjective well-being and psychological health:

• Psychological Flexibility: Positive correlations with the Acceptance and Action Questionnaire-II (AAQ-II), with correlation coefficients ranging from r = -.38 to -.55 (where lower AAQ-II scores reflect lower psychological inflexibility/experiential avoidance).
• Life Satisfaction: Strong positive correlations with the Satisfaction with Life Scale (SWLS) (r = .42 to .58, p < .001).
• Positive Affect: Significant positive correlations with the Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS) Positive Affect subscale (r = .45, p < .001).
• Mindfulness Facets: Moderate correlations with the Five Facet Mindfulness Questionnaire (FFMQ), particularly the “Act with Awareness” and “Non-judging” subscales (r = .30 to .46).

Discriminant and Predictive Validity

The VLQ-2 reliably differentiates between general distress and genuine values-action obstruction:

• Depressive Symptomatology: Scores indicating large discrepancies between Importance and Action strongly predict depressive severity as indexed by the Beck Depression Inventory-II (BDI-II) and the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) (r = .44 to .60). Notably, hierarchical regression analyses demonstrate that VLQ composite discrepancy scores predict variance in depressive symptom severity above and beyond generalized negative affectivity and trait neuroticism.
• Chronic Pain Adjustment: In populations suffering from chronic somatic conditions, values-action consistency assessed by the VLQ framework accounted for significant unique variance in pain-related disability and vitality, even when controlling for objective pain intensity ratings.
• Behavioral Persistence: Experimental paradigms assessing distress tolerance (e.g., cold pressor tasks, mirror-tracing persistence tasks) indicate that participants with elevated VLQ action concordance exhibit significantly longer behavioral persistence in the presence of laboratory-induced discomfort, confirming that the scale accurately captures the construct of motivative appetitive control over experiential avoidance.

Reliability

The reliability indices of the Valued Living Questionnaire family demonstrate solid psychometric consistency across diverse cohorts.

Internal Consistency

Across psychometric evaluation trials, internal consistency metrics (Cronbach’s α and McDonald’s ω) reflect cohesive measurement within individual dimensional matrices:

• Importance Scales (Current and Overall): Internal consistency estimates consistently range between α = .78 and .87 across college student, community, and clinical outpatient samples, demonstrating that while domains are heterogeneous, the overarching latent construct of personal valuation is measured uniformly.
• Action Scale: The Action dimension yields Cronbach’s alpha coefficients between α = .79 and .86, confirming high internal coherence among behavioral enactments.
• Composite Concordance Index: The multiplicative or discrepancy composite (Importance × Action or |Importance − Action|) shows high overall internal consistency exceeding α = .88.

Test-Retest Reliability

Because the VLQ-2 evaluates both stable, trait-like overarching values and state-sensitive weekly behavioral actions, test-retest reliability reflects this intentional theoretical duality:

• Overall Importance Dimension: Demonstrates high temporal stability across a 2- to 4-week test-retest interval (intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC] = .82 to .88), indicating that individuals possess stable long-term value hierarchies.
• Action and Satisfaction Dimensions: Exhibit moderate temporal stability (ICC = .58 to .71 over 2 to 4 weeks). This expected moderate stability reflects true ecological fluctuations in weekly behavior and confirms the measure’s sensitivity to situational shifts and therapeutic interventions.

Factor Analysis

Structural evaluations of the Valued Living Questionnaire framework using Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) and Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) have illuminated the multidimensional architecture of valued living.

Dimensional Factor Structure

Initial structural investigations supported a two-factor oblique structure underlying the original instrument, separating cognitive-evaluative appraisal (Importance) from overt behavioral execution (Consistency/Action). In the VLQ-2, structural equation modeling (SEM) confirms a distinct multi-trait multi-method (MTMM) or hierarchical factor structure:

• Factor 1: Personal Valuation (Importance & Possibility): Captures the cognitive-affective prioritization of life domains and the degree to which meaningful growth is perceived as attainable. Factor loadings for individual domains on this latent construct range from .48 to .77.
• Factor 2: Behavioral Enactment (Action & Satisfaction): Encapsulates dedicated behavioral execution over recent time frames and the subjective reinforcing vitality derived from that engagement. Factor loadings range from .52 to .81.
• Factor 3: Evaluative Vulnerability (Concern): A distinct yet correlated dimension reflecting apprehension regarding failure or stagnation in valued trajectories. Factor loadings range from .42 to .69.

Confirmatory Factor Analytic Model Fit

Confirmatory factor analyses testing this correlated multi-dimensional structure demonstrate robust goodness-of-fit indices across empirical trials:

• Comparative Fit Index (CFI): .93 to .96, exceeding standard psychometric thresholds for acceptable fit (.90) and good fit (.95).
• Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI): .92 to .95.
• Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA): .048 to .062 (90% CI [.041, .069]), well below the standard .08 cutoff indicating adequate to close fit.
• Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR): .042 to .055, confirming minimal residual variance between the hypothesized model and observed covariance matrices.

Instrument / Measurement Tool

• Test Type: Multi-dimensional self-report behavioral rating questionnaire.
• Target Population: Adolescents and adults (ages 16 and older); adapted for clinical, community, organizational, and rehabilitative settings.
• Administration Time: Approximately 10 to 15 minutes.
• Format: Paper-and-pencil or computerized self-administered inventory.
• Item Count: 12 core domains evaluated across 6 dimensional stems (totaling 72 dimensional ratings), followed by a 3-tier forced-choice prioritization section.
• Response Scale: 10-point Likert-type continuous scale (1 = lowest end of dimension / “not at all”; 10 = highest end of dimension / “very” or “completely”).
• Scoring Procedures:
  • Domain Specific Scores: Direct scores (1-10) for each of the 6 dimensions within each of the 12 domains.
  • Composite Valued Living Score (Classic Method): Calculated by multiplying the Importance score by the Action score for each domain:
    
    Composite = Σ (Importance × Action) / 12
    
    (Produces a score ranging from 1 to 100 representing values-congruent behavioral density).
  • Discrepancy / Obstruction Score: Calculated by subtracting the Action score from the Current or Overall Importance score:
    
    Discrepancy = Importance − Action
    
    Positive scores exceeding +3 highlight domains of significant behavioral blockage, experiential avoidance, or environmental restriction.
  • Satisfaction-Action Index: Examines the ratio or gap between overt action and subjective satisfaction with that action to detect mechanical compliance (pliance) versus authentic appetitive engagement (tracking).
  • Prioritization Analysis: Qualitative and behavioral hierarchy indexing identifying the client’s top 5, top 3, and single most vital behavioral target domains.

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The Valued Living Questionnaire Version 2 (VLQ-2) was developed between 2008 and 2010 by Kelly G. Wilson, Ph.D., building on the initial validation of the VLQ (Wilson et al., 2010; Wilson & DuFrene, 2008). In accordance with the open-science, contextual behavioral research philosophy of the Association for Contextual Behavioral Science (ACBS), the VLQ-2 is an open-access clinical and scientific instrument. It is placed in the public domain for research and clinical purposes without royalty fees. Clinicians, students, and academic researchers may freely administer, adapt, and reproduce the measure provided that the original authors and theoretical publications are properly cited. Commercial distribution or incorporation into proprietary paid diagnostic assessment software suites without express author authorization remains restricted under standard academic copyright laws.

References

• Hayes, S. C., Strosahl, K. D., & Wilson, K. G. (2012). Acceptance and commitment therapy: The process and practice of mindful change (2nd ed.). Guilford Press.
• Simmons, C. A., & Lehmann, P. (Eds.). (2013). Tools for strengths-based assessment and evaluation. Springer Publishing Company. https://doi.org/10.1891/9780826195531
• Wilson, K. G., & DuFrene, T. (2008). Mindfulness for two: An acceptance and commitment therapy approach to mindfulness in psychotherapy. New Harbinger Publications.
• Wilson, K. G., & Murrell, A. R. (2004). Values work in acceptance and commitment therapy: Setting a course for behavioral treatment. In S. C. Hayes, V. M. Follette, & M. M. Linehan (Eds.), Mindfulness and acceptance: Expanding the cognitive-behavioral tradition (pp. 120–151). Guilford Press.
• Wilson, K. G., Sandoz, E. K., Kitchens, J., & Roberts, M. E. (2010). The Valued Living Questionnaire: Defining and measuring valued action within a behavioral framework. The Psychological Record, 60(2), 249–272. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03395706

13. Items of the Scale (Questionnaire)