Psychological flexibility (PF) is a popular construct in clinical psychology. However, similar constructs have existed since the mid-20th century, resulting in different terms, definitions and measures of flexibility, hindering the advancement of the field. The main measure of PF – the Acceptance and Action Questionnaire (AAQ-II; Bond et al., 2011) – has also been heavily criticized. To move towards definitional consensus and improved measurement, we surveyed the literature to map PF and related-terms, examine definitional overlaps, and assessthe psychometric quality of prominent flexibility measures. A scoping review was conducted in two databases (PsycNET and SCOPUS). Twenty-three flexibility constructs appeared across 220 articles, and twelve measures were included and rated for quality. PF, psychological inflexibility (PI), and cognitive flexibility (CF) were most prominent. Definitional similarities among prominent flexibility constructs emerged, namely handling distress or interference, taking action, and meeting goals or values. The Personalized Psychological Flexibility Index (PPFI; Kashdan, Disabato, Goodman, Doorley, & McKnight, 2020) appears to be the best measure available to assess PF. Problems with the current use of the AAQ-II were apparent, hindering current knowledge of PF. Definitional consensus and measurement development are vital to advance the field. To this end, recommendations and next steps for researchers and practitioners are outlined.

心理灵活性（PF）是临床心理学中的一个流行概念。然而，自20世纪中叶以来，类似的结构已经存在，导致了不同的术语、定义和灵活性措施，阻碍了该领域的进步。 PF 的主要衡量标准——接受与行动问卷（AAQ-II；Bond 等，2011）——也受到了严厉批评。为了达成定义共识并改进测量，我们调查了文献以绘制 PF 和相关术语，检查定义重叠，并评估突出的灵活性测量的心理测量质量。在两个数据库（PsycNET 和 SCOPUS）中进行了范围界定审查。 220 篇文章中出现了 23 种灵活性结构，并纳入了 12 项措施并进行了质量评级。 PF、心理不灵活性（PI）和认知灵活性（CF）最为突出。突出的灵活性结构之间出现了定义上的相似性，即处理困境或干扰、采取行动以及实现目标或价值观。个性化心理灵活性指数（PPFI；Kashdan、Disabato、Goodman、Doorley 和 McKnight，2020）似乎是评估 PF 的最佳指标。当前使用 AAQ-II 的问题很明显，阻碍了当前对 PF 的了解。定义共识和测量开发对于推动该领域至关重要。为此，概述了研究人员和从业人员的建议和后续步骤。