Measuring Mindfulness: First Steps Towards the Development of a Comprehensive Mindfulness Scale
- 2.2k Downloads
The present study describes the development of and results obtained from the first version of a new mindfulness scale: the Comprehensive Inventory of Mindfulness Experiences beta (CHIME-β). The aim of the present analysis was to investigate two relevant open questions in mindfulness assessment: (1) the coverage of aspects of mindfulness and (2) the type of interrelationships among these aspects. A review of the aspects of mindfulness assessed by eight currently available mindfulness questionnaires led to the identification of nine aspects of mindfulness. The CHIME-β was constructed in order to cover each of these aspects in a balanced way. Initially, principal component and confirmatory factor analyses, as well as reliability and validity analyses, were performed in the entire sample (n = 313) of individuals from the general population and mindfulness-based stress reduction (MBSR) groups. The factor structure that emerged from this analysis was further investigated in meditation-trained individuals (n = 144) who had just completed an MBSR intervention. Results suggested a four-factor structure underlying the nine aspects proposed. The relationship between these mindfulness factors appears to be influenced by the degree of meditation experience. In fact, the mindfulness factors showed a greater interconnectedness among mediation-trained participants. Finally, data suggest that a non-avoidant stance plays a central role in mindfulness, while the capacity to put inner experiences into words may be related to mindfulness rather than a component of the construct.
KeywordsMindfulness Questionnaire Self-report Assessment
- Baer, R. (Ed.). (2010). Assessing mindfulness and acceptance processes in clients: Illuminating the theory and practice of change. Oakland: Context Press/New Harbinger.Google Scholar
- Bandalos, D. L., & Finney, S. J. (2001). Item parceling issues in structural equation modeling (pp. 269–296). In G. A. Marcoulides, & R. E. Schumacker (Eds.), New developments and techniques in structural equation modeling (pp. 269–296). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
- Bergomi, C. (2007). Achtsamkeit, buddhistische Meditation und psychische Gesundheit (Unpublished master’s thesis). Psychology Department, University of Bern, Switzerland. Retrieved from http://www.upd.unibe.ch/research/papers/Liz_Bergomi.pdf.
- Brown, T. A. (2006). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research. New York: Guilford.Google Scholar
- Brown, K. W., West, A. M., Loverich, T. M., & Biegel, G. M. (2011). Assessing adolescent mindfulness: Validation of an adapted mindful attention awareness scale in adolescent normative and psychiatric populations. Psychological Assessment, in press: Epub ahead of print retrieved May 10, 2011, doi: 10.1037/a0021338.
- Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In K. A. Bollen & J. S. Long (Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp. 136–162). Newbury Park: Sage.Google Scholar
- Buchheld, N., Grossman, P., & Walach, H. (2001). Measuring mindfulness in insight meditation (Vipassana) and meditation-based psychotherapy: the development of the Freiburg Mindfulness Inventory (FMI). Journal for Meditation and Meditation Research, 1, 11–34.Google Scholar
- Burg, J., & Michalak, J. (2010). Assessing mindfulness: Is there an alternative to questionnaires? Talk given at the XL European Association for Behavioural and Cognitive Therapies Congress, Milan, Italy.Google Scholar
- Cardaciotto, L. (2005). Assessing mindfulness: The development of a bi-dimensional measure of awareness and acceptance. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Drexel University, Philadelphia.Google Scholar
- Coffey, K. A., & Hartman, M. (2008). Mechanisms of action in the inverse relationship between mindfulness and psychological distress. Complementary Health Practice Review, 13, 79–91.Google Scholar
- Costello, A. B., & Osborne, J. W. (2005). Best practices in exploratory factor analysis: four recommendations for getting the most from your analysis, Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation: A Pear-reviewed Electronic Journal, 10, 1–9. Retrieved from http://pareonline.net/pdf/v10n7.pdf.
- Everitt, B. S. (2002). The Cambridge Dictionary of Statistics, 2nd Edition, CUP.Google Scholar
- Feldman, G. C., Hayes, A. M., Kumar, S. M., Greeson, J. G., & Laurenceau, J. P. (2007). Mindfulness and emotion regulation: the development and initial validation of the cognitive and affective mindfulness scale-revised (CAMS-R). Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 29, 177–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Franke, G. H. (2000). Brief symptom inventory (BSI). Göttingen: Beltz.Google Scholar
- Greco, L. A., Baer, R. A., & Smith, G. T. (2011). Assessing mindfulness in children and adolescents: Development and validation of the child and adolescent mindfulness measure (CAMM). Psychological Assessment, in press: Epub ahead of print retrieved May 10, 2011, doi: 10.1037/a0022819.
- Gunaratana, B. H. (2002). Mindfulness in plain English. Somerville: Wisdom.Google Scholar
- Heidenreich, T., Zarbock, G., Ströhle, G., & Michalak, J. (September, 2011). The German version of the five-facet mindfulness questionnnaire (FFMQ): Psychometric properties and relationship with the Schema Mode Inventory. Talk given at the 41st European Association for Behavioural and Cognitive Therapies Congress, Reykjavík, Iceland.Google Scholar
- Hough, L. M., & Schneider, R. J. (1995). Personality traits, taxonomies, and applications in organizations. In K. R. Murphy (Ed.), Individuals and behavior in organizations (pp. 31–88). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
- John, O. P., & Benet-Martinez, V. (2000). Measurement: reliability, construct validation, and scale construction. In H. T. Reis &C. M. Judd (Eds.), Handbook of research methods in social and personality psychology (pp. 339–369). New York: Cambridge.Google Scholar
- Jolliffe, I. T. (2002). Principal component analysis, Springer series in statistics (2nd ed.). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
- Jöreskog, K. G. (1999). How large can a standardized coefficient be? Lincolnwood, IL: Scientific Software International. Available at www.ssicentral.com.
- Kabat-Zinn, J. (1990). Full catastrophe living: using the wisdom of your body and mind to face stress, pain, and illness. New York: Dell.Google Scholar
- Kabat-Zinn, J. (1994). Wherever you go, there you are: mindfulness meditation in everyday life. New York: Hyperion.Google Scholar
- Kline, R. B. (2005). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. New York: Guilford.Google Scholar
- Linehan, M. M. (1993). Cognitive behavioral therapy of borderline personality disorder. New York: Guilford.Google Scholar
- Marsh, H. W., Hau, K. T., & Grayson, D. (2005). Goodness of fit evaluation in structural equation modeling. In Maydeu-Olivares, A. & McArdle, J. (Eds.), Contemporary Psychometrics: A festschrift to Roderick P. McDonald (pp. 275–340). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.Google Scholar
- Schermelleh-Engel, K., Moosbrugger, H., & Müller, H. (2003). Evaluating the fit of structural equation models: tests of significance and descriptive goodness-of-fit measures. Methods of Psychological Research Online, 8, 23–76.Google Scholar
- Segal, Z. V., Williams, J. M. G., & Teasdale, J. D. (2002). Mindfulness-based cognitive therapy for depression: a new approach to preventing relapse. New York: Guilford.Google Scholar
- Shapiro, S. L., Carlson, L., Astin, J., & Freedman, B. (2006). Mechanisms of mindfulness. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 72, 373–36.Google Scholar
- West, S. G., Finch, J. F., & Curran, P. J. (1995). Structural equation models with nonnormal variables. In R. H. Hoyle (Ed.), Structural equation modeling: concepts, issues, and applications (pp. 57–75). Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar