Mindfulness

, Volume 4, Issue 1, pp 33–44 | Cite as

Challenging the Construct Validity of Mindfulness Assessment—a Cognitive Interview Study of the Freiburg Mindfulness Inventory

  • Florian Belzer
  • Stefan Schmidt
  • Gabriele Lucius-Hoene
  • Johann F. Schneider
  • Claudia L. Orellana-Rios
  • Sebastian Sauer
ORIGINAL PAPER

Abstract

The Freiburg Mindfulness Inventory (FMI) is a widely used questionnaire of self-reported mindfulness. However, doubts have been expressed as to whether an adequate comprehension of the items of the FMI is independent of one's mindfulness experience (ME). The aim of the present study was to determine with qualitative methods whether and how ME influences the response to the FMI items. Two groups, matched for gender, education, and age (N = 11 each), with and without mindfulness training, completed the FMI while at the same time applying the technique of thinking aloud. The protocols of the two samples were compared using three different strategies: (1) predefined criteria on the comprehension of each item developed by FMI experts, (2) a coding scheme developed to identify differences in specific cognitive processes, and (3) qualitative analysis of comprehension patterns. The results showed that (1) participants with ME fulfilled the item criteria for comprehension much more than participants without ME. (2) The coding scheme demonstrated greater comprehension difficulties in the sample without ME. Differences in judgment processes between groups could not be found. (3) Qualitative analysis revealed comprehension problem patterns especially for eight items for the comparison group. It is concluded that a modification of the wording of several FMI items is necessary and that there is insufficient construct validity to use the current FMI in mindfulness-naïve samples. This may also be true for other scales tapping into the assessment of the awareness component of mindfulness, and it is recommended to also check their construct validity.

Keywords

Freiburg Mindfulness Inventory (FMI) Construct validity Think-aloud technique Mindfulness assessment Qualitative analysis Mixed methods 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank our participants who have given their time to take part in this study. We would like to thank Alf Martin and Andreas Schmidt for helping with the rating, Harald Walach for providing expert criteria. In addition, we like to thank Kathrin Simshaeuser, Christine Kalweit and Attila Goeroeg for proofreading the manuscript.

References

  1. Baer, R. A. (2007). Mindfulness, assessment, and transdiagnostic processes. Psychological Inquiry, 18(4), 238–242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Baer, R. A., Smith, G. T., & Allen, K. B. (2004). Assessment of mindfulness by self-report: the Kentucky Inventory of Mindfulness Skills. Assessment, 11, 191–206.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Baer, R. A., Smith, G. T., Hopkins, J., Krietemeyer, J., & Toney, L. (2006). Using self-report assessment methods to explore facets of mindfulness. Assessment, 13(1), 27–45.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bickart, B., & Felcher, E. M. (1996). Expanding and enhancing the use of verbal protocols in survey research. In N. Schwarz & S. Sudman (Eds.), Answering questions: methodology for determining cognitive and communicative processes in survey research (pp. 115–142). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  5. Bishop, S. R., Lau, M., Shapiro, S., Carlson, L., Anderson, N. D., Carmody, J., et al. (2004). Mindfulness: a proposed operational definition. Clinical Psychology Science and Practice, 11, 230–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brown, K. W., & Ryan, R. M. (2003). The benefit of being present: mindfulness and its role in psychological well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 822–848.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Brown, G., Hawkes, N. C., & Tata, P. (2009). Construct validity and vulnerability to anxiety: a cognitive interviewing study of the revised Anxiety Sensitivity Index. Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 7(23), 942–949.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cardaciotto, L., Herbert, J. D., Forman, E. M., Moitra, E., & Farrow, V. (2008). The assessment of present-moment awareness and acceptance: the Philadelphia Mindfulness Scale. Assessment, 15(2), 204–223.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Chadwick, P., Hember, M., Symes, J., Peters, E., Kuipers, E., & Dagnan, D. (2008). Responding mindfully to unpleasant thoughts and images: reliability and validity of the Southampton Mindfulness Questionnaire (SMQ). British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 47, 451–455.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Chi, M. T. H. (1997). Quantifying qualitative analyses of verbal data: a practical guide. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 6(3), 271–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Converse, P. E. (1970). Attitudes and non-attitudes: continuation of a dialogue. In E. Tufte (Ed.), The quantitative analysis of social problems (pp. 168–189). Reading: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  12. Creswell, D., Way, B. M., Eisenberger, N. I., & Lieberman, M. D. (2007). Neural correlates of dispositional mindfulness during affect labeling. Psychosomatic Medicine, 69, 560–565.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Denzin, N. K. (1978). The research act. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  14. Ericsson, K. A., & Simon, H. A. (1993). Protocol analysis: verbal reports as data (Revth ed.). Cambridge: Bradford books/MIT Press.Google Scholar
  15. Fattah, S. (2009). Kommunikative Konstruktion von Achtsamkeit in Erzählinterviews: Qualitative Studie mit Teilnehmern eines MBSR-Kurses. Unpublished thesis, Institute of Psychology, Albert-Ludwigs-University Freiburg, Germany.Google Scholar
  16. Feldman, G. C., Hayes, A. M., Kumar, S., Greeson, J., & 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
  17. Flick, U. (1992). Triangulation revisited: strategy of validation or alternative? Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 22(2), 175–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Greve, W., Wentura, D., Gräser, H., & Schmitz, U. (1997). Wissenschaftliche Beobachtung: Eine Einführung (2nd ed.). Weinheim: Beltz.Google Scholar
  19. Grossman, P. (2008). On measuring mindfulness in psychosomatic and psychological research. Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 64(4), 405–408.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Güthlin, C. (2004). Response shift: Alte Probleme der Veränderungsmessung, neu angewendet auf gesundheitsbezogene Lebensqualität. Zeitschrift für Medizinische Psychologie, 13, 165–174.Google Scholar
  21. Haigh, E. A. P., Moore, M. T., Kashdan, T. B., & Fresco, D. M. (2011). Examination of the factor structure and concurrent validity of the Langer mindfulness/mindlessness scale. Assessment, 18, 11–26.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hak, T., van der Veer, K., & Jansen, H. (2008). The Three-Step Test Interview (TSTI): an observation based method for pretesting self-completion questionnaires. Survey Research Methods, 2(3), 143–150.Google Scholar
  23. Huber, G. L., & Mandl, H. (Eds.). (1982). Verbale Daten: Eine Einführung in die Grundlagen und Methoden der Erhebung und Auswertung. Weinheim: Beltz.Google Scholar
  24. Kuckartz, U. (2006). Quick and dirty? Qualitative Methoden in der drittmittelfinanzierten Evaluation in der Umweltforschung. In U. Flick (Ed.), Qualitative Evaluationsforschung. Konzepte, Methoden, Umsetzungen (pp. 267–283). Reinbeck: Rowohlt.Google Scholar
  25. Lau, M. A., Bishop, S. R., Segal, Z. V., Buis, T., Anderson, N. D., Carlson, L., et al. (2006). The Toronto Mindfulness Scale: development and validation. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 62(12), 1445–1467.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Leigh, J., Bowen, S., & Marlatt, G. A. (2005). Spirituality, mindfulness and substance abuse. Addictive Behaviors, 30(7), 1335–1341.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Marcel, A. J. (2003). Introspective report: trust, self-knowledge and science. Journal of Consciousness Studies, 10(167), 186.Google Scholar
  28. Mayring, P. (1983). Qualitative Inhaltsanalyse: Grundlagen und Techniken. Beltz: Weinheim.Google Scholar
  29. Mayring, P. (2002). Einführung in die qualitative Sozialforschung: Eine Anleitung zu qualitativem Denken. Weinheim: Beltz Studium.Google Scholar
  30. Presser, S., Couper, M. P., Lessler, J. T., Martin, E., Martin, J., Rothgeb, J. M., et al. (2004). Methods for testing and evaluating survey questions. Public Opinion Quarterly, 68(1), 109–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Prüfer, P., & Rexroth, M. (2005). Kognitive Interviews. Mannheim: ZUMA How-to-Reihe Nr. 15.Google Scholar
  32. Reavley, N., & Pallant, J. F. (2009). Development of a scale to assess the meditation experience. Personality and Individual Differences, 47, 547–552.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Sauer, S., Walach, H., Schmidt, S., Hinterberger, T., Horan, M., & Kohls, N. (2011). Implicit and explicit emotional behavior and mindfulness. Consciousness and Cognition, 20, 1558–1569.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Schneider, J. F., & Reichl, C. (2006). Exploring ease in thinking aloud. Psychological Reports, 98(1), 85–90.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Schuman, H., & Presser, S. (1981). Questions and answers in attitude surveys: experiments on question form, wording, and context. quantitative studies in social relations. New York: Academic.Google Scholar
  36. Solloway, S. G., & Fisher, W. P. (2007). Mindfulness practice: a Rasch variable construct innovation. Journal of Applied Measurement, 8(4), 359–372.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Sudman, S., & Bradburn, N. M. (1982). Asking questions: a practical guide to questionnaire design (1 ed). The Jossey-Bass series in social and behavioral science series. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  38. Tourangeau, R. (1984). Cognitive sciences and survey methods. In T. Jabine, M. Straf, J. Tanur, & R. Tourangeau (Eds.), Cognitive aspects of survey methodology: building a bridge between disciplines (pp. 73–100). Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  39. Turner, C. B., & Fiske, D. W. (1968). Item quality and appropriateness of response processes. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 28(2), 297–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Walach, H., Buchheld, N., Buttenmüller, V., Kleinknecht, N., & Schmidt, S. (2006). Measuring mindfulness—the Freiburg Mindfulness Inventory (FMI). Personality and Individual Differences, 40, 1543–1555.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Way, B. M., Creswell, J. D., Eisenberger, N. I., & Lieberman, M. D. (2010). Dispositional mindfulness and depressive symptomatology: correlations with limbic and self-referential neural activity during rest. Emotion, 10, 12–24.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Willis, G. B. (2005). Cognitive interviewing: a tool for improving questionnaire design. Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  43. Wirtz, M., & Caspar, F. (2002). Beurteilerübereinstimmung und Beurteilerreliabilität: Methoden zur Bestimmung und Verbesserung der Zuverlässigkeit von Einschätzungen mittels Kategoriensystemen und Ratingskalen. Göttingen: Hogrefe.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Florian Belzer
    • 1
  • Stefan Schmidt
    • 1
  • Gabriele Lucius-Hoene
    • 2
  • Johann F. Schneider
    • 3
  • Claudia L. Orellana-Rios
    • 1
  • Sebastian Sauer
    • 4
  1. 1.Center for Meditation, Mindfulness and Neuroscience ResearchUniversity Medical Center FreiburgFreiburgGermany
  2. 2.Institute of PsychologyUniversity of FreiburgFreiburgGermany
  3. 3.Institute of PsychologyUniversity of SaarlandSaarbrückenGermany
  4. 4.Generation Research Program, Human Science CenterLudwig-Maximilians-UniversityMunichGermany

Personalised recommendations