Advertisement

Mindfulness

, Volume 10, Issue 12, pp 2661–2672 | Cite as

The Psychometric Properties of the Portuguese Version of the State Mindfulness Scale

  • Carla AndradeEmail author
  • Patrícia Arriaga
  • Marina Carvalho
ORIGINAL PAPER
  • 82 Downloads

Abstract

Objectives

This study examined the psychometric properties of the State Mindfulness Scale (SMS) in a sample of the Portuguese population.

Methods

To test the validity and reliability of SMS, a survey was administered to 287 participants (236 women; aged between 18 and 71 years old) with and without previous mindfulness practice. Two weeks after the first assessment, 41 participants were evaluated to test the stability of the SMS.

Results

Consistent with contemporary psychological models of mindfulness, the confirmatory factor analyses supported a hierarchical structure entailing one second-order state mindfulness factor and two first-order factors: one related to body sensations and the other reflecting mental events. The two first-order dimensions of state mindfulness correlated positively with the dimensions of observe, nonreactivity, and describe of the dispositional mindfulness scale. The SMS global scores were independent of emotional suppression and cognitive reappraisal, and of social desirability. The SMS showed acceptable internal and test-retest reliability.

Conclusions

Overall, the Portuguese version of the scale has acceptable psychometric qualities and can be used to measure mindfulness states, regardless of previous mindfulness practice.

Keywords

Mindfulness State Mindfulness Scale Reliability Validity 

Notes

Author Contributions

All authors contributed to the study design and data collection was performed by Carla Andrade. All authors discussed the results and contributed equally to the final manuscript.

Funding Information

The study was funded by the Portuguese Foundation for Science and Technology (FCT) through the Research Center CIS-IUL (Ref. UID/PSI/ 03125/2013).

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical Approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments, and were approved by the Ethical Committee of ISCTE-Instituto Universitário de Lisboa (approval number 04/2017).

Informed Consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

References

  1. Alispahic, S., & Hasanbegovic-Anic, E. (2017). Mindfulness: age and gender differences on a Bosnian sample. Psychological Thought, 10, 155–166.  https://doi.org/10.5964/psyct.v10i1.224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Arch, J., & Craske, M. (2006). Mechanisms of mindfulness: emotion regulation following a focused breathing induction. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 44, 1849–1858.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brat.2005.12.007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Baer, R., Smith, G. T., Hopkins, J., Krietemeyer, J., & Toney, L. (2006). Using self-report assessment methods to explore facets of mindfulness. Assessment, 13, 27–45.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191105283504.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Baer, R., Smith, G., & Allen, K. (2004). Assessment of mindfulness by self-report: The Kentucky inventory of mindfulness skills. Assessment, 11, 191–206.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191104268029.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  5. Baer, R., Smith, G., Lykins, E., Button, D., Krietemeyer, J., Sauer, S., & Walsh, E. (2008). Construct validity of the five facet mindfulness questionnaire in meditating and nonmeditating samples. Assessment, 15, 329–342.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191107313003.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  6. Bishop, S. (2002). What do we really know about mindfulness-based stress reduction? Psychosomatic Medicine, 64, 71–84.  https://doi.org/10.1097/00006842-200201000-00010.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Bishop, S., Lau, M., Shapiro, S., Carlson, L., Anderson, N., Carmody, J., et al. (2004). Mindfulness: a proposed operational definition. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice, 11(3), 230–241.  https://doi.org/10.1093/clipsy.bph077.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bollen, K., & Long, J. S. (Eds.). (1993). Testing structural equation models. Newbury Park: Sage.Google Scholar
  9. Bond, F. W., Hayes, S. C., Baer, R. A., Carpenter, K. M., Guenole, N., Orcutt, H. K., Waltz, T., & Zettle, R. D. (2011). Preliminary psychometric properties of the acceptance and action questionnaire–II: a revised measure of psychological inflexibility and experiential avoidance. Behavior Therapy, 42, 676–688.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.beth.2011.03.007.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  10. Brockman, R., Ciarrochi, J., Parker, P., & Kashdan, T. (2017). Emotion regulation strategies in daily life: mindfulness, cognitive reappraisal and emotion suppression. Cognitive Behaviour Therapy, 46, 91–113.  https://doi.org/10.1080/16506073.2016.1218926.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Brown, K., & Ryan, R. (2003). The benefits of being present: mindfulness and its role in psychological wellbeing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 822–848.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.84.4.822.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Brown, K. W., Ryan, R. M., & Creswell, J. D. (2007). Mindfulness: theoretical foundations and evidence for its salutary effects. Psychological Inquiry, 18, 211–237.  https://doi.org/10.1080/10478400701598298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Burnham, K. P., & Anderson, D. R. (1998). Model selection and multimodel inference: a practical information-theoretic approach (2nd ed.). New York: Springer-Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Byrne, B. M. (2016). Structural equation modelling with AMOS: Basic concepts, applications, and programming (3rd ed.). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  15. 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.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191107311467.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  16. Catak, P. D. (2012). The Turkish version of the cognitive and affective mindfulness scale-revised. Europe's Journal of Psychology, 8(4), 603–619.  https://doi.org/10.5964/ejop.v8i4.436.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Chambers, R., Gullone, E., & Allen, N. B. (2009). Mindful emotion regulation: an integrative review. Clinical Psychology Review, 29(6), 560–572.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2009.06.005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Chiesa, A., & Serreti, A. (2011). Mindfulness based cognitive therapy for psychiatric disorders: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Psychiatry Research, 187(3), 441–453.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychres.2010.08.011.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika, 16, 297–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Crowe, M., Jordan, J., Burrell, B., Jones, V., Gillon, D., & Harris, S. (2015). Mindfulness-based stress reduction for long-term physical conditions: A systematic review. The Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, 1–12.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0004867415607984.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Crowne, D. P., & Marlowe, D. (1960). A new scale of social desirability independent of psychopathology. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 24, 349–354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. De Petrillo, L. A., Kaufman, K. A., Glass, C. R., & Arnkoff, D. B. (2009). Mindfulness for long-distance runners: an open trial using Mindful Sport Performance Enhancement (MSPE). Journal of Clinical Sport Psychology, 3, 357–376.  https://doi.org/10.1123/jcsp.3.4.357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Dickenson, J., Berkman, E. T., Arch, J., & Lieberman, M. D. (2013). Neural correlates of focused attention during a brief mindfulness induction. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 8, 40–47.  https://doi.org/10.1093/scan/nss030.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Epstein, M. (1995). Thoughts without a thinker: psychotherapy from a Buddhist perspective. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  25. Erisman, S. M., & Roemer, L. (2010). A preliminary investigation of the effects of experimentally induced mindfulness on emotional responding to film clips. Emotion, 10, 72–82.  https://doi.org/10.1037/a0017162.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  26. Fan, X., Thompson, B., & Wang, L. (1999). Effects of sample size, estimation method, and model specification on structural equation modeling fit indexes. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6, 56–83.  https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Feldman, G., Hayes, A., 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.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10862-006-9035-8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Feldman, G., Greeson, J., & Senville, J. (2010). Differential effects of mindful breathing, progressive muscle relaxation, and loving-kindness meditation on decentering and negative reactions to repetitive thoughts. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 48, 1002–1011.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brat.2010.06.006.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  29. Gadermann, A. M., Guhn, M., & Zumbo, B. D. (2012). Estimating ordinal reliability for Likert-type and ordinal item response data: a conceptual, empirical, and practical guide. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 17, 1–13.Google Scholar
  30. Galinha, I. C., & Pais-Ribeiro, J. (2005). Contribuição para o estudo da versão portuguesa da positive and negative affect schedule (PANAS): II – Estudo psicométrico [contributions for the study of the Portuguese version of positive and negative affect schedule (PANAS): II - psychometric study]. Análise Psicológica, 23(2), 219–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Garson, G. D. (2015). Structural equation modeling. Asheboro: Statistical Associates Publishers.Google Scholar
  32. George, D., & Mallery, P. (2010). SPSS for windows step by step: a simple guide and reference 17.0 update (10th ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon, Inc..Google Scholar
  33. Gignac, G. E. (2014). On the inappropriateness of using items to calculate total scale score reliability via coefficient alpha for multidimensional scales. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 30, 130–139.  https://doi.org/10.1027/1015-5759/a000181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Govern, J. M., & Marsch, L. A. (2001). Development and validation of the situational self-awareness scale. Consciousness and Cognition, 10, 366–378.  https://doi.org/10.1006/ccog.2001.0506.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Gregório, S., & Pinto-Gouveia, J. (2011). Facetas de mindfulness: Características psicométricas de um instrumento de avaliação [Facets of mindfulness: psychometric characteristics of an assessment instrument]. Psychologica, 54, 259–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Gross, J. J. (1998). The emerging field of emotion regulation: an integrative review. Review of General Psychology, 2, 271–299.  https://doi.org/10.1037/1089-2680.2.3.271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Gross, J. J., & John, O. P. (2003). Individual differences in two emotion regulation processes: Implications for affect, relationships and well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 348–362.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.85.2.348.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. Gross, J. J., & Thompson, R. A. (2007). Emotion regulation: conceptual foundations. In J. J. Gross (Ed.), Handbook of emotion regulation (pp. 3–24). New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  39. Hair, J., Hult, G. T. M., Ringle, C., & Sarstedt, M. (2014). A primer on partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM). Los Angeles: Sage.Google Scholar
  40. Hilton, L., Hempel, S., Ewing, B. A., Apaydin, E., Xenakis, L., Newberry, S., et al. (2016). Mindfulness meditation for chronic pain: systematic review and meta-analysis. Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 51, 199–213.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12160-016-9844-2.CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  41. Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1995). Evaluating model fit. In R. H. Hoyle (Ed.), Structural equation modeling: concepts, issues and application (pp. 77–99). Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  42. Kabat-Zinn, J. (1990). Full catastrophe living: using the wisdom of your mind and body to face stress, pain, and illness. New York: Delacorte.Google Scholar
  43. Kabat-Zinn, J. (2003). Mindfulness-based interventions in context: past, present, and future. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice, 10, 144–156.  https://doi.org/10.1093/clipsy.bpg016.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Lalot, F., Delplanque, S., & Sander, D. (2014). Mindful regulation of positive emotions: a comparison with reappraisal and expressive suppression. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 1–9.  https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Lau, M., Bishop, S., Segal, Z., Buis, T., Anderson, N., Carlson, L., et al. (2006). The Toronto mindfulness scale: development and validation. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 62, 1445–1467.  https://doi.org/10.1002/jclp.20326.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  46. MacCallum, R. C., Browne, M. W., & Sugawara, H. M. (1996). Power analysis and determination of sample size for covariance structure modeling. Psychological Methods, 1, 130–149.  https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.1.2.130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. McDonald, R. P. (1999). Test theory: a unified treatment. Mahwah: L. Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  48. Mueller, R. O. (1996). Basic principles of structural equation modeling: an introduction to LISREL and EQS. New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Murphy, K. R., & Davidshofer, C. O. (1988). Psychological testing: principles and applications. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  50. Neff, K. D. (2003). The development and validation of a scale to measure self-compassion. Self and Identity, 2, 223–250.  https://doi.org/10.1080/15298860390209035.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Park, T., Reilly-Spong, M., & Gross, C. R. (2013). Mindfulness: a systematic review of instruments to measure an emergent patient-reported outcome. Quality of Life Research, 22, 2639–2659.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-013-0395-8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. Peters, G. J. Y. (2014). The alpha and the omega of scale reliability and validity: why and how to abandon Cronbach’s alpha and the route towards more comprehensive assessment of scale quality. European Health Psychologist, 16, 56–69.  https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/h47fv.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Ruimi, L., Hadash, Y., Tanay, G., & Bernstein, A. (2019). State mindfulness scale (SMS). In O. N. Medvedev, C. U. Krägeloh, R. J. Siegert, & N. N. Singh (Eds.), Handbook of assessment in mindfulness. Preprint  https://doi.org/10.31231/osf.io/3x7ck.
  54. Schumacker, R., & Lomax, R. (2004). A beginner’s guide to structural equation modeling. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 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 Press.Google Scholar
  56. Shapiro, S. L., Schwartz, G. E., & Bonner, G. (1998). Effects of mindfulness-based stress reduction on medical and premedical students. Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 21, 581–599.  https://doi.org/10.1023/A:101870082982.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  57. Shoham, A., Goldstein, P., Oren, R., Spivak, D., & Bernstein, A. (2017). Decentering in the process of cultivating mindfulness: an experience-sampling study in time and context. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 85, 23–134.  https://doi.org/10.1037/ccp0000154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Sousa, V. D., & Rojjanasrirat, W. (2010). Translation, adaptation and validation of instruments or scales for use in cross-cultural health care research: a clear and user-friendly guideline. Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice, 17, 268–274.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2753.2010.01434.x.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  59. Tanay, G., & Bernstein, A. (2013). State Mindfulness Scale (SMS): development and initial validation. Psychological Assessment, 25, 1286–1299.  https://doi.org/10.1037/a0034044.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  60. Tanay, G., Lotan, G., & Bernstein, A. (2012). Salutary proximal processes and distal mood and anxiety vulnerability outcomes of mindfulness training: a pilot preventive intervention. Behavior Therapy, 43, 492–505.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.beth.2011.06.003.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  61. Teasdale, J. (1999). Emotional processing, three modes of mind and the prevention of relapse in depression. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 37, 53–77.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0005-7967(99)00050-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Teixeira, R. J., Ferreira, G., & Pereira, M. G. (2017). Portuguese validation of the cognitive and affective mindfulness scale-revised and the Philadelphia Mindfulness Scale. Mindfulness & Compassion, 2, 3–8.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mincom.2017.03.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Tellegen, A., & Atkinson, G. (1974). Openness to absorbing and self-altering experiences (“absorption”), a trait related to hypnotic susceptibility. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 83, 268–277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Trapnell, P. D., & Campbell, J. D. (1999). Private self-consciousness and the five-factor model of personality: distinguishing rumination from reflection. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76, 284–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Valentine, S., Godkin, L., & Varca, P. E. (2010). Role conflict, mindfulness, and organizational ethics in an education-based healthcare institution. Journal of Business Ethics, 94(3), 455–469.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-009-0276-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Walach, H., Buchheld, N., Grossman, P., & Schmidt, S. (2006). Measuring mindfulness: the Freiburg Mindfulness Inventory (FMI). Personality and Individual Differences, 40, 1543–1555.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2005.11.025.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Watson, D., Clark, L., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: the PANAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 1063–1070.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.54.6.1063.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  68. Webb, T. L., Miles, E., & Sheeran, P. (2012). Dealing with feeling: a meta-analysis of the effectiveness of strategies derived from the process model of emotion regulation. Psychological Bulletin, 138, 775–808.  https://doi.org/10.1037/a0027600.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  69. Wheaton, B., Muthen, B., Alwin, D. F., & Summers, G. (1977). Assessing reliability and stability in panel models. Sociological Methodology, 8, 84–136.  https://doi.org/10.2307/270754.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Whittaker, T. A. (2012). Using the modification index and standardized expected parameter change for model modification. The Journal of Experimental Education, 80, 26–44.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00220973.2010.531299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Zuckerman, M. (2015). General and situation-specific trait and states: new approaches to assessment of anxiety and other constructs. In M. Zuckerman & C. D. Spielberger (Eds.), Emotions and anxiety: New concepts, methods, and applications (pp. 133–174). New York: Psychology Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.ISCTE-Instituto Universitário de Lisboa, CIS-IULLisbonPortugal
  2. 2.Instituto Superior Manuel Teixeira Gomes (ISMAT)PortimãoPortugal

Personalised recommendations