The Cross-cultural Validity of the Five-Facet Mindfulness Questionnaire Across 16 Countries

Abstract

Objectives

The goal of the current study was to investigate the universality of the five-factor model of mindfulness and the measurement equivalence of the Five-Facet Mindfulness Questionnaire (FFMQ).

Methods

The study used FFMQ data from published and unpublished research conducted in 16 countries (total N = 8541). Using CFA, different models, proposed in the literature, were fitted. To test the cross-cultural equivalence of the best fitting model, a multi-group confirmatory factor analysis was used. Further, the equivalence of individual facets of the FFMQ and potential sources of non-equivalence was explored.

Results

The best fitting models in most samples were a five-facet model with a higher-order mindfulness factor and uncorrelated positive and negative item-wording factors and a five-facet model with a correlated facets and uncorrelated positive and negative item-wording factors. These models showed structural equivalence, but did not show metric equivalence (equivalent factor loadings) across cultures. Given this lack of equivalent factor loadings, not even correlations or mean patterns can be compared across cultures. A similar pattern was observed when testing the equivalence of the individual facets; all individual facets failed even tests of metric equivalence. A sample size weighted exploratory factor analysis across cultures indicated that a six-factor solution might provide the best fit across cultures with acting with awareness split into two factors. Finally, both the five- and six-factor solution showed substantially better fit in more individualistic and less tight cultures.

Conclusions

Overall, the FFMQ has conceptual and measurement problems in a cross-cultural context, raising questions about the validity of the current conceptualization of mindfulness across cultures. The results showed that the fit of the FFMQ was substantially better in individualistic cultures that indicate that further data from non-Western cultures is needed to develop a universal conceptualization and measurement of mindfulness.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1

Data Availability

All raw data, the analytic code, and all materials associated with the study are available on the Open Science Framework (https://osf.io/nftxb/).

References

  1. Aguado, J., Luciano, J. V., Cebolla, A., Serrano-Blanco, A., Soler, J., & García-Campayo, J. (2015). Bifactor analysis and construct validity of the five facet mindfulness questionnaire (FFMQ) in non-clinical Spanish samples. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 404. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00404.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. Astani, A.-I. (2016). Mindfulness and unconditional self-acceptance as protective factors against thin ideal internalization. Annals of A.I. I. Cuza University. Psychology Series, 25(1), 37–46.

    Google 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. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191105283504.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Baer, R. A., Samuel, D. B., & Lykins, E. L. B. (2011). Differential item functioning on the five facet mindfulness questionnaire is minimal in demographically matched meditators and nonmeditators. Assessment, 18(1), 3–10. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191110392498.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Bellah, R. N., Madsen, R., Sullivan, W. M., Swidler, A., & Tipton, S. M. (1985). Habits of the heart: individualism and commitment in American life. Berkeley: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Bentler, P. M. (1990). Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychological Bulletin, 107(2), 238–246. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.107.2.238.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Berchtold, A. (2019). Sequence analysis and transition models. In Encyclopedia of Animal Behavior (2nd ed., pp. 506–517). Elsevier: Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-809633-8.01241-3.

  8. Berry, J. W. (1989). Imposed etics-emics-derived etics: the operationalization of a compelling idea. International Journal of Psychology, 24(2–6), 721–735. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207598908247841.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Beshara, M., Hutchinson, A. D., & Wilson, C. (2013). Does mindfulness matter? Everyday mindfulness, mindful eating and self-reported serving size of energy dense foods among a sample of South Australian adults. Appetite, 67, 25–29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2013.03.012.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Cheung, G. W., & Rensvold, R. B. (2002). Evaluating goodness-of-fit indexes for testing measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 9(2), 233–255. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15328007SEM0902_5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Chung, P.-K., Zhang, C.-Q., & Zhang, C.-Q. (2014). Psychometric validation of the Toronto mindfulness scale – trait version in Chinese college students. Europe’s Journal of Psychology, 10(4), 726–739. https://doi.org/10.5964/ejop.v10i4.776.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Dinno, A. (2018). Paran: Horn’s test of principal components/factors. Retrieved 18 February, 2020, from https://cran.r-project.org/package=paran.

  13. Druica, E., & Ianole-Calin, R. (2018). Simply clustering. Making new sense in the five facets mindfulness questionnaire. Romanian Statistical Review, 66(1), 61–81.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Dundas, I., Vøllestad, J., Binder, P.-E., & Sivertsen, B. (2013). The five factor mindfulness questionnaire in Norway. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 54(3), 250–260. https://doi.org/10.1111/sjop.12044.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Fan, X., & Sivo, S. A. (2007). Sensitivity of fit indices to model misspecification and model types. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 42(3), 509–529. https://doi.org/10.1080/00273170701382864.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Farh, J.-L., Cannella, A. A., & Lee, C. (2006). Approaches to scale development in Chinese management research. Management and Organization Review, 2(3), 301–318. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1740-8784.2006.00055.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Fischer, R., & Fontaine, J. R. J. (2010). Methods for investigating structural equivalence. In D. Matsumoto & F. J. R. E. van de Vijver (Eds.), Cross-cultural research methods in psychology (pp. 179–215). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511779381.010.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Fischer, R., & Karl, J. A. (2019). A primer to (cross-cultural) multi-group invariance testing possibilities in R. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 1507. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01507.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. Fontaine, J. (2005). Equivalence. In K. Kempf-Leonard (Ed.), Encyclopedia of social measurement (Vol. 1, pp. 803–813).

    Google Scholar 

  20. Gelfand, M. J., Raver, J. L., Nishii, L., Leslie, L. M., Lun, J., Lim, B. C., Duan, L., Almaliach, A., Ang, S., Arnadottir, J., Aycan, Z., Boehnke, K., Boski, P., Cabecinhas, R., Chan, D., Chhokar, J., D’Amato, A., Ferrer, M., Fischlmayr, I. C., et al. (2011). Differences between tight and loose cultures: A 33-nation study. Science, 332(6033), 1100–1104. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1197754.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Gračanin, A., Gunjača, V., Tkalčić, M., Kardum, I., Bajšanski, I., & Perak, B. (2017). Struktura usredotočene svjesnosti i njezina povezanost s crtama ličnosti i emocionalnim reagiranjem. Psihologijske Teme, 26(3), 675–700. https://doi.org/10.31820/pt.26.3.9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Gray, J. A. (2004). Consciousness: creeping up on the hard problem. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Grossman, P. (2011). Defining mindfulness by how poorly I think I pay attention during everyday awareness and other intractable problems for psychology’s (re)invention of mindfulness: comment on Brown et al. (2011). Psychological Assessment, 23(4), 1034–1040. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0022713.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Heine, S. J., Lehman, D. R., Peng, K., & Greenholtz, J. (2002). What’s wrong with cross-cultural comparisons of subjective Likert scales?: the reference-group effect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82(6), 903–918. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.82.6.903.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture’s consequences: comparing values, behaviors, institutions, and organizations across nations (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Horn, J. L. (1965). A rationale and test for the number of factors in factor analysis. Psychometrika, 30(2), 179–185. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02289447.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118

  28. Hwang, K. (1987). Face and favor: the Chinese power game. American Journal of Sociology, 92(4), 944–974. https://doi.org/10.1086/228588.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Kabat-Zinn, J. (1994). Wherever you go, there you are: mindfulness meditation in everyday life. Hyperion. New York, U.S.A

  30. Karl, J. A., & Fischer, R. (2019). Individual difference predictors of mindfulness. PsyArXiv. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/z2cx6.

  31. Kucinskas, J. (2014). The unobtrusive tactics of religious movements. Sociology of Religion, 75(4), 537–550. https://doi.org/10.1093/socrel/sru055.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Kucinskas, J. (2018). The mindful elite: mobilizing from the inside out. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  33. Lilja, J. L., Frodi-Lundgren, A., Hanse, J. J., Josefsson, T., Lundh, L.-G., Sköld, C., Hansen, E., & Broberg, A. G. (2011). Five facets mindfulness questionnaire—reliability and factor structure: a Swedish version. Cognitive Behaviour Therapy, 40(4), 291–303. https://doi.org/10.1080/16506073.2011.580367.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Ma, Y., She, Z., Siu, A. F.-Y., Zeng, X., & Liu, X. (2018). Effectiveness of online mindfulness-based interventions on psychological distress and the mediating role of emotion regulation. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 2090. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.02090.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  35. MacCallum, R. C., Browne, M. W., & Sugawara, H. M. (1996). Power analysis and determination of sample size for covariance structure modeling. Psychological Methods, 1(2), 130–149. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.1.2.130.

  36. Mandal, S. P., Arya, Y. K., & Pandey, R. (2016). Validation of the factor structure of the five facet mindfulness questionnaire. Indian Journal of Health & Wellbeing, 7(1), 61–66.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Marsh, H. W., Hau, K.-T., & Wen, Z. (2004). In search of golden rules: Comment on hypothesis-testing approaches to setting cutoff values for fit indexes and dangers in overgeneralizing Hu and Bentler’s (1999) findings. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 11(3), 320–341. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15328007sem1103_2.

  38. Merkle, E., & You, D. (2018). nonnest2: tests of non-nested models. Retrieved 18 February, 2020, from https://cran.r-project.org/package=nonnest2.

  39. Michaelides, M. P., Koutsogiorgi, C., & Panayiotou, G. (2016). Method effects on an adaptation of the Rosenberg self-esteem scale in Greek and the role of personality traits. Journal of Personality Assessment, 98(2), 178–188. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2015.1089248.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Michalak, J., Zarbock, G., Drews, M., Otto, D., Mertens, D., Ströhle, G., Schwinger, M., Dahme, B., & Heidenreich, T. (2016). Erfassung von achtsamkeit mit der deutschen version des five facet mindfulness questionnaires (FFMQ-D). Zeitschrift Für Gesundheitspsychologie, 24(1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1026/0943-8149/a000149.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Milfont, T. L., & Fischer, R. (2010). Testing measurement invariance across groups: applications in cross. International Journal of Psychological Research, 3(1), 111–121. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-007-9143-x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Minkov, M., Dutt, P., Schachner, M., Morales, O., Sanchez, C., Jandosova, J., Khassenbekov, Y., & Mudd, B. (2017). A revision of Hofstede’s individualism-collectivism dimension: a new national index from a 56-country study. Cross Cultural & Strategic Management, 24(3), 386–404. https://doi.org/10.1108/CCSM-11-2016-0197.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Minkov, M., Bond, M. H., Dutt, P., Schachner, M., Morales, O., Sanchez, C., Jandosova, J., Khassenbekov, Y., & Mudd, B. (2018). A reconsideration of Hofstede’s fifth dimension: new flexibility versus monumentalism data from 54 countries. Cross-Cultural Research, 52(3), 309–333. https://doi.org/10.1177/1069397117727488.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Purser, R. E., & Milillo, J. (2015). Mindfulness revisited. Journal of Management Inquiry, 24(1), 3–24. https://doi.org/10.1177/1056492614532315.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. R Core Team. (2018). R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. Retrived 18 February, 2020, https://www.r-project.org/

  46. Radoń, S. (2014). Validation of the Polish adaptation of the five facet mindfulness questionnaire. Roczniki Psychologiczne/Annals of Psychology, 17(4), 737–760.

    Google Scholar 

  47. Raftery, A. E. (1995). Bayesian model selection in social research. Sociological Methodology, 25, 111. https://doi.org/10.2307/271063.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Ramos, A., Rosado, A., Serpa, S., Cangas, A., Gallego, J., & Ramos, L. (2018). Validity evidence of the portuguese version of the five facet mindfulness questionnaire. Revista de Psicología Del Deporte/Journal of Sport Psychology, 27(2), 87–98.

    Google Scholar 

  49. Rasch, G. (1980). Probabilistic models for some intelligence and attainment tests. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  50. Rosseel, Y. (2012). {lavaan}: an {R} package for structural equation modeling. Journal of Statistical Software, 48(2), 1–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Schmidt, C., & Vinet, E. V. (2015). Atención plena: validación del five facet mindfulness questionnaire (FFMQ) en estudiantes universitarios chilenos. Terapia Psicológica, 33(2), 93–102. https://doi.org/10.4067/S0718-48082015000200004.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Schmidt, C., Reyes, G., Barrientos, M., Langer, Á. I., & Sackur, J. (2019). Meditation focused on self-observation of the body impairs metacognitive efficiency. Consciousness and Cognition, 70, 116–125. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.CONCOG.2019.03.001.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Schwarz, G. (1978). Estimating the dimension of a model. The Annals of Statistics, 6(2), 461–464. https://doi.org/10.1214/aos/1176344136.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Solem, S., Thunes, S. S., Hjemdal, O., Hagen, R., & Wells, A. (2015). A metacognitive perspective on mindfulness: an empirical investigation. BMC Psychology, 3(1), 24. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40359-015-0081-4.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  55. Steiger, J. H. (2016). Notes on the Steiger–Lind (1980) handout. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 23(6), 777–781. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705511.2016.1217487.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Thompson, E. R. (2007). Development and validation of an internationally reliable short-form of the positive negative affect schedule (PANAS). Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 38, 227–242. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022106297301.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Tran, U. S., Glück, T. M., & Nader, I. W. (2013). Investigating the five facet mindfulness questionnaire (FFMQ): construction of a short form and evidence of a two-factor higher order structure of mindfulness. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 69(9), 951–965. https://doi.org/10.1002/jclp.21996.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Triandis, H. C. (1995). Individualism and collectivism. Boulder: Westview Press.

    Google Scholar 

  59. Tucker, L. (1951). A method for synthesis of factor analysis studies. Washington, DC: Department of the Army.

  60. Uz, I. (2015). The index of cultural tightness and looseness among 68 countries. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 46(3), 319–335. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022114563611.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Van Dam, N. T., Earleywine, M., & Danoff-Burg, S. (2009). Differential item function across meditators and non-meditators on the Five Facet Mindfulness Questionnaire. Personality and Individual Differences, 47(5), 516–521. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.PAID.2009.05.005.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. Van Dam, N. T., Hobkirk, A. L., Danoff-Burg, S., & Earleywine, M. (2012). Mind your words: positive and negative items create method effects on the five facet mindfulness questionnaire. Assessment, 19(2), 198–204. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191112438743.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  63. Van De Vijver, F. J. R., & Leung, K. (2011). Equivalence and bias: a review of concepts, models, and data analytic procedures. In D. Matsumoto & F. J. R. van de Vijver (Eds.), Cross-cultural research methods in psychology (pp. 17–45). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511779381.003.

    Google Scholar 

  64. Verhaeghen, P. (2018). The mindfulness manifold: exploring how self-preoccupation, self-compassion, and self-transcendence translate mindfulness into positive psychological outcomes. Mindfulness, 10(1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12671-018-0959-3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. Verhaeghen, P. (2019). The examined life is wise living: the relationship between mindfulness, wisdom, and the moral foundations. Journal of Adult Development. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10804-019-09343-y.

  66. Verhaeghen, P., & Aikman, S. N. (2020). How the mindfulness manifold relates to the five moral foundations, prejudice, and awareness of privilege. Mindfulness, 11 241–254. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12671-019-01243-2.

  67. Vuong, Q. H. (1989). Likelihood ratio tests for model selection and non-nested hypotheses. Econometrica, 57(2), 307–333. https://doi.org/10.2307/1912557.

  68. Wilson, J. (2014). Mindful America: the mutual transformation of Buddhist meditation and American culture. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  69. Wong, S. Y., Zhang, D., Li, C. C., Yip, B. H., Chan, D. C., Ling, Y., Lo, C. S., Woo, D. M., Sun, Y., Ma, H., Mak, W. W., Gao, T., Lee, T. M., & Wing, Y. (2017). Comparing the effects of mindfulness-based cognitive therapy and sleep psycho-education with exercise on chronic insomnia: a randomised controlled trial. Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics, 86(4), 241–253. https://doi.org/10.1159/000470847.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

J.V.L has a Miguel Servet Type II contract awarded by the Institute of Health Carlos III (CPII19/00003).

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

JK: designed and executed the study, analyzed the data, and wrote the paper. RF: collaborated with the design, analysis of the data, and writing of the study. All authors collected and contributed data, provided feedback on the paper, and approved the final version of the manuscript for submission.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Johannes A. Karl.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical Statement

The analysis was based on previously published data.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic supplementary material

ESM 1

(DOCX 125 kb).

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Karl, J.A., Prado, S.M.M., Gračanin, A. et al. The Cross-cultural Validity of the Five-Facet Mindfulness Questionnaire Across 16 Countries. Mindfulness 11, 1226–1237 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12671-020-01333-6

Download citation

Keywords

  • Mindfulness
  • FFMQ
  • Culture