Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Exploring the Psychometric Properties of the Five Facet Mindfulness Questionnaire

  • ORIGINAL PAPER
  • Published:
Mindfulness Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

A growing literature supporting the efficacy and effectiveness of mindfulness and its application has developed over the past decade. Reliable and valid measurement of mindfulness is an essential component of this emerging area. Therefore, in this study, a confirmatory factor analysis was used to examine the factor structure of the Five Facet Mindfulness Questionnaire (FFMQ; Baer et al. (Assessment 13:27–45, 2006)) among a mixed sample of meditators and non-meditators. However, unlike the original FFMQ validation study in which item parceling was used, in this study individual items were used as indicators, providing an item-level test of the FFMQ model fit. Overall, the hierarchical FFMQ model using item-level indicators provided a good fit to the data. The reliability and validity of each of the five facets of the FFMQ (Observing, Describing, Acting with Awareness, Nonreactivity, Nonjudging) was also acceptable.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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, 27–45.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Baer, R. A., Smith, G. T., Lykins, E., Button, D., Krietemeyer, J., Sauer, S., Walsh, E., Duggan, D., & Williams, J. M. G. (2008). Construct validity of the Five Facet Mindfulness Questionnaire in meditating and nonmeditating samples. Assessment, 15, 329–342.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Baer, R. A., Samuel, D. B., & Lykins, E. L. (2011). Differential item functioning on the Five Facet Mindfulness Questionnaire is minimal in demographically matched mediators and non-mediators. Assessment, 18, 3–10.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bandalos, D. L., & Finney, S. J. (2001). Item parceling issues in structural equation modeling. In G. A. Marcoulides & R. E. Schumacker (Eds.), New developments and techniques in structural equation modeling (pp. 269–296). Mahwah: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bentler, P. M. (1990). Comparative fit indices in structural models. Psychological Bulletin, 107, 238–246.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Birnbaum, M. H. (2004). Human research and data collection via the Internet. Annual Review of Psychology, 55, 803–832.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bohlmeijer, E., ten Klooster, P. M., Fledderus, M., Veehof, M., & Baer, R. (2011). Psychometric properties of the Five Facet Mindfulness Questionnaire in depressed adults and development of a short form. Assessment, 18, 308–320.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, T. A. (2006). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research. New York: Guilford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, K. W., & Ryan, R. M. (2003). The benefits of being present: mindfulness and its role in psychological well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 822–848.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, K. W., Ryan, R. M., & Creswell, J. W. (2007). Mindfulness: theoretical foundations and evidence for its salutary effects. Psychological Inquiry, 18, 211–237.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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). Beverly Hills: 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 

  • Cash, M., & Whittingham, K. (2010). What facets of mindfulness contribute to psychological wellbeing and depressive, anxious, and stress related symptomatology. Mindfulness, 1, 177–182.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Christopher, M. S., Charoensuk, S., Gilbert, B. D., Neary, T. J., & Pearce, K. L. (2009). Mindfulness in Thailand and the United States: a case of apples versus oranges? Journal of Clinical Psychology, 65, 590–612.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Coffman, D. L., & McCallum, R. C. (2005). Using parcels to convert path analysis models into latent variable models. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 40, 235–259.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dekeyser, M., Leijssen, M., Leysen, S., & Dewulf, D. (2008). Mindfulness skills and interpersonal behavior. Personality and Individual Differences, 44, 1235–1245.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Diener, E., Emmons, R. A., Larsen, R. J., & Griffin, S. (1985). The satisfaction with life scale. Journal of Personality Assessment, 49, 71–75.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Fernandez, A. C., Wood, M. D., Stein, L. A. R., & Rossi, J. S. (2010). Measuring mindfulness and examining its relationship with alcohol use and negative consequences. Psychology of Addictive Behavior, 24, 608–616.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Germer, C. K., Siegel, R. D., & Fulton, P. R. (Eds.). (2005). Mindfulness and psychotherapy. New York: Guilford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gosling, S., Vazire, S., Srivatsava, S., & John, O. P. (2004). Should we trust web-based studies? A comparative analysis of six preconceptions about Internet questionnaires. American Psychologist, 59, 93–104.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Grossman, P. (2008). On measuring mindfulness in psychosomatic and psychological research. Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 64, 405–408.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Grossman, P., & Van Dam, N. (2011). Mindfulness by any other name: Trials and tribulations of Sati in western psychology and science. Contemporary Buddhism, 12, 219–239.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hanh, T. N. (1998). The heart of the Buddha’s teachings: Transforming suffering into peace, joy, and liberation. New York: Broadway.

  • Hayes, A. M., & Feldman, G. C. (2004). Clarifying the construct of mindfulness in the context of emotion regulation and the process of change in therapy. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice, 11, 255–262.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Isenberg, L. (2009). Mindfulness—life with attention and awareness: test–retest reliability of the FFMQ for Dutch fibromyalgia patients. Thesis, University of Twente.

  • Jöreskog, K. G. (2004). Structural equation modeling with ordinal variables using LISREL (2nd ed.). Chicago: Scientific Software.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jöreskog, K. G., & Sörbom, D. (2006). LISREL 8.80. Chicago: Scientific Software.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kabat-Zinn, J. (1990). Full catastrophe living: The program of the Stress Reduction Clinic at the University of Massachusetts Medical Center. New York: Delta.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kabat-Zinn, J. (1994). Wherever you go, there you are: Mindfulness meditation in everyday life. New York: Hyperion.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kabat-Zinn, J. (2003). Mindfulness-based interventions in context: Past, present, and future. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice, 10, 144–156.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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, 1445–1467.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Little, T. D., Cunningham, W. A., Shahar, G., & Widamon, K. F. (2002). To parcel or not to parcel: Exploring the question, weighing the merits. Structural Equation Modeling, 9, 151–173.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marsh, H. W., Balla, J. R., & Hau, K. Y. (1996). An evaluation of incremental fit indices: A clarification of mathematical and empirical properties. In G. A. Marcoulides & R. E. Schumaker (Eds.), Advanced structural equation modeling: Issues and techniques (pp. 315–353). Mahwah: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Psychological Research on the Net (2010). Sponsored by Hanover College Psychology Department, Retrieved April 20, 2010. http://psych.hanover.edu/research/exponnet.html

  • Radloff, L. S. (1977). The CED-D Scale: a self-report depression scale for research in the general population. Applied Psychological Measurement, 1, 385–401.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Salovey, P., Mayer, J. D., Goldman, S. L., Turvey, C., & Palfai, T. F. (1995). Emotional attention, clarity, and repair: Exploring emotional intelligence using the Trait Meta-Mood Scale. In J. W. Pennebaker (Ed.), Emotion, disclosure and health (pp. 125–154). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Satorra, A., & Bentler, P. M. (1994). Corrections to test statistics and standard errors in covariance structure analysis. In A. Von Eye & C. C. Clogg (Eds.), Latent variable analysis: applications for developmental research (pp. 399–419). Thousand Oaks: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Satorra, A., & Bentler, P. M. (2001). A scaled difference chi-square test statistic for moment structure analysis. Psychometrika, 66(4), 507–514.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Dam, N. T., Earleywine, M., & Danoff-Burg, S. (2009). Differential item functioning across meditators and non-meditators on the Five Facet Mindfulness Questionnaire. Personality and Individual Differences, 47, 516–521.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walach, H., Buchheld, N., Buttenmuller, V., Kleinknecht, N., & Schmidt, S. (2006). Measuring mindfulness—the Freiburg Mindfulness Inventory (FMI). Personality and Individual Differences, 40, 1543–1555.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Worthington, R. L., & Whittaker, T. A. (2006). Scale development research: a content analysis and recommendations for best practices. The Counseling Psychologist, 34, 806–838.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Michael S. Christopher.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Christopher, M.S., Neuser, N.J., Michael, P.G. et al. Exploring the Psychometric Properties of the Five Facet Mindfulness Questionnaire. Mindfulness 3, 124–131 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12671-011-0086-x

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12671-011-0086-x

Keywords

Navigation