Top

Gepubliceerd in:

01-03-2013 | ORIGINAL PAPER

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

Auteurs: Florian Belzer, Stefan Schmidt, Gabriele Lucius-Hoene, Johann F. Schneider, Claudia L. Orellana-Rios, Sebastian Sauer

Gepubliceerd in: Mindfulness | Uitgave 1/2013

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.

vorige artikel Measuring Mindfulness: First Steps Towards the Development of a Comprehensive Mindfulness Scale

volgende artikel Specific Objectivity of Mindfulness—A Rasch Analysis of the Freiburg Mindfulness Inventory

Baer, R. A. (2007). Mindfulness, assessment, and transdiagnostic processes. Psychological Inquiry, 18(4), 238–242.CrossRef

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.PubMedCrossRef

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.PubMedCrossRef

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.

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.CrossRef

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.PubMedCrossRef

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.CrossRef

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.PubMedCrossRef

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.PubMedCrossRef

Chi, M. T. H. (1997). Quantifying qualitative analyses of verbal data: a practical guide. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 6(3), 271–315.CrossRef

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.

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.PubMedCrossRef

Denzin, N. K. (1978). The research act. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Ericsson, K. A., & Simon, H. A. (1993). Protocol analysis: verbal reports as data (Revth ed.). Cambridge: Bradford books/MIT Press.

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.

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.CrossRef

Flick, U. (1992). Triangulation revisited: strategy of validation or alternative? Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 22(2), 175–197.CrossRef

Greve, W., Wentura, D., Gräser, H., & Schmitz, U. (1997). Wissenschaftliche Beobachtung: Eine Einführung (2nd ed.). Weinheim: Beltz.

Grossman, P. (2008). On measuring mindfulness in psychosomatic and psychological research. Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 64(4), 405–408.PubMedCrossRef

Güthlin, C. (2004). Response shift: Alte Probleme der Veränderungsmessung, neu angewendet auf gesundheitsbezogene Lebensqualität. Zeitschrift für Medizinische Psychologie, 13, 165–174.

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.PubMedCrossRef

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.

Huber, G. L., & Mandl, H. (Eds.). (1982). Verbale Daten: Eine Einführung in die Grundlagen und Methoden der Erhebung und Auswertung. Weinheim: Beltz.

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.

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.PubMedCrossRef

Leigh, J., Bowen, S., & Marlatt, G. A. (2005). Spirituality, mindfulness and substance abuse. Addictive Behaviors, 30(7), 1335–1341.PubMedCrossRef

Marcel, A. J. (2003). Introspective report: trust, self-knowledge and science. Journal of Consciousness Studies, 10(167), 186.

Mayring, P. (1983). Qualitative Inhaltsanalyse: Grundlagen und Techniken. Beltz: Weinheim.

Mayring, P. (2002). Einführung in die qualitative Sozialforschung: Eine Anleitung zu qualitativem Denken. Weinheim: Beltz Studium.

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.CrossRef

Prüfer, P., & Rexroth, M. (2005). Kognitive Interviews. Mannheim: ZUMA How-to-Reihe Nr. 15.

Reavley, N., & Pallant, J. F. (2009). Development of a scale to assess the meditation experience. Personality and Individual Differences, 47, 547–552.CrossRef

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.PubMedCrossRef

Schneider, J. F., & Reichl, C. (2006). Exploring ease in thinking aloud. Psychological Reports, 98(1), 85–90.PubMedCrossRef

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.

Solloway, S. G., & Fisher, W. P. (2007). Mindfulness practice: a Rasch variable construct innovation. Journal of Applied Measurement, 8(4), 359–372.PubMed

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.

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.

Turner, C. B., & Fiske, D. W. (1968). Item quality and appropriateness of response processes. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 28(2), 297–315.CrossRef

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.CrossRef

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.PubMedCrossRef

Willis, G. B. (2005). Cognitive interviewing: a tool for improving questionnaire design. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Wirtz, M., & Caspar, F. (2002). Beurteilerübereinstimmung und Beurteilerreliabilität: Methoden zur Bestimmung und Verbesserung der Zuverlässigkeit von Einschätzungen mittels Kategoriensystemen und Ratingskalen. Göttingen: Hogrefe.

Titel: Challenging the Construct Validity of Mindfulness Assessment—a Cognitive Interview Study of the Freiburg Mindfulness Inventory
Auteurs: Florian Belzer
Stefan Schmidt
Gabriele Lucius-Hoene
Johann F. Schneider
Claudia L. Orellana-Rios
Sebastian Sauer
Publicatiedatum: 01-03-2013
Uitgeverij: Springer US
Gepubliceerd in: Mindfulness / Uitgave 1/2013
Print ISSN: 1868-8527
Elektronisch ISSN: 1868-8535
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12671-012-0165-7

Bohn Stafleu van Loghum

Deel dit onderdeel of sectie (kopieer de link)

Abstract

Log in om toegang te krijgen

Andere artikelen Uitgave 1/2013

Specific Objectivity of Mindfulness—A Rasch Analysis of the Freiburg Mindfulness Inventory

Meditation-Induced Changes in Perception: An Interview Study with Expert Meditators (Sotapannas) in Burma

Measuring Mindfulness: First Steps Towards the Development of a Comprehensive Mindfulness Scale

Why Is It So Hard to Pay Attention, or Is It? Mindfulness, the Factors of Awakening and Reward-Based Learning

Assessment of Mindfulness: Review on State of the Art

Being Seen