Top

07-01-2025 | ORIGINAL PAPER

Confirmation and Validation of a Chinese version of the Equanimity Scale

Auteurs: Qianguo Xiao, Yingjie Xu, Xiaomei Hu

Gepubliceerd in: Mindfulness

Abstract

Objectives

Equanimity is widely recognized as a fundamental component of change within mindfulness practice. The Equanimity Scale-16 (ES-16), which consists of two subscales—Experiential Acceptance and Non-reactivity—was designed to measure equanimity. However, the cross-cultural applicability of this scale has not yet been evaluated. The present study assessed the psychometric properties of the Equanimity Scale in the context of Eastern collectivist culture.

Method

A total of 569 college students (371 females and 198 males) were recruited through two online data platforms. They completed the Equanimity Scale (ES-16) alongside several measures, including the Five Facet Mindfulness Questionnaire (FFMQ), the Nonattachment Scale, the Spiritual Index of Well-Being Scale, the Self-Rating Anxiety Scale (SAS), and the Beck Depression Inventory-II. The exploratory factor analysis and confirmatory factor analysis were conducted to examine the factorial validity of the ES-16, focusing on one-factor, two-factor, and bifactor models. Meanwhile, the reliability, convergent validity, and incremental validity were examined through correlation analyses and hierarchical regression analyses.

Results

Six items (1, 4, 7, 9, 10, and 11) in the original scale with 16 items were removed for lower communalities (< 0.30), lower cross-load difference (< 0.15), or the smaller number of factor items (< 2) in the Chinese context. The remaining 10 items did not support the two-factor model; instead, they indicated support for the bifactor model, which provided the best fit. The Equanimity Scale-10 (ES-10) demonstrated good convergent validity, discriminant validity, construct reliability, and predictive validity within the Chinese cultural context. However, it explained for only 41.89% of the total variance.

Conclusions

The ES-10 is a valid and reliable self-report measure for assessing equanimity within a bifactor model in the Chinese context. However, the variance explained for ES-16 and ES-10 is relatively low, with none exceeding 50%. Additionally, there are significant conceptual differences between these measures and the non-reactivity factor of the FFMQ. Consequently, it is recommended to develop an assessment tool with improved content validity and structural validity to better capture the construct of equanimity.

Alleen toegankelijk voor geautoriseerde gebruikers

Anālayo, B. (2017). What about neutral feelings? Insight Journal, 43, 1–10.

Anālayo, B. (2021). Relating equanimity to mindfulness. Mindfulness, 12(11), 2635–2644. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12671-021-01671-zCrossRef

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/10.1177/1073191105283504CrossRefPubMed

Beck, A. T., Steer, R. A., & Brown, G. K. (1996). Beck Depression Inventory manual (2nd ed.). Psychological Corporation.

Bentler, P. M. (2009). Alpha, dimension-free, and model-based internal consistency reliability. Psychometrika, 74(1), 137–143. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11336-008-9100-1CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Bentler, P. M., & Bonett, D. G. (1980). Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis of covariance structures. Psychological Bulletin, 88(3), 588–606. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.88.3.588

Briggs, N. E., & MacCallum, R. C. (2003). Recovery of weak common factors by maximum likelihood and ordinary least squares estimation. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 38(1), 25–56. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327906mbr3801_2CrossRefPubMed

Brislin, R. W. (1970). Back-translation for cross-cultural research. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 1(3), 185–216. https://doi.org/10.1177/135910457000100301CrossRef

Cabrera-Nguyen, P. (2010). Author guidelines for reporting scale development and validation results in the journal of the society for social work and research. Journal of the Society for Social Work and Research, 1(2), 99–103. https://doi.org/10.5243/jsswr.2010.8CrossRef

Cayoun, B. A. (2011). Mindfulness-integrated CBT: Principles and practice. Wiley-Blackwell. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119993162CrossRef

Chao, S.-H., & Chen, P.-H. (2013). The reliability and validity of the Chinese version of the nonattachment scale: Reliability, validity, and its relationship with mental health. Bulletin of Educational Psychology, 45(1), 121–139.

Cheever, J., Cayoun, B. A., Elphinstone, B., & Shires, A. G. (2023). Confirmation and validation of the equanimity scale-16 (ES-16). Mindfulness, 14(1), 148–158. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12671-022-02029-9CrossRef

Cho, G., Hwang, H., Sarstedt, M., & Ringle, C. M. (2020). Cutoff criteria for overall model fit indexes in generalized structured component analysis. Journal of Marketing Analytics, 8(4), 189–202. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41270-020-00089-1CrossRef

Cicchetti, D. V. (1994). Guidelines, criteria, and rules of thumb for evaluating normed and standardized assessment instruments in psychology. Psychological Assessment, 6(4), 284–290. https://doi.org/10.1037/1040-3590.6.4.284CrossRef

Costello, A. B., & Osborne, J. (2019). Best practices in exploratory factor analysis: Four recommendations for getting the most from your analysis. Practical Assessment, Research, and Evaluation, 10(1), 7.

Curran, P. J., West, S. G., & Finch, J. F. (1996). The robustness of test statistics to nonnormality and specification error in confirmatory factor analysis. Psychological Methods, 1(1), 16–29. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.1.1.16CrossRef

Daaleman, T. P., & Frey, B. B. (2004). The Spirituality Index of Well-Being: A new instrument for health-related quality-of-life research. The Annals of Family Medicine, 2(5), 499–503. https://doi.org/10.1370/afm.89CrossRefPubMed

DeCastellarnau, A. (2018). A classification of response scale characteristics that affect data quality: A literature review. Quality & Quantity, 52(4), 1523–1559. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-017-0533-4CrossRef

Desbordes, G., Gard, T., Hoge, E. A., Hölzel, B. K., Kerr, C., Lazar, S. W., Olendzki, A., & Vago, D. R. (2015). Moving beyond mindfulness: Defining equanimity as an outcome measure in meditation and contemplative research. Mindfulness, 6(2), 356–372. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12671-013-0269-8CrossRef

Devine, E. K., Elphinstone, B., Ciarrochi, J., & Sahdra, B. K. (2022). Nonattachment scale (NAS). In O. N. Medvedev, C. U. Krägeloh, R. J. Siegert, & N. N. Singh (Eds.), Handbook of Assessment in Mindfulness Research (pp. 1–25). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-77644-2_38-1

Dueber, D. M. (2017). Bifactor Indices Calculator: A Microsoft Excel-based tool to calculate various indices relevant to bifactor CFA models. University of Kentucky. https://doi.org/10.13023/edp.tool.01

Eberth, J., Sedlmeier, P., & Schäfer, T. (2019). PROMISE: A model of insight and equanimity as the key effects of mindfulness meditation [Hypothesis and Theory]. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 2389. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02389

Gorsuch, R. L. (1983). Factor Analysis (2nd ed.). Psychology Press. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203781098

Hadash, Y., Segev, N., Tanay, G., Goldstein, P., & Bernstein, A. (2016). The decoupling model of equanimity: Theory, measurement, and test in a mindfulness intervention. Mindfulness, 7(5), 1214–1226. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12671-016-0564-2CrossRef

Hancock, G., & Mueller, R. (2001). Factor analysis and latent structure: Confirmatory factor analysis. International Encyclopedia of the Social and Behavioral Sciences, 5239–5244.

Hayes, A. F., & Coutts, J. J. (2020). Use omega rather than Cronbach’s alpha for estimating reliability. But…. Communication Methods and Measures, 14(1), 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1080/19312458.2020.1718629

Hayes, S. C., Luoma, J. B., Bond, F. W., Masuda, A., & Lillis, J. (2006). Acceptance and commitment therapy: Model, processes and outcomes. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 44(1), 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brat.2005.06.006

Hou, J., Wong, S.Y.-S., Lo, H.H.-M., Mak, W.W.-S., & Ma, H.S.-W. (2014). Validation of a Chinese version of the Five Facet Mindfulness Questionnaire in Hong Kong and development of a short form. Assessment, 21(3), 363–371. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191113485121CrossRefPubMed

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), 1–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118

Juneau, C., Pellerin, N., Trives, E., Ricard, M., Shankland, R., & Dambrun, M. (2020). Reliability and validity of an equanimity questionnaire: The two-factor equanimity scale (EQUA-S). PeerJ, 8, e9405. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.9405CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Kraus, S., & Sears, S. (2009). Measuring the immeasurables: Development and initial validation of the Self-Other Four Immeasurables (SOFI) scale based on Buddhist teachings on loving Kindness, compassion, Joy, and equanimity. Social Indicators Research, 92(1), 169–181. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-008-9300-1CrossRef

Lloret, S., Ferreres, A., Hernández, A., & Tomás, I. (2017). The exploratory factor analysis of items: Guided analysis based on empirical data and software. Anales De Psicologia, 33(2), 417–432. https://doi.org/10.6018/analesps.33.2.270211CrossRef

Lu, M.-L., Che, H. H., Chang, S., & Shen, W. W. (2002). Reliability and validity of the Chinese version of the Beck depression inventory-II. Taiwanese Journal of Psychiatry, 16, 301–310.

Markon, K. E. (2019). Bifactor and hierarchical models: Specification, inference, and interpretation. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 15, 51–69. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-clinpsy-050718-095522CrossRefPubMed

Orcan, F. (2023). Comparison of Cronbach’s alpha and McDonald’s omega for ordinal data: Are they different? International Journal of Assessment Tools in Education, 10, 709–722. https://doi.org/10.21449/ijate.1271693

Reise, S. P., Bonifay, W. E., & Haviland, M. G. (2013). Scoring and modeling psychological measures in the presence of multidimensionality. Journal of Personality Assessment, 95(2), 129–140. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2012.725437CrossRefPubMed

Reise, S. P., Scheines, R., Widaman, K. F., & Haviland, M. G. (2012). Multidimensionality and structural coefficient bias in structural equation modeling: A bifactor perspective. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 73(1), 5–26. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164412449831CrossRef

Ren, Y., Tang, R., Ji, B., & Jian, F. (2021). Reliability and validity test of the Chinese version of spirituality index of well-being for community elderly. Chinese Nursing Management, 21(3), 364–367. https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1672-1756.2021.03.009CrossRef

Rodriguez, A., Reise, S. P., & Haviland, M. G. (2016). Applying bifactor statistical indices in the evaluation of psychological measures. Journal of Personality Assessment, 98(3), 223–237. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2015.1089249CrossRefPubMed

Rogers, H. T., Shires, A. G., & Cayoun, B. A. (2021). Development and validation of the equanimity scale-16. Mindfulness, 12(1), 107–120. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12671-020-01503-6CrossRef

Sahdra, B. K., Shaver, P. R., & Brown, K. W. (2010). A scale to measure nonattachment: A Buddhist complement to Western research on attachment and adaptive functioning. Journal of Personality Assessment, 92(2), 116–127. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223890903425960

Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2007). Using multivariate statistics (5th ed.). Pearson Education Inc.

Ṭhānissaro, B. (2010). The wings to awakening: An anthology from the Pali canon. Metta Forest Monastery. http://buddhism.lib.ntu.edu.tw/DLMBS/en/search/search_detail.jsp?seq=573004

Thompson, B., Roberts, S. G., & Lupyan, G. (2020). Cultural influences on word meanings are revealed through large-scale semantic alignment. Nature Human Behaviour, 4(10), 1029–1038. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-020-0924-8CrossRefPubMed

Ventura-León, J., Quiroz-Burga, L., Caycho-Rodríguez, T., & Valencia, P. (2021). BifactorCalc: An online calculator for ancillary measures of bifactor models. Revista Evaluar, 21(3), 01–14.CrossRef

Wang, X., Wang, Y., & Xin, T. (2020). The psychometric properties of the Chinese version of the Beck Depression Inventory-II with middle school teachers. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 548965. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.548965

Wen-hu, Y. (2014). Reliability and validity of the Chinese version of the Beck Depression Inventory-II in Chinese adolescents. The Chinese Journal of Clinical Psychology, 25(6), 476–480.

Zung, W. W. (1971). A rating instrument for anxiety disorders. Psychosomatics, 12(6), 371–379. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0033-3182(71)71479-0CrossRefPubMed

Titel: Confirmation and Validation of a Chinese version of the Equanimity Scale
Auteurs: Qianguo Xiao
Yingjie Xu
Xiaomei Hu
Publicatiedatum: 07-01-2025
Uitgeverij: Springer US
Gepubliceerd in: Mindfulness
Print ISSN: 1868-8527
Elektronisch ISSN: 1868-8535
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12671-024-02505-4

Bohn Stafleu van Loghum

Deel dit onderdeel of sectie (kopieer de link)

Abstract

Objectives

Method

Results

Conclusions

Log in om toegang te krijgen