Swipe om te navigeren naar een ander artikel
The online version of this article (https://doi.org/10.1007/s12671-019-01235-2) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Nearly all studies treat the Five Facet Mindfulness Questionnaire as five independent scales (one measuring each of the five facets), yet almost no methodological work has examined the psychometric structure of the facets independently. We address this issue using factor analytic methods.
Exploratory and confirmatory factor models were fit to item response data from a sample of 522 adults recruited online. Findings were replicated in a sample of 454 adults receiving aftercare for substance use disorder.
Parallel analysis suggested multiple factors for all five facets, in both samples. Exploratory factor models suggested the presence of method factors on the acting with awareness (items using the term “distraction”) and describing facets (items that were reverse-scored). Confirmatory factor models fit poorly for all facets, in both samples. In follow-up analyses, model fit improved substantially on the acting with awareness and describing facets when method factors were included in a bifactor model. Model fit was also better for the facets of FFMQ short forms than for the full-length facets. The short-form facets and original facets correlated similarly with external criteria in both samples.
None of the FFMQ facets fit a unidimensional factor model; yet, follow-up analyses suggested that each can be considered substantively unidimensional. Initial tests suggest that the facets’ multidimensionality did not materially impact their relation to other psychological constructs, suggesting that multidimensionality can be ignored for some purposes. The use of short-form facets or latent variable models (e.g., bifactor specifications) are both viable solutions for addressing multidimensionality when desired.
Log in om toegang te krijgen
Met onderstaand(e) abonnement(en) heeft u direct toegang:
ESM 1 (DOCX 107 kb)12671_2019_1235_MOESM1_ESM.docx
Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1988). Structural equation modeling in practice: a review and recommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103, 411–423. 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. CrossRef
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. CrossRef
Benjamini, Y., & Hochberg, Y. (1995). Controlling the false discovery rate: a practical and powerful approach to multiple testing. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series B (Methodological), 57, 289–300. CrossRef
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. CrossRef
Bowen, S., Chawla, N., Collins, S. E., Witkiewitz, K., Hsu, S. H., Grow, J., et al. (2009). Mindfulness-based relapse prevention for substance use disorders: a pilot efficacy trial. Substance Abuse, 30, 295–305. CrossRef
Bowen, S., Witkiewitz, K., Clifasefi, S. L., Grow, J., et al. (2014). Relative efficacy of mindfulness-based relapse prevention, standard relapse prevention, and treatment as usual for substance use disorders: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA Psychiatry, 71, 547–556. CrossRef
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. CrossRef
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.
Burzler, M. A., Voracek, M., Hos, M., & Tran, U. S. (2019). Mechanisms of mindfulness in the general population. Mindfulness, 10, 469–480. CrossRef
Carver, C. S., & White, T. L. (1994). Behavioral inhibition, behavioral activation, and affective responses to impending reward and punishment: the BIS/BAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 319–333. CrossRef
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.
Chen, F. F., West, S. G., & Sousa, K. H. (2006). A comparison of bifactor and second-order models of quality of life. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 41, 189–225. CrossRef
Christopher, M. S., Neuser, N. J., Michael, P. G., & Baitmangalkar, A. (2012). Exploring the psychometric properties of the five facet mindfulness questionnaire. Mindfulness, 3, 124–131. CrossRef
Clerkin, E. M., Sarfan, L. D., et al. (2017). Mindfulness facets, social anxiety, and drinking to cope with social anxiety: testing mediators of drinking problems. Mindfulness, 8, 159–170. CrossRef
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Crawford, A. V., Green, S. B., Levy, R., Lo, W.-J., Scott, L., Svetina, D., & Thompson, M. S. (2010). Evaluation of parallel analysis methods for determining the number of factors. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 70, 885–901. CrossRef
Curtiss, J., & Klemanski, D. (2014). Factor analysis of the five facet mindfulness in a heterogeneous clinical sample. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 36, 683–694. CrossRef
Diedenhofen, B., & Musch, J. (2015). cocor: A comprehensive solution for the statistical comparison of correlations. PLoS One, 10, e0121945. CrossRef
Edwards, M. C., Houts, C. R., & Cai, L. (2017). A diagnostic procedure to detect departures from local independence in item response theory models. Psychological Methods, 23, 138–149. CrossRef
Eisenberg, I. W., Bissett, P. G., Canning, J. R., Dallery, J., Enkavi, A. Z., Whitfield-Gabrieli, S., et al. (2018). Applying novel technologies and methods to inform the ontology of self-regulation. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 101, 46–57. CrossRef
Eisenberg, I. W., Bissett, P. G., Enkavi, A. Z., Li, J., MacKinnon, D. P., Marsch, L. A., & Poldrack, R. A. (2019). Uncovering the structure of self-regulation through data-driven ontology discovery. Nature Communications, 10, 2319. CrossRef
Enkavi, A. Z., Eisenberg, I. W., Bissett, P. G., Mazza, G. L., MacKinnon, D. P., Marsch, L. A., & Poldrack, R. A. (2019). Large-scale analysis of test–retest reliabilities of self-regulation measures. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 116, 5472–5477. CrossRef
Feldman, G. C., Hayes, A. M., Kumar, S. M., & Greeson, J. M. (2004). Development, factor structure, and initial validation of the cognitive and affective mindfulness scale.
Fiske, D. W. (1971). Measuring the concepts of personality. Oxford: Aldine.
Gosling, S. D., Rentfrow, P. J., & Swann, W. B. (2003). A very brief measure of the big-five personality domains. Journal of Research in Personality, 37, 504–528. CrossRef
Green, S. B., & Yang, Y. (2009). Commentary on coefficient alpha: a cautionary tale. Psychometrika, 74, 121–135. CrossRef
Horn, J. L. (1965). A rationale and test for the number of factors in factor analysis. Psychometrika, 30, 179–185. CrossRef
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, 1–55. CrossRef
Karyadi, K. A., VanderVeen, J. D., & Cyders, M. A. (2014). A meta-analysis of the relationship between trait mindfulness and substance use behaviors. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 143, 1–10. CrossRef
Kessler, R. C., Andrews, G., Colpe, L. J., Hiripi, E., Mroczek, D. K., Normand, S.-L. T., et al. (2002). Short screening scales to monitor population prevalences and trends in non-specific psychological distress. Psychological Medicine, 32, 959–976. CrossRef
Lai, K., & Green, S. B. (2016). The problem with having two watches: assessment of fit when RMSEA and CFI disagree. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 51, 220–239. CrossRef
Little, T. D., Cunningham, W. A., Shahar, G., & Widaman, K. F. (2002). To parcel or not to parcel: exploring the question, weighing the merits. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 9, 151–173. CrossRef
Lubinski, D. (2004). Introduction to the special section on cognitive abilities: 100 years after Spearman’s (1904) “‘General intelligence,’ objectively determined and measured”. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86, 96–111. CrossRef
Lynam, D., Smith, G., Whiteside, S., & Cyders, M. (2006). The UPPS-P: assessing five personality pathways to impulsive behavior. West Lafayette: Purdue University.
MacDonald, H. Z., & Price, J. L. (2017). Emotional understanding: examining alexithymia as a mediator of the relationship between mindfulness and empathy. Mindfulness, 8, 1644–1652. CrossRef
Medvedev, O. N., Siegert, R. J., Kersten, P., & Krägeloh, C. U. (2017). Improving the precision of the five facet mindfulness questionnaire using a Rasch approach. Mindfulness, 8, 995–1008. CrossRef
Millsap, R. E. (2007). Structural equation modeling made difficult. Personality and Individual Differences, 42, 875–881. CrossRef
Millsap, R. E., & Olivera-Aguilar, M. (2015). Investigating measurement invariance using confirmatory factor analysis. In R. H. Hoyle (Ed.), Handbook of structural equation modeling (pp. 380–392). New York: Guilford Press.
Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. (2015). Mplus user’s guide (7th ed.). Los Angeles: Muthén & Muthén.
Neal, D. J., & Carey, K. B. (2005). A follow-up psychometric analysis of the self-regulation questionnaire. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 19, 414–422. CrossRef
Pelham, W. E., III, Gonzalez, O., Metcalf, S. A., Whicker, C. L., Scherer, E. A., Witkiewitz, K., et al. (2019). Item response theory analysis of the five facet mindfulness questionnaire and its short forms. Mindfulness, 10, 1615–1628. CrossRef
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J.-Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 879–903. CrossRef
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2012). Sources of method bias in social science research and recommendations on how to control it. Annual Review of Psychology, 63, 539–569.
R Core Team. (2019). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundating for Statistical Computing.
Reise, S. P., Bonifay, W. E., & Haviland, M. G. (2013a). Scoring and modeling psychological measures in the presence of multidimensionality. Journal of Personality Assessment, 95, 129–140. CrossRef
Reise, S. P., Scheines, R., Widaman, K. F., & Haviland, M. G. (2013b). Multidimensionality and structural coefficient bias in structural equation modeling: a bifactor perspective. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 73, 5–26. CrossRef
Revelle, W. R. (2017). Psych: procedures for personality and psychological research. Evanston: Northwestern University.
Saunders, J. B., Aasland, O. G., Babor, T. F., Fuente, J. R. D. L., & Grant, M. (1993). Development of the alcohol use disorders identification test (AUDIT): WHO collaborative project on early detection of persons with harmful alcohol consumption-II. Addiction, 88, 791–804. CrossRef
Smith, G. T., McCarthy, D. M., & Anderson, K. G. (2000). On the sins of short-form development. Psychological Assessment, 12, 102–111. CrossRef
Sochat, V. V., Eisenberg, I. W., Enkavi, A. Z., Li, J., Bissett, P. G., & Poldrack, R. A. (2016). The experiment factory: Standardizing behavioral experiments. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 610. CrossRef
Tangney, J. P., Baumeister, R. F., & Boone, A. L. (2004). High self-control predicts good adjustment, less pathology, better grades, and interpersonal success. Journal of Personality, 72, 271–324. CrossRef
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, 951–965. CrossRef
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, 198–204. CrossRef
Veehof, M. M., ten Klooster, P. M., Taal, E., Westerhof, G. J., & Bohlmeijer, E. T. (2011). Psychometric properties of the Dutch Five Facet Mindfulness Questionnaire (FFMQ) in patients with fibromyalgia. Clinical Rheumatology, 30, 1045–1054. CrossRef
West, S. G., Taylor, A. B. & Wu, W. (2012). Model fit and model selection in structural equation modeling. In R. H. Hoyle (Ed.), Handbook of structural equation modeling (pp. 209-231). New York, NY: Guilford.
Williams, E. J. (1959). The comparison of regression variables. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series B (Methodological), 21, 396–399. CrossRef
Williams, M. J., Dalgleish, T., Karl, A., & Kuyken, W. (2014). Examining the factor structures of the five facet mindfulness questionnaire and the self-compassion scale. Psychological Assessment, 26, 407–418. CrossRef
Yen, W. M. (1993). Scaling performance assessments: Strategies for managing local item dependence. Journal of Educational Measurement, 30, 187–213. CrossRef
Yu, C. Y. (2002). Evaluating cutoff criteria of model fit indices for latent variable models with binary and continuous outcomes (doctoral dissertation). University of California. Los Angeles.
- Evaluating the Factor Structure of Each Facet of the Five Facet Mindfulness Questionnaire
William E. Pelham III
Stephen A. Metcalf
Cady L. Whicker
Lisa A. Marsch
David P. Mackinnon
- Springer US
Print ISSN: 1868-8527
Elektronisch ISSN: 1868-8535