Top

Gepubliceerd in:

07-10-2019 | ORIGINAL PAPER

Evaluating the Factor Structure of Each Facet of the Five Facet Mindfulness Questionnaire

Auteurs: William E. Pelham III, Oscar Gonzalez, Stephen A. Metcalf, Cady L. Whicker, Katie Witkiewitz, Lisa A. Marsch, David P. Mackinnon

Gepubliceerd in: Mindfulness | Uitgave 12/2019

Abstract

Objective

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.

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.

Results

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.

Conclusions

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.

vorige artikel Immeasurable Meditations and Mindfulness

volgende artikel Examining the Link Between Mindfulness and Temporal Perspective

Alleen toegankelijk voor geautoriseerde gebruikers

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.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, 27–45.CrossRefPubMed

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.CrossRefPubMed

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.PubMedCrossRef

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.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

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.CrossRefPubMed

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.PubMedCrossRef

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.PubMedCrossRef

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.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

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.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

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.PubMedCrossRef

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.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

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.PubMedCrossRef

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.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

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.PubMedCrossRef

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.PubMedCrossRef

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.PubMedCrossRef

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.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

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.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentral

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.PubMedCrossRef

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.PubMedCrossRef

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.PubMedCrossRef

Smith, G. T., McCarthy, D. M., & Anderson, K. G. (2000). On the sins of short-form development. Psychological Assessment, 12, 102–111.PubMedCrossRef

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.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

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.PubMedCrossRef

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.PubMedCrossRef

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.PubMedCrossRef

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.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

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.PubMedCrossRef

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.

Titel: Evaluating the Factor Structure of Each Facet of the Five Facet Mindfulness Questionnaire
Auteurs: William E. Pelham III
Oscar Gonzalez
Stephen A. Metcalf
Cady L. Whicker
Katie Witkiewitz
Lisa A. Marsch
David P. Mackinnon
Publicatiedatum: 07-10-2019
Uitgeverij: Springer US
Gepubliceerd in: Mindfulness / Uitgave 12/2019
Print ISSN: 1868-8527
Elektronisch ISSN: 1868-8535
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12671-019-01235-2

Bohn Stafleu van Loghum

Deel dit onderdeel of sectie (kopieer de link)

Abstract

Objective

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Log in om toegang te krijgen

Andere artikelen Uitgave 12/2019

Self-Compassion and Eating Pathology in Female Adolescents with Eating Disorders: The Mediating Role of Psychological Distress

Examining the Link Between Mindfulness and Temporal Perspective

Immeasurable Meditations and Mindfulness

Utilization and Perceived Effectiveness of Mindfulness Meditation in Veterans: Results from a National Survey

Mindfulness Training, Implicit Bias, and Force Response Decision-Making

Adapting Mindfulness to Engage Latinos and Improve Mental Health in Primary Care: a Pilot Study