Skip to main content
Search
Search
    Quick Search anywhere
    Quick search in Citations
Advanced Search
Skip main navigationClose Drawer MenuOpen Drawer Menu
Previous article
Next article
Originalia

Rasch-Analyse des Freiburger Fragebogens zur Achtsamkeit

Published Online:March 19, 2013https://doi.org/10.1026/0012-1924/a000084

Abstract

Ziel der vorliegenden Arbeit ist die psychometrische Überprüfung der 14-Item Version des Freiburger Fragebogens zur Achtsamkeit auf der Grundlage der Rasch-Analyse. Da sowohl eine ein- (Achtsamkeit als Generalfaktor) als auch zweifaktorielle Lösung (Achtsamkeit zusammengesetzt aus Präsenz und Akzeptanz) für den FFA-14 vorgeschlagen wurde, werden in dieser Studie die psychometrischen Kennwerte für beide Lösungen auf der Grundlage des Ratingskalenmodell (RSM) verglichen. Die psychometrische Analyse belegte mit Ausnahme eines Items die psychometrische Qualität des Instruments und zeigte die Überlegenheit der zweifaktoriellen Lösung auf. Jedoch waren auch Boden- und Deckeneffekte nachzuweisen, die die Messung bei Probanden mit sehr hohen bzw. niedrigen Achtsamkeitsausprägungen eventuell verzerren könnten.


Rasch analysis of the Freiburg Mindfulness Inventory

This study examines the psychometric properties of the 14 item short form of the Freiburg Mindfulness Inventory (FMI) employing Rasch modelling. As both a once-factorial (mindfulness as a generic construct) and a two-factorial solution (mindfulness comprised of the two subcomponents presence and acceptance) have been suggested, this study compares the psychometric properties of both models. Results corroborated the psychometric qualities of the instrument with the exception of one item and suggest that the two-factor solution is more desirable from a psychometric point of view. However, there is evidence for bottom and ceiling effects that may blur measurement in individuals extremely high and low in mindfulness.

Literatur

  • Andrich, D. (1978). A rating formulation for ordered response categories. Psychometrika, 43, 561 – 573. Crossref, Google Scholar

  • Baer, R. A. (2011). Measuring mindfulness. Contemporary Buddhism, 12, 241 – 261. Crossref, 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. Crossref, Google Scholar

  • Baer, R. A. , Smith, G. T. , Lykins, E. , Button, D. , Krietemeyer, J. , Sauer, S. et al. (2008). Construct validity of the five facet mindfulness questionnaire in meditating and nonmeditating samples. Assessment, 15, 329 – 342. Crossref, Google Scholar

  • 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, Google Scholar

  • Bond, T. G. & Fox, C. M. (2007). Applying the Rasch model: fundamental measurement in the human sciences. Mahwah, NJ: LEA. 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. Crossref, Google Scholar

  • Buchheld, N. (2000). Achtsamkeit in Vipassana-Meditation und Psychotherapie: Die Entwicklung des Freiburger Fragebogens zur Achtsamkeit (FFA). Frankfurt: Peter Lang Verlag. 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

  • Buchheld, N. & Walach, H. (2002). Achtsamkeit in Vipassana-Meditation und Psychotherapie. Die Entwicklung des „Freiburger Fragebogens zur Achtsamkeit”. Zeitschrift für Klinische Psychologie, Psychiatrie und Psychotherapie, 50, 153 – 172. Google Scholar

  • Bühner, M. , Ziegler, M. , Krumm, S. & Schmidt-Atzert, L. (2006). Ist der I-S-T 2000 R Rasch-skalierbar? Diagnostica, 52, 119 – 130. Link, Google Scholar

  • Chiesa, A. , Calati, R. & Serretti, A. (2011). Does mindfulness training improve cognitive abilities? A systematic review of neuropsychological findings. Clinical Psychology Review, 31, 449 – 464. Crossref, Google Scholar

  • Choi, S. W. , Gibbons, L. E. & Crane, P. K. (2011). lordif: An R package for detecting differential item functioning using iterative hybrid ordinal logistic regression/item response theory and Monte Carlo simulations (R package version 0.2 – 1). Journal of Statistical Software, 39, 1. Crossref, Google Scholar

  • Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 155 – 159. Crossref, Google Scholar

  • Cohen, J. , Cohen, P. , West, S. G. & Aiken, L. S. (2002). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences. Mahawah, NJ: LEA. Google Scholar

  • Davier, M. v. , Kubinger, K. D. & Draxler, C. (2007). A comparison of the Rasch model and constrained item response theory models for pertinent psychological test data multivariate and mixture distribution Rasch models. In M. v. Davier & C. H. Carstensen (Eds.), Multivariate and mixture distribution Rasch models (pp. 293 – 309). Springer: New York. Google Scholar

  • De Silva, P. (2001). An introduction to Buddhist psychology. New York, NY: Rowman & Littlefield. Google Scholar

  • Didonna, F. (2008). Clinical handbook of mindfulness. Berlin: Springer. Google Scholar

  • Eisendrath, S. J. , Delucchi, K. , Bitner, R. , Fenimore, P. , Smit, M. & McLane, M. (2008). Mindfulness-based cognitive therapy for treatment-resistant depression: A pilot study. Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics, 77, 319 – 320. Crossref, Google Scholar

  • Fox, J. (2006). Structural Equation Modeling With the sem Package in R (R package version 2.1 – 1). Structural Equation Modeling, 13, 465 – 486. Crossref, Google Scholar

  • Giluk, T. L. (2009). Mindfulness, Big Five personality, and affect: A meta-analysis. Personality and Individual Differences, 47, 805 – 811. Crossref, Google Scholar

  • Glas, C. A. W. & Verhelst, N. D. (1995). Testing the Rasch model. In G. H. Fischer & I. W. Molenaar (Eds.), Rasch models: Foundations, recent developments, and applications (pp. 69 – 96). New York, NY: Springer. Google Scholar

  • Gosling, S. D. , Vazire, S. , Srivastava, S. & John, O. P. (2004). Should we trust web-based studies? A comparative analysis of six preconceptions about internet questionnaires. American Psychologists, 59, 93 – 104. Crossref, Google Scholar

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

  • Grossman, P. (2011). Defining mindfulness by how poorly I think I pay attention during everyday awareness and other intractable problems for psychology’s (re)invention of mindfulness: comment on Brown et al. (2011). Psychological Assessment, 23, 1034 – 1040. Crossref, Google Scholar

  • Grossman, P. , Niemann, L. , Schmidt, S. & Walach, H. (2004). Mindfulness-based stress reduction and health benefits. A meta-analysis. Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 57, 35 – 43. Crossref, Google Scholar

  • Güthlin, C. (2004). Response Shift: alte Probleme der Veränderungsmessung, neu angewendet auf gesundheitsbezogene Lebensqualiät. Zeitschrift für Medizinische Psychologie, 13, 165 – 174. Google Scholar

  • Hayes, A. & Feldman, G. (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. Crossref, Google Scholar

  • Heidenreich, T. & Michalak, J. (2003). Achtsamkeit („Mindfulness”) als Therapieprinzip in Verhaltenstherapie und Verhaltensmedizin. Verhaltenstherapie, 13, 264 – 274. Crossref, Google Scholar

  • Henrich, J. , Heine, S. J. & Norenzayan, A. (2010). The weirdest people in the world? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 33, 61 – 83. Crossref, Google Scholar

  • Höfling, V. , Moosbrugger, H. , Schermelleh-Engel, K. & Heidenreich, T. (2011). Mindfulness or mindlessness? European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 27, 59 – 64. Link, Google Scholar

  • Hofmann, S. G. , Sawyer, A. T. , Witt, A. A. & Oh, D. (2010). The effect of mindfulness-based therapy on anxiety and depression: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 78, 169 – 183. Crossref, Google Scholar

  • Hohensinn, C. & Kubinger, K. D. (2011). Applying item response theory methods to examine the impact of different response formats. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 71, 732 – 746. Crossref, Google Scholar

  • Jimenez, S. S. , Niles, B. L. & Park, C. L. (2010). A mindfulness model of affect regulation and depressive symptoms: Positive emotions, mood regulation expectancies, and self-acceptance as regulatory mechanisms. Personality and Individual Differences, 49, 645 – 650. Crossref, Google Scholar

  • Jöreskog, K. G. & Sörbom, D. (1989). LISREL 7: A guide to the program and applications. Chicago, IL: Scientific Software International. Google Scholar

  • Kabat-Zinn, J. (1990). Full Catastrophe Living: Using the Wisdom of Your Body and Mind to Face Stress, Pain, and Illness: How to Cope with Stress, Pain and Illness Using Mindfulness Meditation. New York, NY: Delta. Google Scholar

  • Kohls, N. , Sauer, S. & Walach, H. (2009a). Facets of mindfulness–Results of an online study investigating the Freiburg mindfulness inventory. Personality and Individual Differences, 46, 224 – 230. Crossref, Google Scholar

  • Kohls, N. , Walach, H. & Lewith, G. (2009b). The impact of positive and negative spiritual experiences on distress and the moderating role of mindfulness. Archive for the Psychology of Religion / Archiv für Religionspychologie, 31, 357 – 374. Crossref, Google Scholar

  • Kubinger, K. D. (2005). Psychological test calibration using the Rasch model–some critical suggestions on traditional approaches. International Journal of Testing, 5, 377 – 394. Crossref, Google Scholar

  • Kubinger, K. D. & Draxler, C. (2007). Probleme bei der Testkonstruktion nach dem Rasch-Modell. Diagnostica, 53, 131 – 143. Link, Google Scholar

  • Kubinger, K. D. & Draxler, C. (2007). A comparison of the Rasch model and constrained item response theory models for pertinent psychological test data. In M. von Davier & C. H. Carstensen (Eds.), Multivariate and mixture distribution Rasch models (pp. 293 – 309). New York, NY: Springer. Crossref, Google Scholar

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

  • Linacre, J. M. (2002). Optimizing rating scale category effectiveness. Journal of Applied Measurement, 3, 85 – 106. Google Scholar

  • Linehan, M. (1993). Cognitive behavior therapy for borderline personality disorder. New York, NY: Guilford. Google Scholar

  • 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, 9, 151 – 173. Crossref, Google Scholar

  • Ludlow, L. H. & O’Leary, M. (2000). What to do about missing data? Rasch Measurement Transactions, 14, 751 – 751. Google Scholar

  • Mair, P. & Hatzinger, R. (2007a). CML based estimation of extended Rasch models with the eRm package in R. Psychology Science, 49, 26 – 26. Google Scholar

  • Mair, P. & Hatzinger, R. (2007b). Extended Rasch modeling: The eRm package for the application of IRT models in R (R package version 0.14 – 0). Journal of Statistical Software, 20(9). Crossref, Google Scholar

  • Marlatt, G. A. , Bowen, S. , Witkiewitz, K. , Dillworth, T. M. , Chawla, N. , Simpson, T. L. et al. (2006). Mindfulness meditation and substance use in an incarcerated population. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 20, 343 – 347. Crossref, Google Scholar

  • Masters, G. (1982). A rasch model for partial credit scoring. Psychometrika, 47, 149 – 174. Crossref, Google Scholar

  • O’connor, B. P. (2000). SPSS and SAS programs for determining the number of components using parallel analysis and Velicer’s MAP test. Behavior Research Methods, 32, 396 – 402. Crossref, Google Scholar

  • R Core Team, D. (2008). R: A language and environment for statistical computing (Version 2.14.2). R Foundation for Statistical Computing, 3(10). Google Scholar

  • Reips, U. (2002). Standards for Internet-based experimenting. Experimental Psychology, 49, 243 – 256. Link, Google Scholar

  • Revelle, W. (2010). psych: Procedures for psychological, psychometric, and personality research (R package version 1.2.1). Evanston, IL: North Western University. Google Scholar

  • Revelle, W. & Rocklin, T. (1979). Very simple structure: An alternative procedure for estimating the optimal number of interpretable factors. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 14, 403 – 414. Crossref, Google Scholar

  • Rost, J. (1999). Was ist aus dem Rasch-Modell geworden. Psychologische Rundschau, 50, 140 – 156. Link, Google Scholar

  • Rost, J. (2004). Lehrbuch Testtheorie-Testkonstruktion. Bern: Huber. Google Scholar

  • Rost, J. , Carstensen, C. H. & Davier, M. von (1999). Sind die Big Five Rasch-skalierbar? Diagnostica, 45, 119 – 127. Link, Google Scholar

  • Rost, J. & Von Davier, M. (1994). A conditional item-fit index for Rasch models. Applied Psychological Measurement, 18, 171. Crossref, Google Scholar

  • Sauer, S. , Lynch, S. , Walach, H. & Kohls, N. (2011a). Dialectics of mindfulness: Implications for western medicine. Philosophy, Ethics, and Humanities in Medicine, 6, 1 – 7. Crossref, Google Scholar

  • Sauer, S. , Walach, H. & Kohls, N. (2011b). Gray’s behavioural inhibition system as a mediator of mindfulness towards well-being. Personality and Individual Differences, 50, 506 – 551. Crossref, Google Scholar

  • Sauer, S. , Walach, H. , Schmidt, S. , Hinterberger, T. , Horan, M. & Kohls, N. (2011c). Implicit and explicit emotional behavior and mindfulness. Consciousness and Cognition, 20, 1558 – 1569. Crossref, Google Scholar

  • Sauer, S. , Lemke, J. , Wittmann, M. , Kohls, N. , Mochty, U. & Walach, H. (2012). How long is „now” for meditators? Personality and Individual Differences, 52, 750 – 754. Crossref, Google Scholar

  • Schumacker, R. E. & Lomax, R. G. (2004). A beginner’s guide to structural equation modeling (Bd. 1). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Crossref, Google Scholar

  • Strong, D. R. , Lesieur, H. R. , Breen, R. B. , Stinchfield, R. & Lejuez, C. W. (2004). Using a Rasch model to examine the utility of the South Oaks Gambling Screen across clinical and community samples. Addictive Behaviors, 29, 465 – 481. Crossref, Google Scholar

  • Teasdale, J. D. , Segal, Z. V. , Mark, J. , Williams, G. , Ridgeway, V. A. , Soulsby, J. M. et al. (2000). Prevention of relapse/recurrence in major depression by mindfulness-based cognitive therapy. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 68, 615 – 623. Crossref, Google Scholar

  • Trousselard, M. , Steiler, D. , Raphel, C. , Cian, C. , Duymedjian, R. , Claverie, D. et al. (2010). Validation of a French version of the Freiburg Mindfulness Inventory-short version: relationships between mindfulness and stress in an adult population. BioPsychoSocial medicine, 4, 1 – 8. Crossref, Google Scholar

  • Walach, H. , Buchheld, N. , Buttenmüller, V. , Kleinknecht, N. , Grossman, P. & Schmidt, S. (2004). Empirische Erfassung der Achtsamkeit–Die Konstruktion des Freiburger Fragebogens zur Achtsamkeit (FFA) und weitere Validierungsstudien. In T. Heidenreich & J. Michalak (Hrsg.), Achtsamkeit und Akzeptanz in der Psychotherapie. Ein Handbuch (S. 727 – 770). Tübingen: dgvt. Google Scholar

  • 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, Google Scholar

  • Walsh, R. & Shapiro, S. L. (2006). The meeting of meditative disciplines and western Psychology: A mutually enriching dialogue. American Psychologist, 61, 227 – 239. Crossref, Google Scholar

  • Williams, G. J. (2009). Rattle: a data mining GUI for R (R package version 2.6.17). The R Journal, 1, 45 – 55. Crossref, Google Scholar

  • Zumbo, B. D. (1999). A handbook on the theory and methods of differential item functioning (DIF). Ottawa: National Defense Headquarters. Google Scholar

  • Zwick, W. R. & Velicer, W. F. (1982). Factors influencing four rules for determining the number of components to retain. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 17, 253 – 269. Crossref, Google Scholar