Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Classical Test Theory and the Measurement of Mindfulness

  • Living reference work entry
  • First Online:
Handbook of Assessment in Mindfulness Research

Abstract

Classical test theory (CTT) is widely used in psychological assessment and has a long history. Its origins as a scientific method of inquiry can be traced back to the nineteenth century. The assessment of mindfulness and related psychological constructs, such as compassion, is heavily reliant upon self-report, reflecting the highly subjective or existential nature of such phenomena. To enable quantitative examination of such intangible subject matter, psychologists have traditionally used self-report questionnaires to operationalize latent variables. The research methods and statistical techniques developed to ensure reliable and valid measurement of educational (e.g., reading skills) and psychological constructs (e.g., extraversion) by questionnaire have become known collectively as psychometrics. The modern psychometrician has a rich array of statistical methods and software tools to choose from, and CTT remains prominent among them. This includes the widely used methods of exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Andrich, D. (2004). Controversy and the Rasch model: A characteristic of incompatible paradigms? Medical Care, 42(1 Supplement), I7–I16.

    Article  PubMed  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(1), 27–45.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Baer, R. A., Smith, G. T., Lykins, E., Button, D., Krietemeyer, J., Sauer, S., & Walsh, E. (2008). Construct validity of the Five Facet Mindfulness Questionnaire in meditating and nonmeditating samples. Assessment, 15(3), 329–342.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bandalos, D. L. (2008). Is parceling really necessary? A comparison of results from item parceling and categorical variable methodology. Structural Equation Modeling, 15(2), 211–240.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Belzer, F., Schmidt, S., Lucius-Hoene, G., Schneider, J. F., Orellana-Rios, C. L., & Sauer, S. (2013). Challenging the construct validity of mindfulness assessment — A cognitive interview study of the Freiburg Mindfulness Inventory. Mindfulness, 4(1), 33–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bergomi, C., Tschacher, W., & Kupper, Z. (2014). Konstruktion und erste Validierung eines Fragebogens zur umfassenden Erfassung von Achtsamkeit [Construction and initial validation of a questionnaire for the comprehensive investigation of mindfulness]. Diagnostica, 60(3), 111–125.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Borsboom, D. (2005). Measuring the mind: Conceptual issues in contemporary psychometrics. Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Browne, M. W. (2001). An overview of analytic rotation in exploratory factor analysis. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 36(1), 111–150.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In K. A. Bollen & J. S. Long (Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp. 136–162).

    Google Scholar 

  • Byrne, B. (2010). Structural equation modelling with AMOS: Basic concepts, applications and programming. Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cudeck, R., & MacCallum, R. C. (Eds.). (2007). Factor analysis at 100: Historical developments and future directions. Laurence Erlbaum & Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Champlain, A. F. (2010). A primer on classical test theory and item response theory for assessments in medical education. Medical Education, 44(1), 109–117.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Deng, Y. Q., Liu, X. H., Rodriguez, M. A., & Xia, C. Y. (2011). The five facet mindfulness questionnaire: Psychometric properties of the Chinese version. Mindfulness, 2(2), 123–128.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • de Ayala, R. J. (2009). The theory and practice of item response theory. The Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • DeVellis, R. F. (2006). Classical test theory. Medical Care, 44(11, Supplement 3), S50–S59.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • De Vet, H. C. W., Terwee, C. B., Mokkink, L. B., & Knol, D. L. (2011). Measurement in medicine: A practical guide. Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Engelhard, G., Jr. (1992). Historical views of invariance: Evidence from the measurement theories of Thorndike, Thurstone, and Rasch. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 52, 275–291.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Feinstein, A. R. (1982). Clinimetrics. Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fischer, R., & Karl, J. A. (2019). A primer to (cross-cultural) multi-group invariance testing possibilities in R. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 1507.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Flora, D. B., & Curran, P. J. (2004). An empirical evaluation of alternative methods of estimation for confirmatory factor analysis with ordinal data. Psychological Methods, 9(4), 466–491.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Furr, R. M., & Bacharach, V. R. (2008). Psychometrics: An introduction. Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Galton, F. (1879). Psychometric experiments. Brain, 2, 149–162.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gleser, G., Cronbach, L. J., & Rajaratnam, N. (1965). Generalizability of scores influenced by multiple sources of variance. Psychometrika, 30, 395–418.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Gregory, R. J. (2015). Psychological testing: History, principles and applications. Pearson Education Limited.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gulliksen, H. (1950). Theory of mental tests. Wiley.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hayton, J. C., Allen, D. G., & Scarpello, V. (2004). Factor retention decisions in exploratory factor analysis: A tutorial on parallel analysis. Organizational Research Methods, 7(2), 191–205.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hermida, R. (2015). The problem of allowing correlated errors in structural equation modelling: Concerns and considerations. Computational Methods in Social Sciences, 3(1), 5–17.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hu, L. T., Bentler, P. M., & Kano, Y. (1992). Can test statistics in co- variance structure analysis be trusted? Psychological Bulletin, 112, 351–362.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1998). Fit indices in covariance structure modeling: Sensitivity to under parameterized model misspecification. Psychological Methods, 3(4), 424–453.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hunt, M. (1993). The story of psychology. Doubleday.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jöreskog, K. G. (1969). A general approach to confirmatory maximum likelihood factor analysis. Psychometrika, 34, 183–202.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jöreskog, K. G., & Sörbom, D. (2018). LISREL 10 for Windows [Computer software]. Scientific Software International, Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jabrayilov, R., Emons, W. H. M., & Sijtsma, K. (2016). Comparison of classical test theory and item response theory in individual change assessment. Applied Psychological Measurement, 40(8), 559–572.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Karl, J. A., Prado, S. M. M., Gračanin, A., Verhaeghen, P., Ramos, A., Mandal, S. P., … Fischer, R. (2020). The cross-cultural validity of the Five-Facet Mindfulness Questionnaire across 16 countries. Mindfulness, 11(5), 1226–1237.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kim, E., Krägeloh, C. U., Medvedev, O. N., Duncan, L. G., & Singh, N. N. (2019). Interpersonal Mindfulness in Parenting scale: Testing the psychometric properties of a Korean version. Mindfulness, 10(3), 516–528.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krägeloh, C. U., Bergomi, C., Siegert, R. J., & Medvedev, O. N. (2018). Response shift after a mindfulness-based intervention: Measurement invariance testing of the Comprehensive Inventory of Mindfulness Experiences. Mindfulness, 9(1), 212–220. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12671-017-0764-4

  • Kuder, G. F., & Richardson, M. W. (1937). The theory of the estimation of test reliability. Psychometrika, 2(3), 151–160.

    Article  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(2), 151–173.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lord, F. M., Novick, M. R., & Birnbaum, A. (1968). Statistical theories of mental test scores. Addison-Wesley.

    Google Scholar 

  • MacCallum, R. C., Widaman, K. F., Zhang, S., & Hong, S. (1999). Sample size in factor analysis. Psychological Methods, 4(1), 84–99.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Magnusson, D. (1967). Test theory. Addison-Wesley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marsh, H. W., Balla, J. R., & McDonald, R. P. (1988). Goodness-of-fit indexes in confirmatory factor analysis: The effect of sample size. Psychological Bulletin, 103(3), 391–410. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.103.3.391

  • McNeish, D. (2018). Thanks coefficient alpha, we’ll take it from here. Psychological Methods, 23(3), 412–433.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Moshagen, M., & Musch, J. (2014). Sample size requirements of the robust weighted least squares estimator. Methodology, 10(2), 60–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric theory (3rd ed.). McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peters, G. J. Y. (2014). The alpha and the omega of scale reliability and validity: Why and how to abandon Cronbach’s alpha and the route towards more comprehensive assessment of scale quality. European Health Psychologist, 16, 56–69.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pett, M. A., Lackey, N. R., & Sullivan, J. J. (2003). Making sense of factor analysis: The use of factor analysis for instrument development in health care research. Sage.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Rasch, G. (1960). Probabilistic models for some intelligence and attainment tests. Danish Institute for Educational Research. Reprinted in 1980 by The University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Raykov, T., & Marcoulides, G. A. (2016). Educational and Psychological Measurement, 76(2), 325–338.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Skevington, S. M., Rowland, C., Panagioti, M., Bower, P., & Krägeloh, C. (2021). Enhancing the multi-dimensional assessment of quality of life: Introducing the WHOQOL-COMBI. Quality of Life Research, 30(3), 891–903.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Stigler, S. M. (1986). The history of statistics: The measurement of uncertainty before 1900. The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thurstone, L. L. (1938). Primary mental abilities. Psychometric Monographs Chicago Illinois.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Psychology and Neuroscience, Auckland University of Technology, Auckland, New Zealand

    Richard J. Siegert & Christian U. Krägeloh

  2. School of Psychology, University of Waikato, Hamilton, New Zealand

    Oleg N. Medvedev

Authors
  1. Richard J. Siegert
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Christian U. Krägeloh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Oleg N. Medvedev
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Richard J. Siegert .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. School of Psychology, University of Waikato, Hamilton, New Zealand

    Oleg N. Medvedev

  2. North Shore Campus, Auckland Univ of Technology, Auckland, New Zealand

    Christian U. Krägeloh

  3. Dept of Psychology and Neuroscience, Auckland University of Technology, Auckland, New Zealand

    Richard J. Siegert

  4. Augusta University, Raleigh, NC, USA

    Nirbhay N. Singh

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2022 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this entry

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this entry

Siegert, R.J., Krägeloh, C.U., Medvedev, O.N. (2022). Classical Test Theory and the Measurement of Mindfulness. In: Medvedev, O.N., Krägeloh, C.U., Siegert, R.J., Singh, N.N. (eds) Handbook of Assessment in Mindfulness Research. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-77644-2_3-1

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-77644-2_3-1

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-77644-2

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-77644-2

  • eBook Packages: Springer Reference Behavioral Science and PsychologyReference Module Humanities and Social SciencesReference Module Business, Economics and Social Sciences

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation