Construct Validity of the Five Facet Mindfulness Questionnaire in Meditating and Nonmeditating Samples

There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

Abstract

Previous research on assessment of mindfulness by self-report suggests that it may include five component skills: observing, describing, acting with awareness, nonjudging of inner experience, and nonreactivity to inner experience. These elements of mindfulness can be measured with the Five Facet Mindfulness Questionnaire (FFMQ). The authors investigated several aspects of the construct validity of the FFMQ in experienced meditators and nonmeditating comparison groups. Consistent with predictions, most mindfulness facets were significantly related to meditation experience and to psychological symptoms and well-being. As expected, relationships between the observing facet and psychological adjustment varied with meditation experience. Regression and mediation analyses showed that several of the facets contributed independently to the prediction of well-being and significantly mediated the relationship between meditation experience and well-being. Findings support the construct validity of the FFMQ in a combination of samples not previously investigated.

Related collections

Most cited references 48

Record: found
Abstract: not found
Article: not found

Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives

Li‐tze Hu, Peter M. Bentler (1999)

0 comments Cited 11005 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

The structure of negative emotional states: Comparison of the Depression Anxiety Stress Scales (DASS) with the Beck Depression and Anxiety Inventories

P.F. Lovibond, S.H. Lovibond (1995)

The psychometric properties of the Depression Anxiety Stress Scales (DASS) were evaluated in a normal sample of N = 717 who were also administered the Beck Depression Inventory (BDI) and the Beck Anxiety Inventory (BAI). The DASS was shown to possess satisfactory psychometric properties, and the factor structure was substantiated both by exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis. In comparison to the BDI and BAI, the DASS scales showed greater separation in factor loadings. The DASS Anxiety scale correlated 0.81 with the BAI, and the DASS Depression scale correlated 0.74 with the BDI. Factor analyses suggested that the BDI differs from the DASS Depression scale primarily in that the BDI includes items such as weight loss, insomnia, somatic preoccupation and irritability, which fail to discriminate between depression and other affective states. The factor structure of the combined BDI and BAI items was virtually identical to that reported by Beck for a sample of diagnosed depressed and anxious patients, supporting the view that these clinical states are more severe expressions of the same states that may be discerned in normals. Implications of the results for the conceptualisation of depression, anxiety and tension/stress are considered, and the utility of the DASS scales in discriminating between these constructs is discussed.

0 comments Cited 2310 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

Comparative fit indexes in structural models.

P. Bentler (1990)

Normed and nonnormed fit indexes are frequently used as adjuncts to chi-square statistics for evaluating the fit of a structural model. A drawback of existing indexes is that they estimate no known population parameters. A new coefficient is proposed to summarize the relative reduction in the noncentrality parameters of two nested models. Two estimators of the coefficient yield new normed (CFI) and nonnormed (FI) fit indexes. CFI avoids the underestimation of fit often noted in small samples for Bentler and Bonett's (1980) normed fit index (NFI). FI is a linear function of Bentler and Bonett's non-normed fit index (NNFI) that avoids the extreme underestimation and overestimation often found in NNFI. Asymptotically, CFI, FI, NFI, and a new index developed by Bollen are equivalent measures of comparative fit, whereas NNFI measures relative fit by comparing noncentrality per degree of freedom. All of the indexes are generalized to permit use of Wald and Lagrange multiplier statistics. An example illustrates the behavior of these indexes under conditions of correct specification and misspecification. The new fit indexes perform very well at all sample sizes.