Revisiting the five-facet structure of mindfulness

Johannes Alfons Karl,Ronald Fischer

doi:10.1186/s42409-020-00014-3

Abstract

The current study aimed to replicate the development of the Five-Facet Mindfulness Questionnaire (FFMQ) in a sample of 399 undergraduate students. We factor analyzed the Mindful Attention and Awareness Questionnaire (MAAS), the Freiburg Mindfulness Scale, the Southampton Mindfulness Questionnaire (SMQ), the Cognitive Affective Mindfulness Scale Revised (CAMS-R), and the Kentucky Inventory of Mindfulness Skills (KIMS), but also extended the analysis by including a conceptually related measure, the Philadelphia Mindfulness Scale (PHLMS), and a conceptually unrelated measure, the Langer Mindfulness Scale (LMS). Overall, we found a partial replication of the five-factor structure, with the exception of non-reacting and non-judging which formed a single factor. The PHLMS items loaded as expected with theoretically related factors, whereas the LMS items emerged as separate factor. Finally, we found a new factor that was mostly defined by negatively worded items indicating possible item wording artifacts within the FFMQ. Our conceptual validation study indicates that some facets of the FFMQ can be recovered, but item wording factors may threaten the stability of these facets. Additionally, measures such as the LMS appear to measure not only theoretically, but also empirically different constructs.

Highlights

How robust are our current conceptualizations of mindfulness? Should dispositional mindfulness be thought of as a one-dimensional construct or are there multiple facets and, if yes, how many? This question is important because different traditions of Eastern and Western mindfulness exist
Mindfulness Scale (CAMS), and the Southampton Mindfulness Questionnaire (SMQ) (Baer et al, 2006) and reported a five-factor solution of mindfulness when using principal axis factoring with an oblique rotation. Based on this emergent empirical structure, they developed the Five Facet Mindfulness Questionnaire (FFMQ) using the 39 highest loading items from the original pool of items. The identification of these five common dimensions across a number of widely used instruments has led to the implicit recognition and acceptance of a multidimensional model of mindfulness, with the FFMQ considered to be the prime measure of an underlying multidimensional model of mindfulness
Compared to previous studies using these measures, we found that in our sample the Freiburg Mindfulness Inventory (FMI) and Cognitive Affective Mindfulness Scale Revised (CAMS-R) showed better fit, whereas the Philadelphia Mindfulness Scale (PHLMS), Kentucky Inventory of Mindfulness Skills (KIMS), SMQ, and Langer Mindfulness Scale (LMS) showed worse fit compared to other studies

Summary

Introduction

This question is important because different traditions of Eastern and Western mindfulness exist It is unclear how sensitive current measures are to those distinctions or whether those approaches can be integrated. Mindfulness Scale (CAMS), and the Southampton Mindfulness Questionnaire (SMQ) (Baer et al, 2006) and reported a five-factor solution of mindfulness when using principal axis factoring with an oblique rotation Based on this emergent empirical structure, they developed the Five Facet Mindfulness Questionnaire (FFMQ) using the 39 highest loading items from the original pool of items. The identification of these five common dimensions across a number of widely used instruments has led to the implicit recognition and acceptance of a multidimensional model of mindfulness (i.e., the Five-Facet Model of Mindfulness, FFMM), with the FFMQ considered to be the prime measure of an underlying multidimensional model of mindfulness (which we call FFMM). Given the widespread use of the instrument and the theoretical implications of the conceptualization of mindfulness, it is important to verify and replicate the emergence of the FFMM even when using different mindfulness measures and with different samples to assess the appropriateness of the FFMQ to measure mindfulness and the validity of the FFMM as a conceptual model of mindfulness

Objectives

Methods

Results

Discussion

Conclusion