The Five Facets Mindfulness Questionnaire (FFMQ) is a popular tool in mindfulness research. However, its psychometric qualities and its replicability have caused controversy. This study carried out a psychometric review and a conceptual replication of the FFMQ latent structure. The review showed that previous validation studies of the FFMQ used nonoptimal methods. In addition, this conceptual replication study tested the structure of the FFMQ using frequentist and Bayesian techniques. The original structure did not provide a good fit with both techniques, while the proposed alternative provided mixed results. We also found systematic fit improvements in both techniques when the Observe facet was excluded and method factors were included. With these findings, we conclude that the conceptual replication of the FFMQ’s structure failed. Alternatively, we propose a new provisional FFMQ model with a set of recommendations regarding its application. Future research proposals on improving techniques and models toward mindfulness assessment are also presented and discussed.
AguadoJ.LucianoJ. V.CebollaA.Serrano-BlancoA.SolerJ.García-CampayoJ. (2015). Bifactor analysis and construct validity of the Five Facet Mindfulness Questionnaire (FFMQ) in non-clinical Spanish samples. Frontiers in Psychology, 6. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00404
2.
American Mindfulness Research Association. (2017). Mindfulness journal publications by year, 1980-2016. Retrieved from https://goamra.org/resources/
3.
AsendorpfJ. B.ConnerM.De FruytF.De HouwerJ.DenissenJ. J. A.FiedlerK.. . . WichertsJ. M. (2013). Recommendations for increasing replicability in psychology. European Journal of Personality, 27, 108-119. doi:10.1002/per.1919
AsparouhovT.MuthénB.MorinA. J. S. (2015). Bayesian structural equation modeling with cross-loadings and residual covariances: Comments on Stromeyer et al. Journal of Management, 41, 1561-1577. doi:10.1177/0149206315591075
6.
BaerR. A.SmithG. T.HopkinsJ.KrietemeyerJ.ToneyL. (2006). Using self-report assessment methods to explore facets of mindfulness. Assessment, 13, 27-45. doi:10.1177/1073191105283504
7.
BaerR. A.SmithG. T.LykinsE.ButtonD.KrietemeyerJ.SauerS.. . . WilliamsJ. M. G. (2008). Construct validity of the Five Facet Mindfulness Questionnaire in meditating and nonmeditating samples. Assessment, 15, 329-342. doi:10.1177/1073191107313003
8.
BandalosD. L. (2008). Is parceling really necessary? A comparison of results from item parceling and categorical variable methodology. Structural Equation Modeling, 15, 211-240. doi:10.1080/10705510801922340
9.
BelzerF.SchmidtS.Lucius-HoeneG.SchneiderJ. F.Orellana-RiosC. L.SauerS. (2013). Challenging the construct validity of mindfulness assessment—A cognitive interview study of the Freiburg Mindfulness Inventory. Mindfulness, 4(1), 33-44. doi:10.1007/s12671-012-0165-7
10.
BentlerP. (2007). On tests and indices for evaluating structural models. Personality and Individual Differences, 42, 825-829. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2006.09.024
11.
BergomiC.TschacherW.KupperZ. (2013). The assessment of mindfulness with self-report measures: Existing scales and open issues. Mindfulness, 4, 191-202. doi:10.1007/s12671-012-0110-9
12.
BonifayW.LaneS. P.ReiseS. P. (2016). Three concerns with applying a bifactor model as a structure of psychopathology. Clinical Psychological Science, 5, 184-186. doi:10.1177/2167702616657069
13.
BowmanA. (2014). Evaluating the psychometric properties of the Five-Facet Mindfulness Questionnaire: An item response theory analysis. Murfreesboro: Middle Tennessee State University.
14.
BrownT. (2006). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
15.
BryantF. B.SatorraA. (2012). Principles and practice of scaled difference chi-square testing. Structural Equation Modeling, 19, 372-398. doi:10.1080/10705511.2012.687671
16.
CainM. K.ZhangZ. (2019). Fit for a Bayesian: An evaluation of PPP and DIC for structural equation modeling. Structural Equation Modeling, 26, 39-50. doi:10.1080/10705511.2018.1490648
17.
CebollaA.García-PalaciosA.SolerJ.GuillenV.BañosR.BotellaC. (2012). Psychometric properties of the Spanish validation of the Five Facets of Mindfulness Questionnaire (FFMQ). European Journal of Psychiatry, 26, 118-126. doi:10.4321/S0213-61632012000200005
18.
CreswellJ. D. (2017). Mindfulness interventions. Annual Review of Psychology, 68, 491-516. doi:10.1146/annurev-psych-042716-051139
19.
CrüwellS.van DoornJ.EtzA.MakelM. C.NiebaumJ. C.OrbenA.. . . Schulte-MecklenbeckM. (2018). 8 easy steps to open science : An annotated reading list. PsyArXiv, 1-32. doi:10.31234/OSF.IO/CFZYX
20.
CurtissJ.KlemanskiD. H. (2014). Factor analysis of the five facet mindfulness questionnaire in a heterogeneous clinical sample. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 36(4), 683-694. doi:10.1007/s10862-014-9429-y
21.
de BarrosV. V.KozasaE. H.SouzaI. C. W.RonzaniT. M. (2014). Validity evidence of the Brazilian version of the Five Facet Mindfulness. Psicologia: Teoria e Pesquisa, 30, 317-327. doi:10.1590/S0102-37722014000300009
22.
de BruinE. I.TopperM.MuskensJ. G. A. M.BögelsS. M.KamphuisJ. H. (2012). Psychometric properties of the Five Facets Mindfulness Questionnaire (FFMQ) in a meditating and a non-meditating sample. Assessment, 19, 187-197. doi:10.1177/1073191112446654
23.
DuanW.LiJ. (2016). Distinguishing dispositional and cultivated forms of mindfulness: item-level factor analysis of five-facet mindfulness questionnaire and construction of short inventory of mindfulness capability. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 1348. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01348
24.
DundasI.VøllestadJ.BinderP. E.SivertsenB. (2013). The Five Factor Mindfulness Questionnaire in Norway. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 54, 250-260. doi:10.1111/sjop.12044
25.
FengX. J.KrägelohC. U.BillingtonD. R.SiegertR. J. (2017). To what extent is mindfulness as presented in commonly used mindfulness questionnaires different from how it is conceptualized by senior ordained Buddhists?Mindfulness, 9, 441-460. doi:10.1007/s12671-017-0788-9
26.
FiedlerK.SchwarzN. (2016). Questionable research practices revisited. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 7(1), 45-52. doi:10.1177/1948550615612150
27.
FloraD.CurranP. (2004). An empirical evaluation of alternative methods of estimation for confirmatory factor analysis with ordinal data. Psychological Methods, 9, 466-491. doi:10.1037/1082-989x.9.4.466.supp
28.
GiovanniniC.GirominiL.BonalumeL.TaginiA.LangM.AmadeiG. (2014). The Italian Five Facet Mindfulness Questionnaire: A contribution to its validity and reliability. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 36, 415-423. doi:10.1007/s10862-013-9403-0
29.
GoldbergS. B.WielgoszJ.DahlC.SchuylerB.MacCoonD. S.RosenkranzM.. . . DavidsonR. J. (2016). Does the Five Facet Mindfulness Questionnaire measure what we think it does? Construct validity evidence from an active controlled randomized clinical trial. Psychological Assessment, 28, 1009-1014. doi:10.1037/pas0000233
30.
HaasB. W.AkamatsuY. (2019). Psychometric Investigation of the Five Facets of Mindfulness and Well-Being Measures in the Kingdom of Bhutan and the USA. Mindfulness, 10(7), 1339-1351. doi:10.1007/s12671-018-1089-7
31.
HeerenA.DouilliezC.PeschardV.DebrauwereL.PhilippotP. (2011). Cross-cultural validity of the Five Facets Mindfulness Questionnaire: Adaptation and validation in a French-speaking sample. Revue Européenne de Psychologie Appliquée/European Review of Applied Psychology, 61, 147-151. doi:10.1016/j.erap.2011.02.001
32.
HölzelB. K.LazarS. W.GardT.Schuman-OlivierZ.VagoD. R.OttU. (2011). How does mindfulness meditation work? Proposing mechanisms of action from a conceptual and neural perspective. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 6, 537-559. doi:10.1177/1745691611419671
33.
HothornT.HornikK.WienW.Van De WielM. A.ZeileisA. (2008). Implementing a class of permutation tests: The coin package. Journal of Statistical Software, 28, 1-23. doi:10.18637/jss.v028.i08
34.
HouJ.WongS. Y.-S.LoH. H.-M.MakW. W.-S.MaH. S.-W. (2014). Validation of a Chinese version of the Five Facet Mindfulness Questionnaire in Hong Kong and development of a short form. Assessment, 21, 363-371. doi:10.1177/1073191113485121
35.
HowardG. S. (2019). The present and future of methodology and statistics in psychology. The Humanistic Psychologist, 47(1), 26-51. doi:10.1037/hum0000111
36.
HuL.BentlerP. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1-55. doi:10.1080/10705519909540118
37.
LiC.-H. (2016). Confirmatory factor analysis with ordinal data: Comparing robust maximum likelihood and diagonally weighted least squares. Behavior Research Methods, 48, 936-949. doi:10.3758/s13428-015-0619-7
38.
LiljaJ. L.Frodi-LundgrenA.HanseJ. J.JosefssonT.LundhL.-G.SköldC.. . . BrobergA. G. (2011, November). Five Facets Mindfulness Questionnaire—Reliability and factor structure: A Swedish version. Cognitive Behaviour Therapy, 40, 291-303. doi:10.1080/16506073.2011.580367
39.
LiljaJ. L.LundhL. G.JosefssonT.FalkenströmF. (2013). Observing as an essential facet of mindfulness: A comparison of FFMQ patterns in meditating and non-meditating individuals. Mindfulness, 4, 203-212. doi:10.1007/s12671-012-0111-8
40.
LindsayE. K.CreswellJ. D. (2017). Mechanisms of mindfulness training: Monitor and acceptance theory (MAT). Clinical Psychology Review, 51, 48-59. doi:10.1016/j.cpr.2016.10.011
41.
McNeishD. (2018). Thanks coefficient alpha, we’ll take it from here. Psychological Methods, 23, 412-433. doi:10.1037/met0000144
42.
MedaR. M.HerreroM.Blanco-DonosoL. M.Moreno-JiménezB.ChávezA. P. (2015). Propiedades psicométricas del “cuestionario de cinco facetas de la conciencia plena (five facet mindfulness questionnaire, FFMQ-M) en México [Psychometric properties of the “Five Facet Mindfulness Questionnaire, FFMQ-M” in Mexico]. Behavioral Psychology/Psicologia Conductual, 23, 467-487.
43.
MedvedevO. N.SiegertR. J.KerstenP.KrägelohC. U. (2017). Improving the precision of the Five Facet Mindfulness Questionnaire using a Rasch approach. Mindfulness, 8(4), 995-1008. doi:10.1007/s12671-016-0676-8
44.
MedvedevO. N.TitkovaE. A.SiegertR. J.HwangY.-S.KrägelohC. U. (2018). Evaluating short versions of the Five Facet Mindfulness Questionnaire using Rasch analysis. Mindfulness, 9, 1411-1422. doi:10.1007/s12671-017-0881-0
45.
MerkleE. C.RosseelY. (2016). blavaan: Bayesian structural equation models via parameter expansion. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University. Retrieved from https://arxiv.org/abs/1511.05604
46.
MerkleE. C.WangT. (2018). Bayesian latent variable models for the analysis of experimental psychology data. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 25, 256-270.
47.
MichalakJ.ZarbockG.DrewsM.OttoD.MertensD.StröhleG.. . . HeidenreichT. (2016). Erfassung von Achtsamkeit mit der deutschen Version des Five Facet Mindfulness Questionnaires (FFMQ-D) [Capture mindfulness with the German Version of the Five Facet Mindfulness Questionnaire (FFMQ-D)]. Zeitschrift Für Gesundheitspsychologie, 24(1), 1-12. doi:10.1026/0943-8149/a000149
MuellerJ. H.SchuesslerK. F.CostnerH. L. (1977). Statistical reasoning in sociology. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.
50.
MunafòM. R.NosekB. A.BishopD. V. M.ButtonK. S.ChambersC. D.PercieduSertN.. . . IoannidisJ. P. A. (2017). A manifesto for reproducible science. Nature Human Behaviour, 1(1). doi:10.1038/s41562-016-0021
51.
MurrayA. L.JohnsonW. (2013). The limitations of model fit in comparing the bi-factor versus higher-order models of human cognitive ability structure. Intelligence, 41, 407-422. doi:10.1016/j.intell.2013.06.004
52.
MuthénB.AsparouhovT. (2012). Bayesian structural equation modeling: A more flexible representation of substantive theory. Psychological Methods, 17, 313-335. doi:10.1037/a0026802
53.
Open Science Collaboration. (2015). Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science. Science, 349, aac4716-aac4716. doi:10.1126/science.aac4716
54.
PearsonM. R.LawlessA. K.BrownD. B.BravoA. J. (2015). Mindfulness and emotional outcomes: Identifying subgroups of college students using latent profile analysis. Personality and Individual Differences, 76, 33-38. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2014.11.009
55.
ProitsiP.HamiltonG.TsolakiM.LuptonM.Daniilidou.M.HollingworthP.. . . PowellJ. F. (2011). A Multiple Indicators Multiple Causes (MIMIC) model of behavioural and psychological symptoms in dementia (BPSD). Neurobiology of Aging, 32, 434-442. 1016/j.neurobiolaging.2009.03.005
56.
RafteryA. E. (1993). Bayesian model selection in structural equation models. In BollenK. A.LongJ. S. (Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp. 163-180). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
57.
RauH. K.WilliamsP. G. (2016). Dispositional mindfulness: A critical review of construct validation research. Personality and Individual Differences, 93, 32-43. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2015.09.035
58.
RevelleW.ZinbargR. E. (2009). Coefficients alpha, beta, omega, and the glb: Comments on Sijtsma. Psychometrika, 74, 145-154. doi:10.1007/s11336-008-9102-z
59.
RosseelY. (2012). lavaan: An R package for structural equation modeling. Journal of Statistical Software, 48, 1-36. Retrieved from http://www.jstatsoft.org/v48/i02/
60.
RudkinE.MedvedevO. N.SiegertR. J. (2017). The Five-Facet Mindfulness Questionnaire: Why the observing subscale does not predict psychological symptoms. Mindfulness, 9, 230-242. doi:10.1007/s12671-017-0766-2
61.
SatorraA.BentlerP. M. (2001). A scaled difference chi-square test statistic for moment structure analysis. Psychometrika, 66, 507-514. doi:10.1007/bf02296192
62.
SitjsmaK. (2009). On the use, the misuse, and the very limited usefulness of Cronbach’s alpha. Psychometrika, 74, 107-120. doi:10.1007/s11336-008-9101-0
63.
SugiuraY.SatoA.ItoY.MurakamiH. (2012). Development and validation of the Japanese version of the Five Facet Mindfulness Questionnaire. Mindfulness, 3, 85-94. doi:10.1007/s12671-011-0082-1
64.
TranU. S.CebollaA.GlückT. M.SolerJ.Garcia-CampayoJ.Von MoyT. (2014). The serenity of the meditating mind: a cross-cultural psychometric study on a two-factor higher order structure of mindfulness, its effects, and mechanisms related to mental health among experienced meditators. PloS one, 9(10), e110192. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0110192
65.
TranU. S.GlückT. M.NaderI. 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(9), 951-965. doi:10.1002/jclp.21996
66.
Trizano-HermosillaI.AlvaradoJ. M. (2016). Best alternatives to Cronbach’s alpha reliability in realistic conditions: Congeneric and asymmetrical measurements. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 769. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00769
67.
Van DamN. T.BilgramiZ. R.Eisenlohr-MoulT. (2018). Development and validation of the Balanced Inventory of Mindfulness-Related Skills (BIMS). Retrieved from mindrxiv.org/8qdzg/
68.
Van DamN. T.HobkrikA. L.Danoff-BurgS.EarleywineM. (2012). Mind your words: Positive and negative items create method effects on the Five Facet Mindfulness Questionnaire. Assessment, 19, 198-204. doi:10.1177/1073191112438743
69.
van de SchootR.WinterS. D.RyanO.Zondervan-ZwijnenburgM.DepaoliS. (2017). A systematic review of Bayesian articles in psychology: The last 25 years. Psychological Methods, 22, 217-239. doi:10.1037/met0000100.supp
70.
VeehofM. M.Ten KloosterP. M.TaalE.WesterhofG. J.BohlmeijerE. T. (2011). Psychometric properties of the Dutch Five Facet Mindfulness Questionnaire (FFMQ) in patients with fibromyalgia. Clinical Rheumatology, 30, 1045-1054. doi:10.1007/s10067-011-1690-9
71.
Watson-SingletonN. N.WalkerJ. H.LoParoD.MackS. A.KaslowN. J. (2017). Psychometric evaluation of the Five Facet Mindfulness Questionnaire in a clinical sample of African Americans. Mindfulness, 9, 312-324. doi:10.1007/s12671-017-0776-0
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
