A Psychometric Review and Conceptual Replication Study of the Five Facets Mindfulness Questionnaire Latent Structure

Abstract

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.

A Network Approach to the Five-Facet Model of Mindfulness: Insights from Gaussian Graphical and Directed Acyclic Graph Models

“…But here, our results suggest that the five-facet network model coheres as a unique network system, free from community structure or subnetworks. At first glance, this pattern of observations may seem in opposition with the recent suggestions that the Observing facet may not belong to the five-facet model as it poorly tapped onto overall mindfulness structure in non-meditating samples [11,21,27] such as ours. However, the finding that the Observing facet yielded the lowest centrality values and was tied to the only negative edge (along with Nonjudging) fully aligns with the idea that this node might play a distinct role.…”

“…Yet, although this multi-faceted approach has undoubtedly opened new vistas in clarifying the connections between specific features of mindfulness and other variables of interest, uncertainty persists regarding the very nature of mindfulness, especially vis-à-vis the organization and potential interplay between its constitutive features-i.e., the facets [25,27]. This is unfortunate, as the five-facet approach was built upon theoretical models assuming sets of interrelated skills as the driving force of mindfulness [10,15,17,18,28].…”

“…The FFMQ and each of its facet-related subscales show extremely high reliability and validity [for a review, see [27]). In this study, we relied on the validated French-speaking version of the scale [22].…”

Refinement and Validation of the Balanced Inventory of Mindfulness-Related Skills (BIMS)

“…Against the recommendations of the original study ( Baer et al, 2006), a total score is commonly presented. While many studies have replicated the original five-factor hierarchical structure (e.g., Christopher et al, 2012;de Bruin et al, 2012;Michalak et al, 2016;Veehof et al, 2011), others have failed to confirm a five-factor hierarchical structure or have identified better fitting alternative models (e.g., Lecuona et al, 2019;Lilja et al, 2011;Morgan et al, 2017;Tran et al, 2013;Van Dam et al, 2012;Williams et al, 2014). Yet others have found critical differences on the FFMQ as a whole or on its subscales between different samples (e.g., Baer et al, 2006;Karl et al, 2020;Van Dam et al, 2009;Williams et al, 2014).…”

“…Nonetheless, there are pragmatic issues that can be addressed to improve mindfulness measurement. Past work has suggested the FFMQ may exhibit method effects (Karl et al, 2020;Lecuona et al, 2019;Van Dam et al, 2012), which may or may not be related to desirability, another proposed issue with mindfulness measures (Grossman, 2008).…”