Bifactor analysis and construct validity of the five facet mindfulness questionnaire (FFMQ) in non-clinical Spanish samples

Abstract

The objective of the present study was to examine the dimensionality, reliability, and construct validity of the Five Facet Mindfulness Questionnaire (FFMQ) in three Spanish samples using structural equation modeling (SEM). Pooling the FFMQ data from 3 Spanish samples (n = 1191), we estimated the fit of two competing models (correlated five-factor vs. bifactor) via confirmatory factor analysis. The factorial invariance of the best fitting model across meditative practice was also addressed. The pattern of relationships between the FFMQ latent dimensions and anxiety, depression, and distress was analyzed using SEM. FFMQ reliability was examined by computing the omega and omega hierarchical coefficients. The bifactor model, which accounted for the covariance among FFMQ items with regard to one general factor (mindfulness) and five orthogonal factors (observing, describing, acting with awareness, non-judgment, and non-reactivity), fit the FFMQ structure better than the correlated five-factor model. The relationships between the latent variables and their manifest indicators were not invariant across the meditative experience. Observing items had significant loadings on the general mindfulness factor, but only in the meditator sub-sample. The SEM analysis revealed significant links between mindfulness and symptoms of depression and stress. When the general factor was partialled out, the acting with awareness facet did not show adequate reliability. The FFMQ shows a robust bifactor structure among Spanish individuals. Nevertheless, the Observing subscale does not seem to be adequate for assessing mindfulness in individuals without meditative experience.

Exploring relations among mindfulness facets and various meditation practices: Do they work in different ways?

“…To measure dispositional mindfulness, the Five Facet Mindfulness questionnaire was used (FFMQ; Aguado et al, 2015;Baer et al, 2006;Cebolla et al, 2012). It is a 39-item questionnaire that assesses five different facets of mindfulness: Observing, which refers to the subject's capacity to pay attention to internal and external experiences such as sensations, thoughts, or emotions; Describing, which measures the ability to describe events and personal responses in words; Acting with awareness, which includes focusing on the activity being carried out instead of behaving automatically; Non-judging of inner experience, which refers to the ability to take a non-evaluative stance toward thoughts and feelings; Non-reactivity to inner experience, allowing thoughts and feelings to come and go without getting caught up in them or carried away by them (Baer et al, 2008).…”

Psychometric Properties of the Spanish Version of the Nonattachment Scale (NAS) and Its Relationship with Mindfulness, Decentering, and Mental Health

“…The Five-Facet Mindfulness Questionnaire (FFMQ; Aguado et al 2015;Baer et al 2006;Baer et al 2008;Cebolla et al 2012) is a 39-item instrument rated on a fivepoint Likert scale (1 = never or very rarely true to 5 = very often or always true), designed to evaluate mindfulness in a comprehensive way by assessing five key aspects of this construct: observing (e.g., BWhen I'm walking, I deliberately notice the sensations of my body moving^), describing (e.g., BI'm good at finding words to describe my feelings^), acting with awareness (e.g., BI find myself doing things without paying attention^), nonjudging of inner experience (e.g., BI criticize myself for having irrational or inappropriate emotions^), and nonreactivity to inner experience (e.g., BI perceive my feelings and emotions without having to react to them^). The Spanish version presented adequate Cronbach's alphas ranging from .80 to .91 (Cebolla et al 2012).…”

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

“…As discussed above, several models have been proposed to fit the FFMQ, with varying success in different samples and with different numbers of items (e.g., Aguado et al, 2015;Baer et al, 2006;Baer et al, 2008;Morgan et al, 2017;Van Dam et al, 2012).…”