Development and Validation of the Four Facet Mindful Eating Scale (FFaMES)

Carrière, Kimberly; Shireen, Syeda Huma; Siemers, Nellie; Preissner, Christian; Starr, Joshua P.; Falk, Carl F.; Knaüper, Bärbel

doi:10.1016/j.appet.2021.105689

Cited by 24 publications

(36 citation statements)

References 112 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In our study, the original six-factor MES structure was not confirmed, and several items have been removed, as they negatively affected model fit indices. Our results suggest that more studies with MES are needed to confirm its structure, including testing correlations between MES and other scales used to measure ME [ 28 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 ] to ensure that MES is a reliable and valid tool to assess ME.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 91%

“…IES-2 incorporates an additional, fourth IE domain (“Body–Food Choice Congruence”), coherent with IE principles presented by the authors of this construct [ 8 ]. On the other hand, there are several measures to assess ME, for example, the Mindful Eating Questionnaire [ 28 ], the Mindful Eating Scale [ 29 ], the Expanded Mindful Eating Scale [ 30 ], the Mindful Eating Inventory [ 31 ], the Mindful Eating Behavior Scale [ 32 ], or the Four-Facet Mindful Eating Scale [ 33 ]. Nonetheless, to our knowledge, no adaptation study was conducted in the Polish representative population, which limits the possibility to use any of the mentioned instruments.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Polish Adaptation and Validation of the Intuitive (IES-2) and Mindful (MES) Eating Scales—The Relationship of the Concepts with Healthy and Unhealthy Food Intake (a Cross-Sectional Study)

Małachowska

Jeżewska-Zychowicz

2022

Nutrients

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Intuitive (IE) and mindful (ME) eating share internally focused eating, yet previous studies have shown that these concepts are not strongly correlated, which suggests that they might be differently related to food intake. The study aimed to adapt the original Intuitive (IES-2) and Mindful (MES) Eating Scales to the Polish language, to test their psychometric parameters and, further, to examine associations of IE and ME with an intake of selected food groups, i.e., healthy foods (fresh and processed vegetables, fresh fruit) and unhealthy foods (sweets, salty snacks). A cross-sectional study was conducted in 2020 in a group of 1000 Polish adults (500 women and 500 men) aged 18–65 (mean age = 41.3 ± 13.6 years). The factor structure was assessed with exploratory (EFA) and confirmatory (CFA) factor analysis as well as structural equation modeling (SEM). Measurement invariance across gender was assessed with multiple-group analysis. Internal consistency and discriminant validity of the two scales was tested. Spearman’s correlation coefficient was used to examine the correlation between IES-2 and MES subscales with food intake. A 4-factor, 16-item structure was confirmed for IES-2, while EFA and CFA revealed a 3-factor, 17-item structure of MES. Both scales demonstrated adequate internal consistency and discriminant validity. Full metric and partial scalar invariance were found for IES-2, while MES proved partial invariances. “Awareness” (MES) and “Body–Food Choice Congruence” (IES-2) positively correlated with intake of healthy foods and negatively with the intake of unhealthy ones. “Eating For Physical Rather Than Emotional Reasons” (IES-2) and “Act with awareness” (MES) favored lower intake of unhealthy foods, whereas “Unconditional Permission to Eat” and “Reliance on Hunger and Satiety Cues” (IES-2) showed an inverse relationship. A greater score in “Acceptance” (MES) was conducive to lower intake of all foods except sweets. The results confirmed that adapted versions of the IES-2 and MES are valid and reliable measures to assess IE and ME among Polish adults. Different IE and ME domains may similarly explain intake of healthy and unhealthy foods, yet within a single eating style, individual domains might have the opposite effect. Future studies should confirm our findings with the inclusion of mediating factors, such as other eating styles, childhood experiences, dieting, etc.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 91%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Polish Adaptation and Validation of the Intuitive (IES-2) and Mindful (MES) Eating Scales—The Relationship of the Concepts with Healthy and Unhealthy Food Intake (a Cross-Sectional Study)

Małachowska

Jeżewska-Zychowicz

2022

Nutrients

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Future studies should explore the role of mindful eating in the E-MBIs outcomes using more valid and reliable measures (e.g. Carrière et al, 2022).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Feasibility of a multiple‐component mindfulness intervention for Chinese adolescents living with overweight: A pilot randomized trial

Zhang

O’Connor

Hugh‐Jones

2022

Applied Psych Health & Well

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The FFaMES was developed by Carrière et al (2022) to incorporate domains of non-judgement and decentering. It comprises 29 items with four factors relating to non-reactance, non-judgement, external awareness and internal awareness.…”

Section: Four Facet Mindful Eating Scale (Ffames)mentioning

confidence: 99%

Mindful eating: what we know so far

Tapper

2022

Nutrition Bulletin

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Mindful eating is increasingly being used to try to promote healthy eating and weight management. However, the term refers to a diverse set of practices that could have quite different effects on behaviour. This narrative review provides a guide to the concept of mindful eating as well as a comprehensive overview of research in the area. This includes the ways in which mindful eating has been operationalised and measured as well as evidence for effects and potential mechanisms of action. The research reviewed suggests that multi‐component mindfulness‐based interventions may be beneficial for disordered eating and weight management, but it is unclear whether these benefits exceed those obtained by alternative treatments. Some studies suggest that specific mindful eating strategies may have immediate effects on eating, but more research is needed to reach any definitive conclusions. These studies also suggest that effects may vary depending on the characteristics of the individual and/or the specific eating context. As such, research may ultimately point towards a more personalised approach to the application of mindful eating in order to maximise benefits. Finally, mindful eating interventions for children represent a relatively new area of research and there is currently insufficient evidence to draw any firm conclusions about their value. To advance both our understanding and effective application of mindful eating, more experimental research with high levels of methodological rigour is needed as well as research that explores underpinning mechanisms of action.

show abstract

Development and Validation of the Four Facet Mindful Eating Scale (FFaMES)

Cited by 24 publications

References 112 publications

Polish Adaptation and Validation of the Intuitive (IES-2) and Mindful (MES) Eating Scales—The Relationship of the Concepts with Healthy and Unhealthy Food Intake (a Cross-Sectional Study)

Polish Adaptation and Validation of the Intuitive (IES-2) and Mindful (MES) Eating Scales—The Relationship of the Concepts with Healthy and Unhealthy Food Intake (a Cross-Sectional Study)

Feasibility of a multiple‐component mindfulness intervention for Chinese adolescents living with overweight: A pilot randomized trial

Mindful eating: what we know so far

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About