Investigating the Five Facet Mindfulness Questionnaire (FFMQ): Construction of a Short Form and Evidence of a Two‐Factor Higher Order Structure of Mindfulness

Abstract

Our findings are relevant both with regard to conceptual issues on mindfulness and the assessment of mindfulness with the FFMQ. Replications in meditating samples and in patients are needed.

Validity evidence of the brazilian version of the five facet mindfulness questionnaire (FFMQ)

“…Despite this difference, the evidence regarding the construct validity of the FFMQ-BR has been confirmed since the new factor structure considerably explained the total variance of the scale (49.56%), even greater than the variance explained by the structure of the five factors in its original version, which was 33% (Baer et al, 2006). Moreover, the values of the items factor loadings were satisfactory with an average of 0.58, in comparison with the other validations, wherein the factor loadings ranged from 0.31 to 0.92 (Christopher, Neuser, Michael, & Baitmangalkar, 2012;Tran et al, 2013;Veehof et al, 2011). The version with the seven factors was given by dividing two of the original factors into other two parts, and was approved by the author of the original instrument.…”

“…The choice for the FFMQ was based on the review of the scientific literature, once this instrument is one of the most cited measures to assess mindfulness (Sauer et al, 2013). In addition, the FFMQ was adapted and validated in at least six countries to date being able to measure levels of mindfulness in a wide range of populations with or without meditation experience (Baer et al, 2008;Cebolla et al, 2012;Dundas, Vøllestad, Binder & Sivertsen, 2013;Hou, Wong, Lo, Mak, & Ma, 2013;Sugiura, Sato, Ito, & Murakami, 2012;Tran, Glück, & Nader, 2013;Veehof, Klooster, Taal, Westerhof, & Bohlmeijer, 2011).…”

Mechanisms of Mindfulness in the General Population

“…Previous research showed that Observe correlates slightly positively with symptoms of depression and anxiety in nonmeditating samples (e.g., Baer et al 2006;Tran et al 2013), possibly reflecting ruminative tendencies (i.e., repetitive thinking about negative outcomes). Only among meditators, all five facets of the FFMQ were consistently negatively associated with psychological symptoms (Baer et al 2006(Baer et al , 2008Tran et al 2014).…”

“…They also allow for a parsimonious examination of the associations of the multi-facetted construct of mindfulness with other constructs, as the two higher-order factors of the FFMQ subsume all of its five lower-order factors. Observe and, among meditators, Nonreact and Describe were found to be specifically indicative of SRA, whereas Actaware and Nonjudge of OTE (Tran et al 2013(Tran et al , 2014. Structural differences between meditators and nonmeditators in the single-factor model were quantified by the strength of association between SRA and OTE in the two-factor model.…”

“…Among nonmeditating samples, Observe does not load on higher-order mindfulness and thus is seemingly not part of a common underlying construct (Baer et al 2006). Tran et al (2013Tran et al ( , 2014 proposed to explain these structural differences by applying an alternative two-factor higher-order structure to the FFMQ, which factors represent the two quintessential components of mindfulness brought forth by Bishop et al (2004): Orientation to experience (OTE; being open and curious about the world and accepting experiences without judgment) and self-regulated attention (SRA; the mental ability to concentrate attention on the present moment and to deliberately switch the object of attention). These two higher-order factors provide not only direct empirical support for a widely used theoretical model of mindfulness.…”