A Rasch Model Analysis of the Mindful Attention Awareness Scale

Abstract

The Mindful Attention Awareness Scale was developed to measure individual differences in the tendency to be mindful. The current study examined the psychometric properties of the Mindful Attention Awareness Scale in a heterogeneous sample of 565 nonmeditators and 612 meditators using the polytomous Rasch model. The results showed that some items did not function the same way for these two groups. Overall, meditators had higher mean estimates than nonmeditators. The analysis identified a group of items as highly discriminating. Using a different model, Van Dam, Earleywine, and Borders in 2010 identified the same group of items as highly discriminating, and concluded that they were the items with the most information. Multiple pieces of evidence from the Rasch analysis showed that these items discriminate highly because of local dependence, hence do not supply independent information. We discussed how these different conclusions, based on similar findings, result from two very different paradigms in measurement.

Stress beyond coping? A Rasch analysis of the Perceived Stress Scale (PSS-14) in an Aboriginal population

“…Additionally, the χ 2 statistic was used to evaluate item-trait interaction and the probability of the misfit occurring due to sampling variation [63, 85]. To consider an item as misfitting, the misfit needed to be flagged by both statistics [92] and a Bonferroni adjustment with α = 0.01 was applied [89]. Similarly to the DIF analysis, the graphical analysis was conducted by evaluating the average observed item responses in each CI compared to the expected item responses.…”

Exploring scale validity and measurement invariance of the Toronto Mindfulness Scale across levels of meditation experience and proficiency

“…Measurement invariance is an important prerequisite to drawing meaningful comparisons between discrepant groups (Milfont & Fischer, ), and is important in this context for determining whether the underlying constructs assessed by the TMS differ as a function of mindfulness experience. Recent evidence suggests that mindfulness items may function differently for meditating and nonmeditating samples (Goh, Marais, & Ireland, ; Van Dam, Earleywine, & Danoff‐Burg, ), and that interpretation of items may differ based on mindfulness‐based meditation experience (Belzer et al, ). Patterns of validity associations have also been shown to vary across meditating and nonmeditating samples with regard to the correlations among factors of the Five Facet Mindfulness Questionnaire (Christopher, Neuser, Michael, & Baitmangalkar, ) and the prediction of psychological symptoms (de Bruin, Topper, Muskens, Bögels, & Kamphuis, ).…”

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

“…Efforts to use IRT for mindfulness scales have been made on the predecessor to the FFMQ (Medvedev, Siegert, Kersten, & Krägeloh, 2016), the MAAS (Goh, Marais, & Ireland, 2017;Van Dam , Earleywine, & Borders, 2010), and the Freiburg Mindfulness Inventory (Sauer, Ziegler, Danay, Ives, & Kohls, 2013). Notably, most implementations of IRT models have required either scale unidimensionality or (in the case of the Rasch model) treat multidimensionality as unique cases of multiple unidimensionality (Briggs & Wilson, 2003).…”