2012
DOI: 10.1007/s12671-011-0086-x
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Exploring the Psychometric Properties of the Five Facet Mindfulness Questionnaire

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

14
120
0
2

Year Published

2013
2013
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
9
1

Relationship

0
10

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 192 publications
(136 citation statements)
references
References 30 publications
14
120
0
2
Order By: Relevance
“…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.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 64%
“…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.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 64%
“…The FFMQ short form has been shown to have good internal consistency and significant relationships in the predicted directions with a variety of constructs related to mindfulness (Bohlmeijer et al, 2011). However, research shows that there are limitations to the predictive and face validity of the observing and describing scales of the FFMQ, thus for this reason we excluded them (Bergomi, Tschacher, & Kupper, 2013;Christopher, Neuser, Michael, & Baitmangalkar, 2012;Lilja, Lundh, Josefsson, & Falkenstrom, 2013). The sample size to item ratio did not justify analysis of item reliability in this sample.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 95%
“…Participants responded to 39 items on a 5-point Likert-style scale from 1 (never or very rarely true) to 5 (very often or always true). The inventory has shown consistent reliability and validity with both meditating and nonmeditating samples (Baer et al 2008, Baer et al 2006Christopher et al 2012). Internal consistency for the current sample was high across all subscales of the FFMQ (α = .77-.92).…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 70%