Zeroing In on Mindfulness Facets: Similarities, Validity, and Dimensionality across Three Independent Measures

Abstract

The field of mindfulness has seen a proliferation of psychometric measures, characterised by differences in operationalisation and conceptualisation. To illuminate the scope of, and offer insights into, the diversity apparent in the burgeoning literature, two distinct samples were used to examine the similarities, validity, and dimensionality of mindfulness facets and subscales across three independent measures: the Five Facet Mindfulness Questionnaire (FFMQ), Philadelphia Mindfulness Scale (PHLMS), and Toronto Mindfulness Scale (TMS). Results revealed problematic associations of FFMQ Observe with the other FFMQ facets and supported a four-factor structure (omitting this facet), while disputing the originally envisaged five-factor model; thus, solidifying a pattern in the literature. Results also confirmed the bidimensional nature of the PHLMS and TMS subscales, respectively. A joint Confirmatory Factor Analysis showed that PHLMS Acceptance could be assimilated within the FFMQ's four-factor model (as a distinct factor). The study offers a way of understanding interrelationships between the available mindfulness scales, so as to help practitioners and researchers make a more informed choice when conceptualising and operationalising mindfulness.

Fig 1. Confirmatory Factor Analysis results for the four-factor hierarchical model of the Five Facet Mindfulness Questionnaire [18], omitting the Observe facet, in Sample 1 (N = 395).

First-order latent variables represent the four facets and derive from item parcels (three per facet). Error terms are omitted for visual clarity. AWA = Act with Awareness; AWJ = Accept w/o Judgment; P1 to P3 = Parcels 1 to 3. All standardised coefficients are significant at the .05 level, with the exception of the path from Mindfulness to Describe, which did not reach significance (p = .09).

Fig 2. Confirmatory Factor Analysis results for the four-factor hierarchical model of the Five Facet Mindfulness Questionnaire [18], omitting the Observe facet, in Sample 2 (N = 172).

First-order latent variables represent the four facets and derive from item parcels (three per facet). Error terms are omitted for visual clarity. AWA = Act with Awareness; AWJ = Accept w/o Judgment; P1 to P3 = Parcels 1 to 3. All standardised coefficients are significant at the .01 level.

Fig 3. Results for Joint Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the Five Facet Mindfulness Questionnaire (minus the Observe facet) [18], Philadelphia Mindfulness Scale [40], and Toronto Mindfulness Scale [39] in Sample 1 (N = 395).

First-order latent variables derive from item parcels (three per facet). Error terms are omitted for visual clarity. AWA = Act with Awareness; AWJ = Accept w/o Judgment; F = Five Facet Mindfulness Questionnaire; P = Philadelphia Mindfulness Scale; P1 to P3 = Parcels 1 to 3. All standardised coefficients are significant at the .05 level.