Facets of mindfulness – Results of an online study investigating the Freiburg mindfulness inventory

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2008.10.009Get rights and content

Abstract

There is an ongoing discussion about the definition of mindfulness including the question whether mindfulness is a one-dimensional or multidimensional construct. Research on the Freiburg mindfulness inventory (FMI) has also reflected this debate. We have investigated the psychometric properties of the FMI-14-item in an online convenience sample of n = 244 individuals (150 female; mean age 28.7 (SD = 8.76)) with (n = 75) and without (n = 169) regular meditative training). A simplified version of the beck depression inventory (BDI-V) and the trait subscale of the state-trait-anxiety-inventory (STAI-T) were used for determining criterion validity. A one-dimensional (α = .83) and an alternative two-dimensional solution (αF1 = .77; αF2 = .69) of the FMI-14 were tested with a confirmatory factor analysis and yielded suboptimal fit indices. An exploratory analysis resulted in a reduced 8-item version of the two-dimensional solution with better fit indices, but low internal consistency (αF1 = .71; αF2 = .64). The factors could be identified as “Presence” (F1) and “Acceptance” (F2). Further investigation revealed that the substantial negative relationship between mindfulness and anxiety and depression is completely due to the “Acceptance” factor of mindfulness. This suggests that there may be heuristic value in the two-factorial solution, although for practical purposes it seems sufficient to assess mindfulness as one-dimensional construct.

Introduction

Mindfulness and its relationship with health related parameters have become a focus of interest within the health sciences. Mindfulness-based-stress reduction (MBSR) programs have generally shown efficacy for improving various medical conditions and emotional symptoms (Baer, 2003, Grossman et al., 2004, Ott et al., 2006), although methodological variability in some studies and particularly paucity of randomized controlled trials precludes strong conclusions (Toneatto & Nguyen, 2007). Nevertheless, there is a growing body of evidence that mindfulness is particularly beneficial for coping with depression, anxiety and stress (Grossman et al., 2004, Segal et al., 2002).

Although the concept of mindfulness was originally derived from Buddhist psychology, mindfulness can be understood in secular terms as the mental ability to focus on the direct and immediate perception of the present moment with a state of non-judgemental awareness, voluntarily suspending evaluative cognitive feedback (Hayes & Shenk, 2004).

With increasing evidence of beneficial health effects of mindfulness training, assessment of mindfulness also became desirable. To date, different scales have been developed such us (1) the Mindfulness and Attention Awareness Scale (MAAS; 15 items, 1 factor, α = .82–.87, rtt1 = .81; Brown & Ryan, 2003), (2) the Kentucky Inventory of Mindfulness Scale (KIMS; 39 items, 4 factors, α = .83–.91, rtt = .65–.86; Baer, Smith, & Allen, 2004), (3) the Five Facets Mindfulness Questionnaire (FFMQ; 39 items; 1 factor, 5 facets, α = .71–.92; Baer, Smith, Hopkins, Krietemeyer, & Toney, 2006) the (4) Toronto Mindfulness Scale (TMS; 39 items, 2 factors, α = .95; Lau et al., 2006), (5) the Cognitive and Affective Mindfulness Scale, Revised (CAMS-R; 12 items, 1 factor, 4 facets, α = .74–.77; Feldman, Hayes, Kumar, Greeson, and Laurenceau, 2007), or (6) the Freiburg Mindfulness Inventory (FMI; Walach, Buchheld, Buttenmüller, Kleinknecht, & Schmidt, 2006), available in a long (FMI-30, 30 items, 1 factor, α = .93−.94) and a short version (FMI-14, 14 items, 1 factor, α = .79−.86). The empirical status of these measures is comparable: all were replicated in confirmatory analysis and have seen promising external validation in different types of populations (with the exception of the CAMS-R that draws from student samples only). However, there are considerable differences concerning the definition and operationalisation of mindfulness: Whereas most inventories include several aspects of mindfulness such as awareness or an attitude of Acceptance, the MAAS focuses exclusively on the subjective experience of awareness. The KIMS and the FFMQ are based on skills as defined in Dialectical Behavior Therapy (Welch, Rizvi, & Dimidjan, 2006). In contrast to the other inventories, the TMS measures mindfulness after meditation as a state-like construct. Finally, the FMI was developed by the help of experts of Buddhist psychology and may thus capture the essence of mindfulness more adequately (Grossman, 2008). For that reason we confined our research to this scale.

Whereas Buchheld, Grossman, and Walach (2001) argued for four interpretable factors of the FMI-30, Walach et al. (2006) have recently presented a one-dimensional short form (FMI-14). On the other hand, Ströhle (2006) found evidence for a two-factorial solution of the short form.

As there is ambiguity concerning the factorial structure, we have decided to further investigate the psychometric properties of the FMI-14 in another validation study to clarify its factorial structure. As mindfulness-based cognitive therapy has been advocated for depression and anxiety treatment (Finucane and Mercer, 2006, Segal et al., 2002), we sought evidence of criterion validity aspects of the scale by testing it together with a modified version of the Beck Depression Inventory (BDI-V; Schmitt, Altstötter-Gleich, Hinz, Maes, & Brähler, 2006) and the Trait-Subscale (STAI-T) of the Spielberg State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (Laux, Glanzmann, Schaffner, & Spielberger, 1981). This paper reports on the psychometric properties and factorial structure of the FMI as well as validity aspects with respect to the BDI-V and the STAI-T.

Section snippets

Participants and data collection

The online questionnaire battery consisting of the FMI-14, BDI-V and STAI-T (described below) was presented on a German internet research portal for mindfulness research from November 2006 to January 2007. In order to recruit subjects, student unions were contacted. Subjects were not offered reimbursement but could participate at a prize draw for a pocket PC (Ipod). Additionally, subjects received an individual mindfulness profile. Students were also offered course credits. To ensure data

Sample sociodemographics

Out of the 241 participants, 150 were female and 89 male (2 missing). The mean age was 28.7 years (SD = 8.76); 120 individuals were students.

For 89 participants the motivation to participate in the online study was professional or scientific interest in the study, whereas 49 individuals had a private interest in mindfulness. Seventy-six individuals were not interested in mindfulness but wanted to support the study in order to contribute to a research program and 3 participants were interested in

Discussion

In this paper, we found that both the one-dimensional and the two-factor solution of the FMI-14 show acceptable, but suboptimal fit indices.

In order to further improve the model fit, exploratory factor analyses were conducted: These yielded a reduced two-factor solution (FMI-8), which consisted of four items per factor with good fit indices but lower internal consistency. This statistically derived, reduced two-dimensional solution provided the best model for estimating the observed covariance

Conflict of interest

None.

Acknowledgement

HW and NK are sponsored by the Samueli Institute, Alexandria, USA.

References (33)

  • K.W. Brown et al.

    Perils and promise in defining and measuring mindfulness: Observations from experience clinical psychology

    Science and Practice

    (2004)
  • N. Buchheld et al.

    Measuring mindfulness in insight meditation (vipassana) and meditation-based psychotherapy: The development of the Freiburg mindfulness inventory (FMI)

    Journal for Meditation and Meditation Research

    (2001)
  • N. Buchheld et al.

    Achtsamkeit in Vipassana-Meditation und Psychotherapie. Die Entwicklung des “Freiburger Fragebogens zur Achtsamkeit”

    Zeitschrift für Klinische Psychologie, Psychiatrie und Psychotherapie

    (2002)
  • G.C. Feldman et al.

    Mindfulness and emotion regulation: The development and initial validation of the cognitive and affective mindfulness scale – Revised (CAMS-R)

    Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment

    (2007)
  • A. Finucane et al.

    An exploratory mixed methods study of the acceptability and effectiveness of mindfulness-based cognitive therapy for patients with active depression and anxiety in primary care

    BMC Psychiatry

    (2006)
  • S.D. Gosling et al.

    Should we trust web-based studies? A comparative analysis of six preconceptions about Internet questionnaires

    American Psychologist

    (2004)
  • Cited by (185)

    View all citing articles on Scopus
    View full text