Pelham William E, Gonzalez Oscar, Metcalf Stephen A, Whicker Cady L, Witkiewitz Katie, Marsch Lisa A, Mackinnon David P
Department of Psychology, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ 85281.
Department of Psychology and Neuroscience, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, North Carolina, NC 27599.
Mindfulness (N Y). 2019 Dec;10(12):2629-2646. doi: 10.1007/s12671-019-01235-2. Epub 2019 Oct 7.
Nearly all studies treat the Five Facet Mindfulness Questionnaire as five independent scales (one measuring each of the five facets), yet almost no methodological work has examined the psychometric structure of the facets independently. We address this gap using factor analytic methods.
Exploratory and confirmatory factor models were fit to item response data from a sample of 522 adults recruited online. Findings were replicated in a sample of 454 adults receiving aftercare for substance use disorder.
Parallel analysis suggested multiple factors for all five facets, in both samples. Exploratory factor models suggested the presence of method factors on the acting with awareness (items using the term "distraction") and describing facets (items that were reverse-scored). Confirmatory factor models fit poorly for all facets, in both samples. In follow-up analyses, model fit improved substantially on the acting with awareness and describing facets when method factors were included in a bifactor model. Model fit was also better for the facets of FFMQ short forms than for the full-length facets. The short-form facets and original facets correlated similarly with external criteria in both samples.
None of the FFMQ facets fit a unidimensional factor model; yet, follow-up analyses suggested each can be considered substantively unidimensional. Initial tests suggest the facets' multidimensionality did not materially impact their relation to other psychological constructs, suggesting multidimensionality can be ignored for some purposes. The use of short-form facets or latent variable models (e.g., bifactor specifications) are both viable solutions for addressing multidimensionality when desired.
几乎所有研究都将五因素正念问卷视为五个独立的量表(每个量表测量一个因素),然而几乎没有方法学研究独立检验过这些因素的心理测量结构。我们使用因子分析方法来填补这一空白。
对从网上招募的522名成年人样本的项目反应数据拟合探索性和验证性因子模型。在454名接受物质使用障碍后续护理的成年人样本中重复了研究结果。
平行分析表明,在两个样本中,所有五个因素都存在多个因子。探索性因子模型表明,在有意识行动(使用“分心”一词的项目)和描述因素(反向计分的项目)方面存在方法因子。在两个样本中,验证性因子模型对所有因素的拟合都很差。在后续分析中,当在双因素模型中纳入方法因子时,有意识行动和描述因素方面的模型拟合有了显著改善。FFMQ简表因素的模型拟合也比全长因素的更好。在两个样本中,简表因素和原始因素与外部标准的相关性相似。
FFMQ的任何一个因素都不符合单维因子模型;然而,后续分析表明,每个因素都可以被认为在实质上是单维的。初步测试表明,因素的多维性并没有对它们与其他心理结构的关系产生实质性影响,这表明在某些目的下可以忽略多维性。当需要时,使用简表因素或潜在变量模型(如双因素规范)都是解决多维性问题的可行方法。