Cited by 5Mindfulness and Compassion InterventionsCancer survivorship and careReligion, Spirituality, and Psychology

Validation of the factor structure of the Five Facets of Mindfulness Questionnaire in men diagnosed with advanced prostate cancer

Open access
Laurie, Kirstyn, Hyde, Melissa K., Lepore, Stephen J., Chambers, Suzanne K.·2018·Psycho-Oncology

Abstract

Mindfulness interventions are increasingly popular in cancer care, emerging in both literature and practice. Evidence suggests that mindfulness is helpful for women diagnosed with breast cancer, but this may not be the case in other settings. To understand when, how, and which mindfulness skills promote effective coping with cancer, well‐validated measures are needed.\nThe Five Facets of Mindfulness Questionnaire (FFMQ) is a self-report measure of engagement in mindfulness practices. The five facets include observing or noticing ones' reaction, ability to describe this reaction, acting with awareness, nonjudging of inner experience, and nonreactivity to inner experience. The FFMQ was originally validated with university students and is widely used to measure mindfulness for patients with noncommunicable disease (depression), including cancer. However, these studies overrepresent women with breast cancer, present a factor structure that differs in clinical populations from that originally proposed, and none examine construct validity of the FFMQ in cancer populations. Accordingly, we validated the FFMQ using confirmatory factor analysis in men diagnosed with advanced prostate cancer (PCa).

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/pon.4474

Cites

10 of 10 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Laurie, K., Hyde, M. K., Lepore, S. J., & Chambers, S. K.
Affiliations
  • Griffith University (AU)
  • Temple University (US)
Corresponding author
Chambers, Suzanne K.
Venue
Psycho-Oncology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2017-06-29
Volume
27
Issue
3
Pages
1061-1064
ISSN
  • 1057-9249 (ISSN-L)
  • 1099-1611
OpenAlex
W2626523385
Cited by
5
References
10
Citations by year
2023: 1 · 2021: 4
FWCI
0.00
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Psycho-Oncology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Griffith Research Online (submittedVersion)
  • Australasian Journal of Paramedicine (submittedVersion)
  • OPUS - Open Publications of UTS Scholars (University of Technology Sydney) (submittedVersion)
Funders
National Health and Medical Research Council (APP1024989)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Mindfulness and Compassion Interventions
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Cancer survivorship and care
  • Social Sciences › Health › Religion, Spirituality, and Psychology
Keywords
factor structure, mindfulness, advanced prostate cancer, men, construct validity, coping with cancer, mindfulness-based interventions

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review