CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 322Mindfulness and Compassion InterventionsPsychometric Methodologies and TestingAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes

Examining the factor structures of the Five Facet Mindfulness Questionnaire and the Self-Compassion Scale.

Open access
Williams, Matthew J., Dalgleish, Tim, Karl, Anke, Kuyken, Willem·2014·Psychological Assessment
DOI 10.1037/a0035566
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

The five facet mindfulness questionnaire (FFMQ; Baer, Smith, Hopkins, Krietemeyer, & Toney, 2006) and the self-compassion scale (SCS; Neff, 2003) are widely used measures of mindfulness and self-compassion in mindfulness-based intervention research. The psychometric properties of the FFMQ and the SCS need to be independently replicated in community samples and relevant clinical samples to support their use. Our primary aim was to establish the factor structures of the FFMQ and SCS in individuals with recurrent depression in remission, since mindfulness-based cognitive therapy (MBCT) was developed as a treatment for preventing depressive relapse. In order to determine the consistency across populations, we examined the factor structures of the FFMQ and SCS in 3 samples: (1) a convenience sample of adults, (2) a sample of adults who practice meditation, and (3) a sample of adults who suffer from recurrent depression and were recruited to take part in a trial of MBCT. Confirmatory factor analyses (CFAs) showed that a 4-factor hierarchical model of the FFMQ best fits the community sample and the clinical sample but that a 5-factor hierarchical model of the FFMQ best fits the meditator sample. CFA did not endorse the SCS 6-factor hierarchical structure in any of the 3 samples. Clinicians and researchers should be aware of the psychometric properties of the FFMQ to measure mindfulness when comparing meditators and nonmeditators. Further research is needed to develop a more psychometrically robust measure of self-compassion.

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 · 10.1037/a0035566

Cites

64 of 64 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?

  • Williams et al. (2014) suggested researchers avoid using total scores because the scale did not fit a one-factor structure.

    “Williams et al. (2014) suggested researchers avoid using total scores because the scale did not fit a one-factor structure”

    From Effectiveness of Self-Compassion Related Therapies: a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis (2019) · cites this paper as Williams et al. (2014)

    The Confirmatory Factor Analyses FFMQ section reports that a one-factor model fit poorly in all samples. The Conclusion advises caution when using the FFMQ to compare meditators with non-meditators unless the Observe facet is excluded; it does not recommend avoiding all total scores. The Self-Compassion Scale section similarly questions whether that scale measures an overarching construct, rather than issuing a blanket instruction against total scores. Page numbers were not available in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Both the FFMQ and FFMQ-SF have been validated primarily in samples of healthy adults, meditators, and depressive patients.

    “Both the FFMQ and FFMQ-SF have been validated primarily in samples of healthy adults, meditators, and depressive patients [20–26].”

    From Psychometric properties of the Chinese version of Five Facet Mindfulness Questionnaire—short form in cancer patients: a Bayesian structural equation modeling approach (2021) · cites this paper as [21]

    The Aim of the Present Study and Method Participants sections describe examining the FFMQ in community adults, meditators, and adults with recurrent depression in remission. They do not address the FFMQ-SF, and the Limitations section says the community sample’s clinical status was not assessed, so it cannot be described as a healthy-adult sample on this evidence. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Williams et al. (2014) argued that the optimal FFMQ factor structure varied depending on meditation experience, with a four-factor solution preferred in samples without meditation experience.

    “Williams, Dalgleish, Karl and Kuyken (2014) argued that the optimal factor structure varied depending on meditation experience, with a four-factor solution being preferred in samples without meditation experience.”

    From Psychometric properties of acceptance measures: A systematic review (2019) · cites this paper as Williams, Dalgleish, Karl and Kuyken (2014)

  • Other commonly used measures included the Five Facet Mindfulness Scale (n = 8, 23.5%), the Cognitive Fusion Questionnaire (n = 7, 20.6%), and the Personal Values Questionnaire (n = 6, 17.6%).

    “While these two measures were used most often, there are a several of other measures that were commonly used, including the Five Facet Mindfulness Scale ( n = 8, 23.5%) , the Cognitive Fusion Questionnaire ( n = 7, 20.6%), and the Personal Values Questionnaire ( n = 6, 17.6%) (Williams et al., 2014; Gillanders et al., 2013; Ciarrochi et al., 2006).”

    From A Scoping Review of Acceptance and Commitment Therapy in Higher Education (2024) · cites this paper as Williams et al., 2014

  • The SCS is criticized and the generalizability of Neff's structure is questioned.

    “skala ta jest jednak krytykowana, amożliwość generalizacji uzyskanej przez Neff struktury podawana jest wwątpliwość [25-27].”

    From The Polish adaptation of the Self-Compassion Scale Short Form (2024) · cites this paper as [25]

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

1 of the 65 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. First, M. B., Spitzer, R. L., Gibbon, M., & Williams, J. B. W. (2002). Structured clinical interview for DSM-IV-TR axis I disorders, research version, patient edition. (SCID- I/P) New York: Biometrics Research, New York State Psychiatric Institute.
  2. Kline, R. B. (2005). Principles and practices of structural equation modelling. New York, NY: Guildford Press.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Williams, M. J., Dalgleish, T., Karl, A., & Kuyken, W.
Affiliations
  • University of Exeter (GB)
  • MRC Cognition and Brain Sciences Unit (GB)
ORCID
Venue
Psychological Assessment
Publisher
American Psychological Association (APA)
Published
2014-06
Volume
26
Issue
2
Pages
407-418
ISSN
  • 1040-3590 (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-134X
DOI
10.1037/a0035566
OpenAlex
W2141236793
Cited by
321
References
65
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 17 · 2024: 19 · 2023: 28 · 2022: 32 · 2021: 29 · 2020: 27 · 2019: 26 · 2018: 42 · 2017: 32 · 2016: 34 · 2015: 17 · 2014: 8
FWCI
35.79
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Psychological Assessment (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Open Research Exeter (University of Exeter) (submittedVersion)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion)
Funders
National Institute for Health Research (08/56/01)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Mindfulness and Compassion Interventions
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Psychometric Methodologies and Testing
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
Keywords
Five Facet Mindfulness Questionnaire, Self-Compassion Scale, factor structure, mindfulness, self-compassion, recurrent depression, remission, mindfulness-based cognitive therapy, meditation, psychometric properties, confirmatory factor analysis
MeSH terms
Adult, Empathy, Factor Analysis, Statistical, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Psychometrics, Surveys and Questionnaires, Self Concept, Mindfulness

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