The DOI matches its Crossref record; 64 of the 65 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Examining the factor structures of the Five Facet Mindfulness Questionnaire and the Self-Compassion Scale.
Open accessAbstract
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.
Overview
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
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.
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?
The source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“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)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“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]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“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)
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“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 cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“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]
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“The FFMQ has adequate psychometric properties, including high internal consistency (α = 0.77–0.93; Williams et al., 2014), and has been shown to be valid, reliable, and sensitive to change in clinical populations (Bohlmeijer et al., 2011).”
From Online mindfulness-enhanced cognitive behavioural therapy for anxiety and depression: Outcomes of a pilot trial (2018) · cites this paper as Williams et al., 2014
In the citing paper
“There is controversy over these constructs and their measurement particularly the combining of negative and positive items as a single measure and construct [15, 74, 81, 90, 101, 120].”
From The development of compassionate engagement and action scales for self and others (2017) · cites this paper as [120]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999) · Structural Equation Modeling A Multidisciplinary Journal · doi:10.1080/10705519909540118 · Cited by 108,788
A new look at the statistical model identification
Akaike, H. (1974) · IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control · doi:10.1109/tac.1974.1100705 · Cited by 51,879
(1998) · Cited by 36,049
Comparative fit indexes in structural models.
Bentler, P. M. (1990) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.107.2.238 · Cited by 25,266
Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research
Brown, T. A. (2007) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.44-2769 · Cited by 15,621
The benefits of being present: Mindfulness and its role in psychological well-being
Brown, K. W., & Ryan, R. M. (2003) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.84.4.822 · Cited by 13,448
Hu, L.-T., & Bentler, P. M. (1998) · Psychological Methods · doi:10.1037/1082-989x.3.4.424 · Cited by 12,298
EQS : structural equations program manual
Bentler, P. M. (1989) · Medical Entomology and Zoology · Cited by 9,669
Schermelleh-Engel, K., Moosbrugger, H., & Müller, H. (2003) · Department of Psychology - University of Koblenz-Landau · doi:10.23668/psycharchives.12784 · Cited by 8,975
Using Self-Report Assessment Methods to Explore Facets of Mindfulness
Baer, R. A., Smith, G. T., Hopkins, J., Krietemeyer, J., & Toney, L. (2006) · Assessment · doi:10.1177/1073191105283504 · Cited by 7,511
Research works printed but not linked: 2
- 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.
- Kline, R. B. (2005). Principles and practices of structural equation modelling. New York, NY: Guildford Press.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
The Relationship Between Self‐Compassion and Well‐Being: A Meta‐Analysis
Zessin, U., Dickhäuser, O., & Garbade, S. (2015) · Applied Psychology: Health and Well-Being · doi:10.1111/aphw.12051 · Cited by 1,237
What is compassion and how can we measure it? A review of definitions and measures
Strauss, C., Lever Taylor, B., Gu, J., Kuyken, W., Baer, R., Jones, F., & Cavanagh, K. (2016) · Clinical Psychology Review · doi:10.1016/j.cpr.2016.05.004 · Cited by 1,021
Self-citationSelf-compassion: Theory, method, research, and intervention
Neff, K. D. (2023) · Annual Review of Psychology · doi:10.1146/annurev-psych-032420-031047 · Cited by 931
The Self-Compassion Scale is a Valid and Theoretically Coherent Measure of Self-Compassion
Neff, K. D. (2016) · Mindfulness · doi:10.1007/s12671-015-0479-3 · Cited by 805
The development of compassionate engagement and action scales for self and others
Gilbert, P., Catarino, F., Duarte, C., Matos, M., Kolts, R., Stubbs, J., Ceresatto, L., Duarte, J., Pinto-Gouveia, J., & Basran, J. (2017) · Journal of Compassionate Health Care · doi:10.1186/s40639-017-0033-3 · Cited by 527
Metadata
- Authors
- Williams, M. J., Dalgleish, T., Karl, A., & Kuyken, W.
- Affiliations
- University of Exeter (GB)
- MRC Cognition and Brain Sciences Unit (GB)
- Venue
- Psychological Assessment
- Published
- 2014-06
- Volume
- 26
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 407-418
- ISSN
- 1040-3590 (ISSN-L)
- 1939-134X
- 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
- green
- hdl.handle.net
- 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
