Cited by 21Mindfulness and Compassion InterventionsPsychometric Methodologies and TestingPsychological Well-being and Life Satisfaction

Validity of the 15-item five-facet mindfulness questionnaire among an ethnically diverse sample of university students

Kim, Hanjoe, Li, Nan, Broyles, Amanda, Musoka, Lena, Correa-Fernández, Virmarie·2023·Journal of American College Health

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: This study examines the psychometrics of the 15-item version of the Five-Factor Mindfulness Questionnaire (FFMQ-15). PARTICIPANTS: An ethnically diverse sample of 538 college students participated in this study. METHODS: The factor structure was evaluated through confirmatory factor analyses fitting 64 alternative models with and without method factors. Model fit as well as valid interpretations of the model parameters were considered in selecting the final model. Utilizing the final selected model, the relationship between mindfulness and the mindfulness facets with two related constructs, psychological inflexibility and emotional distress tolerance was examined. RESULTS: The five-facet second-order model with a single-method factor best fitted to the data and provided sound, interpretable estimates. After accounting for the single-method effect, overall mindfulness was positively correlated with emotional distress tolerance and negatively correlated with psychological inflexibility. CONCLUSIONS: The FFMQ-15 was a valid measure of mindfulness among university students when accounting for the method factor.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/07448481.2021.1892700

Cites

41 of 41 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • After 4 weeks of MD, the current sample reported total and subscale mindfulness scores similar to mean scores of general population samples, except for the acting with awareness subscale.

    “After 4 weeks of MD, the current sample reported total and subscale mindfulness scores that were similar to the mean scores of general population samples, except for the acting with awareness subscale (37, 38).”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Kim, H., Li, N., Broyles, A., Musoka, L., & Correa-Fernández, V.
Affiliations
University of Houston (US)
Corresponding author
Kim, Hanjoe
Venue
Journal of American College Health
Published
2021-03-24
Volume
71
Issue
2
Pages
450-459
ISSN
  • 0164-4300 (ISSN-L)
  • 0744-8481
  • 1940-3208
OpenAlex
W3136212412
Cited by
21
References
41
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 6 · 2021: 2
FWCI
2.39
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of American College Health (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
American Cancer Society (MRSG-15-018-01-CPPB)
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 › Social Psychology › Psychological Well-being and Life Satisfaction
Keywords
Five Factor Mindfulness Questionnaire, mindfulness, psychometric validation, factor structure, methodological factors, second-order model, psychological inflexibility, university students, ethnic diversity
MeSH terms
Humans, Psychometrics, Surveys and Questionnaires, Students, Universities, Reproducibility of Results, 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