Cited by 14Mindfulness and Compassion InterventionsPsychometric Methodologies and TestingReligion, Spirituality, and Psychology

Psychometric properties and validation of the Swedish Five Facet Mindfulness Questionnaire in a clinical and non‐clinical sample among meditators and non‐meditators

Open access
Lilja, Josefine L., Falkenström, Fredrik, Zelleroth, Clara, Jacobson, Emma, Risberg, Stina, Nissling, Linnea, Weineland, Sandra·2020·Scandinavian Journal of Psychology

Abstract

Over a period of 15 years several attempts to conceptualize mindfulness have been presented and revised, but there is still no clear or agreed‐upon definition. The use of mindfulness‐based interventions has increased in clinical and research settings the last couple of years, including in Sweden. As a clinician it is crucial to know if a treatment works through the theoretically postulated mechanisms of change. Mindfulness is a concept that is difficult to measure. The overall aim of the current project was to examine the psychometric properties of the Swedish version of the Five Facet Mindfulness Questionnaire (FFMQ_SWE) using three different studies. To test the construct validity of the FFMQ_SWE a hierarchal confirmatory factor analysis was performed in a meditating non‐clinical sample, to examine if all the five facets would load on an overall mindfulness construct. Psychometric properties of the instrument were examined in a non‐clinical and a clinical sample, and discriminative relationships with other variables were analysed. The convergent validity was examined by analysing the correlations between FFMQ_SWE and Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, Sense of Coherence and Difficulties in Emotion Regulation Scale. Test‐retest reliability was tested by distributing FFMQ_SWE at two occasions. The hierarchal confirmatory factor analysis showed good fit in a population of meditators. The FFMQ_SWE showed good convergent validity and test‐retest reliability in both clinical and non‐clinical populations. In sum, the Swedish version of the FFMQ showed good psychometric properties and can be a useful instrument as an evaluation of treatment effects in both health care settings and research settings.

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 · 10.1111/sjop.12602

Cites

44 of 44 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

1 of the 45 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. Buchheld, N., Grossman, P. & Walach, H. (2001). Measuring mindfulness in insight meditation (Vipassana) and meditation‐based psychotherapy: The development of the Freiburg Mindfulness Inventory (FMI). Journal for Meditation and Meditation Research, 1, 11– 34.
  2. Byrne, B. M. (2010). Structural equation modelling with AMOS: basic concepts, applications, and programming (2nd edn). New York: Routledge.
  3. Kline, RB. (2005). Principles and practice of structural equation modelling (2nd edn). New York: Guilford Press.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Lilja, J. L., Falkenström, F., Zelleroth, C., Jacobson, E., Risberg, S., Nissling, L., & Weineland, S.
Affiliations
  • Region Västra Götaland (SE)
  • Linköping University (SE)
  • Gothenburg Sweden
  • University of Gothenburg (SE)
  • Bäckefors Sweden
Corresponding author
Lilja, Josefine L.
Venue
Scandinavian Journal of Psychology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2019-12-27
Volume
61
Issue
3
Pages
369-379
ISSN
  • 0036-5564 (ISSN-L)
  • 1467-9450
OpenAlex
W2998573499
Cited by
14
References
45
Citations by year
2025: 4 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 5 · 2019: 1
FWCI
2.34
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Scandinavian Journal of Psychology (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DiVA (Linkoping University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
Research and Development Primary Health Care, Gothenburg and Sodra Bohuslan
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 › Health › Religion, Spirituality, and Psychology
Keywords
Five Facet Mindfulness Questionnaire, Swedish version, mindfulness measurement, psychometric validation, construct validity, convergent validity, test-retest reliability, meditators, clinical samples, non-clinical sample, mechanisms of change, mindfulness-based interventions, anxiety and depression, sense of coherence, emotion regulation
MeSH terms
Adult, Factor Analysis, Statistical, Female, Humans, Male, Psychometrics, Surveys and Questionnaires, Sweden, Reproducibility of Results, Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, 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