Cited by 137Mindfulness and Compassion InterventionsPsychometric Methodologies and TestingMental Health Research Topics

Bifactor analysis and construct validity of the five facet mindfulness questionnaire (FFMQ) in non-clinical Spanish samples

Open access
Aguado, Jaume, Luciano, Juan V., Cebolla, Ausias, Serrano-Blanco, Antoni, Soler, Joaquim, García-Campayo, Javier·2015·Frontiers in Psychology

Abstract

The objective of the present study was to examine the dimensionality, reliability, and construct validity of the Five Facet Mindfulness Questionnaire (FFMQ) in three Spanish samples using structural equation modeling (SEM). Pooling the FFMQ data from 3 Spanish samples (n = 1191), we estimated the fit of two competing models (correlated five-factor vs. bifactor) via confirmatory factor analysis. The factorial invariance of the best fitting model across meditative practice was also addressed. The pattern of relationships between the FFMQ latent dimensions and anxiety, depression, and distress was analyzed using SEM. FFMQ reliability was examined by computing the omega and omega hierarchical coefficients. The bifactor model, which accounted for the covariance among FFMQ items with regard to one general factor (mindfulness) and five orthogonal factors (observing, describing, acting with awareness, non-judgment, and non-reactivity), fit the FFMQ structure better than the correlated five-factor model. The relationships between the latent variables and their manifest indicators were not invariant across the meditative experience. Observing items had significant loadings on the general mindfulness factor, but only in the meditator sub-sample. The SEM analysis revealed significant links between mindfulness and symptoms of depression and stress. When the general factor was partialled out, the acting with awareness facet did not show adequate reliability. The FFMQ shows a robust bifactor structure among Spanish individuals. Nevertheless, the Observing subscale does not seem to be adequate for assessing mindfulness in individuals without meditative experience.

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 · 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00404

Cites

50 of 50 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
Aguado, J., Luciano, J. V., Cebolla, A., Serrano-Blanco, A., Soler, J., & García-Campayo, J.
Affiliations
  • Parc Sanitari Sant Joan de Déu (ES)
  • Red de Investigación en Actividades Preventivas y Promoción de la Salud (ES)
  • Hospital de Sant Pau (ES)
Corresponding author
Luciano, Juan V.
Venue
Frontiers in Psychology
Published
2015-04-09
Volume
6
Pages
404-404
ISSN
1664-1078 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2070476597
Cited by
137
References
49
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 13 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 21 · 2020: 13 · 2019: 20 · 2018: 16 · 2017: 11 · 2016: 12 · 2015: 3
FWCI
17.36
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • Frontiers in Psychology (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Repositori UJI (Universitat Jaume I) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • Dipòsit Digital de Documents de la UAB (Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • LA Referencia (Red Federada de Repositorios Institucionales de Publicaciones Científicas) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • LA Referencia (Red Federada de Repositorios Institucionales de Publicaciones Científicas) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • Repository of Digital Objects for Teaching Research and Culture (University of Valencia) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Zaguan (University of Zaragoza Repository) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
  • Generalitat Valenciana (Conselleria de Educación, 2013/003, 2013/003)
  • Centro de Investigación Biomédica en Red-Fisiopatología de la Obesidad y Nutrición
  • Instituto de Salud Carlos III (CP14/00087)
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 › Mental Health Research Topics
Keywords
Five Facet Mindfulness Questionnaire, bifactor model, construct validity, mindfulness, non-clinical population, meditative experience, measurement invariance, observation, acting with awareness, non-judgment, non-reactivity, description, depression, anxiety, stress, reliability statistics, omega hierarchical

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