4.6 Article

Validation of a Chinese version of the five facet mindfulness questionnaire and development of a short form based on item response theory

Journal

CURRENT PSYCHOLOGY
Volume 42, Issue 5, Pages 4212-4224

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s12144-021-01720-9

Keywords

Five facet mindfulness questionnaire; Short form; Item response theory; Reliability; Validity

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study aimed to validate a Chinese version of the Five Facet Mindfulness Questionnaire (FFMQ-C) and develop a shortened version. Results showed high reliability and consistency for both the original and shortened versions, and confirmed the five-factor structure. The study also demonstrated the validity of the questionnaire through significant correlations with related constructs. The findings suggest that the FFMQ-C and its shortened version are suitable for measuring mindfulness in the Chinese population.
This research aimed to validate a Chinese version of the Five Facet Mindfulness Questionnaire (FFMQ-C) and develop a short form based on classic test theory and Item Response Theory (IRT). 539 participants were recruited for the study, with 499 of them yielding valid data. The age range of the participants was from 18 to 71 years. Results demonstrated high test-retest reliability and high internal consistency of FFMQ-C. Based on the full-scale results, a 15-item short-form scale (FFMQ-C-SF) was developed using both classic test theory and IRT. The short form also had good internal consistency. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) supported the five-factor structure of the FFMQ-C and FFMQ-C-SF with adequate model fit. Validity was indicated by significant correlations between the two mindfulness scales and theoretically related constructs (e.g., emotional intelligence and experiential avoidance). Our findings indicate that FFMQ-C and FFMQ-C-SF can be used to measure mindfulness among the Chinese population.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available