4.0 Article

The Italian Five Facet Mindfulness Questionnaire: A Contribution to its Validity and Reliability

Journal

Publisher

SPRINGER/PLENUM PUBLISHERS
DOI: 10.1007/s10862-013-9403-0

Keywords

Mindfulness; Questionnaire; Facets; Factor structure; Validation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Mindfulness refers to the ability to be aware of and attentive to internal and external events, without becoming overwhelmed or feeling the need to react automatically. Recent studies indicate that this ability is associated with the following factors: mental health, psychological functioning, and stress reduction. Although questionnaires have been developed to measure mindfulness, so far these have not been adapted for use within the Italian population. Thus, the aim of our studies was to investigate the reliability and validity of an Italian version of the Five Facet Mindfulness Questionnaire (FFMQ; Baer et al. Assessment, 13, 27-45, 2006). The FFMQ is a self-report measure that is based on a five-facet model (i.e., Observe, Describe, Act with Awareness, Nonjudge, and Nonreact). In the first study, internal consistency, factor structure, and concurrent validity analyses were carried out on a sample of 559 volunteers. The second study entailed test-retest analyses on a different sample of 43 students. The results showed that the Italian FFMQ: (a) has a similar factor structure to the original English version; (b) has good to excellent internal consistency as a whole (alpha = 0.86) with sub-scale consistency ranging from 0.65 to 0.81, and test-retest stability for the total score being 0.71; (c) has good concurrent validity as demonstrated by significant correlations between the FFMQ scores and a number of self-report measures related to mindfulness. Our findings support both the adaptation of the FFMQ to the Italian context as well as the conceptualization of mindfulness in multi-faceted terms.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.0
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available