Examining the factor structure of the 39-item and 15-item versions of the Five Facet Mindfulness Questionnaire before and after mindfulness-based cognitive therapy for people with recurrent depression.
Examining the factor structure of the 39-item and 15-item versions of the Five Facet Mindfulness Questionnaire before and after mindfulness-based cognitive therapy for people with recurrent depression.
复制标题
DOI：
10.1037/pas0000263
复制
发表时间：
2016-07
影响因子：
3.6
通讯作者：
Kuyken W
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Gu J;Strauss C;Crane C;Barnhofer T;Karl A;Cavanagh K;Kuyken W
对正念干预的有效性和机制的研究需要可靠和有效的正念测量。由39个项目组成的五方面正念问卷(FFMQ-39)是一种正念测量工具，通常用于评估mbi前后的变化。然而，FFMQ因子结构的稳定性和不变性尚未在MBI前后进行测试；如果结构在这段时间内发生变化，则前后比较可能无效。我们的主要目的是用验证性因素分析(CFA)检验基于正念的认知治疗(MBCT)前后复发性抑郁症患者FFMQ-39的因子结构。此外，我们检验了15项版(FFMQ-15)和FFMQ-39的因子结构是否一致，以及它在MBCT上是否稳定。我们的第二个目标是评估两个版本的一般心理测量学特性。CFAs显示，MBCT前的4因素分层模型(不包括“观察”方面)最适合FFMQ-39和FFMQ-15的数据，而MBCT后的5因素分层模型最适合这两个版本的数据。两个版本都不支持跨时间点的配置不变性。两个版本的内部一致性和对变化的敏感性都是足够的。FFMQ的两个版本在趋同效度方面没有显著差异。研究人员应考虑将观察分量表从正念干预前后总量表/分量表得分的比较中剔除。目前的研究结果支持使用FFMQ-15作为研究中需要更简短表格的替代测量。
Research into the effectiveness and mechanisms of mindfulness-based interventions (MBIs) requires reliable and valid measures of mindfulness. The 39-item Five Facet Mindfulness Questionnaire (FFMQ-39) is a measure of mindfulness commonly used to assess change before and after MBIs. However, the stability and invariance of the FFMQ factor structure have not yet been tested before and after an MBI; pre to post comparisons may not be valid if the structure changes over this period. Our primary aim was to examine the factor structure of the FFMQ-39 before and after mindfulness-based cognitive therapy (MBCT) in adults with recurrent depression in remission using confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). Additionally, we examined whether the factor structure of the 15-item version (FFMQ-15) was consistent with that of the FFMQ-39, and whether it was stable over MBCT. Our secondary aim was to assess the general psychometric properties of both versions. CFAs showed that pre-MBCT, a 4-factor hierarchical model (excluding the “observing” facet) best fit the FFMQ-39 and FFMQ-15 data, whereas post-MBCT, a 5-factor hierarchical model best fit the data for both versions. Configural invariance across the time points was not supported for both versions. Internal consistency and sensitivity to change were adequate for both versions. Both FFMQ versions did not differ significantly from each other in terms of convergent validity. Researchers should consider excluding the Observing subscale from comparisons of total scale/subscale scores before and after mindfulness interventions. Current findings support the use of the FFMQ-15 as an alternative measure in research where briefer forms are needed.