Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t8hqh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-01T01:19:01.746Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Which Mindfulness Measures To Choose To Use?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 December 2015

Yuanmei (Elly) Qu ,
Marie T. Dasborough  and
Gergana Todorova
Yuanmei (Elly) Qu
Affiliation:
Department of Management, School of Business, University of Miami
Marie T. Dasborough*
Affiliation:
Department of Management, School of Business, University of Miami
Gergana Todorova
Affiliation:
Department of Management, School of Business, University of Miami
*
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Marie T. Dasborough, Department of Management, School of Business, University of Miami, 5250 University Drive, 414F Jenkins Building, Coral Gables, FL 33146. E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Hyland, Lee, and Mills (2015) specified the two most popular scales for mindfulness: the Freiburg Mindfulness Inventory (FMI; 30 items, Buchheld, Grossman, & Walach, 2001; 14 items, Walach, Buchheld, Buttenmüller, Kleinknecht, & Schmidt, 2006) and the Mindfulness Attention and Awareness Scale (MAAS; Brown & Ryan, 2003). However, the popularity of these measures does not necessarily mean that they are of high quality. Especially considering the complex epistemology and ontology of the mindfulness construct, we should apply mindfulness assessments with caution. More specially, according to item development theorists in the industrial and organizational (I-O) area (see Hinkin, 1998; Hinkin & Tracey, 1999; Kerlinger & Lee, 2000; Schriesheim, Powers, Scandura, Gardiner, & Lankau, 1993), scholars must select measures that have (a) a clear operational definition; (b) alignment between definition and measure (content validity); (c) high reliability and (d) high construct validity; and (e) high criterion-related validity. However, it is not clear which of the available mindfulness assessments satisfies these criteria and to what extent. In this commentary, we assess currently used measures based on these criteria and provide directions for future research.

Type
Commentaries
Information
Industrial and Organizational Psychology , Volume 8 , Issue 4 , December 2015 , pp. 710 - 723
Copyright
Copyright © Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology 2015 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Baer, R. A., Smith, G. T., & Allen, K. B. (2004). Assessment of mindfulness by self-report the Kentucky Inventory of Mindfulness Skills. Assessment, 11 (3), 191–206.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Baer, R. A., Smith, G. T., Hopkins, J., Krietemeyer, J., & Toney, L. (2006). Using self-report assessment methods to explore facets of mindfulness. Assessment, 13 (1), 27–45.Google Scholar
Bishop, S. R., Lau, M., Shapiro, S., Carlson, L., Anderson, N. D., Carmody, J., . . . , Devins, G. (2004). Mindfulness: A proposed operational definition. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice, 11 (3), 230–241.Google Scholar
Brown, K. W., & Ryan, R. M. (2003). The benefits of being present: Mindfulness and its role in psychological well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84 (4), 822–848.Google Scholar
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 (1), 11–34.Google Scholar
Butryn, M. L., Juarascio, A., Shaw, J., Kerrigan, S. G., Clark, V., O'Planick, A., & Forman, E. M. (2013). Mindfulness and its relationship with eating disorders symptomatology in women receiving residential treatment. Eating Behaviors, 14 (1), 13–16.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Campbell, D. T., & Fiske, D. W. (1959). Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitrait–multimethod matrix. Psychological Bulletin, 56 (2), 81–105.Google Scholar
Cardaciotto, L., Herbert, J. D., Forman, E. M., Moitra, E., & Farrow, V. (2008). The assessment of present-moment awareness and acceptance the Philadelphia Mindfulness Scale. Assessment, 15 (2), 204–223.Google Scholar
Chadwick, P., Hember, M., Symes, J., Peters, E., Kuipers, E., & Dagnan, D. (2008). Responding mindfully to unpleasant thoughts and images: Reliability and validity of the Southampton Mindfulness Questionnaire (SMQ). British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 47 (4), 451–455.Google Scholar
Chiesa, A. (2013). The difficulty of defining mindfulness: Current thought and critical issues. Mindfulness, 4 (3), 255–268.Google Scholar
Cronbach, L. J., & Meehl, P. E. (1955). Construct validity in psychological tests. Psychological Bulletin, 52 (4), 281–302.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dimidjian, S., & Linehan, M. M. (2003). Defining an agenda for future research on the clinical application of mindfulness practice. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice, 10 (2), 166–171.Google Scholar
Feldman, G., Hayes, A., Kumar, S., Greeson, J., & Laurenceau, J.-P. (2007). Mindfulness and emotion regulation: The development and initial validation of the Cognitive and Affective Mindfulness Scale-Revised (CAMS-R). Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 29 (3), 177–190.Google Scholar
Haigh, E. A., Moore, M. T., Kashdan, T. B., & Fresco, D. M. (2011). Examination of the factor structure and concurrent validity of the Langer Mindfulness/Mindlessness Scale. Assessment, 18 (1), 11–26.Google Scholar
Hinkin, T. R. (1998). A brief tutorial on the development of measures for use in survey questionnaires. Organizational Research Methods, 1 (1), 104–121.Google Scholar
Hinkin, T. R., & Tracey, J. B. (1999). An analysis of variance approach to content validation. Organizational Research Methods, 2 (2), 175–186.Google Scholar
Hyland, P. K., Lee, R. A., & Mills, M. J. (2015). Mindfulness at work: A new approach to improving individual and organizational performance. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 8 (4), 576–602.Google Scholar
Kabat-Zinn, J. (2003). Mindfulness‐based interventions in context: Past, present, and future. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice, 10 (2), 144–156.Google Scholar
Kerlinger, F. N., & Lee, H. B. (2000). Foundations of behavioral research. Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt College.Google Scholar
Lau, M. A., Bishop, S. R., Segal, Z. V., Buis, T., Anderson, N. D., Carlson, L., & Devins, G. (2006). The Toronto Mindfulness Scale: Development and validation. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 62 (12), 1445–1467.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Reavley, N., & Pallant, J. F. (2009). Development of a scale to assess the meditation experience. Personality and Individual Differences, 47 (6), 547–552.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ruocco, A. C., & Direkoglu, E. (2013). Delineating the contributions of sustained attention and working memory to individual differences in mindfulness. Personality and Individual Differences, 54 (2), 226–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schriesheim, C. A., Powers, K. J., Scandura, T. A., Gardiner, C. C., & Lankau, M. J. (1993). Improving construct measurement in management research: Comments and a quantitative approach for assessing the theoretical content adequacy of paper-and-pencil survey-type instruments. Journal of Management, 19 (2), 385–417.Google Scholar
Schwab, D. P. (1980). Construct validity in organizational behavior. In Cummings, L. L. & Staw, B. M. (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 2, pp. 3–43). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.Google Scholar
Solloway, S. G., & Fisher, W. P. (2007). Mindfulness practice: A Rasch variable construct innovation. Journal of Applied Measurement, 8 (4), 359–372.Google Scholar
Van Knippenberg, D., & Sitkin, S. B. (2013). A critical assessment of charismatic-transformational leadership research: Back to the drawing board? The Academy of Management Annals, 7 (1)1–60.Google Scholar
Walach, H., Buchheld, N., Buttenmüller, V., Kleinknecht, N., & Schmidt, S. (2006). Measuring mindfulness—The Freiburg Mindfulness Inventory (FMI). Personality and Individual Differences, 40 (8), 1543–1555.Google Scholar