The Validity and Reliability of the Short Form of the Five Facet Mindfulness Questionnaire in Japan

Toru Takahashi; Junichi Saito; Masahiro Fujino; Masashi Sato; Hiroaki Kumano

doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2022.833381

The Validity and Reliability of the Short Form of the Five Facet Mindfulness Questionnaire in Japan

Front Psychol. 2022 Apr 14:13:833381. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.833381. eCollection 2022.

Authors

Toru Takahashi¹, Junichi Saito², Masahiro Fujino^{3

4}, Masashi Sato⁵, Hiroaki Kumano¹

Affiliations

¹ Faculty of Human Sciences, Waseda University, Tokorozawa, Japan.
² Comprehensive Research Organization, Waseda University, Tokyo, Japan.
³ Human Information Science Laboratory, NTT Communication Science Laboratories, Atsugi, Japan.
⁴ Open Innovation Institute, Kyoto University, Kyoto, Japan.
⁵ Graduate School of Human Sciences, Waseda University, Tokorozawa, Japan.

Abstract

Background: A brief measure of dispositional mindfulness is important for applied research on mindfulness. Although short forms of the Five Facet Mindfulness Questionnaire (FFMQ), which measures the five aspects of mindfulness (i.e., observing, describing, acting with awareness, non-judging, and non-reactivity), have been developed worldwide, the validity and reliability of the Japanese version has not been examined. This study aims to examine the validity and reliability of the 24-item and 15-item versions of the FFMQ in Japan, which are the most widely used versions worldwide.

Methods: Online surveys were conducted for 889 adults in Japan through an online survey company using self-reported questionnaires including the FFMQ to confirm the factor structure and validity. To examine construct validity, we examined the relationship between the short form of FFMQ and mind wandering, interoceptive awareness, experiential avoidance, cognitive fusion, openness, neuroticism, self-compassion, depression, and anxiety, which have been theoretically or empirically shown to be related to mindfulness. In addition, 137 adults responded to the FFMQ again, after four weeks, for the test-retest reliability.

Results: The correlated five-factor and four-factor (excluding observing) models and the higher-order factor hierarchical model did not show sufficient goodness of fit, while the 24-item version showed acceptable fit when uncorrelated method factors loaded on by the positive and negative (reverse-scored) items were added. However, the 15-item version did not show acceptable fits for any of the models. Regarding reliability, the 24-item version showed acceptable values. In terms of the relationship between the original and the shortened version of the FFMQ, the 24-item version shared approximately 80% of the variance with the original one. In addition, although the wording effects of positive and negative items seemed to affect the correlations between the FFMQ and the other scales, the associations with related concepts were as predicted generally, supporting the construct validity of the short form of the FFMQ.

Conclusion: In Japan, the 24-item version of FFMQ showed acceptable validity and reliability similar to the original version, and we recommend that the 24-item version be used.

Keywords: five facet mindfulness questionnaire; method effects; mindfulness; psychometrics; short form; wording effects.