监狱样本五面正念问卷的因子结构与构念效度:一个bass - backward方法。

IF 3.4 2区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL
Carlo Garofalo, Eva Billen, Christine Adams, Patrizia Velotti, Claudia Mazzeschi, Elisa Delvecchio, Steven M Gillespie
{"title":"监狱样本五面正念问卷的因子结构与构念效度:一个bass - backward方法。","authors":"Carlo Garofalo, Eva Billen, Christine Adams, Patrizia Velotti, Claudia Mazzeschi, Elisa Delvecchio, Steven M Gillespie","doi":"10.1177/10731911251365742","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The present study examined the factor structure and construct validity of the Five Facet Mindfulness Questionnaire (FFMQ; Baer et al., 2006) in two adult male prison samples from England and Wales (<i>N</i> = 318, <i>M<sub>age</sub></i> = 33.00, <i>SD</i> = 9.53) and Italy (<i>N</i> = 360, <i>M<sub>age</sub></i> = 40.53, <i>SD</i> = 12.20). Bass-Ackwards analysis revealed results generally consistent with the originally intended FFMQ five-factor structure in the England and Wales sample, whereas a four-factor structure (excluding the Describe factor) was the best solution in the Italian sample. Structural problems occurred in both samples, such as negative item-total correlations, items loading on non-target factors, and inconsistent inter-correlations among factors, including negative inter-correlations. Structural equation modeling suggested adequate construct validity with measures of anger, well-being, self-esteem, emotion regulation, dissociation, and impulsivity, but limited discriminant validity across subscales. The findings offer reassurance about the general consistency of results obtained with the original FFMQ subscales in terms of construct validity, while suggesting that inherent issues with FFMQ items may prevent identification of an optimal modeling solution that works across samples. Mindfulness assessment and interventions in prison should embrace multi-method and holistic attention to the broader construct rather than focus on specific components.</p>","PeriodicalId":8577,"journal":{"name":"Assessment","volume":" ","pages":"10731911251365742"},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Factor Structure and Construct Validity of the Five Facet Mindfulness Questionnaire in Prison Samples: A Bass-Ackwards Approach.\",\"authors\":\"Carlo Garofalo, Eva Billen, Christine Adams, Patrizia Velotti, Claudia Mazzeschi, Elisa Delvecchio, Steven M Gillespie\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/10731911251365742\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>The present study examined the factor structure and construct validity of the Five Facet Mindfulness Questionnaire (FFMQ; Baer et al., 2006) in two adult male prison samples from England and Wales (<i>N</i> = 318, <i>M<sub>age</sub></i> = 33.00, <i>SD</i> = 9.53) and Italy (<i>N</i> = 360, <i>M<sub>age</sub></i> = 40.53, <i>SD</i> = 12.20). Bass-Ackwards analysis revealed results generally consistent with the originally intended FFMQ five-factor structure in the England and Wales sample, whereas a four-factor structure (excluding the Describe factor) was the best solution in the Italian sample. Structural problems occurred in both samples, such as negative item-total correlations, items loading on non-target factors, and inconsistent inter-correlations among factors, including negative inter-correlations. Structural equation modeling suggested adequate construct validity with measures of anger, well-being, self-esteem, emotion regulation, dissociation, and impulsivity, but limited discriminant validity across subscales. The findings offer reassurance about the general consistency of results obtained with the original FFMQ subscales in terms of construct validity, while suggesting that inherent issues with FFMQ items may prevent identification of an optimal modeling solution that works across samples. Mindfulness assessment and interventions in prison should embrace multi-method and holistic attention to the broader construct rather than focus on specific components.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":8577,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Assessment\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"10731911251365742\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-09-30\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Assessment\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/10731911251365742\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Assessment","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/10731911251365742","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本研究在英格兰和威尔士(N = 318, Mage = 33.00, SD = 9.53)和意大利(N = 360, Mage = 40.53, SD = 12.20)两个成年男性监狱样本中检验了五面正念问卷(FFMQ; Baer et al., 2006)的因素结构和结构效度。Bass-Ackwards分析显示,在英格兰和威尔士样本中,结果与最初预期的FFMQ五因素结构基本一致,而在意大利样本中,四因素结构(不包括描述因素)是最佳解决方案。两个样本都存在结构性问题,如项目-总量负相关、项目加载在非目标因素上、因素之间的相互关系不一致,包括负相互关系。结构方程模型表明,愤怒、幸福感、自尊、情绪调节、解离和冲动的结构效度足够,但各子量表的区分效度有限。这些发现为原始FFMQ子量表在结构效度方面获得的结果的总体一致性提供了保证,同时表明FFMQ项目的固有问题可能会阻碍识别跨样本工作的最佳建模解决方案。监狱内的正念评估和干预应包括多方法和对更广泛结构的整体关注,而不是专注于具体组成部分。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Factor Structure and Construct Validity of the Five Facet Mindfulness Questionnaire in Prison Samples: A Bass-Ackwards Approach.

The present study examined the factor structure and construct validity of the Five Facet Mindfulness Questionnaire (FFMQ; Baer et al., 2006) in two adult male prison samples from England and Wales (N = 318, Mage = 33.00, SD = 9.53) and Italy (N = 360, Mage = 40.53, SD = 12.20). Bass-Ackwards analysis revealed results generally consistent with the originally intended FFMQ five-factor structure in the England and Wales sample, whereas a four-factor structure (excluding the Describe factor) was the best solution in the Italian sample. Structural problems occurred in both samples, such as negative item-total correlations, items loading on non-target factors, and inconsistent inter-correlations among factors, including negative inter-correlations. Structural equation modeling suggested adequate construct validity with measures of anger, well-being, self-esteem, emotion regulation, dissociation, and impulsivity, but limited discriminant validity across subscales. The findings offer reassurance about the general consistency of results obtained with the original FFMQ subscales in terms of construct validity, while suggesting that inherent issues with FFMQ items may prevent identification of an optimal modeling solution that works across samples. Mindfulness assessment and interventions in prison should embrace multi-method and holistic attention to the broader construct rather than focus on specific components.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Assessment
Assessment PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL-
CiteScore
8.90
自引率
2.60%
发文量
86
期刊介绍: Assessment publishes articles in the domain of applied clinical assessment. The emphasis of this journal is on publication of information of relevance to the use of assessment measures, including test development, validation, and interpretation practices. The scope of the journal includes research that can inform assessment practices in mental health, forensic, medical, and other applied settings. Papers that focus on the assessment of cognitive and neuropsychological functioning, personality, and psychopathology are invited. Most papers published in Assessment report the results of original empirical research, however integrative review articles and scholarly case studies will also be considered.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信