PreprintPDF Available

Measuring Mindfulness in Black Americans: A Psychometric Validation of the Five Facet Mindfulness Questionnaire

Authors:

Abstract and Figures

Objectives: Black Americans disproportionately experience higher levels of chronic stress. Mindfulness is a promising, cost-efficient treatment option for reducing stress and related mental health outcomes such as depression and anxiety. The Five Facet Mindfulness Questionnaire (FFMQ) is one of the most widely used tools to measure mindfulness; however, Black American samples have been underrepresented in validation studies of the FFMQ. Consequently, the validity of the FFMQ within Black Americans is unknown. The present study assessed the psychometric properties and nomological network of the original 39-item FFMQ (FFMQ-39) and the short form 15-item FFMQ (FFMQ-15) among a non-clinical, Black American sample in the United States. Methods: In a longitudinal study, 586 Black Americans completed either the FFMQ-39 or the FFMQ-15 at two time points one month apart. Results: Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses supported a five-factor structure in both questionnaires. Both questionnaires had good fit indices ( RMSEA > .05, SRMR > .05, CFI > .92, TFI > .92) and demonstrated strong test-retest reliability, expected associations with nomological network variables, and invariance across gender, mindfulness meditation experience, depression level, everyday discrimination, lifetime discrimination, household income, ethnic heritage, and skin tone. Conclusion: The results indicate that both the FFMQ-39 and the FFMQ-15 can validly and reliably measure mindfulness in a non-clinical, Black American sample. These findings contribute to cultural generalizability and mindfulness assessment within underrepresented populations.
Content may be subject to copyright.
Measuring Mindfulness in Black Americans: A
Psychometric Validation of the Five Facet
Mindfulness Questionnaire
Gold Nneka Okafor ( gokafor@berkeley.edu )
University of California Berkeley https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9460-3598
Brett Q. Ford
University of Toronto
Stephen Antonoplis
University of California Berkeley
Anita Reina
University of Georgia
Samina Lutfeali
Stanford University
Amanda Shallcross
New York University
Research Article
Keywords: Mindfulness, Five Facet Mindfulness Questionnaire, construct validity, psychometrics, Black
Americans.
Posted Date: March 15th, 2022
DOI: https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-1325638/v1
License: This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. 
Read Full License
Measuring Mindfulness in Black Americans 1
Abstract
Objectives: Black Americans disproportionately experience higher levels of chronic stress.
Mindfulness is a promising, cost-efficient treatment option for reducing stress and related mental
health outcomes such as depression and anxiety. The Five Facet Mindfulness Questionnaire
(FFMQ) is one of the most widely used tools to measure mindfulness; however, Black American
samples have been underrepresented in validation studies of the FFMQ. Consequently, the
validity of the FFMQ within Black Americans is unknown. The present study assessed the
psychometric properties and nomological network of the original 39-item FFMQ (FFMQ-39)
and the short form 15-item FFMQ (FFMQ-15) among a non-clinical, Black American sample in
the United States.
Methods: In a longitudinal study, 586 Black Americans completed either the FFMQ-39 or the
FFMQ-15 at two time points one month apart.
Results: Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses supported a five-factor structure in both
questionnaires. Both questionnaires had good fit indices (RMSEA > .05, SRMR > .05, CFI > .92,
TFI > .92) and demonstrated strong test-retest reliability, expected associations with nomological
network variables, and invariance across gender, mindfulness meditation experience, depression
level, everyday discrimination, lifetime discrimination, household income, ethnic heritage, and
skin tone.
Conclusion: The results indicate that both the FFMQ-39 and the FFMQ-15 can validly and
reliably measure mindfulness in a non-clinical, Black American sample. These findings
contribute to cultural generalizability and mindfulness assessment within underrepresented
populations.
Measuring Mindfulness in Black Americans 2
Key Words. Mindfulness, Five Facet Mindfulness Questionnaire, construct validity,
psychometrics, Black Americans.
Introduction
In the past decade, there has been an exponential growth of research on mindfulness a
practice rooted in Buddhist principles that fosters awareness and acceptance of thoughts,
emotions, and physical sensations to decrease suffering (Bodhi, 2011). Research indicates that
mindfulness predicts lower anxiety, depression, (Webb et al., 2019), rumination (Blanke et al.,
2020), and stress (Chiesa & Serretti, 2009); and is associated with greater psychological well-
being (Baer et al., 2008), satisfaction with life (Rogge & Daks, 2020), and self-compassion
(Svendsen et al., 2017). Despite these promising outcomes, research on mindfulness has focused
on predominately White samples. This leaves open important questions about whether the effects
of mindfulness are generalizable to individuals from other races and ethnicities, particularly to
Black Americans who experience disproportionately higher levels of chronic and acute stress,
and associated adverse mental health outcomes (Roberts et al., 2020). In a systematic review of
12,265 mindfulness studies from 1990 to 2016, only 24 studies (0.2%) focused on minority
representation, cultural adaptations for interventions, or ethnoracial group comparisons (DeLuca
et al., 2018). Moreover, only 11 of these (0.1%) included predominantly Black American
samples. Similarly, a review of mindfulness-related therapies (i.e., mind-body therapies) for
cardiometabolic diseases found only five out of 425 trials (1%) targeted Black populations
(Johnson et al., 2018). In the present research, we begin to rectify this issue by completing a
necessary first step in the study of mindfulness in Black Americans: validating a widely used
measure of mindfulness for Black Americans.
The most widely used tool to measure mindfulness is the 39-item Five Facet Mindfulness
Measuring Mindfulness in Black Americans 3
Questionnaire (FFMQ-39;Baer et al., 2006). The abbreviated version of the FFMQ-39, the 15-
item FFMQ (FFMQ-15;Baer et al., 2012), has been used less frequently; however, it is a
valuable option for assessing mindfulness in time-limited settings (e.g., large scale interventions;
hospital settings). Both the FFMQ-39 and FFMQ-15 have been validated in predominantly
White samples (e.g., Baer et al., 2008; Christopher et al., 2012; 2012; Gu et al., 2016). The only
study to validate the 39-item FFMQ within a Black American sample used a low income sample
of Black Americans with recent suicidal ideation who were recruited from clinical settings
(Watson-Singleton et al., 2018). To date, neither of these FFMQ questionnaires have been
validated with a non-clinical, Black American sample. Given that mindfulness is a skill that can
be useful regardless of underlying psychopathology, it is necessary to validate all available
versions of mindfulness measures (e.g., long and short) within normative community samples to
optimize generalizability.
Five Facet Mindfulness Questionnaire
Mindfulness is a complex and multifaceted construct that has sparked continued debate
about its various components. Within this discourse, five mindfulness factors (or “facets”) have
received the most empirical attention acting with awareness (awareness), describing
(describe), non-judging of experience (nonjudgment), nonreactivity to inner experience
(nonreactivity), and observing (observe) (Baer et al., 2006; Baer et al., 2008; Christopher et al.,
2012; Gu et al., 2016; Sweeney et al., 2021). The focus on these five factors is largely due to the
development and subsequent widespread implementation of the FFMQ which assesses the five
factors. Awareness involves maintaining a focus on actions, without distraction. Describe
involves describing or labeling in words internal experiences such as beliefs, opinions, emotions,
and expectations. Nonjudgement involves being open-minded and curious about one’s internal
Measuring Mindfulness in Black Americans 4
experience. Nonreactivity involves experiencing emotions from a meta-cognitive or decentered
perspective. Observe involves attending to internal experiences and cognitions; and external
stimuli, such as smells, sounds, and sights. Prior evidence from confirmatory factor analyses
indicate that the five-factor model of the FFMQ-39 and FFMQ-15 fit the data well in largely
White samples (CFI > .90, TLI > .90, RMSEA > .06, and SRMR < .09; Baer et al., 2006; Baer et
al., 2008; Christopher et al., 2012; Gu et al., 2016; Sweeney et al., 2021). The factors in both
questionnaires have displayed good internal consistency. The FFMQ-39 alphas range from .75 to
.91 (Baer et al., 2006) and the FFMQ-15 alphas range from .64 to .80 (Gu et al., 2016). The test-
retest stability of the English FFMQ-39 and FFMQ-15 has only been reported in one study,
which found weak stability over a 6-week period (i.e., correlations for each factor ranging from
.22 to .54; (Watson-Singleton et al., 2018)). However, this study also included an intervention
during that 6-week period which may have interfered with assessing the stability of the measure;
thus, the temporal stability of both the FFMQ-39 and FFMQ-15 has been largely unexamined.
In addition to these analyses of factor structure and reliability, the previously established
nomological network of the FFMQ-39 and the FFMQ-15 demonstrate the factors correlate with
conceptually related constructs, with the exception of the observe factor. For instance, each
factor has correlated with lower anxiety, depression (Webb et al., 2019), rumination (Svendsen et
al., 2017), and greater levels of life satisfaction, psychological well-being (Christopher et al.,
2012), and mindfulness experience (Baer et al., 2008). The observe factor has had less success,
however, showing inconsistent associations with outcomes such as rumination and psychological
well-being (Baer, et al., 2008; Gu et al., 2016; Sweeney et al., 2021). Finally, previous invariance
analyses on the FFMQ analyses have been limited. To our knowledge, no previous FFMQ
invariance analyses have included predominantly Black samples.
Measuring Mindfulness in Black Americans 5
Overall, the 39-item and 15-item FFMQs have demonstrated good internal consistency,
validity, and invariance at least in predominantly White samples. However, the questionnaires'
psychometric performance in Black Americans is unknown. Given that prior work has
empirically questioned the validity of the five-factor interpretation of the FFMQ across non-
White cultures (Karl et al., 2020), determining its validity for Black Americans remains an open
question.
Considering why the FFMQ may perform differently for Black samples
There are reasons to question the performance of the FFMQ within Black Americans. To
begin, the language of the FFMQ items is not inclusive of all Black Americans. For example, an
item in the observe factor states, “I pay attention to sensations, such as the wind in my hair or
sun on my face.” Several Black American hair styles including afros, braids, and locs do not
blow in the wind, which suggests that the inclusion of Black Americans may not have been
prioritized when the FFMQ items were developed. Since this item references an unrelatable
experience for many Black Americans, this item may lead to a variance within Black American
responses. It is also possible that Black Americans may feel alienated by this phrasing which
could be an unintended negative mood induction, thus influencing responses to other items in the
questionnaire.
In addition to the ethnocentric phrasing in the FFMQ, there is reason to believe that the
factors of the FFMQ may not adequately capture the most important factors of mindfulness
within Black Americans. For instance, the awareness and observe factors measure attention
skills. An example awareness item is “I don’t pay attention to what I’m doing because I’m
daydreaming, worrying, or otherwise distracted.” Another example observe item is “I pay
attention to sounds, such as clocks ticking, birds chirping, or cars passing.” Previous research has
Measuring Mindfulness in Black Americans 6
found that due to exposure to stress and trauma, Black Americans have compromised auditory
attention skills compared to White Americans (Beydoun et al., 2018). Thus, it is possible that the
awareness and observe facets might not emerge as prominent facets in an exploratory factor
analysis among Black American participants; potentially leading to an alternate FFMQ model
structure for Black Americans.
Heterogeneity within Black Americans
With the limited amount of mindfulness research within Black Americans, there is no
prior understanding of how mindfulness interacts with the significant heterogeneity within Black
American samples. The analysis of heterogeneity within Black Americans speaks to the within-
group generalizability of research that is often overlooked, especially in studies where Black
people are marginally represented (Buchanan et al., 2021). Four important social experiences
that may shape conceptualizations of mindfulness within a Black American sample are ethnic
heritage, perceived discrimination, household income, and skin tone (Earl et al., 2011; Oh et al.,
2021). For instance, ethnic heritage is a key characteristic within Black Americans and includes
African Americans who have descended from slavery, immigrants from the Caribbeans, and
immigrants from Africa. These communities vary widely on perceptions of mental health (e.g.,
awareness and stigma) (Adewale et al., 2016) and also have different historic origins of trauma
and lived experiences (e.g., slavery, colonialism, and immigration). Thus, it is possible that
mindfulness (a construct related to mental health) may also be understood differently across
these groups. Therefore, the FFMQ questionnaires may lack measurement invariance across
Black American heritage groups.
In addition to heritage, demographics related to perceived stress have the potential to
cause an invariance of the FFMQ models. Higher levels of perceived stress have been associated
Measuring Mindfulness in Black Americans 7
with lower levels of the FFMQ factors (Carmody & Baer, 2008). It is possible that people who
experience more stress are less efficient in describing, observing, or paying attention to their
emotional experiences core aspects of the describe, observe, and awareness factors in the
FFMQ. Experiencing discrimination, having a household income level below the poverty line,
and having darker skin complexion have been independently associated with higher stress levels
(Williams et al., 1997; Oh et al., 2021). Thus, it is also important to question the invariance of
the FFMQ within perceived discrimination, household income, and skin tone.
Current Investigation
The psychometric properties of the FFMQ-39 and FFMQ-15 have been well-established
in studies that include nearly exclusively White samples. Given that mindfulness predicts
important psychological health outcomes, it is important to understand whether this commonly
used measure of mindfulness is valid in Black Americans, who experience disproportionately
higher stress-related mental and physical health outcomes (Roberts et al., 2020). The current
research is the first study to analyze the psychometric properties of the FFMQ-39 and the
FFMQ-15 within a non-clinical, Black sample in the United States. We also describe the
generalizability of our results by reporting extensive demographics (e.g., gender, mindfulness
meditation experience, depression level, everyday discrimination, lifetime discrimination,
household income, ethnic heritage, and skin tone) and analyzing the measurement invariance
within each of these groups.
In our three-part study, participants completed either the FFMQ-39 or the FFMQ-15 at
two time points, separated by one month, and were followed up with at a third time point about
2.5 years later to collect additional socio-demographic information. Pre-registered psychometric
analyses included: (1) exploratory factor analyses (EFAs) to identify the factor structure of each
Measuring Mindfulness in Black Americans 8
questionnaire; (2) confirmatory factor analyses (CFAs) to confirm strength and reliability of the
factors; (3) Cronbach’s alphas to confirm the internal reliability; (4) test-retest analyses to assess
temporal reliability; (5) nomological network examination to describe the relationship between
the observed mindfulness construct and its correlation with other domains including anxiety,
depression level, rumination, psychological well-being, satisfaction with life, self-compassion,
and mindfulness meditation experience; (6) invariance analyses to test the generalizability of the
observed FFMQ models across various identities and experiences of the Black community
including gender, mindfulness meditation experience, depression level, everyday discrimination,
lifetime discrimination, household income, ethnic heritage, and skin tone. As the first study to
validate the FFMQ-39 and the FFMQ-15 with a non-clinical, Black sample, we do not have
predictions for each of the psychometric analyses. Rather, our goal is to explore the
psychometric properties of the FFMQ to determine whether the FFMQ can be used to accurately
measure levels of mindfulness in Black Americans.
Methods
Participants
A pool of 17,465 U.S. participants recruited from Amazon Mechanical Turk Prime
completed a brief screening survey where they reported their racial identity, along with other
demographics. Only participants who self-identified as Black (n = 1,963) were invited to
participate in the present study and of those, 619 participants enrolled in the Time 1 assessment;
541 participants began the Time 2 assessment (which took place one month later); and 263 began
the Time 3 assessment (which took place approximately two and a half years later). All
participants lived in the United States and will be referred to as “Black Americans.” Participants
who failed attention checks were not invited to participate at future time points. Several
Measuring Mindfulness in Black Americans 9
participants were removed from analyses based on the following pre-registered exclusion
criteria: not identifying as Black at Time 1 (n = 14), not correctly answering the attention checks
at Time 1 (n = 20), Time 2 (n = 12, excluded only from Time 2 analyses), or at Time 3 (n = 8,
excluded only from Time 3 analyses). Some of these exclusion criteria overlapped within
participants, resulting in a final Time 1 sample size of 586, a Time 2 sample size of 520 (89%
retention), and a Time 3 sample size of 251 (43% retention). Table 1 shows the socio-
demographic information for the participants.
Table 1
Socio-Demographic percentages of participants
Socio-Demographic
Percentages
Gender
Female
73.7%
Male
23.9%
Gender variant / non-binary
0.2%
Declined to answer
2.2%
Age
18 - 30
39.2%
31 - 40
33.7%
41 - 50
14.8%
51 - 60
6.4%
61 +
4.2%
Declined to answer
1.7%
Mindfulness Meditation Experience
No experience
46%
Any level of experience
52.1%
Declined to answer
1.9%
Household Income
$19,999 or below
12.5%
$20,000 - $39,999
28.8%
$40,000 - $59,999
25.1%
$60,000 - $79,999
15.2%
Measuring Mindfulness in Black Americans 10
$80,000 - $99,999
7.1%
$100,000 or more
10%
Declined to answer
1.3%
Ethnic Heritage*
Black American Native (African
American descendants of the enslaved)
85.4%
African immigrant or Descendant of
African immigrant
7.1%
Afro-Caribbean
7.5%
Skin Tone*
Light complexion
22.9%
Medium complexion
47.4%
Dark complexion
29.7%
Note. The asterisked variables were collected at Time 3 (which had a final sample size of N =
251). All other variables were collected in the screener survey or Time 1 (which had a final
sample size of n = 586).
Procedures
This multi-part longitudinal study was distributed online via Amazon’s Mechanical Turk.
A brief screener survey recruited U.S.-based participants to determine if the participants
identified as Black or African American (e.g., African American, Jamaican, Nigerian,
Ethiopian). The screener also collected the age and gender of the participants. The race inclusion
criterion was not advertised in the screener survey. At Time 1, half of the participants were
randomly assigned to complete the 39-item FFMQ, while the other half were randomly assigned
to complete the 15-item FFMQ. Time 2 was scheduled to take place approximately one month
after Time 1 (average = 32.6 days, range = 23.7 - 66.9 days). At Time 2, all participants
completed the same version of the FFMQ they completed at Time 1. The FFMQ was assessed
before any other measures at both Time 1 and Time 2 (except for several demographic questions
assessed first in Time 1). Anxiety, depression level, rumination, psychological well-being,
satisfaction with life, self-compassion, and mindfulness meditation experience were collected at
Time 1. Lifetime discrimination and everyday discrimination were collected at Time 2.
Measuring Mindfulness in Black Americans 11
Approximately two and a half years later (average = 31.4 months, range = 30.3-32.1
months), we invited participants to complete Time 3, which was conducted to collect additional
demographic information not assessed at Time 1, including ethnic heritage and skin tone.
Collectively, participants had the opportunity to earn a total of $13.05 for completing the study
($0.05 for the screener, $3 for Time 1, $7 for Time 2, and $3 for Time 3; or ~$12USD/hour).
Measures
Table 2 includes the mean, standard deviation, alpha, omega total, and omega
hierarchical of all of the measures in the present study at Time 1 (excluding everyday
discrimination and lifetime discrimination which were collected at time 2). The FFMQ
questionnaires collected at Time 2 do not appear here because they were solely used for pre-
registered test-retest analyses.
Table 2
Measure Descriptives
Measure
Present Study (N = 586)
SD
Min
Max
Alpha
Omegat
Omegah
FFMQ-39
Awareness
6.34
9
40
.90
.93
.69
Describe
6.13
9
40
.90
.92
.75
Nonjudgment
7.18
9
40
.90
.92
.84
Nonreactivity
4.94
8
34
.83
.88
.76
Observe
5.39
9
40
.81
.86
.66
FFMQ-15
Awareness
2.49
3
15
.71
.78
--
Describe
2.61
3
15
.81
.82
--
Nonjudgment
2.74
3
15
.81
.82
--
Nonreactivity
2.50
3
15
.76
.77
--
Measuring Mindfulness in Black Americans 12
Measure
Present Study (N = 586)
SD
Min
Max
Alpha
Omegat
Omegah
Observe
2.42
3
15
.65
.67
--
Anxiety
3.49
0
15
.82
.88
.54
Depression
10.99
0
57
.93
.94
.83
Rumination
0.93
1
5
.94
.95
.82
Psychological Well-being
78.24
13.81
33
108
.85
.88
.61
Satisfaction with Life
7.82
5
35
.90
.92
.85
Self-Compassion
9.73
12
60
.88
.91
.68
Mindfulness Meditation
Experience
1.18
1
5
--
--
--
Everyday Discrimination*
1.06
0
5
.93
.96
.85
Lifetime Discrimination*
1.83
0
9
.64
.72
.57
Note. Asterisked measures represent the averaged data prior to binary transformation. Omegat
represents the omega total. Omegah represents the omega hierarchical. See Table 1 for
descriptive statistics for gender, skin tone, heritage and household income.
Five Facet Mindfulness Questionnaire
Five Facet Mindfulness Questionnaire - Long form (FFMQ-39). Half of the
participants completed the long-form, original 39-item FFMQ (Baer et al., 2006). This
questionnaire assesses the five facets of mindfulness: acting with awareness (awareness),
describing (describe), non-judging of experience (nonjudgment), nonreactivity to inner
experience (nonreactivity), and observing (observe). The items were measured on a 5-point
Likert-type scale from 1 (never or rarely true) to 5 (very often or always true). Example items
include: “I do jobs or tasks automatically without being aware of what I’m doing” (reverse-
keyed; awareness), “I’m good at finding words to describe my feelings'' (describe), “I tell myself
I shouldn’t be feeling the way I’m feeling” (reverse-keyed; nonjudgment), “When I have
distressing thoughts or images, I just notice them and let them go” (nonreactivity) and “I pay
attention to sensations, such as the wind in my hair or sun on my face” (observe). Each factor
was summed for a total factor score. The factor scores ranged from 840 for all factors except for
Measuring Mindfulness in Black Americans 13
the nonreactivity factor which ranges from 735.
Five Facet Mindfulness Questionnaire-15 (FFMQ-15). The other half of the
participants completed the 15-item short-form version of the Five Facet Mindfulness
Questionnaire (FFMQ-15) (Baer et al., 2012). Each factor contained three items. The items were
chosen to balance content validity and item factor loadings. The factor scores ranged from 3-15.
Nomological Network Measures
The nomological network examines the relationship between the observed FFMQ
questionnaires and other constructs that are known to be correlated with mindfulness. This
analysis converges with the mindfulness nomological network found in previous research in
order to provide construct validity for the FFMQ-39 and FFMQ-15. The descriptives for the
nomological network are in Table 2. The scores were averaged or summed based on the
conventional use of the measures in previous research.
Anxiety. Anxiety was measured with the seven-item anxiety subscale of the Hospital
Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS-A) (Zigmond & Snaith, 1983). This subscale identifies
anxiety severity in a non-psychiatric population. The items were measured on a 4-point Likert-
type from 0 (not at all) to 3 (very often). The responses were averaged to create a composite
score. Higher scores indicate a higher level of anxiety.
Depression level. The Beck Depression Inventory (BDI-II) (Beck, Steer, & Brown,
1996) measures the severity of depression symptoms experienced during the past two weeks.
This inventory contains 21-items rated on a scale of 0 (e.g. I do not feel sad) to 3 (e.g. I am so
sad or unhappy I cannot stand it) and was summed to create a composite score. Due to
Institutional Review Board concerns, the current study removed one item referencing suicide
ideation.
Measuring Mindfulness in Black Americans 14
Rumination. Rumination was measured with the Rumination-Reflection Questionnaire
(RRQ) - rumination subscale (Trapnell & Campbell, 1999). The RRQ - rumination subscale
consists of 12-items measured on a 5-point Likert-type scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5
(strongly agree). The scores were averaged to form a composite score.
Psychological well-being. Psychological well-being was measured with the abbreviated
version of the Ryff Psychological Well-being Scale (Ryff et al., 1995). The scale consists of 18-
items with a six-point Likert-scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). The scores
were summed to form a composite score.
Satisfaction with life. The Satisfaction with Life (SWL) measure (Diener et al., 1985)
was a 5-item scale that assesses positive evaluations of one’s life. Items were measured on a 7-
point, Likert scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). The scores were summed to
form a composite score.
Self-compassion. The Self-Compassion Scale-short form (SCS-SF) (Raes et al., 2011),
was used to measure self-compassion. Originally derived from the Neff (2003) Self-Compassion
Scale (SCS), the SCS-SF is a 12-item scale measuring global self-compassion on a 5-point
Likert-type scale from 1 (almost never) to 5 (almost always). The items were summed to create a
composite score.
Mindfulness meditation experience. Mindfulness meditation experience was assessed
with one item that asked about the frequency of mindfulness meditation on a one to five response
scale: 1 (I have no experience), 2 (I tried it once or twice), 3 (I practice mindfulness meditation
several times per year), 4 (I practice mindfulness meditation several times per month), and 5 (I
practice mindfulness meditation once a week or more).
Measuring Mindfulness in Black Americans 15
Invariance Measures
To test the consistency of the FFMQ-39 and the FFMQ-15 within groups in our sample,
measurement invariance was assessed across the following variables: gender, mindfulness
meditation experience, depression level, everyday discrimination, lifetime discrimination,
household income, ethnic heritage, and skin tone. Although several of these measures are
continuous, measurement invariance analyses require continuous measures to be segmented into
meaningful categories. Below, we describe how we determined these categories.
Mindfulness meditation experience. The mindfulness meditation experience was
transformed into a binary variable for the measurement invariance analyses. Participants who
indicated having no experience with mindfulness were scored as 0 (n = 273) and participants
who indicated any level of mindfulness meditation experience were scored as 1 (n = 309).
Depression level. BDI-II scores were transformed into a binary variable based off
previous research where 0 (n = 352) represents minimal depression (0 -13 BDI-II score) and 1 (n
= 233) represents mild to severe depression (14 - 60 BDI-II score) (Beck et al., 1996).
Everyday Discrimination. Everyday discrimination was measured with a modified
version of the Williams et al. (1997) Everyday Discrimination Scale. This nine-item
questionnaire measures perceived unfair treatment in everyday life, modified in the present study
to include experiences due to a participant’s race. The responses were scored on a six-point
Likert scale that ranged from 0 (never) to 5 (Almost everyday). Following previously established
procedures (Lewis et al., 2010), the responses were averaged into a composite. The composite
was transformed into a binary variable where 0 (n = 201) indicated a composite score of less than
one representing a participant who reported experiencing discrimination less than once on a
daily basis, and 1 (n = 318) indicated a composite score of one or more representing a
Measuring Mindfulness in Black Americans 16
participant who reported experiencing discrimination more than once on a daily basis.
Lifetime Discrimination. The Lifetime Discrimination Scale (Kessler et al., 1999)
measures the perceived experience of discrimination across nine domains such as education,
employment, and housing over the course of one’s life. Items are rated 1 (yes) or 0 (no). The
responses were summed into a single composite. The present study adapted the items of this
scale to measure lifetime experiences of racial discrimination, in particular. Participants who did
not report any lifetime discrimination were scored as 0 (n = 141) and participants who reported
experiencing any amount of lifetime discrimination were scored as 1 (n = 379).
Household Income. Participants indicated their household income on scale ranging from
$19,000 and below to $200,000 and above. The scale increments were separated by $20,000. We
examined invariance between participants below versus above the United States average
household poverty line. Thus, household income was dichotomized such that 1 (n = 74) indicated
participants whose household income was $19,000 or below and 0 (n = 511) indicated
participants whose household income was $20,000 and above.
Ethnic Heritage. Participants’ ethnic heritage was derived from their parents’ ethnic
heritage collected at Time 1. Participant parents’ ethnic heritage was indicated by selecting if one
or more parents identified as an “African American”, “African Caribbean / Afro-Caribbean”,
“Hispanic or Latino, including Mexican American, Central American”, “African”, “Mixed”, or
“Other”. For invariance analysis, we were primarily interested in contrasting participants who
descended from American slavery vs. not, which we indirectly assessed via parents’ ethnic
heritage. Specifically, we dichotomized the parents’ ethnic heritage such that if one or more
parent was identified as African American, the ethnic heritage was scored as 1 (i.e., likely
descendant of American slavery; n = 489); and if both parents were not identified as African
Measuring Mindfulness in Black Americans 17
American, the ethnic heritage was scored as 0 (i.e., likely not descendant of American slavery; n
= 104). We derived ethnic heritage from the parents’ ethnic heritage because the sample size of
the more direct measure of participants’ ethnic heritage collected at Time 3 was too small for an
invariance analysis. Specifically, at TIme 3, 212 participants self-identified as a Black American
Native/African American descendant of the enslaved, and 36 participants self-identified as an
African immigrant, descendant of African immigration, and/or African Caribbean/Afro
Caribbean. Since the latter subgroup sample size was less than 50, we were not able to run an
invariance analysis on this variable (Tanaka, 1987). Confirming that parents’ethnic heritage is
indeed a valid marker of participants’ ethnic heritage, we found that the parents’ethnic heritage
significantly predicted the participants’ ethnic heritage such that if one or more parent was
identified as “African American” as opposed to “African Caribbean / Afro-Caribbean”,
“Hispanic or Latino, including Mexican American, Central American”, “African”, “Mixed”, or
“Other”, the odds of a participant identifying as a descendant of the American enslaved increased
by 16.55 times (p < .001). This simple model predicted participants’ ethnic heritage with an
accuracy of 88% in cross-validation analyses.
Skin tone. The complexion of the participants’ skin tone was collected following the
method of Bond and Cash (1992). Participants were presented with nine colored squares. Each
color represented a different skin tone, including three light, three medium, and three dark skin
tones. Participants were asked to select the square with the color that most resembled the
complexion on their face. The responses were transformed into a binary variable where 0 (n =
57) indicated light complexions and 1 (n = 192) indicated medium and dark complexions.
Analytic Plan
The present study followed a pre-registered analytic plan to assess the validity of the
Measuring Mindfulness in Black Americans 18
FFMQ-39 and the FFMQ-15. All pre-registered tests are reported. Any deviations from the pre-
registration are explicitly noted. All analyses were conducted using R, version 4.1.0 (R Core
Team, 2020), and the psych (Revelle, 2021) and lavaan (Rosseel, 2012) packages. The de-
identified data will be available to the public via osf.io. The following FFMQ analyses were
conducted on the data collected at Time 1. The FFMQ data from Time 2 were only used for the
test-retest analyses.
Results
Factor Structure
Suitability
We conducted two tests to confirm the suitability for factor analysis of the FFMQ-39 and
the FFMQ-15. First, we used Barlett’s test of sphericity to test whether item responses were
orthogonal and, thus, not able to be compressed. Orthogonality was rejected for both
questionnaires, p’s < .001, indicating that item responses correlated significantly differently from
the scenario where they did not correlate at all. Thus, both questionnaires have the potential to
produce meaningful factors. Second, we used the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) test to measure
the average proportion of variance between responses to two items that was general or related to
other item responses. KMO values greater than .60 are considered adequate (Tabachnick et al.,
2019). The KMO criterion for the FFMQ-39 and FFMQ-15 were .91 and .77, indicating
suitability for factor analysis.
Factor Extraction
We used eigenvalues greater than one, scree plot tests, and parallel factor analyses to
determine the number of factors to extract from each questionnaire. For the 39-item FFMQ, we
observed seven eigenvalues greater than one; however, the scree plot test and the parallel factor
Measuring Mindfulness in Black Americans 19
analysis indicated five factors. The 15-item FFMQ had four eigenvalues greater than one, while
the scree plot and the parallel factor analyses indicated five factors. See supplementary material
to view scree plots. Floyd and Widaman (1995) argue that a scree plot test is more reliable than
selecting factors based on eigenvalues greater than one because eigenvalues are dependent on the
number of items. The parallel factor analyses were included for additional support for the factor
number selection and were not pre-registered. In the current analyses, scree plots and the parallel
factor analyses supported five factors for each version of the FFMQ.
Exploratory Factor Analysis
Following Baer et al. (2006), factor loadings were examined using an EFA with principal
axis factoring, promax rotation, and five extracted factors. Items loaded onto their respective
factors as expected. In the original construction of the FFMQ, Baer et al. (2006) removed items
with factor loadings less than .40 and/or items with cross-loading differences of less than .20
from the highest factor loading in the item. When this method was applied to the measures of the
current study, the 39-item FFMQ was reduced to 36 items and the 15-item FFMQ was
unaffected. Given that the primary goal of this study is to perform psychometric tests on the
FFMQ-39 and the FFMQ-15 versions, the fit indices, internal consistencies, test-retest
reliabilities, and nomological network of the 36-item FFMQ are in the supplemental material.
Also presented in supplementary material are pre-registered analyses that followed criteria that
differ from Baer et al. (2006), and that are outlined by Watson-Singleton et al. (2018) the only
other investigation that has examined the FFMQ in a Black sample.
The five factors observed in the FFMQ-39 and the FFMQ-15 measures aligned with the
five factors identified in previous research: awareness, describe, nonjudgment, nonreactivity, and
observe. In the FFMQ-39, the five factors accounted for 51% of the total variance. Of this
Measuring Mindfulness in Black Americans 20
percentage, awareness accounted for 12%, describe accounted for 11%, nonjudgment accounted
for 12%, nonreactivity accounted for 8%, and observe accounted for 8%. In the FFMQ-15, the
five factors accounted for 56% of the variance. Awareness explained 11%, describe explained
12%, nonjudgment explained 13%, nonreactivity explained 11%, and observe explained 9%.
Table 3 reports how the five factors correlate with each other, for both the FFMQ-39 and
the FFMQ-15. Although most factors were positively related, they remained distinct, ranging
from -.17 to .54. Correlations between factors were similar across the FFMQ-39 and FFMQ-15,
although generally smaller in magnitude for the latter, likely due to the lower number of items.
Importantly, these factor correlations were similar to those reported by Baer et al., (2006). For
the FFMQ-39, two (of ten) correlations differed: (1) the previously demonstrated null association
between observe and nonjudgment was significantly negative in the current study (r = -.17, p =
.003); and (2) the previously demonstrated positive correlation between awareness and observe
was not significant (r = .10, p = .07). For the FFMQ-15, three (of ten) correlations differed such
that previously-demonstrated positive correlations were not significant in the present study: (1)
awareness and nonreactivity (r = .10, p = .09), (2) awareness and observe (r = .02, p = .80), and
(3) nonjudgment and nonreactivity (r = .04, p = .51).
Table 3
Intercorrelations and Test-Retest Reliabilities of the FFMQ-39 and the FFMQ-15
Awareness
Describe
Nonjudgment
Nonreactivity
Observe
FFMQ-39
Awareness
.85*
--
--
--
--
Describe
.48*
.82*
--
--
--
Nonjudgment
.54*
.30*
.84*
--
--
Nonreactivity
.29*
.41*
.24*
.80*
--
Observe
.10
.30*
-.17*
.47*
.79*
Measuring Mindfulness in Black Americans 21
FFMQ-15
Awareness
.70*
--
--
--
--
Describe
.39*
.71*
--
--
--
Nonjudgment
.52*
.28*
.71*
--
--
Nonreactivity
.10
.24*
.04
.52*
--
Observe
.02
.25*
.02
.23*
.70*
Note. * p < .01. Bold intercorrelations significantly differ between the two different versions of
the FFMQ at the 95% significance level. Test-retest reliabilities over one month are given on the
diagonal. Reliabilities are not bolded based on whether they significantly differed between
FFMQ versions.
To examine whether the strength of the associations between the five factors differed in
the FFMQ-39 compared to the FFMQ-15, we conducted a William’s correlation test, with a 95%
significance level. These analyses indicated that the correlation between the nonjudgment and
observe factors was significantly different between the FFMQ-39 and the FFMQ-15.
Additionally, all intercorrelations between the nonreactivity factor and the other factors in the
FFMQ-39 were significantly stronger compared to the parallel intercorrelations in the FFMQ-15.
This suggests that the internal relationships between factors within the FFMQ-39 differ
somewhat from the internal relationships between the factors within the FFMQ-15 such that
some intercorrelations (e.g., the nonjudgment and observe correlation) were stronger in the
longer (vs. shorter) version of the FFMQ. We ran a second William’s correlation test on the
latent variable correlations of the FFMQ-39 and FFMQ-15 to correct for unreliability and the
results were consistent with the original William’s correlation test.
Confirmatory Factor Analysis
A confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was conducted on the five-factor structure of the
FFMQ-39 and the FFMQ-15. Following procedures from prior FFMQ validation studies, both
CFAs were applied using structural equation modeling with a robust maximum likelihood
Measuring Mindfulness in Black Americans 22
estimator. Full information maximum likelihood was applied to estimate the missing values.
There are mixed approaches for modeling the FFMQ scales as either a five-factor model or a
five-factor higher-order model (e.g., Baer et al. 2004; Watson-Singleton et al., 2018). We
compared both models and found that the five-factor model outperformed the five-factor higher-
order model for both the FFMQ-39 and the FFMQ-15 (see supplemental material). Thus, we
decided to move forward with the five-factor model. The analyses were run at the item level (as
opposed to parcels) in order to observe the individual item properties and relationships to their
factors (Christopher et al., 2012). The item-level factor loadings for the FFMQ-39 and FFMQ-15
are in the supplemental material. For the FFMQ-39, the average factor loading was .74 for
awareness, .74 for describe, .75 for nonjudgment, .65 for nonreactivity, and .59 for observe. For
the FFMQ-15, the average factor loading was .73 for awareness, .78 for describe, .78 for
nonjudgment, .73 for nonreactivity, and .64 for observe.
Table 4 details the fit statistics for the FFMQ-39 and FFMQ-15. Overall, the five-factor
model fits well for both the FFMQ-39 and FFMQ-15. Examining the chi-square test and the chi-
square over degrees of freedom ratio (χ2/df), the chi-square test was significant. The chi-square
ratios were small (< 3; Schermelleh-Engel et al., 2003), indicating that the model fit the data well
for the number of parameters in the model. Next, we examined the absolute fit of the data. Both
the root mean squared error of approximation (RMSEA) and the standardized root mean square
residual (SRMR) indicated fair or acceptable fit of the model (between .05 and .08 for RMSEA,
Browne & Cudeck, 1993; <.10 for SRMR, Hu & Bentler, 1999). Finally, we examined
incremental fit indices. For the FFMQ-15, both the comparative fit index (CFI) and the Tucker-
Lewis index (TLI) indicated good fit (both >.90; Hu & Bentler, 1999). For the FFMQ-39,
however, the CFI (.86) and the TLI (.85) both indicated inadequate fit. An exploratory inspection
Measuring Mindfulness in Black Americans 23
of modification indices indicated that the largest contributors to misfit were four pairs of
similarly worded items from the awareness factor (e.g., “I am easily distracted” and “When I do
things, my mind wanders off and I’m easily distracted”). After allowing residuals to correlate for
these four pairs as well as accounting for acquiescence (Aichholzer, 2014), the CFI and TLI both
increased to .92.
Table 4
Fit Indices of FFMQ-39 and FFMQ-15
Questionnaire
n
χ2
df
χ2/df
RMSEA
SRMR
CFI
TLI
BIC
FFMQ-39
289
1379.8
692
1.99
0.06
0.08
0.86
0.85
28664.49
FFMQ-39a
289
1081.97
687
1.57
0.05
0.07
0.92
0.92
28351.9
FFMQ-15
297
153.02
80
0.92
0.06
0.05
0.94
0.92
11904.82
Note. FFMQ-39a = model after allowing for the residuals of similarly worded items to correlate
and acquiescence. χ2 = chi-square, df = degrees of freedom, χ2/df = chi-square over degrees of
freedom ratio, RMSEA = root mean squared error of approximation, SRMR = standardized root
mean square residual, CFI = comparative fit index, TLI = Tucker-Lewis index, BIC = Bayesian
information criterion.
Reliability
Internal Consistency
The internal consistency of the FFMQ-39 and the FFMQ-15 were assessed with
Cronbach’s coefficient alpha, McDonald’s omega total (omegat), and McDonald’s omega
hierarchical (omegah). The inclusion of the omega analyses was not pre-registered. As shown in
Table 2, all internal reliability indices were acceptable for the FFMQ-39 (all alphas > .81, all
omegat’s > .86 , omegah’s > .66) and the FFMQ-15 (all alphas > .65, all omegat’s > .67). The
FFMQ-15 does not have an omega hierarchical because the omega hierarchical cannot be
calculated for factors of three or fewer items.
Measuring Mindfulness in Black Americans 24
Test-Retest Reliability
In order to assess the temporal stability of the FFMQ-39 and the FFMQ-15, the five
factors of each measure obtained at Time 1 were correlated with the parallel factors measured
one month later at Time 2. As shown in Table 3, all test-retest correlations were strong and
significant at the 99% significance level. The supplemental material contains a correlation table
of all FFMQ-39 and FFMQ-15 factors across time.
Nomological Network: Predicting Psychological Experience
Table 5 demonstrates the nomological network between the FFMQ factors and measures
of anxiety, depression level, rumination, psychological well-being, satisfaction with life, self-
compassion, and mindfulness meditation experience. To the extent that the FFMQ-39 and
FFMQ-15 accurately measures mindfulness in Black Americans, Black Americans’ scores on the
five factors should correlate with these constructs in a pattern that parallels the correlations of
previous research. Our nomological network parallelled previous research, with the exceptions of
the correlations with the observe factor and mindfulness meditation experience.
Table 5
Nomological Network of FFMQ-39 and FFMQ-15
Awareness
Describe
Nonjudgment
Nonreactivity
Observe
Associations with FFMQ-39 Factors
Anxiety
-.44
-.31
-.53
-.32
.10
Depression level
-.48
-.31
-.50
-.33
.03
Rumination
-.55
-.31
-.66
-.38
.05
Psychological Well-being
.55
.53
.46
.45
.20
Satisfaction with Life
.32
.28
.28
.31
.08
Self-compassion
.57
.49
.56
.54
.15
Mindfulness Meditation Experience
.05
.15
-.01
.14
.25
Associations with FFMQ-15 Factors
Measuring Mindfulness in Black Americans 25
Anxiety
-.37
-.21
-.38
-.22
.03
Depression level
-.29
-.28
-.41
-.22
.00
Rumination
-.45
-.26
-.43
-.27
.02
Psychological Well-being
.36
.43
.45
.31
.09
Satisfaction with Life
.15
.21
.30
.24
.04
Self-compassion
.41
.37
.45
.35
.14
Mindfulness Meditation Experience
-.01
.08
.05
.10
.19
Note. Bold correlations indicate p < .05. Italics indicates that the pattern of significance for the
correlation observed in the current research differed from previous research.
Invariance
Conceptually, invariance analyses test the goodness of fit of the observed models within
subgroups of the sample. This investigation addresses the generalizability of the five-factor
structure to diverse subgroups within the Black community. For instance, full measurement
invariance observed between genders would indicate that the five-factor structure would be
consistent in both Black men and Black women. The current study specifically examined the
subgroups of gender (men vs. women), mindfulness meditation experience (no experience vs.
any level of experience), depression levels (minimal levels vs. at least mild levels), everyday
discrimination (reporting experiencing discrimination less than once on a daily basis vs.
reporting experiencing discrimination more than once on a daily basis), lifetime discrimination
(did not report experiencing discrimination vs. reported experiencing discrimination), household
income ($19,999 or below vs. $20,000 or higher), ethnic heritage (having one or more parent
identified as African American vs. not identifying either parent as African American), and skin
tone (light complexions vs. medium and dark complexions).
Following previous methodology (Hirschfeld & Brachel, 2014), each subgroup was
tested with four nested models of invariance: configural, weak, strong, and strict. Configural
invariance ensures that the number of latent variables and pattern of loadings of the latent
Measuring Mindfulness in Black Americans 26
variables are similar across the subgroups. Weak invariance adds to configural invariance to
ensure that the size of these loadings is similar across groups. Strong invariance adds to weak
invariance to ensure that the intercepts of each factor are similar across groups. Finally, strict
invariance adds to strong invariance to ensure that the residual variances and residual
covariances of the factor loadings are similar between groups.
A type I ANOVA was applied to the four models to test the change in model fit between
each level of invariance. Full invariance was achieved when a non-significant chi-square p-value
was observed and when the difference between the model CFI’s (ΔCFI) was less than .01
(Hirschfeld & Brachel, 2014). This criterion indicates that the model did not significantly differ
from the previous model. Given that fit indices typically worsen with smaller sample sizes, we
anticipated that fit indices might not meet conventional cutoff criteria and planned to focus on
changes in indices across levels of invariance rather than the absolute level of fit indices. If we
did not observe full invariance, the model was further investigated to identify the specific indices
(i.e. factor loadings, intercepts, residuals, and residual covariances) that significantly differed
from the same index in the prior model at a 95% significance level. Once the significant indices
were identified, the model was re-analyzed while the identified indices were allowed to vary
between groups. If invariance was achieved with the modified model, this was referred to as
partial invariance. If the modified model did not achieve invariance, this would mean that no
invariance was found within the model.
Table 6 displays results from the invariance analyses for the FFMQ-39 and the FFMQ-
15. Following recommendations from Tanaka (1987), invariance analyses were applied to all
measurements with subgroups of at least 50 participants within each FFMQ questionnaire.
Within our large number of total participants, half of the participants completed the FFMQ-39
Measuring Mindfulness in Black Americans 27
and half of the participants completed the FFMQ-15. The subgroups of skin tone and household
income within each FFMQ questionnaire did not meet the 50 participant criteria. In order to
complete the invariance analyses on these measurements, we increased the subgroup sample size
by extracting the FFMQ-15 items from the FFMQ-39 and added these responses to the original
FFMQ-15 responses. The extraction of the FFMQ-15 items from the FFMQ-39 items has been
supported with previous research (Gu et al., 2016).
We observed full or partial invariance in all models, across all subgroups. Collectively,
the five-factor structure was reliable between gender, depression level, mindfulness meditation
experience, lifetime discrimination, everyday discrimination, household income, ethnic heritage,
and skin tone.
Table 6
Measurement Invariance
FFMQ-39
FFMQ-15
df
CFI
ΔCFI
RMSEA
Invariance
df
CFI
ΔCFI
RMSEA
Invariance
Gender
Configural
1384
.783
--
.08
Full
160
.933
--
.06
Full
Weak
1418
.782
.001
.08
Full
170
.931
.002
.06
Full
Strong
1452
.781
.001
.08
Full
176
.926
.005
.06
Partial
Strict
1491
.782
.001
.08
Full
189
.924
.002
.06
Partial
Mindfulness Meditation Experience
Configural
1384
.837
--
.07
Full
160
.912
--
.07
Full
Weak
1410
.837
0
.07
Partial
170
.912
0
.07
Full
Strong
1437
.837
0
.07
Partial
180
.913
.001
.07
Full
Strict
1476
.835
.002
.07
Partial
195
.910
.003
.07
Full
Depression level
Configural
1384
.789
--
.07
Full
160
.91
--
0.07
Full
Weak
1418
.798
.001
.07
Full
170
.915
.005
0.07
Full
Strong
1447
.796
.002
.07
Partial
176
.916
.001
0.07
Partial
Strict
1484
.794
.002
.07
Partial
191
.913
.003
0.06
Partial
Everyday Discrimination
Measuring Mindfulness in Black Americans 28
Configural
1384
.791
--
.08
Full
160
.939
--
.06
Full
Weak
1418
.792
.001
.08
Full
170
.940
.001
.06
Full
Strong
1447
.793
.002
.08
Partial
180
.938
.002
.06
Full
Strict
1486
.794
.002
.08
Partial
191
.936
.002
.06
Partial
Lifetime Discrimination
Configural
1384
.770
--
.09
Full
160
.934
--
.06
Full
Weak
1418
.770
0
.08
Full
170
.934
0
.06
Full
Strong
1452
.770
0
.08
Full
180
.932
.002
.06
Full
Strict
1491
.769
.001
.08
Full
195
.923
.009
.06
Full
Household income
Configural
---
---
---
---
---
160
.936
--
.06
Full
Weak
---
---
---
---
---
170
.934
.002
.06
Full
Strong
---
---
---
---
---
176
.936
.002
.06
Partial
Strict
---
---
---
---
---
191
.931
.005
.06
Partial
Ethnic Heritage
Configural
---
---
---
---
---
160
.946
--
.07
Full
Weak
---
---
---
---
---
170
.944
.002
.07
Full
Strong
---
---
---
---
---
176
.946
.002
.06
Full
Strict
---
---
---
---
---
191
.947
.001
.06
Full
Skin tone
Configural
---
---
---
---
---
60
.939
--
.07
Full
Weak
---
---
---
---
---
170
.941
.002
.07
Full
Strong
---
---
---
---
---
180
.943
.002
.06
Full
Strict
---
---
---
---
---
195
.940
.003
.06
Full
Note. df = degrees of freedom, CFI = comparative fit index, ΔCFI = difference between prior
model CFI, RMSEA = root mean squared error of approximation.
Discussion
Rigorous longitudinal and intervention studies have shown mindfulness to be associated
with improved mental and physical health outcomes (Palta et al., 2012; Webb et al., 2019). This
study contributes to the generalizability of mindfulness research by validating the psychometric
properties of the widely used FFMQ-39 and the FFMQ-15 within a non-clinical, Black American
Measuring Mindfulness in Black Americans 29
sample. Validating these two FFMQ questionnaires within a Black American sample is
important for several reasons. First, this study is the first to validate both the FFMQ-39 and the
FFMQ-15 within a non-clinical Black sample. By extension this research advances the scientific
understanding, application, and measurement of mindfulness within a sample of Americans that
have been previously excluded from mindfulness research studies but who represent a significant
proportion of the U.S. population. Second, these findings support the use of the FFMQ
questionnaires as measures of individual differences in trait mindfulness that can be used to
predict important health outcomes within Black Americans. Third, it advances our ability to
verify the efficacy of mindfulness interventions within the Black American community.
Promising research has begun to apply mindfulness interventions to reduce stress, emotion
regulation difficulties, and blood pressure within Black Americans (Palta et al., 2012; Watson-
Singleton et al., 2021) but without clear assessments of mindfulness, it is unclear whether such
interventions are effectively targeting mindfulness skills. The present research suggests we can
be confident in our ability to assess whether such mindfulness interventions are indeed targeting
mindfulness factors in Black Americans. And finally, this research not only validates the original
39-item FFMQ, but also provides evidence supporting the use of the short-form (FFMQ-15) for
studies of Black Americans that require briefer assessments (e.g., large scale interventions;
hospital settings), thus increasing opportunities to measure mindfulness within Black
communities in the U.S.
Taken together, this study conducted a comprehensive range of psychometric analyses
that investigated the usability of the FFMQ-39 and FFMQ-15 within Black Americans. Our
examination included analyses of EFAs, CFAs, internal consistencies, test-retest correlations,
nomological networks, and measurement invariance. The rigorous application of these methods
Measuring Mindfulness in Black Americans 30
allows us to confidently support the use of both the FFMQ-39 and the FFMQ-15 within a Black
American sample.
As demonstrated, the EFAs for both questionnaires identified the same five-factor
structure observed for the original FFMQ questionnaires (Baer et al., 2006; Gu et al., 2016).
CFAs indicated that the five-factor structure was a good model fit for both the FFMQ-39 and the
FFMQ-15. The FFMQ-39 model required correlating the residuals of similarly worded items
within the questionnaire (e.g., “It seems I am ‘running on automatic’ without much awareness of
what I’m doing.” and “I do jobs or tasks automatically without being aware of what I’m doing.”).
We recommend that future researchers apply these constraints when testing the model fit for the
FFMQ-39. Moreover, this observation encourages future researchers to be more vigilant about
item similarity during scale development and validation. Given the shorter nature of the FFMQ-
15, future research can confidently apply the FFMQ-15 in order to save time while maintaining
the integrity of the questionnaire.
Next, the test-retest analyses indicated a strong temporal consistency between Time 1 and
Time 2 in both the FFMQ-39 and the FFMQ-15, making the current study the first FFMQ
analysis to report consistent test-retest reliabilities in English. This novel finding demonstrates
that the observed FFMQ factors are consistent over time in a Black American sample and
supports the use of the FFMQ to measure mindfulness in longitudinal studies with Black
American samples.
To further test the validity of the observed questionnaires, we established a nomological
network that describes the relationship of FFMQ factors measured among Black Americans and
constructs that are theoretically related to mindfulness. Our nomological network was largely
consistent with previous research, with the exceptions of the associations with the observe factor
Measuring Mindfulness in Black Americans 31
and mindfulness meditation experience. The inconsistent observe associations are understandable
given that the observe factor has a history of varying associations with psychological
assessments (Baer et al., 2008; Christopher et al., 2012; Gu et al., 2016; Rogge & Daks, 2021;
Sweeney et al., 2021). This inconsistency might stem from the fact that all of the nomological
network constructs refer to internal sensations (e.g. thoughts, feelings, and cognitions). While the
observe factor is the only factor that measures both internal sensations and external sensations
(e.g. smells, sights, and sounds). Thus, it is possible that the items that measure external
sensations within the observe factor might weaken the relationship between the factor and
theoretically related constructs.
Another interesting observation within the nomological network is the inconsistent
relationship between mindfulness meditation experience. Specifically, in the FFMQ-39 we saw
an unexpected null association between mindfulness meditation experience and nonjudgment. In
the FFMQ-15 we saw unexpected non-associations between mindfulness meditation experience
and the factors describe, nonjudgment, and nonreactivity. This difference might be explained by
the low average and variance of mindfulness meditation experience in the sample. The average
participant in our sample meditated less than once or twice in their lifetime. It is possible that a
wider range of mindfulness meditation experience is required to accurately observe the
relationship between mindfulness meditation experience and the FFMQ factors. Given that
mindfulness meditation is underutilized within Black Americans (Biggers et al., 2020), future
research should target a diverse representation of mindfulness meditation experience within
Black Americans to better understand the relationship between mindfulness meditation
experience and the FFMQ factors.
Lastly, the measurement invariance analysis is one of this study’s strongest contributions.
Measuring Mindfulness in Black Americans 32
We observed full and partial invariance between gender, mindfulness meditation experience,
depression level, everyday discrimination, lifetime discrimination, household income, ethnic
heritage, and skin tone within Black Americans. This contribution is groundbreaking in several
ways: (1) this is the first study to assess the invariance of any mindfulness measure within Black
Americans, (2) this is the first study to analyze the invariance of any FFMQ questionnaire within
Black Americans; and (3) this is the first FFMQ invariance analysis to include perceived
discrimination, skin tone, and household income. Furthermore, the invariance analysis advances
the general understanding of diversity within Black American samples an area that is vastly
under researched within the fields of psychology, mental health, and medicine (Buchanan et al.,
2021). Overall, the invariance analysis supports the generalizability of applying the FFMQ
questionnaires across Black Americans.
The results of this study should be interpreted in light of several limitations. First, our
comprehensive nomological network supported the construct validity of the FFMQ in a Black
sample using theoretically related constructs. However, due to the underrepresentation of Black
people within psychology research, most of the measures in the nomological network have not
been validated within a Black sample. The BDI-II (Dutton et al., 2004) and the Self-Compassion
Scale (Zhang et al., 2019) are the only nomological network measures that have been validated
within a Black sample. Future research should validate the remaining psychological measures to
ensure their applicability to a Black sample. Secondly, although we observed invariance of the
FFMQ between Black Americans who descended from the enslaved and Black Americans who
immigrated from Africa or the Caribbean region, the ethnic heritage variable used for these
analyses was derived from the ethnicity of the participants' parents, as opposed to a self-reported
ethnic heritage variable. Parents’ ethnicity did predict participants’ ethnic heritage with very high
Measuring Mindfulness in Black Americans 33
accuracy (88%). Still, future research should collect self-reported ethnic heritage during initial
research stages. Finally, our detailed inclusion of heterogeneous demographics within our Black
American sample is a key asset to this study because it supported the generalizability and
invariance of the observed FFMQ model structure. Notably, subsamples of household income,
ethnic heritage, and skin tone were not large enough to perform invariance analyses on both the
FFMQ-39 and the FFMQ-15. Fortunately, this issue was ameliorated in the invariance analysis
by extracting the FFMQ-15 items from the FFMQ-39 responses to adequately power this test. To
avoid this issue in the future, researchers should employ methods to ensure socioeconomic
diversity within the sample and collect comprehensive within group demographics during initial
stages of data collection.
Taken together, the results of this research are foundational to understanding and
measuring mindfulness within a non-clinical Black sample. The psychometric properties of the
FFMQ-39 and the FFMQ-15 indicate that both questionnaires can validly measure mindfulness
within a Black sample. Given that mindfulness is a valuable practice and an effective treatment
to improve mental and physical health, it is essential that mindfulness can be validly measured in
all populations particularly disenfranchised communities of color who experience
disproportionately poorer health outcomes.
Measuring Mindfulness in Black Americans 34
References
Adewale, V., Ritchie, D., & Skeels, S. E. (2016). African-American and African perspectives on
mental health: A pilot study of the pre and post colonial and slavery influences and their
implications on mental health. Journal of Communication in Healthcare, 9(2), 7889.
https://doi.org/10.1080/17538068.2016.1170316
Aichholzer, J. (2014). Random intercept EFA of personality scales. Journal of Research in
Personality, 53, 14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2014.07.001
Baer, R. A., Carmody, J., & Hunsinger, M. (2012). Weekly Change in Mindfulness and
Perceived Stress in a Mindfulness-Based Stress Reduction Program. Journal of Clinical
Psychology, 68(7), 755765. https://doi.org/10.1002/jclp.21865
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), 2745.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191105283504
Baer, R. A., Smith, G. T., Lykins, E., Button, D., Krietemeyer, J., Sauer, S., Walsh, E., Duggan,
D., & Williams, J. M. G. (2008). Construct Validity of the Five Facet Mindfulness
Questionnaire in Meditating and Nonmeditating Samples. Assessment, 15(3), 329342.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191107313003
Beck, A. T., Steer, R. A., & Brown, G. K. (1996). Beck depression inventory (BDI-II) (Vol. 10,
p. s15327752jpa6703_13). Pearson.
Beydoun, M. A., Dore, G. A., Canas, J.-A., Liang, H., Beydoun, H. A., Evans, M. K., &
Zonderman, A. B. (2018). Systemic inflammation is associated with longitudinal changes
in cognitive performance among urban adults. Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience, 10.
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fnagi.2018.00313
Measuring Mindfulness in Black Americans 35
Biggers, A., Spears, C. A., Sanders, K., Ong, J., Sharp, L. K., & Gerber, B. S. (2020). Promoting
Mindfulness in African American Communities. Mindfulness, 11(10), 22742282.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12671-020-01480-w
Blanke, E. S., Schmidt, M. J., Riediger, M., & Brose, A. (2020). Thinking mindfully: How
mindfulness relates to rumination and reflection in daily life. Emotion, 20(8), 13691381.
https://doi.org/10.1037/emo0000659
Bodhi, B. (2011). What does mindfulness really mean? A canonical perspective. Contemporary
Buddhism, 12(1), 1939. https://doi.org/10.1080/14639947.2011.564813
Bond, S., & Cash, T. F. (1992). Black Beauty: Skin Color and Body Images among African-
American College Women1. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 22(11), 874888.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.1992.tb00930.x
Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1992). Alternative Ways of Assessing Model Fit. Sociological
Methods & Research, 21(2), 230258. https://doi.org/10.1177/0049124192021002005
Buchanan, N. T., Perez, M., Prinstein, M. J., & Thurston, I. (2020). Upending Racism in
Psychological Science: Strategies to Change How Our Science is Conducted, Reported,
Reviewed & Disseminated. PsyArXiv. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/6nk4x
Carmody, J., & Baer, R. A. (2008). Relationships between mindfulness practice and levels of
mindfulness, medical and psychological symptoms and well-being in a mindfulness-
based stress reduction program. Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 31(1), 2333.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10865-007-9130-7
Chiesa, A., & Serretti, A. (2009). Mindfulness-Based Stress Reduction for Stress Management in
Healthy People: A Review and Meta-Analysis. The Journal of Alternative and
Complementary Medicine, 15(5), 593600. https://doi.org/10.1089/acm.2008.0495
Measuring Mindfulness in Black Americans 36
Christopher, M. S., Neuser, N. J., Michael, P. G., & Baitmangalkar, A. (2012). Exploring the
Psychometric Properties of the Five Facet Mindfulness Questionnaire. Mindfulness, 3(2),
124131. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12671-011-0086-x
Cortina, J. (1993). What is coefficient alpha? An examination of theory and applications. Journal
of Applied Psychology. /doiLanding?doi=10.1037%2F0021-9010.78.1.98
DeLuca, S. M., Kelman, A. R., & Waelde, L. C. (2018). A Systematic Review of Ethnoracial
Representation and Cultural Adaptation of Mindfulness- and Meditation-Based
Interventions. Psychological Studies, 63(2), 117129. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12646-
018-0452-z
Diener, E., Emmons, R. A., Larsen, R. J., & Griffin, S. (1985). The Satisfaction With Life Scale.
Journal of Personality Assessment, 49(1), 7175.
https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa4901_13
Dutton, G. R., Grothe, K. B., Jones, G. N., Whitehead, D., Kendra, K., & Brantley, P. J. (2004).
Use of the Beck Depression Inventory-II with African American primary care patients.
General Hospital Psychiatry, 26(6), 437442.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.genhosppsych.2004.06.002
Earl, T., Williams, D., & Anglade, S. (2011). An Update on the Mental Health of Black
Americans: Puzzling Dilemmas and Needed Research. Journal of Black Psychology,
37(4), 485498. https://doi.org/10.1177/0095798410396077
Floyd, F. J., & Widaman, K. F. (1995). Factor Analysis In the Development and Refinement of
Clinical Assessment Instruments. Factor Analysis, 14.
Gu, J., Strauss, C., Crane, C., Barnhofer, T., Karl, A., Cavanagh, K., & Kuyken, W. (2016).
Examining the factor structure of the 39-item and 15-item versions of the Five Facet
Measuring Mindfulness in Black Americans 37
Mindfulness Questionnaire before and after mindfulness-based cognitive therapy for
people with recurrent depression. Psychological Assessment, 28(7), 791802.
https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0000263
Hirschfeld, G., & Brachel, R. (2014). Multiple-Group confirmatory factor analysis in R A
tutorial in measurement invariance with continuous and ordinal indicators. Practical
Assessment Resaerch and Evaluation, 19, 112.
Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis:
Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A
Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 155. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118
Johnson, C. C., Sheffield, K. M., & Brown, R. E. (2018). Mind-Body Therapies for African
American Women at Risk for Cardiometabolic Disease: A Systematic Review. Evidence
Based Complementary and Alternative Medicine, 2018, 111.
https://doi.org/10.1155/2018/5123217
Karl, J. A., Prado, S. M. M., Gračanin, A., Verhaeghen, P., Ramos, A., Mandal, S. P., Michalak,
J., Zhang, C.-Q., Schmidt, C., Tran, U. S., Druica, E., Solem, S., Astani, A., Liu, X.,
Luciano, J. V., Tkalčić, M., Lilja, J. L., Dundas, I., Wong, S. Y. S., & Fischer, R. (2020).
The Cross-cultural Validity of the Five-Facet Mindfulness Questionnaire Across 16
Countries. Mindfulness, 11(5), 12261237. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12671-020-01333-6
Kessler, R. C., Mickelson, K. D., & Williams, D. R. (1999). The Prevalence, Distribution, and
Mental Health Correlates of Perceived Discrimination in the United States. Journal of
Health and Social Behavior, 40(3), 208230. https://doi.org/10.2307/2676349
Lewis, T. T., Aiello, A. E., Leurgans, S., Kelly, J., & Barnes, L. L. (2010). Self-reported
Experiences of Everyday Discrimination are associated with Elevated C-Reactive Protein
Measuring Mindfulness in Black Americans 38
levels in older African-American Adults. Brain, Behavior, and Immunity, 24(3), 438443.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbi.2009.11.011
Neff, K. D. (2003). The Development and Validation of a Scale to Measure Self-Compassion.
Self and Identity, 2(3), 223250. https://doi.org/10.1080/15298860309027
Oh, H., Lincoln, K., & Waldman, K. (2021). Perceived colorism and lifetime psychiatric
disorders among Black American adults: Findings from the National Survey of American
Life. Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00127-0210
2102-z
Palta, P., Page, G., Piferi, R. L., Gill, J. M., Hayat, M. J., Connolly, A. B., & Szanton, S. L.
(2012). Evaluation of a Mindfulness-Based Intervention Program to Decrease Blood
Pressure in Low-Income African-American Older Adults. Journal of Urban Health, 89(2),
308316. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11524-011-9654-6
R Core Team. (2012). R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. R Foundation
for Statistical Computing Vienna Austria. Retrieved from http://www.R-project.org/
Revelle W (2021). psych: Procedures for Psychological, Psychometric, and Personality
Research. Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois. R package version 2.1.9,
https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=psych
Raes, F., Pommier, E., Neff, K. D., & Van Gucht, D. (2011). Construction and factorial
validation of a short form of the Self-Compassion Scale. Clinical Psychology &
Psychotherapy, 18(3), 250255. https://doi.org/10.1002/cpp.702
Roberts, S. O., Bareket-Shavit, C., Dollins, F. A., Goldie, P. D., & Mortenson, E. (2020). Racial
Inequality in Psychological Research: Trends of the Past and Recommendations for the
Future. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 15(6), 12951309.
Measuring Mindfulness in Black Americans 39
https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691620927709
Rogge, R. D., & Daks, J. S. (2021). Embracing the Intricacies of the Path Toward Mindfulness:
Broadening Our Conceptualization of the Process of Cultivating Mindfulness in Day-to-Day
Life by Developing the Unified Flexibility and Mindfulness Model. Mindfulness, 12(3),
701721. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12671-020-01537-w
Rosseel, Y. (2012). lavaan: An R package for structural equation modeling. Journal of Statistical
Software. Retrieved from http://www.doaj.org/doaj?func=fulltext&aId=1325391
Ryff, C. D., Lee, C., & Keyes, M. (1995). The structure of psychological well-being revisited.
Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 719727.
Schermelleh-Engel, K., Moosbrugger, H., & Müller, H. (2003). Evaluating the fit of structural
equation models: Tests of significance and descriptive goodness of fit measures. Methods of
Psychological Research, 2374.
Svendsen, J. L., Kvernenes, K. V., Wiker, A. S., & Dundas, I. (2017). Mechanisms of
mindfulness: Rumination and self-compassion. Nordic Psychology, 69(2), 7182.
https://doi.org/10.1080/19012276.2016.1171730
Sweeney, T., Morriss, R., Nixon, E., Guo, B., & Callaghan, P. (2021). Psychometric Properties
of the Five Facets Mindfulness Questionnaire in Moderate-to-Severe, Persistent Depression.
Mindfulness, 12(4), 10091021. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12671-020-01573-6
Tabachnick, B. G., Fidell, L. S., & Ullman, J. B. (2019). Using multivariate statistics (Seventh
edition). Pearson.
Tanaka, J. S. (1987). “How Big Is Big Enough?”: Sample Size and Goodness of Fit in Structural
Equation Models with Latent Variables. Child Development, 58(1), 134146.
https://doi.org/10.2307/1130296
Measuring Mindfulness in Black Americans 40
Trapnell, P., & Campbell, J. (1999). Private self-consciousness and the five-factor model of
personality: Distinguishing rumination from reflection. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 76, 284304. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.76.2.284
Watson-Singleton, N. N., Pennefather, J., & Trusty, T. (2021). Can a culturally-responsive
Mobile health (mHealth) application reduce African Americans’ stress?: A pilot feasibility
study. Current Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-021-01534-9
Watson-Singleton, N. N., Walker, J. H., LoParo, D., Mack, S. A., & Kaslow, N. J. (2018).
Psychometric Evaluation of the Five Facet Mindfulness Questionnaire in a Clinical Sample
of African Americans. Mindfulness, 9(1), 312324. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12671-017-
0776-0
Webb, C. A., Beard, C., Forgeard, M., & Björgvinsson, T. (2019). Facets of Mindfulness Predict
Depressive and Anxiety Symptom Improvement Above CBT Skills. Mindfulness, 10(3),
559570. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12671-018-1005-1
Williams, D. R., Yu, Y., Jackson, J. S., & Anderson, N. B. (1997). Racial Differences in Physical
and Mental Health: Socio-economic Status, Stress and Discrimination. Journal of Health
Psychology, 2(3), 335351. https://doi.org/10.1177/135910539700200305
Zhang, H., Dong, L., Watson-Singleton, N. N., Tarantino, N., Carr, E. R., Niles-Carnes, L. V.,
Patterson, B., & Kaslow, N. J. (2019). Psychometric Properties of the Self-Compassion
Scale (SCS) in an African American Clinical Sample. Mindfulness, 10(7), 13951405.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12671-019-01099-6
Zigmond, A. S., & Snaith, R. P. (1983). The Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale. Acta
Psychiatrica Scandinavica, 67(6), 361370. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-
0447.1983.tb09716.x
Supplementary Files
This is a list of supplementary les associated with this preprint. Click to download.
FFMQBlackValidationSupplementalMaterial.pdf
DataDepositionInformationItem.pdf
ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any citations for this publication.
Article
Full-text available
African Americans experience numerous stress-related health outcomes and encounter disproportionate barriers to utilizing health-related services that could reduce poor health. Culturally-responsive mindfulness mHealth approaches provide promising opportunities to increase access to health skills that can reduce stress and improve wellbeing among this population. We employed a within subjects pre-post design over a two-week intervention period to analyze if the use of a culturally-responsive mindfulness mHealth application (app) contributed to pre-post changes in a sample of 39 African Americans. Paired t-tests revealed that, following the intervention, participants used more mindfulness practices, had greater self-efficacy using mindfulness, had lower levels of emotion regulation difficulties, and reported lower levels of stress. Participants also expressed high levels of satisfaction with the app and gave it positive ratings for its usability. These findings support the feasibility of a culturally-responsive mindfulness mHealth app to reduce stress and improve emotion regulation skills among African Americans. Future research directions are proposed.
Article
Full-text available
Objectives Mindfulness has been increasingly incorporated into modern psychotherapies and healthcare services. The importance of psychometrically quantifying the construct of mindfulness has become paramount. One of the most reliable and valid instruments for the assessment of different aspects of dispositional mindfulness is the Five Facets Mindfulness Questionnaire (FFMQ). However, the psychometric properties of the FFMQ are yet to be tested in individuals with high levels of persistent depression. This study therefore investigated the psychometric properties of the FFMQ in a clinical sample with moderate-to-severe, persistent depression.Methods The data of 187 participants recruited from a funded randomised controlled trial were utilised. Internal consistency was assessed and construct validity was examined with confirmatory factor analyses (CFA) and by statistically correlating the FFMQ to measures of depression, self-compassion, rumination and experiential avoidance.ResultsFindings supported the internal consistency of the FFMQ. CFA fit indices indicated that all correlated and hierarchical models fitted the data acceptably, with results slightly favouring the correlated model. Contrary to predictions however, individual facet loadings showed that the facet Observe loaded strongly onto an overarching factor of mindfulness, whilst Nonjudge loaded marginally. Nonjudge further showed a non-significant correlation with depression. However, exploratory post hoc analysis presented findings inconsistent with CFA.Conclusions In a sample of severely depressed individuals, psychometric investigation of the validity of the FFMQ highlighted contradictory findings relating to “Nonjudge”. Whilst such findings potentially challenge the validity of the FFMQ for use in its current structure in this sample, further investigation with a larger population is warranted.Trial RegistrationClinicalTrials.gov (NCT01047124) and the ISRCTN registry (ISRCTN10963342)
Article
Full-text available
Objectives The study tested the Unified Flexibility and Mindfulness (UFM) model which organizes the dimensions of mindfulness and psychological flexibility into a multistage, process-oriented framework linking mindfulness to global functioning. Methods A sample of 2742 online respondents (68% female, 81% Caucasian, Mage = 42 years old) completed the FFMQ, the MAAS, the Multidimensional Psychological Flexibility Inventory (MPFI), the Patient Health Questionnaire depression scale (PHQ-9), and Satisfaction with Life Scale (SWLS) within an online survey. Results Path analyses run in random sample halves, across genders, across age groups, and across levels of current meditation converged to support the UFM model, suggesting that mindful lenses (e.g., describing feelings, observing sensations, attentive awareness) predicted mindfully flexible immediate responses to uncomfortable thoughts and feelings (e.g., acceptance, non-reactivity, non-judgment), which predicted life-enriching mindful behaviors (e.g., maintaining contact with values, taking steps toward deeper goals), which predicted greater life satisfaction. The components of the UFM model also identified differences in mindfulness between meditators and non-meditators—specific to those regularly practicing Buddhist-informed meditation. To facilitate future studies, IRT analyses selected items for two new mindfulness subscales that, when added to the MPFI, created the 70-item and 28-item UFM scales which demonstrated measurement invariance across gender, age, and meditation groups. Conclusions The findings provide a conceptual framework offering researchers with an integrative, process-focused method of linking mindfulness to well-being. Underscoring the potential clinical implications, a hypothetical example is given of using the UFM scale to track clinically meaningful change for a client in therapy.
Article
Full-text available
African Americans report higher rates of chronic stress compared with non-Hispanic Whites. Consequently, chronic stress contributes to disproportionately higher rates of poor health outcomes among African Americans. Mindfulness meditation is a well-established and studied strategy to reduce stress and potentially improve health outcomes. However, the practice of mindfulness meditation is largely underutilized in African American communities despite its potential health benefits. In this commentary, we will discuss the relevance of mindfulness interventions, limited research available, reasons for low representation, and cultural adaptations for mindfulness meditation in African American communities. We also provide additional strategies to guide future mindfulness research that target African Americans.
Article
Full-text available
Mindfulness is a state of awareness comprising an attentional focus on the present moment and a nonjudgmental stance. It is associated with affective well-being and assumed to facilitate adaptive emotion regulation. To support this claim at the within-person level, we investigated associations between 2 mindfulness facets (present-moment attention and nonjudgmental acceptance), 2 emotion-regulation strategies varying in adaptiveness (rumination and reflection), and positive and negative affect in everyday life using data from 2 experience-sampling (ESM) studies. Study 1 consisted of N = 70 students who completed 54 prompts on average. Study 2 consisted of N = 179 middle-aged adults who completed 69 prompts on average. Results from both studies were highly consistent: The mindfulness facet nonjudgmental acceptance was more strongly related to less concurrent rumination, whereas the mindfulness facet present-moment attention was related to more concurrent reflection. As predicted, both mindfulness facets interacted with rumination in the prediction of changes in affect. When individuals were in a more mindful state, rumination was less strongly associated with increases in negative affect, and was less strongly associated with decreases in positive affect. However, mindfulness interacted with reflection in the prediction of changes in affect in an unexpected way: At higher levels of nonjudgmental acceptance, reflection was no longer associated with changes in affect. Together, these results suggest that emotion regulation strategies can be more or less adaptive depending on the level of mindfulness. They also accord with the proposal that mindfulness inhibits maladaptive emotion regulation and its impact on affective well-being. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2019 APA, all rights reserved).
Article
Full-text available
Objectives Self-compassion has been recognized as a protective factor against adverse mental health outcomes. Recently, efforts have been taken to investigate the psychometric properties of a widely used measure of self-compassion, the Self-Compassion Scale (SCS). It is vital that psychometric studies include racially/ethnically diverse participants to ensure the SCS’s validity and utility among these samples. Methods The current study evaluated the psychometric properties of the SCS in a sample of 248 low-income African American individuals with a recent suicide attempt. Using confirmatory factor analyses, the following factor structure models of the SCS were tested: one-factor, two-factor, six-factor correlated, higher order, bifactor, and two-bifactor. Results Although our confirmatory factor analyses supported model fit for three of these models (two-factor, two-bifactor, six-factor correlated), the six-factor correlated model was most consistent with theoretical and practical applications of the SCS in this specific demographic and clinical sample. The SCS also demonstrated good internal consistency, as well as strong convergent validity with measures of suicidal ideation, depressive symptoms, self-criticism, and mindfulness. Conclusions These results suggest that the SCS is a psychometrically sound tool for assessing the construct of self-compassion among a low-income, clinical African American sample.
Article
Full-text available
Objectives/Background: Systemic inflammation can affect cognitive performance over time. The current study examined associations between systemic inflammation and cognitive performance among African Americans and Whites urban adults, stratifying by sex, and age group and by race. Patients/Methods: Among 1,555–1,719 White and African-American urban adults [Agebase: 30–64y, 2004-2013, mean±SD follow-up time(y): 4.64 ± 0.93y], conducted linear mixed-effects regression models were conducted to test associations of inflammatory markers [C-reactive protein, Erythrocyte Sedimentation Rate (ESR), albumin, iron, and an inflammation composite score (ICS)] with longitudinal cognitive performance. Results: Among key findings, CRP was linked to poorer baseline mental status among younger women (≤50y, γ01 = –0.03 ± 0.01, p = 0.002) and poorer attention in older women (>50y, γ01 = −0.024 ± 0.007, p < 0.004) and African-Americans (γ01 = −0.029 ± 0.008, p < 0.001). ESR was related to faster decline on verbal memory among older men (>50y, γ11 = −0.008 ± 0.003, P = 0.009); with poorer performance on attention tests overall (γ01 = −0.010 ± 0.003, P = 0.003) and among African-Americans (γ01 = −0.013 ± 0.004, P = 0.002); on verbal fluency among older women (>50y,γ01 = −0.037 ± 0.013, P = 0.004) and on executive function: overall (γ01 = +0.62 ± 0.21, P = 0.004), older men (>50y, γ01 = +1.69 ± 0.53, P = 0.001) and African-Americans (γ01 = +0.84 ± 0.28, P = 0.002). Albumin was linked to slower attention decline among older men (>50y, γ11 = +0.329 ± 0.103, P = 0.009), over-time improvement in executive function overall (γ11 = −6.00 ± 2.26, P = 0.008), and better baseline psychomotor speed among African-Americans (γ01 = +0.56 ± 0.19, P = 0.003). Finally, ICS predicted faster decline on visual memory/visuo-constructive abilities among older men (>50y, γ11 = +0.17 ± 0.06, p = 0.003). Conclusion: In sum, strong associations between systemic inflammation and longitudinal cognitive performance were detected, largely among older individuals (>50y) and African-Americans. Randomized trials targeting inflammation are warranted.
Article
Full-text available
Mindfulness training is increasingly being incorporated into traditional cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) approaches. Although the acquisition and use of both CBT and mindfulness skills have been independently linked with positive therapeutic outcomes, the additional therapeutic benefit provided by mindfulness skills above and beyond traditional CBT skills (e.g., behavioral activation, cognitive reappraisal) is unclear. The present study tested the incremental predictive validity of mindful- ness skills above CBT skills in predicting depressive and anxiety symptom improvement within a psychiatric hospital unit incorporating training in both CBT and mindfulness skills. Adult patients (N = 134, mean age = 34.0, 47.8% females, 90.3% White) with depression and anxiety receiving combined psychotherapeutic and pharmacological treatment at a psychiatric hospital completed repeated assessments of CBT skills (Cognitive Behavioral Therapy-Skills Checklist), mindfulness skills (Five Facet Mindfulness Questionnaire), and both depressive (Patient Health Questionnaire-9) and anxiety (Generalized Anxiety Disorder Scale-7) symptoms. We tested whether mindfulness skills and/or CBT skills predicted depressive and anxiety symptom improvement. Higher levels of both mindfulness skills (rs = − .15 to − .51) and CBT skills (rs = − .12 to − .21) were cross-sectionally associated with lower depressive and anxiety symptoms. However, while controlling for CBT skills, two mindfulness facets (nonreactivity to inner experience and acting with awareness) predicted subsequent depressive (ts < − 2.49, ps < .014) and anxiety (ts < − 2.31, ps < .022) symptom improvement, thus demonstrating incremental predictive validity. Findings suggest the potential therapeutic benefits of mindfulness skills training for depressed and anxious patients within the context of short-term, intensive psychiatric treatment.
Article
Colorism has been propagated across the globe, and skin tone discrimination may partly explain social stratification and health disparities within the Black American population. Using data from a large probability sample of Black American adults (National Survey of American Life; 2001–2003), we examined the relations between perceived colorism and psychiatric disorders. In multivariable logistic regression models, in-group colorism was associated with greater odds of having any lifetime psychiatric disorder (aOR: 1.20; 95% CI: 1.08–1.32; p = 0.00); however, out-group colorism was not significantly associated, net of sociodemographic characteristics and in-group colorism (aOR: 1.08; 95% CI: 0.99–1.18; p = 0.08). When looking at specific disorders, in-group colorism was significantly associated with greater odds of alcohol use disorder, substance use disorder, anxiety disorder, and eating disorder, but was not associated with post-traumatic stress disorder or mood disorder. Out-group colorism was not significantly associated with any psychiatric disorder except anxiety disorder. Our findings show that colorism predicts psychiatric disorders, though more research is needed to understand why the effects of in-group and out-group colorism are related to certain psychiatric disorders but not others.
Article
Race plays an important role in how people think, develop, and behave. In the current article, we queried more than 26,000 empirical articles published between 1974 and 2018 in top-tier cognitive, developmental, and social psychology journals to document how often psychological research acknowledges this reality and to examine whether people who edit, write, and participate in the research are systematically connected. We note several findings. First, across the past five decades, psychological publications that highlight race have been rare, and although they have increased in developmental and social psychology, they have remained virtually nonexistent in cognitive psychology. Second, most publications have been edited by White editors, under which there have been significantly fewer publications that highlight race. Third, many of the publications that highlight race have been written by White authors who employed significantly fewer participants of color. In many cases, we document variation as a function of area and decade. We argue that systemic inequality exists within psychological research and that systemic changes are needed to ensure that psychological research benefits from diversity in editing, writing, and participation. To this end, and in the spirit of the field’s recent emphasis on metascience, we offer recommendations for journals and authors.