Differential item function across meditators and non-meditators on the Five Facet Mindfulness Questionnaire

230 citations recorded by the source corpus.

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

Measuring mindfulness? An Item Response Theory analysis of the Mindful Attention Awareness Scale (2010, methodology): “Further, a recent examination of mindfulness-absent items on the FFMQ suggests a general response bias to reject items suggesting higher prevalence of mindlessness (Van Dam et al., 2009), revealing constructinconsistent response processes.”
The Assessment of Mindfulness with Self-Report Measures: Existing Scales and Open Issues (2013, background): “The third major challenge concerns whether self-report measures are a valid assessment of mindfulness (Brown et al. 2007; Christopher et al. 2009; Grossman 2008, 2011; Van Dam et al. 2009), i.e., if they provide an accurate and consistent measurement.”
Mindfulness, by any other name…: trials and tribulations of sati in western psychology and science (2011, background): “Attempts to understand and measure mindfulness can, consequently, be hampered by methodological and practical approaches that neglect to take into account the unique composition of multifarious interacting factors involved in the Buddhist construct (see Grossman 2008 , 2010 ; Van Dam, Earleywine a”