Psychometric Investigation of the Five Facets of Mindfulness and Well-Being Measures in the Kingdom of Bhutan and the USA
- 21 Downloads
Mindfulness is derived from Eastern and Buddhist traditions and is associated with the improvement of psychological well-being (WB). However, many empirical approaches designed to measure dispositional mindfulness and WB have been developed and validated within Western and non-Buddhist cultural contexts. Here, we sought to investigate the structure of dispositional mindfulness and WB in the Kingdom of Bhutan, a country characterized by an Eastern, Buddhist cultural context.
Self-report data were collected using the Five Facets of Mindfulness Questionnaire (FFMQ) and standardized WB (hedonic and eudaimonic) measures in Bhutan and in the USA. Data were subjected to a series of confirmatory factor analyses (CFA) to examine the factor structure of each measure in both samples.
For the FFMQ, we found that a four-factor correlated model (excluding the observe facet) best fit the sample data in Bhutan and in the USA. For WB, we did not observe a clear distinction in terms of goodness of fit indices between the one- and two-factor hierarchical models. We did observe that across both samples, the hedonia and eudaimonia WB factors were highly correlated with one another suggesting that a one-factor solution may be optimal. Multigroup CFA analysis demonstrated that while the majority of models displayed adequate configural invariance, the only model displaying adequate metric invariance was the hierarchical four-factor model of the FFMQ data.
These findings suggest that the way mindfulness and WB are conceptualized in a country characterized by an Eastern and Buddhist cultural context is different than in the USA.
KeywordsMindfulness Well-being Buddhism Bhutan Confirmatory factor analysis
BWH designed the study, executed the study, performed data analyses, and wrote the initial version of the manuscript. YA assisted with data collection and edited the final manuscript.
Compliance with Ethical Standards
Conflict of Interest
The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.
All procedures involving human participants performed in studies were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration. The University of Georgia IRB approved this study.
All participants provided informed consent to be included in this study.
- Akaike, H. (1974). A new look at the statistical model identification. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 19(6), 716–723.Google Scholar
- Arcidiacono, C., & Di Martino, S. (2016). A critical analysis of happiness and well-being. Where we stand now, where we need to go. Community Psychology in Global Perspective, 2(1), 6–35.Google Scholar
- Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In K. A. Bollen & J. S. Long (Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp. 136–162). Beverly Hills: Sage.Google Scholar
- Burzler, M. A., Voracek, M., Hos, M., & Tran, U. S. (2018). Mechanisms of mindfulness in the general population. Mindfulness, 1–12.Google Scholar
- Brown, T. A. (2014). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research. New York: Guilford Publications.Google Scholar
- Burns, G. W. (2011). Gross national happiness: a gift from Bhutan to the world. In R. Biswas-Diener (Ed.), Positive psychology as social change (pp. 73–87). Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
- Diener, E. (2009). Subjective well-being. In E. Diener (Ed.), The science of well-being (pp. 11–58). Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
- 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 Mindfulness Questionnaire before and after mindfulness-based cognitive therapy for people with recurrent depression. Psychological Assessment, 28(7), 791–802.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Hofstede-Insights. (2018). Country comparison. Retrieved from https://www.hofstede-insights.com/country-comparison/bhutan,the-usa/. Accessed Aug 2018.
- Joshanloo, M. (2017). Structural and discriminant validity of the tripartite model of mental well-being: differential relationships with the big five traits. Journal of Mental Health, 1–7.Google Scholar
- Kabat-Zinn, J. (2003). Mindfulness-based interventions in context: past, present, and future. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice, 10, 144–156.Google Scholar
- Kaufman, M. T. ‘The remote Kingdom of Bhutan'. New York Times, November 16, 1980, p. 1.Google Scholar
- Marks, T. A. (1977). Historical observations on Buddhism in Bhutan. The Tibet Journal, 2(2), 74–91.Google Scholar
- Marsh, H. W., Hau, K.T., Balla, J. R., & Grayson, D. (1998). Is more ever too much? The number of indicators per factor in confirmatory factor analysis. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 33(2), 181–220.Google Scholar
- Menon, P., Doddoli, S., Singh, S., & Bhogal, R. S. (2014). Personality correlates of mindfulness: a study in an Indian setting. Yoga Mimamsa, 46(1), 29–36.Google Scholar
- National Statistical Bureau. (2017). Statistical Yearbook of Bhutan 2016.Google Scholar
- Raphiphatthana, B., Jose, P. E., & Chobthamkit, P. (2018). The association between mindfulness and grit: an east vs. west cross-cultural comparison. Mindfulness, 1–13.Google Scholar
- Schmidt, S. (2011). Mindfulness in east and west—is it the same? In H. Walach, S. Schmidt, & W. B. Jonas (Eds.), Neuroscience, consciousness and spirituality (pp. 23–38). Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
- Tran, U. S., Cebolla, A., Glück, T. M., Soler, J., Garcia-Campayo, J., & Von Moy, T. (2014). The serenity of the meditating mind: a cross-cultural psychometric study on a two-factor higher order structure of mindfulness, its effects, and mechanisms related to mental health among experienced meditators. PLoS One, 9(10), e110192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Virlley, N., & Reddy, J. K. (2016). The relationship between dispositional mindfulness, marital adjustment and psychological well-being among military wives. Indian Journal of Health & Wellbeing, 7(8), 799–802.Google Scholar
- Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: the PANAS scales. Annual Review in Psychology, 54(6), 1063–1070.Google Scholar