Five Facet Mindfulness Questionnaire (FFMQ)

1. Abstract

The Five Facet Mindfulness Questionnaire (FFMQ) is one of the most widely utilized and empirically validated self-report psychometric instruments designed to operationalize and measure the multidimensional construct of dispositional mindfulness in adult populations. Developed by Ruth A. Baer and colleagues in 2006, the scale emerged from an exploratory and confirmatory factor-analytic integration of five preexisting, independently developed mindfulness instruments: the Mindful Attention Awareness Scale (MAAS), the Freiburg Mindfulness Inventory (FMI), the Kentucky Inventory of Mindfulness Skills (KIMS), the Cognitive and Affective Mindfulness Scale-Revised (CAMS-R), and the Southampton Mindfulness Questionnaire (SMQ). The resulting full-length instrument comprises 39 items rated along a 5-point Likert-type response scale ranging from 1 (“Never or very rarely true”) to 5 (“Very often true”).

The structural framework of the FFMQ delineates mindfulness into five distinct, functionally interrelated facets: (1) Observing (attending to or noticing internal sensations, cognitions, emotions, and external stimuli such as sights, sounds, and smells); (2) Describing (expressing or labeling internal experiences with words); (3) Acting with Awareness (attending continuously to ongoing present-moment activities, contrasted with automatic pilot, mind-wandering, or absentmindedness); (4) Nonjudging of Inner Experience (adopting an objective, non-evaluative stance toward internal phenomena rather than criticizing or condemning one’s thoughts and emotional states); and (5) Nonreacting to Inner Experience (allowing feelings, distressing thoughts, and sensory phenomena to enter and depart consciousness without impulse-driven emotional reactivity or cognitive entanglement).

Extensive psychometric investigations across meditating, nonmeditating, community, and clinical cohorts have demonstrated that the FFMQ possesses exceptional internal consistency reliability, with subscale Cronbach’s alpha coefficients regularly spanning .75 to .91 across diverse cultural adaptations. Construct validity is robustly established through strong convergent, discriminant, and incremental associations with validated indices of emotion regulation, psychological distress, neuroticism, alexithymia, and psychological well-being. Structural equation modeling corroborates a hierarchical five-factor structure among individuals with meditation practice, while revealing nuanced differential functioning of the Observing facet across nonmeditating cohorts. The FFMQ serves as an indispensable gold standard in experimental psychopathology, clinical intervention research, and the evaluation of mindfulness-based cognitive therapies.

2. Keywords

Five Facet Mindfulness Questionnaire, FFMQ, dispositional mindfulness, psychometrics, factor analysis, Observing, Describing, Acting with Awareness, Nonjudging, Nonreacting, emotion regulation, Mindfulness-Based Stress Reduction

3. Authors

The Five Facet Mindfulness Questionnaire was conceptualized, developed, and empirically validated by a prominent research team led by Ruth A. Baer at the University of Kentucky:

• Ruth A. Baer, Ph.D. — Professor Emerita of Psychology, Department of Psychology, University of Kentucky, Lexington, Kentucky, USA; Senior Research Clinician and Trainer at the Oxford Mindfulness Foundation, Department of Psychiatry, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom. Primary investigator in the empirical operationalization and psychometric validation of mindfulness-based cognitive mechanisms.
• Gregory T. Smith, Ph.D. — Professor of Clinical Psychology and Chair, Department of Psychology, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY, USA. Renowned expert in quantitative psychological assessment, structural equation modeling, test development theory, and cognitive risk models.
• Jaclyn Hopkins, M.S. — Department of Psychology, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY, USA. Contributor to clinical data acquisition and psychometric scaling.
• Jennifer Krietemeyer, B.A. — Department of Psychology, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY, USA. Research associate specializing in empirical mindfulness assessment protocols.
• Leslie Toney, B.A. — Department of Psychology, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY, USA. Research associate involved in multidimensional data compilation and psychometric factor extraction.

4. Purpose

Prior to the mid-2000s, the scientific study of mindfulness was challenged by conflicting theoretical conceptualizations and psychometric fragmentation. While clinical interest in Mindfulness-Based Stress Reduction (MBSR; Kabat-Zinn, 1990) and Mindfulness-Based Cognitive Therapy (MBCT; Segal et al., 2002) was expanding rapidly, existing self-report scales conceptualized the underlying construct in divergent manners. Some instruments, such as the Mindful Attention Awareness Scale (MAAS; Brown & Ryan, 2003), framed mindfulness unidimensionally as attention to and awareness of present-moment reality, relying predominantly on reverse-worded items measuring absentmindedness. Others, such as the Kentucky Inventory of Mindfulness Skills (KIMS; Baer et al., 2004), posited four behavioral skills derived directly from Dialectical Behavior Therapy (DBT; Linehan, 1993). Instruments like the Cognitive and Affective Mindfulness Scale-Revised (CAMS-R; Feldman et al., 2007) and the Freiburg Mindfulness Inventory (FMI; Walach et al., 2006) emphasized nonjudgmental acceptance, curiosity, and nonattachment, reflecting traditional Buddhist contemplative foundations.

The primary purpose of the FFMQ was to reconcile these disparate measurement frameworks by executing a rigorous, comprehensive structural integration of the prevailing mindfulness self-report literature. Baer and colleagues sought to ascertain whether mindfulness should be understood as a monolithic, unitary attribute or a multifaceted behavioral and attentional skill set, and to construct an empirically grounded, psychometrically sound instrument capable of measuring these dimensions with precision across diverse populations.

In clinical contexts, the FFMQ serves critical evaluative and diagnostic purposes. It allows clinicians to map an individual’s baseline mindfulness profile, identify specific attentional or emotional vulnerabilities, and track facet-specific change trajectories throughout the course of therapeutic interventions. For example, individuals struggling with borderline personality disorder or severe emotional dysregulation frequently demonstrate baseline deficits in the Nonjudging and Nonreacting domains. Tracking these specific subscales provides direct empirical feedback regarding the acquisition of distress tolerance and self-compassion skills. Conversely, in patients suffering from major depressive disorder or generalized anxiety disorder, tracking Acting with Awareness and Describing elucidates shifts away from maladaptive cognitive rumination and emotional suppression toward active, present-centered cognitive reappraisal.

In empirical research, the FFMQ provides an indispensable methodological framework for testing mediation hypotheses within randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Researchers rely on the FFMQ to determine whether therapeutic improvements in subjective well-being, inflammatory biomarkers, immune functioning, or stress reactivity are genuinely mediated by specific enhancements in mindfulness skills, rather than nonspecific treatment factors such as group cohesion, therapist rapport, or placebo expectancy.

5. Psychological Construct

The Five Facet Mindfulness Questionnaire measures dispositional mindfulness as a multifaceted cognitive, perceptual, and behavioral competency. Rather than defining mindfulness as an all-or-nothing psychological state, the FFMQ conceptualizes it as a complex configuration of five interrelated yet functionally independent constructs:

1. Observing (Items 1, 6, 11, 15, 20, 26, 31, 36)

The Observing facet refers to the intentional noticing of or attending to internal and external perceptual stimuli. This includes somatic sensations (such as the feeling of the wind on one’s face, the tactile feedback of water during bathing, or the physical movements of walking), emotional and physiological states (such as bodily responses to food, beverage, or affective surges), and environmental sensory details (such as ambient sounds, visual textures, and subtle aromas). Importantly, observing is characterized by an active, wakeful perceptual orientation. An individual scoring high on this dimension exhibits heightened sensory acuity without immediately retreating into intellectual abstraction or habitual cognitive processing.

2. Describing (Items 2, 7, 12, 16, 22, 27, 32, 37)

The Describing facet captures the capacity to identify, differentiate, and verbally articulate internal experiences—including cognitions, beliefs, emotional subtleties, and somatic sensations—using precise language. It represents the psychological antithesis of alexithymia. High scores on the Describing facet indicate that an individual possesses a rich emotional vocabulary and can effectively label complex affective states, even during severe psychological distress (e.g., Item 27: “Even when I’m feeling terribly upset, I can find a way to put it into words”). Within modern cognitive and affective neuroscience, verbal labeling of affective states (often referred to as “affect labeling”) is known to downregulate amygdala hyperactivity through prefrontal cortex recruitment, establishing this facet as a cornerstone of cognitive reappraisal and affective stability.

3. Acting with Awareness (Items 5, 8, 13, 18, 23, 28, 34, 38)

The Acting with Awareness facet involves maintaining undivided, sustained attention while executing present-moment activities, actively disengaging from the state commonly known as “automatic pilot.” All eight items comprising this dimension are reverse-scored, capturing behaviors such as absentmindedness, mind-wandering, rapid execution of tasks without conscious registration, and cognitive distraction (e.g., Item 23: “It seems I am ‘running on automatic’ without much awareness of what I’m doing”). Low scores on this facet reflect severe attentional fragmentation, dissociative lapses, and absentminded errors, whereas high scores denote continuous, integrated cognitive engagement with current physical and mental tasks.

4. Nonjudging of Inner Experience (Items 3, 10, 14, 17, 25, 30, 35, 39)

The Nonjudging of Inner Experience facet reflects an objective, non-evaluative, and self-compassionate stance toward one’s internal cognitions, emotional reactions, and visual imagery. Similar to Acting with Awareness, this scale is operationalized primarily through reverse-coded items that capture self-critical condemnation, self-reproach, and cognitive castigation regarding the nature of one’s thoughts (e.g., Item 3: “I criticize myself for having irrational or inappropriate emotions”; Item 14: “I believe some of my thoughts are abnormal or bad and I shouldn’t think that way”). High scores indicate that an individual does not attach pejorative moral judgments to spontaneous psychological events, thereby eliminating secondary suffering, cognitive guilt, and depressive meta-cognitions.

5. Nonreacting to Inner Experience (Items 4, 9, 19, 21, 24, 29, 33)

The Nonreacting to Inner Experience facet encompasses the capacity to allow distressing cognitions, intrusive mental images, and acute emotional waves to surface and dissipate within the stream of consciousness without feeling an irresistible urge to reactively alter, suppress, or escape them. It assesses the ability to “step back” from internal stimuli, cultivate a mental pause during difficult circumstances, and maintain emotional equilibrium (e.g., Item 19: “When I have distressing thoughts or images, I ‘step back’ and am aware of the thought or image without getting taken over by it”). This construct mirrors the contemplative concept of equanimity (upekṣā) and psychological defusion in Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (ACT), providing an essential buffer against impulsivity and emotional dysregulation.

6. Theoretical Framework

The theoretical architecture of the FFMQ integrates classical contemplative Buddhist psychology with contemporary Western cognitive-behavioral science, third-wave contextual psychotherapies, and attentional neurobiology. Historically, mindfulness originates within early Buddhist psychological texts, particularly the Satipaṭṭhāna Sutta (The Discourse on the Establishing of Mindfulness), which details four foundations of mindfulness: contemplation of the body (kāya), feelings (vedanā), mind/consciousness (citta), and mental qualities (dhammas). Contemplative theory emphasizes that suffering (dukkha) arises not inherently from internal sensations or thoughts themselves, but from the habitual, conditioned reactions of craving (attachment to pleasant experiences) and aversion (rejection of unpleasant experiences). Mindfulness serves as an experiential pathway to decouple bare sensory registration from these maladaptive emotional reactions.

When Jon Kabat-Zinn introduced mindfulness into behavioral medicine via Mindfulness-Based Stress Reduction in 1979, he defined it operationally as: “the awareness that arises through paying attention on purpose, in the present moment, and nonjudgmentally to the unfolding of experience moment by moment.” This operational definition encapsulates three core attentional components: intention, attention, and attitude (Shapiro et al., 2006). In developing the FFMQ, Baer and colleagues grounded their work in this operational consensus while integrating empirical insights from Dialectical Behavior Therapy (Linehan, 1993) and Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (Hayes et al., 1999).

The DBT theoretical model explicitly identifies behavioral mindfulness skills categorized into “What” skills (observing, describing, participating) and “How” skills (nonjudgmentally, one-mindfully, effectively). The FFMQ translates these conceptual formulations directly into psychometric dimensions. The Observing and Describing facets capture the perceptual and expressive “What” operations, while Nonjudging and Acting with Awareness reflect the qualitative “How” operations. Nonreacting operationalizes the ACT construct of cognitive defusion—the capacity to perceive thoughts simply as passing mental events rather than literal, binding truths requiring behavioral compliance.

From an information-processing and neurocognitive standpoint, the theoretical framework posits a dynamic equilibrium between bottom-up perceptual awareness and top-down cognitive control. Attentional networks (specifically the alerting, orienting, and executive control networks delineated by Posner and Petersen) underpin the Acting with Awareness and Observing dimensions, while default mode network (DMN) downregulation corresponds with reductions in self-referential narrative rumination, operationalized via the Nonjudging and Nonreacting facets.

7. Validity

The Five Facet Mindfulness Questionnaire has undergone comprehensive empirical validation across a broad spectrum of populations, including undergraduate student cohorts, meditating communities, healthy adult community samples, and clinical psychiatric outpatients. The cumulative psychometric evidence demonstrates superior construct, convergent, discriminant, and predictive validity.

Convergent and Discriminant Validity

In their seminal validation investigations, Baer et al. (2006, 2008) analyzed correlations between the five FFMQ facets and an extensive battery of well-established psychological measures:

• Emotion Regulation and Well-Being: The Describing, Nonjudging, and Nonreacting facets demonstrate robust positive correlations with the Trait Meta-Mood Scale (TMMS; measuring emotional clarity and repair), the General Self-Efficacy Scale, and psychological well-being scales (Ryff, 1989), with coefficients ranging from .35 to .58 (p < .001).
• Affective Pathology: The Nonjudging and Acting with Awareness facets show pronounced negative correlations with indices of neuroticism (NEO-PI-R; r = -.45 to -.62), the Beck Depression Inventory (BDI; r = -.38 to -.52), and the Spielberger Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI; r = -.40 to -.56).
• Cognitive Vulnerability: Nonjudging, Acting with Awareness, and Nonreacting correlate strongly and negatively with the Thought Suppression Inventory (WBSI; r = -.42 to -.59) and the Ruminative Responses Scale (RRS; r = -.35 to -.54), confirming that high mindfulness actively mitigates toxic cognitive perseveration.
• Somatic and Sensory Distinctions: The Describing facet exhibits strong negative associations with the Toronto Alexithymia Scale (TAS-20; r = -.55 to -.68), supporting its validity as an accurate measure of emotional identification and linguistic expression.

Construct and Criterion Validity in Meditating vs. Nonmeditating Cohorts

Baer et al. (2008) examined construct validity by comparing experienced meditators (individuals practicing Vipassana, Zen, or Shambhala traditions for multiple years) with matched nonmeditating community adults. Meditators scored significantly higher across all five facets of the FFMQ (p < .001, Cohen’s d ranging from 0.52 to 1.10). Notably, the magnitude of facet scores correlated positively with the total number of years of regular meditation practice and weekly minutes of sitting meditation, providing robust criterion-related validity.

Incremental and Predictive Validity

Multiple regression analyses conducted by Baer et al. (2006) revealed that the FFMQ facets account for statistically significant incremental variance in psychological symptoms (such as somatization, obsessive-compulsive traits, depression, and generalized anxiety) over and above the variance explained by personality dimensions of the Big Five personality traits (NEO-PI-R) and emotional intelligence. In clinical trials evaluating MBSR and MBCT, pre-to-post intervention increases in Nonjudging and Acting with Awareness reliably predict post-treatment reductions in depressive relapse and stress reactivity, confirming the predictive utility of the instrument.

8. Reliability

The reliability of the Five Facet Mindfulness Questionnaire has been established across multiple studies, demonstrating high internal consistency and stability across time.

Internal Consistency Reliability

In the foundational validation study by Baer et al. (2006, N = 613 undergraduate students; N = 268 community adults), the internal consistency coefficients (Cronbach’s alpha, $\alpha$) for the five subscales demonstrated satisfactory to excellent psychometric strength:

• Observing: $\alpha$ = .83 to .86
• Describing: $\alpha$ = .87 to .91
• Acting with Awareness: $\alpha$ = .87 to .89
• Nonjudging: $\alpha$ = .87 to .91
• Nonreacting: $\alpha$ = .75 to .81

Subsequent psychometric investigations have replicated these parameters internationally. In a comprehensive clinical validation study with 376 depressed adults, Bohlmeijer et al. (2011) reported alpha values of .79 (Observing), .85 (Describing), .83 (Acting with Awareness), .85 (Nonjudging), and .78 (Nonreacting). Similar alpha coefficients ($ge .76$) were documented across German, French, Spanish, Italian, and Chinese psychometric translations, demonstrating that the measurement error of individual subscales remains minimal across linguistic variations.

Test-Retest Reliability

Temporal stability evaluations have consistently verified that FFMQ facet scores remain stable in the absence of targeted psychological or contemplative interventions:

• In non-intervention control groups measured across intervals of 4 to 8 weeks, test-retest correlation coefficients ($r_{tt}$) range from .68 to .86 (Baer et al., 2008; Veehof et al., 2011).
• Specifically, the subscale temporal correlations generally manifest as: Describing ($r_{tt} = .83$), Acting with Awareness ($r_{tt} = .81$), Nonjudging ($r_{tt} = .80$), Observing ($r_{tt} = .76$), and Nonreacting ($r_{tt} = .72$).
• Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) observed in test-retest reliability designs similarly exceed .75 across all subscales, confirming excellent temporal stability.

9. Factor Analysis

The factor structure of the FFMQ was uncovered through a systematic sequence of Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) and Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) conducted by Baer et al. (2006).

Initial Factor Extraction and EFA

Baer and colleagues collected an initial pool of 112 items from five pre-existing mindfulness scales (MAAS, KIMS, FMI, CAMS-R, SMQ) administered to 613 undergraduate participants. An exploratory factor analysis using maximum likelihood extraction followed by oblique (promax) rotation revealed a clear, scree-plot-supported five-factor solution accounting for 33.1% of the total variance. Subsequent item reduction removed items with cross-loadings greater than .30, communalities below .20, or weak primary loadings, culminating in the standardized 39-item structure. Each extracted factor neatly aligned with the theoretical facets:

• Factor 1: Nonjudging — Standardized item loadings ranged from .62 to .84.
• Factor 2: Acting with Awareness — Standardized item loadings ranged from .54 to .78.
• Factor 3: Describing — Standardized item loadings ranged from .58 to .83.
• Factor 4: Observing — Standardized item loadings ranged from .48 to .76.
• Factor 5: Nonreacting — Standardized item loadings ranged from .44 to .72.

Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) and Structural Models

To examine the structural hierarchy of the five facets, Baer et al. (2006, 2008) tested competing structural models using CFA in both nonmeditating and meditating samples:

1. Unidimensional Model: A single general mindfulness factor loading on all 39 items yielded an unacceptable fit to the data ($\chi^2/df > 4.8$, CFI < .70, RMSEA > .09), definitively disconfirming the hypothesis that mindfulness is a single undifferentiated construct.
2. Correlated Five-Factor Model: A model specifying five intercorrelated latent factors yielded acceptable fit indices across both groups ($\chi^2/df = 1.98$, CFI = .92, TLI = .91, RMSEA = .048, 90% CI [.044, .052]).
3. Hierarchical (Second-Order) Five-Factor Model: In this model, a higher-order overarching latent “Mindfulness” construct accounted for the covariance among the five first-order latent facets.

The “Observing” Facet Paradox in Nonmeditators

Crucially, structural equation modeling demonstrated a distinct psychometric divergence between nonmeditating samples and meditating samples:

In meditating cohorts, the hierarchical five-factor model fit the empirical data exceptionally well. All five facets loaded positively and significantly onto the higher-order mindfulness construct (loading of Observing: $\beta = .62, p < .001$). In striking contrast, in nonmeditating samples, the hierarchical model fit poorly unless the Observing facet was decoupled. In nonmeditators, the factor loading of Observing onto the higher-order mindfulness factor was near zero or nonsignificant ($\beta = .09$ to $.12$), and Observing correlated positively with somatic anxiety, hypervigilance, and neuroticism.

Methodological research (Gu et al., 2016; Van Dam et al., 2014) explains this psychometric phenomenon: without contemplative or attentional training, observing one’s internal physical and affective sensations often manifests as self-conscious monitoring, rumination, or hypochondriacal hyperawareness. Following mindfulness training (such as an 8-week MBSR program), participants learn to observe without judgment or reactivity, shifting the structural performance of the Observing facet so that it functions harmoniously as an integral component of overall dispositional mindfulness.

10. Instrument / Measurement Tool

• Instrument Name: Five Facet Mindfulness Questionnaire (FFMQ)
• Alternative Versions: Five Facet Mindfulness Questionnaire – Short Form (FFMQ-SF; 24 items; Bohlmeijer et al., 2011); FFMQ-15 (15 items; Gu et al., 2016)
• Author(s): Ruth A. Baer, Gregory T. Smith, Jaclyn Hopkins, Jennifer Krietemeyer, and Leslie Toney (2006)
• Construct Measured: Multidimensional dispositional mindfulness
• Administration Format: Self-report paper-and-pencil questionnaire, computer-based survey, or clinical assessment portal
• Target Population: Adults and adolescents aged 16 and older; applicable across healthy, community, meditating, and clinical populations
• Completion Time: Approximately 8 to 12 minutes for the full 39-item version; 3 to 5 minutes for the 24-item short form
• Number of Items: 39 items
• Response Scale: 5-point Likert-type response format:
  • 1 = Never or very rarely true
  • 2 = Rarely true
  • 3 = Sometimes true
  • 4 = Often true
  • 5 = Very often true
• Subscales & Item Composition:
  • Observing (8 items): 1, 6, 11, 15, 20, 26, 31, 36
  • Describing (8 items): 2, 7, 12*, 16*, 22*, 27, 32, 37
  • Acting with Awareness (8 items): 5*, 8*, 13*, 18*, 23*, 28*, 34*, 38*
  • Nonjudging of Inner Experience (8 items): 3*, 10*, 14*, 17*, 25*, 30*, 35*, 39*
  • Nonreacting to Inner Experience (7 items): 4, 9, 19, 21, 24, 29, 33
• Scoring and Transformation Procedures:
  • Reverse Scoring: Items marked with an asterisk (*) are reverse-coded prior to computation. For these items, convert raw scores as follows: $1 \rightarrow 5$, $2 \rightarrow 4$, $3 \rightarrow 3$, $4 \rightarrow 2$, $5 \rightarrow 1$.
  • Subscale Scores: Calculate the sum or mean of the items comprising each subscale. Subscale sum scores for Observing, Describing, Acting with Awareness, and Nonjudging range from 8 to 40. The sum score for Nonreacting ranges from 7 to 35.
  • Total Score: A composite mindfulness total score can be computed by summing all five subscales (range: 39 to 195). Note: When evaluating nonmeditating cohorts, psychometric experts recommend examining subscale scores independently or omitting the Observing subscale when computing the total score, due to structural divergence in untrained populations.

11. Permissions & Fee and Test Year

• Publication Year: 2006 (Kentucky Inventory of Mindfulness Skills precursor: 2004; validation in meditating cohorts: 2008)
• Copyright & Ownership: Ruth A. Baer and colleagues. Academic copyright resides within original publication agreements under Springer Science+Business Media and SAGE Publications.
• Commercial Fee: None. The FFMQ is an open-access, public-domain instrument for academic, scientific, non-commercial research, and individual clinical assessment purposes.
• Permission Requirements: Formal written permission is not required for academic research, university teaching, thesis dissertations, or non-profit clinical practice, provided that appropriate bibliographic attribution is given to Baer et al. (2006). Commercial vendors intending to bundle the FFMQ into fee-for-service software platforms, corporate wellness applications, or for-profit publications should consult the primary author.

12. References

Baer, R. A., Smith, G. T., & Allen, K. B. (2004). Assessment of mindfulness by self-report: The Kentucky Inventory of Mindfulness Skills. Assessment, 11(3), 191–206. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191104268029

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), 27–45. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191105283504

Baer, R. A., Smith, G. T., Lykins, E., Button, D., Krietemeyer, J., & Sauer, S. (2008). Construct validity of the Five Facet Mindfulness Questionnaire in meditating and nonmeditating samples. Assessment, 15(3), 329–342. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191107313003

Bohlmeijer, E., ten Klooster, P. M., Fledderus, M., Veehof, M., & Baer, R. A. (2011). Psychometric properties of the Five Facet Mindfulness Questionnaire in depressed adults and development of a short form. Assessment, 18(3), 308–320. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191111408231

Brown, K. W., & Ryan, R. M. (2003). The benefits of being present: Mindfulness and its role in psychological well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84(4), 822–848. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.84.4.822

Feldman, G., Hayes, A., Kumar, S., Greeson, J., & Laurenceau, J. P. (2007). Mindfulness and emotion regulation: The development and initial validation of the Cognitive and Affective Mindfulness Scale-Revised (CAMS-R). Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 29(3), 177–190. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10862-006-9035-8

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. https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0000263

Hayes, S. C., Strosahl, K. D., & Wilson, K. G. (1999). Acceptance and commitment therapy: An experiential approach to behavior change. Guilford Press.

Kabat-Zinn, J. (1990). Full catastrophe living: Using the wisdom of your body and mind to face stress, pain, and illness. Delacorte.

Linehan, M. M. (1993). Cognitive-behavioral treatment of borderline personality disorder. Guilford Press.

Segal, Z. V., Williams, J. M. G., & Teasdale, J. D. (2002). Mindfulness-based cognitive therapy for depression: A new approach to preventing relapse. Guilford Press.

Shapiro, S. L., Carlson, L. E., Astin, J. A., & Freedman, B. (2006). Mechanisms of mindfulness. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 62(3), 373–386. https://doi.org/10.1002/jclp.20237

Van Dam, N. T., Hobkirk, A. L., Danoff-Burg, S., & Earleywine, M. (2014). Mind your measure: Requesting qualitative cognitive interviewing to refine self-report mindfulness instruments. Mindfulness, 5(4), 473–481. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12671-013-0202-0

Walach, H., Buchheld, N., Buttenmüller, V., Kleinknecht, N., & Schmidt, S. (2006). Measuring mindfulness—the Freiburg Mindfulness Inventory (FMI). Personality and Individual Differences, 40(8), 1543–1555. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2005.11.025

13. Items of the Scale (Questionnaire)