Five-Facet Mindfulness Questionnaire – Short Form (FFMQ-15)

1. Abstract

The Five-Facet Mindfulness Questionnaire – Short Form (FFMQ-15) is an abbreviated, 15-item psychometric instrument developed to evaluate dispositional and intervention-cultivated mindfulness across five distinct, empirically established dimensions. Derived from the comprehensive 39-item Five Facet Mindfulness Questionnaire (FFMQ-39) established by Ruth A. Baer and colleagues, the FFMQ-15 was systematically validated for clinical and research settings by Gu, Strauss, Crane, Barnhofer, Karl, Cavanagh, and Kuyken (2016). Specifically tailored for longitudinal outcome monitoring in Mindfulness-Based Cognitive Therapy (MBCT) and Mindfulness-Based Stress Reduction (MBSR), the instrument assesses five core operational facets: Observing (attending to internal and external sensory experiences), Describing (expressing internal states through linguistic labels), Acting with Awareness (engaging in present activities with conscious presence rather than automaticity), Nonjudging of Inner Experience (adopting an objective, non-evaluative stance toward cognitions and affects), and Nonreactivity to Inner Experience (allowing thoughts and feelings to emerge and pass without behavioral or emotional reactivity).

Each facet is measured using three targeted items rated along a five-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (Never or very rarely true) to 5 (Very often or always true). Methodological validation demonstrates that the FFMQ-15 retains the foundational five-factor structure of its parent instrument while significantly reducing participant response burden, fatigue, and attrition in repeated-measures paradigms. Confirmatory factor analyses confirm acceptable to excellent goodness-of-fit indices and robust measurement invariance across pre- and post-intervention assessment waves. The scale exhibits strong convergent validity with measures of psychological well-being, decentering, and emotional regulation, alongside predictable inverse relationships with depressive rumination, somatic anxiety, and psychological distress. Consequently, the FFMQ-15 represents an efficient, psychometrically sound measurement tool for clinical trials, psychological assessments, and ecological momentary research.

2. Keywords

Five-Facet Mindfulness Questionnaire, FFMQ-15, mindfulness measurement, psychometrics, Mindfulness-Based Cognitive Therapy, factor structure, scale validation, recurrent depression, cognitive reactivity, short-form inventory

3. Authors

The 15-item short-form validation was conceptualized, executed, and psychometrically validated by an international collaborative team of clinical psychologists, psychiatric researchers, and psychometricians:

• Jenny Gu, PhD: School of Psychology, University of Sussex, Brighton, United Kingdom; Sussex Mindfulness Centre, Sussex Partnership NHS Foundation Trust, Hove, United Kingdom.
• Clara Strauss, PhD, DClinPsy: Sussex Mindfulness Centre, Sussex Partnership NHS Foundation Trust, Hove, United Kingdom; School of Psychology, University of Sussex, Brighton, United Kingdom.
• Catherine Crane, PhD: Department of Psychiatry, Warneford Hospital, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.
• Thorsten Barnhofer, PhD: School of Psychology, University of Exeter, Exeter, United Kingdom; Department of Psychology, Freie Universität Berlin, Berlin, Germany.
• Anke Karl, PhD: Department of Psychology, College of Life and Environmental Sciences, University of Exeter, Exeter, United Kingdom.
• Kate Cavanagh, PhD, DClinPsy: School of Psychology, University of Sussex, Brighton, United Kingdom.
• Willem Kuyken, PhD, DClinPsy: Department of Psychiatry, Warneford Hospital, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom; Oxford Mindfulness Centre, Oxford, United Kingdom.

Correspondence regarding the original validation study of the 15-item version was directed to Dr. Jenny Gu and Professor Willem Kuyken at the Oxford Mindfulness Centre, Department of Psychiatry, University of Oxford.

4. Purpose

The primary purpose of the Five-Facet Mindfulness Questionnaire – Short Form (FFMQ-15) is to provide an empirically grounded, brief, and psychometrically sound assessment of multifaceted mindfulness that minimizes participant burden while retaining the structural integrity and clinical sensitivity of the original 39-item scale. In contemporary psychological research and clinical trials, extended psychometric batteries often induce respondent fatigue, introduce cognitive strain, elevate attrition rates, and jeopardize data quality—particularly when administered to individuals experiencing active psychological disorders such as major depressive disorder, severe anxiety, or chronic pain syndromes.

Theoretical Rationale

The development of the FFMQ-15 addressed a critical methodological challenge in clinical trials evaluating mindfulness-based interventions (MBIs), including Mindfulness-Based Cognitive Therapy (MBCT) and Mindfulness-Based Stress Reduction (MBSR). Clinical trials routinely implement multi-wave longitudinal designs featuring baseline, mid-treatment, post-treatment, and subsequent follow-up assessments (e.g., 3-, 6-, 12-, and 24-month intervals). Administering the comprehensive FFMQ-39 alongside comprehensive symptom inventories (such as the Beck Depression Inventory-II or the Generalized Anxiety Disorder 7-item scale) produces substantial measurement redundancy and cognitive burden. By reducing the scale from 39 items to 15 items—preserving exactly three psychometrically optimized items per facet—the FFMQ-15 facilitates efficient, high-frequency measurement without sacrificing construct breadth.

Clinical Applications

Clinically, the FFMQ-15 serves several vital diagnostic, evaluative, and therapeutic functions:

• Treatment Moderation and Mediation Analysis: The scale enables investigators to isolate the specific cognitive and emotional mechanisms through which mindfulness training exerts its prophylactic effects against depressive relapse and clinical deterioration.
• Individual Treatment Monitoring: Clinicians can track an individual patient’s trajectory across distinct mindfulness domains, identifying specific deficits—such as elevated self-critical judgment or impaired nonreactivity—that can be targeted with tailored therapeutic exercises.
• Session-by-Session Assessment: Because completion requires approximately two to three minutes, the scale is exceptionally well-suited for repeated weekly administration throughout an 8-week MBCT or MBSR curriculum.
• Ecological Momentary Assessment (EMA): The brevity of the FFMQ-15 makes subscale subsets or the entire instrument adaptable for digital health platforms, smartphone-delivered interventions, and daily diary protocols tracking state-level fluctuations in mindfulness facets.

Research Applications

In empirical psychopathology and basic behavioral science, the FFMQ-15 facilitates large-scale population surveys, neuroimaging paradigms with stringent time constraints, and multi-center randomized controlled trials (RCTs). It permits investigators to explore structural equations linking individual mindfulness dimensions to neurological correlates, inflammatory biomarkers, executive control networks, and subjective affective regulation.

5. Psychological Construct

Mindfulness is conceptualized not as a monolithic, unidimensional psychological trait, but rather as a sophisticated, multidimensional metacognitive capability. The Five-Facet Mindfulness Questionnaire operationalizes this construct across five interrelated yet distinct cognitive-behavioral dimensions, each representing a discrete facet of how individuals relate to internal and external experiences.

1. Observing (Items 1, 6, 11)

The Observing facet reflects an individual’s conscious awareness of and attentiveness to internal and external stimuli, encompassing sensory perceptions, bodily sensations, cognitions, and emotional shifts. It captures the capacity to notice subtle environmental details (e.g., the sensation of the wind or the warmth of water) as well as internal visceral cues. In clinical populations lacking formal meditation training, observing has historically exhibited complex, sometimes paradoxical psychometric behavior: individuals suffering from hypochondriasis, somatic symptom disorders, or panic disorder may exhibit high attention to bodily sensations characterized by anxious hypervigilance rather than mindful awareness. However, within the context of mindfulness training, this dimension transforms into an adaptive capacity to witness sensory events dispassionately, without somatic catastrophizing.

2. Describing (Items 2, 7, 12)

The Describing facet assesses the tendency and ability to identify, conceptualize, and accurately express internal experiences using linguistic symbols and verbal labels. This capacity represents the antithesis of alexithymia. High scorers on this facet can articulate emotional nuances, pinpoint internal visceral changes, and differentiate between distinct feeling states even under conditions of severe distress (e.g., “Even when I’m feeling terribly upset, I can find a way to put it into words”). By translating nebulous or overwhelming visceral turmoil into clear, discrete verbal propositions, the individual diminishes limbic hyperactivation via prefrontal cortex engagement, facilitating down-regulation of acute emotional arousal.

3. Acting with Awareness (Items 3, 8, 13)

The Acting with Awareness facet captures the quality of bringing undivided, conscious presence to one’s ongoing behavior, serving as the direct operational opposite of mindlessness, absentmindedness, or functioning on “automatic pilot.” Individuals low in this facet frequently experience lapses in concentration, daydream while engaged in instrumental tasks, or complete daily routines without conscious recall. In the FFMQ-15, all three items in this dimension are reverse-scored (e.g., “It seems I am ‘running on automatic’ without much awareness of what I am doing”). Cultivating this facet mitigates the pervasive cognitive disengagement that often initiates automated depressive ruminative cycles and maladaptive procedural habits.

4. Nonjudging of Inner Experience (Items 4, 9, 14)

The Nonjudging of Inner Experience facet measures the degree to which an individual refrains from applying negative self-evaluative judgments, self-criticism, or moral condemnation to their own internal thoughts, urges, and emotional states. In depressive and anxiety disorders, patients typically generate catastrophic secondary appraisals regarding primary cognitive events (e.g., believing that having an anxious or intrusive thought implies personal defectiveness, weakness, or immorality). Items in this facet are negatively phrased and reverse-scored (e.g., “I make judgments about whether my thoughts are good or bad”). Maintaining an open, non-punitive stance toward one’s mental phenomena interrupts depressive escalation and secondary distress.

5. Nonreactivity to Inner Experience (Items 5, 10, 15)

The Nonreactivity to Inner Experience facet captures the metacognitive capacity to perceive distressing cognitions, intrusive mental imagery, or visceral emotional surges without immediately being hijacked by them, and without engaging in compulsive, impulsive behavioral reactions or experiential avoidance strategies. This facet operationalizes the clinical concept of “decentering” or “psychological defusion.” Rather than attempting to suppress, fight, or instantly escape negative affect, an individual with high nonreactivity possesses the capacity to pause, step back, and allow mental phenomena to arise, linger, and dissipate naturally according to their own temporal trajectory (e.g., “In difficult situations, I can pause without immediately reacting”).

6. Theoretical Framework

The operational framework of the FFMQ-15 is grounded in the convergence of contemporary cognitive-behavioral psychology, empirical information-processing paradigms, and classical Buddhist psychological epistemologies translated into clinical medicine by Jon Kabat-Zinn. Kabat-Zinn famously defined mindfulness as “the awareness that emerges through paying attention on purpose, in the present moment, and nonjudgmentally to the unfolding of experience moment by moment.”

The Bishop Consensus Model

To establish a rigorous operational definition for empirical psychology, a landmark consensus panel led by Bishop et al. (2004) proposed a two-component model of mindfulness comprising:

1. Self-Regulation of Attention: Maintaining sustained attention on immediate experience, fostering mental flexibility, and inhibiting elaborative cognitive processing.
2. Orientation to Experience: Cultivating a stance of curiosity, experiential openness, acceptance, and non-defensiveness toward whatever arises in the perceptual field.

The FFMQ operationalization expands upon the Bishop framework. In 2006, Baer and colleagues conducted an integrative psychometric factor analysis on the pooled item pool of five pre-existing mindfulness scales: 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). This structural synthesis demonstrated that items across all existing instruments converged robustly onto five distinct, highly replicable latent factors, forming the theoretical bedrock of the FFMQ.

The Interacting Cognitive Subsystems (ICS) Framework

In the context of MBCT for recurrent depressive disorder, the theoretical mechanisms evaluated by the FFMQ-15 are illuminated by Teasdale’s Interacting Cognitive Subsystems (ICS) model. According to ICS theory, depressive relapse is driven by the reactivation of automated, ruminative “depressive modes” characterized by negative self-evaluative loops. In this state, an individual operates within a “doing mode” of mind, striving to eliminate discrepancies between their current emotional state and desired affective goals. The five facets of the FFMQ operationalize the shift from this dysfunctional “doing mode” into a metacognitive “being mode.”

Through the cultivation of Observing and Acting with Awareness, attentional resources are allocated directly to sensory reality rather than ruminative conceptual narratives. Concurrently, Nonjudging and Nonreactivity disrupt the negative feedback loops of secondary appraisal that perpetuate depressive escalation. Thoughts are recognized as passing mental events rather than literal truths—a transformation termed “decentering” or “reperceiving” (Shapiro et al., 2006).

7. Validity

The psychometric validity of the FFMQ-15 has been extensively evaluated through rigorous construct, convergent, discriminant, and predictive validation protocols, particularly within clinical samples undergoing psychological interventions.

Construct and Factorial Validity

In their benchmark validation study, Gu et al. (2016) evaluated the psychometric architecture of both the 39-item and 15-item FFMQ in a large clinical sample of individuals suffering from recurrent major depressive disorder ($N = 238$) participating in a randomized controlled trial of Mindfulness-Based Cognitive Therapy. Confirmatory factor analysis demonstrated that the 15-item short form retained the invariant five-factor structure observed in the full instrument. Inter-factor correlations among the five dimensions in the short form closely paralleled those observed in the 39-item scale, confirming that item reduction did not alter the fundamental structural relationships among latent dimensions.

Convergent Validity

The subscales of the FFMQ-15 demonstrate robust convergent validity with theoretical constructs central to affective regulation and psychological health:

• Decentering and Metacognitive Awareness: Scores on the Nonreactivity, Nonjudging, and Describing subscales correlate significantly positively with the Experiences Questionnaire (EQ; Fresco et al., 2007) decentering subscale ($r = .45$ to $.62, p < .001$).
• Self-Compassion: Subscales correlate positively with the Self-Compassion Scale (SCS; Neff, 2003), particularly along the dimensions of self-kindness and common humanity ($r = .38$ to $.56$).
• Emotional Granularity: The Describing facet correlates strongly and inversely with the Toronto Alexithymia Scale (TAS-20; Bagby et al., 1994; $r = -.52$ to $-.68$), confirming its utility in measuring emotional labeling precision.

Discriminant and Criterion Validity

The FFMQ-15 exhibits expected, statistically significant inverse correlations with established measures of psychopathology:

• Depressive Symptomatology: Cross-sectional and longitudinal associations with the Beck Depression Inventory-II (BDI-II) and the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) reveal substantial negative correlations ($r = -.35$ to $-.58, p < .001$), with the Nonjudging and Acting with Awareness facets demonstrating the most potent inverse relationships.
• Depressive Rumination: The Ruminative Responses Scale (RRS; Treynor et al., 2003) correlates negatively with Nonjudging ($r = -.48$) and Acting with Awareness ($r = -.42$), affirming that mindful attention counteracts brooding and ruminative reflection.
• Thought Suppression: Negative correlations emerge with the White Bear Suppression Inventory (WBSI; Wegner & Zanakos, 1994; $r = -.40$ to $-.54$), supporting the premise that mindfulness facilitates experiential willingness rather than psychological avoidance.

Predictive and Mediational Validity

A critical test of the FFMQ-15 is its sensitivity to therapeutic change. In Gu et al. (2016), repeated-measures analyses showed statistically significant increases across all five facets from pre- to post-MBCT ($p < .001$, effect sizes ranging from Cohen’s $d = 0.34$ for Observing to $d = 0.78$ for Nonreactivity). Furthermore, structural equation modeling demonstrated that pre-to-post gains on the FFMQ-15 significantly mediated the relationship between MBCT participation and post-treatment reductions in depressive symptoms, proving that the short form is adequately sensitive to capture targeted clinical mechanisms.

8. Reliability

Evaluating the reliability of short-form measurement instruments requires balancing scale brevity against internal consistency constraints, as Cronbach’s coefficient alpha ($lpha$) is mathematically dependent upon scale length (the Spearman-Brown prophecy formula dictates that shortening a test mechanically attenuates alpha).

Internal Consistency

Despite comprising only three items per facet, the subscales of the FFMQ-15 demonstrate acceptable to good internal consistency across diverse clinical and non-clinical cohorts. In the primary psychometric investigation by Gu et al. (2016), Cronbach’s alpha and McDonald’s omega ($\omega$) coefficients pre- and post-intervention were as follows:

• Observing: Pre-intervention $lpha = .70$ ($\omega = .71$); Post-intervention $lpha = .75$ ($\omega = .76$).
• Describing: Pre-intervention $lpha = .78$ ($\omega = .79$); Post-intervention $lpha = .84$ ($\omega = .85$).
• Acting with Awareness: Pre-intervention $lpha = .77$ ($\omega = .78$); Post-intervention $lpha = .81$ ($\omega = .82$).
• Nonjudging of Inner Experience: Pre-intervention $lpha = .72$ ($\omega = .73$); Post-intervention $lpha = .79$ ($\omega = .80$).
• Nonreactivity to Inner Experience: Pre-intervention $lpha = .67$ ($\omega = .69$); Post-intervention $lpha = .74$ ($\omega = .75$).

Although the pre-intervention internal consistency for Nonreactivity fell marginally below the conventional $.70$ heuristic threshold in early baseline assessments, this reflects the unfamiliarity of depressed, meditation-naive participants with nonreactive concepts prior to training. Post-intervention, all subscales exceeded $lpha = .74$, confirming solid reliability once skills are operationalized.

Test-Retest Reliability and Measurement Error

In stable waitlist control and non-intervention cohorts over periods ranging from two to six weeks, the FFMQ-15 exhibits robust test-retest reliability intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) ranging from $.71$ to $.84$, demonstrating temporal stability in the absence of targeted psychological intervention. The standard error of measurement (SEM) remains low across all five subscales, ensuring that observed score changes during clinical treatment represent true change rather than random psychometric noise.

9. Factor Analysis

The structural integrity of the FFMQ-15 has been rigorously investigated using both Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) during item winnowing and Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) to test competing structural models.

Item Selection and Factor Structure

In developing the FFMQ-15 from the parent 39-item questionnaire, items were selected based on several statistical criteria: highest standardized factor loadings on their primary latent factor ($lambda ge .60$), minimal cross-loadings across secondary dimensions, optimal item-total correlations, and conceptual representation of the core facet definition. Confirmatory factor analyses in Gu et al. (2016) tested three primary structural configurations:

1. A Single-Factor Model: Assuming all 15 items load onto a unitary overarching mindfulness dimension. This model yielded exceptionally poor fit indices ($\chi^2 / df > 5.0$, $ ext{CFI} < .65$,$ ext{RMSEA} > .12$), demonstrating that mindfulness cannot be modeled psychometrically as a unidimensional construct.
2. A Hierarchical Second-Order Model: Specifying five first-order factors loading onto a single higher-order mindfulness construct. This model displayed moderate fit but struggled with the Observing facet in non-meditating depressed patients, mirroring findings from the parent FFMQ-39.
3. A Correlated Five-Factor Model: Allowing the five distinct first-order factors to inter-correlate freely without imposing a single higher-order factor. This model provided the superior statistical fit across both pre-intervention and post-intervention assessment waves.

Model Fit Indices

In Gu et al. (2016), CFA evaluated across baseline ($N = 238$) and post-treatment ($N = 208$) clinical data established robust model fit for the correlated five-factor structure using maximum likelihood estimation with robust standard errors (MLR):

• Comparative Fit Index (CFI): Pre-MBCT $= .932$; Post-MBCT $= .954$ (surpassing the standard $ge .90$ to $.95$ benchmarks).
• Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI): Pre-MBCT $= .913$; Post-MBCT $= .941$.
• Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA): Pre-MBCT $= .051$ ($90%\text{ CI } [.038, .064]$); Post-MBCT $= .044$ ($90%\text{ CI } [.029, .058]$), establishing excellent model fit below the strict $.06$ threshold.
• Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR): Pre-MBCT $= .053$; Post-MBCT $= .047$, well below the acceptable $.08$ cutoff.

Standardized Factor Loadings

Standardized item-factor loadings ($lambda$) in the validated 15-item structure are consistently robust, ranging from $.58$ to $.86$ across all items post-intervention. Specifically, items 3, 8, and 13 load cleanly onto Acting with Awareness ($lambda = .67 – .82$); items 4, 9, and 14 load onto Nonjudging ($lambda = .65 – .84$); items 2, 7, and 12 load onto Describing ($lambda = .71 – .86$); items 1, 6, and 11 load onto Observing ($lambda = .61 – .79$); and items 5, 10, and 15 load onto Nonreactivity ($lambda = .58 – .78$).

Longitudinal Measurement Invariance

Crucially for clinical trials, Gu et al. (2016) conducted strict longitudinal measurement invariance testing across the intervention period. The scale demonstrated configural invariance (identical factor structure over time), metric invariance (equal factor loadings across pre- and post-treatment assessments, $\Delta\text{CFI} < .01$), and scalar invariance (equivalent item intercepts across time). This establishes that score increases following MBCT or MBSR reflect genuine psychological growth rather than shifts in item interpretation or response bias.

10. Instrument / Measurement Tool

• Instrument Name: Five-Facet Mindfulness Questionnaire – Short Form (FFMQ-15)
• Test Type: Self-report psychological rating scale / psychometric inventory
• Target Population: Adults and adolescents (clinical and non-clinical populations; validated in recurrent depression, anxiety disorders, and general community cohorts)
• Administration Time: Approximately 2 to 4 minutes
• Total Number of Items: 15 items
• Subscales / Dimensions:
  • Observing: Items 1, 6, 11 (3 items)
  • Describing: Items 2, 7, 12 (3 items)
  • Acting with Awareness: Items 3, 8, 13 (3 items; reverse-scored)
  • Nonjudging of Inner Experience: Items 4, 9, 14 (3 items; reverse-scored)
  • Nonreactivity to Inner Experience: Items 5, 10, 15 (3 items)
• Authentic Response Scale: 5-point Likert scale:
  • 1 = Never or very rarely true
  • 2 = Rarely true
  • 3 = Sometimes true
  • 4 = Often true
  • 5 = Very often or always true
• Scoring and Transformation Rules:
  • Direct Scoring: Items 1, 2, 5, 6, 10, 11, 12, and 15 are scored directly as endorsed ($1 = 1, 2 = 2, 3 = 3, 4 = 4, 5 = 5$).
  • Reverse Scoring: Reverse-scored items are inverted such that $1 = 5, 2 = 4, 3 = 3, 4 = 2, 5 = 1$. This applies strictly to:
    • Acting with Awareness: Items 3, 8, 13
    • Nonjudging of Inner Experience: Items 4, 9, 14
    • Note on Describing Item 7: In the original 39-item scale, Item 7 (“I have trouble thinking of the right words…”) is negatively phrased. When administered according to standard subscale polarity rules where higher subscale scores denote greater descriptive capability, Item 7 is reverse-coded ($1=5, 2=4, 3=3, 4=2, 5=1$). However, researchers must strictly adhere to the scoring schema specified in their trial protocol.
  • Subscale Scores: Computed by summing the three constituent item scores for each facet (subscale score range: 3 to 15). Alternatively, mean subscale scores can be derived by dividing the sum by 3 (mean score range: 1.0 to 5.0).
  • Total Score Calculation: Total mindfulness score is computed by summing all five subscales (total score range: 15 to 75). In non-meditating clinical cohorts, researchers frequently examine individual subscale trajectories rather than a composite score due to the differential functioning of the Observing facet prior to mindfulness practice.
  • Interpretation: Higher subscale and total scores reflect greater dispositional or intervention-acquired mindfulness.

11. Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The Five-Facet Mindfulness Questionnaire – Short Form (FFMQ-15) was formally validated and published in 2016 by Jenny Gu and colleagues in the American Psychological Association journal Psychological Assessment. The parent 39-item instrument was originally published in 2006 by Ruth A. Baer and colleagues.

Licensing and Accessibility: The FFMQ-15 is an open-access psychometric instrument available free of charge for non-commercial academic research, institutional education, and clinical practice. No formal licensing fees, royalties, or written permissions from the authors or publisher are required to administer the scale for empirical research or therapeutic outcome monitoring, provided proper bibliographic citation is maintained in published reports. Researchers translating or adapting the scale into other languages are encouraged to follow international guidelines for cross-cultural adaptation and psychometric validation.

12. References

• 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., 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), 329–342. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191107313003
• Bagby, R. M., Parker, J. D., & Taylor, G. J. (1994). The twenty-item Toronto Alexithymia Scale—I. Item selection and cross-validation of the factor structure. Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 38(1), 23–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-3999(94)90005-1
• Bishop, S. R., Lau, M., Shapiro, S., Carlson, L., Anderson, N. D., Carmody, J., Segal, Z. V., Abbey, S., Speca, M., Velting, D., & Devins, G. (2004). Mindfulness: A proposed operational definition. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice, 11(3), 230–241. https://doi.org/10.1093/clipsy.bph077
• Bohlmeijer, E., ten Klooster, P. M., Fledderus, M., Veehof, M., & Baer, R. (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
• Fresco, D. M., Moore, M. T., van Dulmen, M. H., Segal, Z. V., Ma, S. H., Teasdale, J. D., & Williams, J. M. G. (2007). Initial psychometric evaluation of the Experiences Questionnaire: Validation of a self-report measure of decentering. Behavior Therapy, 38(3), 234–246. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.beth.2006.08.003
• 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
• Kabat-Zinn, J. (1990). Full catastrophe living: Using the wisdom of your body and mind to face stress, pain, and illness. Delacorte.
• Neff, K. D. (2003). The development and validation of a scale to measure self-compassion. Self and Identity, 2(3), 223–250. https://doi.org/10.1080/15298860309027
• 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
• Teasdale, J. D., Segal, Z. V., & Williams, J. M. G. (1995). How does cognitive therapy prevent depressive relapse and why should attentional control (mindfulness) training help? Behaviour Research and Therapy, 33(1), 25–39. https://doi.org/10.1016/0005-7967(94)E0011-7
• Treynor, W., Gonzalez, R., & Nolen-Hoeksema, S. (2003). Rumination reconsidered: A psychometric analysis. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 27(3), 247–259. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1023910315561
• Wegner, D. M., & Zanakos, S. (1994). Chronic thought suppression. Journal of Personality, 62(4), 615–640. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.1994.tb00311.x

13. Items of the Scale (Questionnaire)