Turkish Adaptation of State Mindfulness Scale: Confirmatory Factor Analysis and Reliability Study

Abstract

Mindfulness-based approaches, which have been used in many fields in recent years, have been widely accepted especially in practices in psychology and psychiatry, and have been integrated into traditional treatment methods. In parallel with the positive effects of the concept of mindfulness on mental, spiritual and physical well-being, researches have also steadily increased and various scales have been developed to measure mindfulness which can be summarized as the mindful awareness of the moment by accepting one’s experience without judgment.Some of these scales were adapted to Turkish in the last decade. Considering the extensive usage of the concept of mindfulness in health-related fields, this study aimed to introduce the State Mindfulness Scale into Turkish, as one of the important scales to be evaluated on a more solid theoretical and methodological basis. Accordingly, the source scale was translated into Turkish through the steps suggested by WHO. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was performed for the validity of the scale. Cronbach alpha reliability coefficient, Item Total Score Analysis, Guttman reliability coefficients, Spearman-Brown confidence coefficients were evaluated and the findings regarding the internal consistency of the scale were used in terms of the reliability analysis of the scale. For CFA and other analyses, 345 students at Akdeniz University were included in the study. As a result of CFA, it was found that the 21 item 2-factor structure in the source scale was compatible with the target culture (X2/Sd: 3,41; RMSEA: 0,088: CFI: 0,95). The correlation reliability coefficients of the scale ranged from 0.484 to 0.743. The Cronbach alpha value of the first factor of the scale was 0.899, the Cronbach alpha value of the second factor was 0.728, and the Cronbach alpha value for the total score was 0.921. The findings show that the validity and reliability of the State Mindfulness Scale has been ensured and the scale has been successfully adapted to Turkish.

Keywords

• Mindfulness
• state mindfulness
• mindfulness scale
• mindful awareness

Durumluk Bilinçli Farkındalık (Mindfulness) Ölçeğinin Türkçeye Uyarlanması: Doğrulayıcı Faktör Analizi ve Güvenirlik Çalışması

Öz

Son yıllarda birçok alanda kullanılmaya başlanan bilinçli farkındalık (mindfulness) temelli yaklaşımlar özellikle, psikoloji ve psikiyatri alnındaki uygulamalarda geniş kabul görmüş ve geleneksel tedavi yöntemlerine entegre edilmiştir. Kişinin yaşadığı deneyime ilişkin yargılamadan ve kabullenerek anın farkındalığı olarak özetlenebilecek bilinçli farkındalık kavramının zihinsel, ruhsal ve fiziksel iyilik hali üzerindeki olumlu etkilerine paralel olarak araştırmalar da istikrarlı bir şekilde artmıştır ve bilinçli farkındalığın ölçümlenmesi için çeşitli ölçekler geliştirilmiştir. Bu ölçeklerin bir kısmı da son on yıl içerisinde Türkçeye uyarlanmıştır. Bu çalışmada, bilinçli farkındalık kavramının sağlıkla ilgili alanlarda yaygın bir şekilde uygulanması göz önüne alındığında, değerlendirilmesi daha sağlam bir teorik ve metodolojik temele oturtulması açısından önem taşıyan ölçeklerden biri olan Durumluk Bilinçli Farkındalık (Mindfulness) Ölçeğinin (State Mindfulness Scale-SMS) Türkçeye kazandırılması amaçlanmıştır. Bu doğrultuda kaynak ölçek WHO’nun önerdiği adımlarla Türkçeye çevrilmiştir. Ölçeğin geçerliliği için doğrulayıcı faktör analizi (DFA) yapılmıştır. Ölçeğin güvenirlik analizi için Cronbach alfa güvenirlik katsayısı, madde toplam puan analizi, Guttman güvenirlik katsayıları, Spearman–Brown güvenirlik katsayıları değerlendirilerek ölçeğin iç tutarlığına ilişkin bulgulardan faydalanılmıştır. DFA ve diğer analizler için Akdeniz Üniversitesinde öğrenci olan 345 kişi araştırmaya dahil edilmiştir. DFA neticesinde kaynak ölçekte yer alan 21 madde 2 faktörlü yapının hedef kültür ile uyumlu olduğu bulgusuna ulaşılmıştır (X2/Sd: 3,41; RMSEA: 0,088: CFI: 0,95). Ölçeğin korelasyon güvenirlik katsayılarının 0,484 ile 0,743 arasında değiştiği, ölçeğe ait birinci faktörün Cronbach alfa değerinin 0,899, ikinci faktörün Cronbach alfa değeri’nin 0,728, toplam puana ilişkin Cronbach alfa değerinin ise 0,921 olduğu sonucuna ulaşılmıştır. Bulgular, Durumluk Bilinçli Farkındalık ölçeğinin geçerlik ve güvenilirliğinin sağlandığını ve ölçeğin Türkçe'ye başarıyla uyarlandığını göstermektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Bilinçli farkındalık
• durumluk bilinçli farkındalık
• bilinçli farkındalık ölçeği

Kaynakça

1. Baer, R. A. (2003). Mindfulness training as a clinical intervention: A conceptual and empirical review. Clinical Psychology: Science & Practice, 10(2), 125-143. https://doi.org/10.1093/clipsy.bpg015
2. Bentler, P. M. (1990). Comparative fit indexes in structural models. In Psychological Bulletin (Vol. 107, Issue 2, pp. 238–246). American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.107.2.238
3. Bishop, S. R., Lau, M., Shapiro, S., Carlson, L., Anderson, N. D., Carmody, J., Devins, G. (2004). Mindfulness: A proposed operational definition. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice;Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice, 11(3), 230-241. doi: https://doi.org/10.1093/clipsy.bph077
4. Bland, J. M., & Altman, D. G. (1997). Statistics notes: Cronbachs alpha. BMJ, 314(7080), 572. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.314.7080.572
5. 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, 822-848. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.84.4.822
6. Brown, K.W., Ryan, R.M., & Creswell, J.D. (2007). Mindfulness: Theoretical foundations and evidence for salutary effects. Psychological Inquiry, 18, 211–237. https://doi.org/10.1080/10478400701598298
7. Cerny, B. A., & Kaiser, H. F. (1977). A Study Of A Measure Of Sampling Adequacy For Factor-Analytic Correlation Matrices. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 12(1), 43–47. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327906mbr1201_3
8. Cheung, G. W., & Rensvold, R. B. (2002). Evaluating Goodness-of-Fit Indexes for Testing Measurement Invariance. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 9(2), 233–255. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15328007SEM0902_5

9. Chiesa, A., & Serretti, A. (2010). A systematic review of neurobiological and clinical features of mindfulness meditations. Psychological Medicine, 40, 1239−1252. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0033291709991747
10. Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika, 16(3), 297–334. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02310555
11. De Vet, H. C. W., Mokkink, L. B., Mosmuller, D. G., & Terwee, C. B. (2017). Spearman–Brown prophecy formula and Cronbach’s alpha: different faces of reliability and opportunities for new applications. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 85, 45–49. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2017.01.013
12. Eisinga, R., Te Grotenhuis, M., & Pelzer, B. (2013). The reliability of a two-item scale: Pearson, Cronbach, or Spearman-Brown? International Journal of Public Health, 58(4), 637–642. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00038-012-0416-3
13. Germer, C. (2005). Mindfulness: What is it? what does it matter? In C.K. Germer, R.D. Siegel, and P.R., Fulton (Eds.), Mindfulness and psychotherapy (pp. 3-27). New York: Guilford Press.
14. Gliem, J. A., & Gliem, R. R. (2003). Calculating, interpreting, and reporting Cronbach’s alpha reliability coefficient for Likert-type scales. https://scholarworks.iupui.edu/handle/1805/344
15. Groeneveld, R. A., & Meeden, G. (1984). Measuring skewness and kurtosis. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series D (The Statistician), 33(4), 391-399. https://doi.org/10.2307/2987742
16. Grossman, P., Niemann, L., Schmidt, S., & Walach H. (2004). Mindfulness-based stress reduction and health benefits: A meta-analysis. Journal of Psychosomatic Research 57, 35–43. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-3999(03)00573-7
17. Harrington, A., & Dunne, J.D. (2015). When mindfulness is therapy: Ethical qualms, historical perspectives. The American Psychologist. 70 (7): 621–31. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0039460
18. Hayes, S. C., & Wilson, K. G. (2003). Mindfulness: Method and process. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice, 10(2), 161-165. https://doi.org/10.1093/clipsy.bpg018
19. Jackson, D. L., Voth, J., & Frey, M. P. (2013). A Note on Sample Size and Solution Propriety for Confirmatory Factor Analytic Models. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 20(1), 86–97. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705511.2013.742388
20. Joanes, D. N., & Gill, C. A. (1998). Comparing measures of sample skewness and kurtosis. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series D (The Statistician), 47(1), 183-189. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9884.00122
21. Kabat-Zinn, J. (1994). Wherever you go, there you are: Mindfulness meditation in everyday life. New York, NY: Hyperion.
22. Kabat-Zinn, J. (2003). Mindfulness-based interventions in context: Past, present, and future. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice, 10, 144–156. https://doi.org/10.1093/clipsy.bpg016
23. Kabat-Zinn, J. (2005). Coming to our senses. London: Piatkus Books Ltd.
24. Kaiser, H. F. (1974). An index of factorial simplicity. Psychometrika, 39(1), 31–36. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02291575
25. Kim, T. H., & White, H. (2004). On more robust estimation of skewness and kurtosis. Finance Research Letters, 1(1), 56-73. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1544-6123(03)00003-5
26. Lance, C. E., & Vandenberg, R. J. (2002). Confirmatory factor analysis. In Measuring and analyzing behavior in organizations: Advances in measurement and data analysis. (pp. 221–254). Jossey-Bass.
27. Langer, E.J. (1989). Mindfulness. Cambridge, MA: Da Capo Press.
28. Langer, E.J. (2005). Well-being: Mindfulness versus positive evaluation. In C.R. Snyder & S.J. Lopez (Eds.), Handbook of positive psychology (pp. 214–230). New York: Oxford University Press.
29. Mardia, K. V. (1970). Measures of multivariate skewness and kurtosis with applications. Biometrika, 57(3), 519-530. https://doi.org/10.1093/biomet/57.3.519
30. Marsh, H. W., Balla, J. R., & McDonald, R. P. (1988). Goodness-of-fit indexes in confirmatory factor analysis: The effect of sample size. Psychological Bulletin, 103(3), 391. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.103.3.391
31. Moran, P. A. P. (1948). Rank Correlation and Product-Moment Correlation. Biometrika, 35(1/2), 203–206. https://doi.org/10.2307/2332641
32. Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (2002). How to use a Monte Carlo study to decide on sample size and determine power. Structural Equation Modeling, 9(4), 599–620. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15328007SEM0904_8
33. Osburn, H. G. (2000). Coefficient alpha and related internal consistency reliability coefficients. In Psychological Methods (Vol. 5, Issue 3, pp. 343–355). American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.5.3.343
34. Pearson, E. S. (1931). The Test of Significance for the Correlation Coefficient. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 26(174), 128–134. https://doi.org/10.1080/01621459.1931.10503208
35. Puth, M.T., Neuhäuser, M., & Ruxton, G. D. (2014). Effective use of Pearson’s product–moment correlation coefficient. Animal Behaviour, 93, 183–189. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2014.05.003
36. Raykov, T. (2007). Reliability if deleted, not ‘alpha if deleted’: Evaluation of scale reliability following component deletion. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 60(2), 201–216. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1348/000711006X115954
37. Raykov, T. (2008). Alpha if item deleted: A note on loss of criterion validity in scale development if maximizing coefficient alpha. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 61(2), 275–285. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1348/000711007X188520
38. Ruimi, L., Hadash, Y., Tanay, G., & Bernstein, A. (2019). State Mindfulness Scale (SMS). Handbook of Assessment in Mindfulness, O. N. Medvedev, C. U. Krägeloh, R. J.Siegert, & N. N. Singh (Eds.).(pp. 1-25). https://doi.org/10.31231/osf.io/3x7ck
39. Sauer, S., Walach, H., Schmidt, S., Hinterberger, T., Lynch, S., Büssing, A., & Kohls, N. (2013). Assessment of mindfulness: Review on state of the art. Mindfulness, 4(1), 3-17. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12671-012-0122-5
40. Shapiro, S.L., Oman, D., Thoresen, C.E., Plante, T.G., & Flinders, T. (2008). Cultivating mindfulness: Effects on well-being. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 64, 840–862. https://doi.org/10.1002/jclp.20491
41. Stahl, B., ve Goldstein, E. (2019). A Mindfulness-Based Stress Reduction Workbook. New Harbinger Publications.Sullivan, G. M. (2011). A primer on the validity of assessment instruments. Journal of Graduate Medical Education, 3(2), 119–120. https://doi.org/10.4300/JGME-D-11-00075.1
42. Tabachnick, B. G., Fidell, L. S., & Ullman, J. B. (2013). Using multivariate statistics (Vol. 5, pp. 481-498). Boston, MA: Pearson.
43. Tanay, G., & Bernstein, A. (2013). State mindfulness scale (SMS): development and initial validation. Psychological Assessment, 25(4), 1286. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0034044
44. WHO. (2021). Process of translation and adaptation of instruments. https://www.who.int/substance_abuse/research_tools/translation/en/
45. Vreeswijk, M., Broersen, J., ve Schurink, G. (2019). Mindfulness ve Şema Terapi. (B. Alımcı, S. Çamkıran, B. Demir, & S. Göral Alkan, Çev.) İstanbul: Psikonet Yayıncılık ve Eğitim AŞ
46. Yang, Y., & Green, S. B. (2011). Coefficient Alpha: A Reliability Coefficient for the 21st Century? Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 29(4), 377–392. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734282911406668