The Mindful Attention Awareness Scale: Further Examination of Dimensionality, Reliability, and Concurrent Validity Estimates

ABSTRACT

We examined the factor structure and psychometric properties of the Mindful Attention Awareness Scale (MAAS) in a sample of 810 undergraduate students. Using common exploratory factor analysis (EFA), we obtained evidence for a 1-factor solution (41.84% common variance). To confirm unidimensionality of the 15-item MAAS, we conducted a 1-factor confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). Results of the EFA and CFA, respectively, provided support for a unidimensional model. Using differential item functioning analysis methods within item response theory modeling (IRT-based DIF), we found that individuals with high and low levels of nonattachment responded similarly to the MAAS items. Following a detailed item analysis, we proposed a 5-item short version of the instrument and present descriptive statistics and composite score reliability for the short and full versions of the MAAS. Finally, correlation analyses showed that scores on the full and short versions of the MAAS were associated with measures assessing related constructs. The 5-item MAAS is as useful as the original MAAS in enhancing our understanding of the mindfulness construct.

Acknowledgment

The views expressed in this article are those of the authors; the contents do not represent the views of the Department of Veterans Affairs, the Department of Defense, or the United States Government.

Notes

¹ The complete table of studies with the original MAAS can be obtained from the first author on request.

² When we dropped Items 10 and 13 from the full MAAS scale, we also obtained a large effect size estimate when we compared the groups in the obtained scores for this 13-item version of the instrument: high nonattachment (n = 401; M = 4.38, SD = 0.89) versus low nonattachment (n = 409; M = 3.71, SD = 0.84), t(808) = 10.86, Cohen's d = .77.

³ Given Brown and Ryan's (2003) definition of mindfulness as the presence or absence of attention to the present moment, and the fact that items directly assessing mindfulness were objectively excluded during scale development, we believe that the indirect item approach does adequately assess mindfulness. The unidimensional definition suggests that mindfulness varies on a bipolar spectrum from mindful to mindless, in which the amount or extent that a person tends not to pay attention to the present moment (mindlessness) directly determines the amount or extent that the person tends to pay attention to the present moment (mindfulness). Whether Brown and Ryan's operationalization of mindfulness adequately captures the “true” content of what mindfulness is remains a point of contention, so much so that it is outside the scope of this article to adequately review the various conceptualizations of mindfulness and their implications for necessary item content of measures designed to assess mindfulness.