MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2967627004

The evaluation of the psychometric properties and the factor structure of the slovak version of the questionnaire FFMQ (five-facet mindfulness questionnaire)

2014· article· en· W2967627004 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Veronika Látalová, Ľubor Pilárik

Bibliographic record

VenueDOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicPsychological Treatments and Assessments
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSlovakFacet (psychology)MindfulnessPsychologyQuestionnaireClinical psychologyApplied psychologySocial psychologyStatisticsMathematicsPersonalityBig Five personality traits
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Problem: The aim of the present study was to adapt the English self-report questionnaire Five-Facet Mindfulness Questionnaure (FFMQ - Baer et al., 2006) to Slovak conditions as well as to evaluate its psychometric properties and to investigate its 5-factor structure reported by the authors. FFMQ is used to measure the construct of mindfulness and its 5 facets identified by the authors (i.e. observing inner experience, describing inner experience, acting with awareness, non-judging of inner experience, and non-reactivity to inner experience). Methods: After having done a back-translation in cooperation with the author of FFMQ, we evaluated its reliability and construct validity within the sample of 282 university female students and via the instruments used to measure perceived emotional intelligence (TMMS; Trait Meta-Mood Scale - Salovey et al., 1995), trait anxiety (STAI X-2; Stait-Trait Anxiety Inventory - Spielberger, Gorsuch, Lushene, 1970), alexithymia (TAS-20; Toronto Alexithymia Scale - Taylor, Bagby, Parker, 1992) and difficulties in emotion regulation (DERS; Difficulties in Emotion Regulation Scale - Gratz, Roemer, 2012). Statistical analysis: The structure of FFMQ questionnaire was examined via exploratory factor analysis (principal component, rotation oblimin). Pearson correlation analyses were conducted to test relationships between FFMQ scale and instruments used to measure related constructs. Cronbach coefficients alpha were calculated to assess internal consistency aspect of reliability of FFMQ scale and its subscales. Results: It has been shown, that FFMQ represents a reliable and valid instrument. The results of EFA indicated that there are five factors in the structure of the Slovak version of FFMQ. Study limitation: (a) measurement of mindfulness is self-reported; (b) the findings are limited to a sample of university female students.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.043

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.244
GPT teacher head0.536
Teacher spread0.292 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals)Same topicPsychological Treatments and AssessmentsFrench-language works237,207