The evaluation of the psychometric properties and the factor structure of the slovak version of the questionnaire FFMQ (five-facet mindfulness questionnaire)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".