ویژگی‎های روان‌سنجی نسخۀ فارسی پرسشنامۀ ذهن‌آگاهی ساوتهمپتون

نوع مقاله: مقاله پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 دکترای تخصصی روانشناسی بالینی، استادیار گروه روانشناسی بالینی، دانشگاه علوم پزشکی کرمانشاه، ایران

2 دانشجوی کارشناسی ارشد روانشناسی بالینی

3 دانشجوی دکترای تخصصی روانشناسی بالینی، دانشکده علوم رفتاری و سلامت روان (انستیتو روانپزشکی تهران)، دانشگاه علوم پزشکی ایران، تهران، ایران

4 دکترای تخصصی روانشناسی بالینی، دانشیار گروه روانشناسی بالینی، دانشگاه علوم پزشکی کرمانشاه، ایران

10.22075/jcp.2019.17050.1634

چکیده

مقدمه: در سال‌های اخیر پژوهش‌های مبتنی بر ذهن­ آگاهی گسترش زیادی داشته است. ابزارهای زیادی برای سنجش ذهن­ آگاهی در بزرگسالان ساخته شده است، یکی از مهم ترین آن ها پرسشنامۀ ساوتهمپتون می‌باشد. هدف پژوهش حاضر ارزیابی اعتبار و پایایی پرسشنامه ذهن­ آگاهی ساوتهمپتون بود.

روش: به منظور بررسی ویژگی‌های روان­سنجی و تحلیل ساختار عاملی این مقیاس، 200 نفر (100 پسر و 100 دختر) از دانشجویان دانشگاه علوم­پزشکی کرمانشاه به شیوه نمونه­ گیری در دسترس انتخاب شد. برای روایی همگرا از پرسشنامه شفقت به خود (فرم کوتاه) و روایی واگرا از پرسشنامه‌های افسردگی، اضطراب، استرس و عاطفه مثبت و منفی استفاده شد. برای تحلیل داده‌ها از روش­های آماری ضریب همبستگی و تحلیل عاملی اکتشافی به کمک نرم افزار spss-20 استفاده شد.

یافته­ ها: در تحلیل عاملی اکتشافی سه عامل به دست آمد که در مجموع 50/51 درصد از کل وایانس ذهن ­آگاهی را تبیین کردند. همچنین یافته­ ها نشان داد که پرسشنامه ساوتهمپتون روایی همگرا مناسبی با شفقت به خود (0/59) و عاطفه مثبت (0/40) و روایی واگرا مناسبی با عاطفه منفی (0/35-) و مقیاس افسردگی (0/36-)، اضطراب (0/30-)، استرس (0/51-) داشت. ضریب آلفای کرونباخ برای عامل اول 0/78، عامل دوم 0/69 و عامل سوم 0/62 به دست آمد.

نتیجه­ گیری: پرسشنامۀ ذهن­ آگاهی ساوتهمپتون از ویژگی‌های روان­سنجی مناسبی در جامعۀ دانشجویی برخوردار است. یافته‌های پژوهش حاضر بیانگر آن است که پرسشنامۀ ذهن­ آگاهی ساوتهمپتون می‌تواند ابزار معتبری برای ارزیابی میزان ذهن­ آگاهی افراد باشد.






کلیدواژه‌ها


عنوان مقاله [English]

Psychometric Properties of the Persian Version of the Southampton Mindfulness Questionnaire

نویسندگان [English]

  • aliakbar foroughi 1
  • ghazaleh azar 2
  • aliakbar parvizifard 1
  • sajad khanjani 3
  • khirollah sadeghi 4
1 1) Ph.D. in Clinical Psychology, Assistant Professor of Clinical Psychology Department, Kermanshah University of Medical Sciences, Iran
2 دانشگاه علوم پزشکی کرمانشاه
3 3) Ph.D. student in clinical psychology, School of Behavioral Sciences and Mental Health (Tehran Psychiatric Institute), Iran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
4 4) Ph.D. in Clinical Psychology, Associate Professor of Clinical Psychology Department, Kermanshah University of Medical Sciences, Iran
چکیده [English]

Introduction: In recent years, mindfulness-based research has been developed. Many tools have been developed to measuring mindfulness in adults, one of the most important is the Southampton Questionnaire. The purpose of this study was to examine the validity and reliability of the Southampton Mindfulness Questionnaire.

Method: To determine the psychometric properties and factor analysis of this scale. A sample of 200 students (100 boys and 100 girls) were selected from Kermanshah University of Medical Sciences through convenience sampling. Self-compassion Scale – Shor t Form was used for convergent validity, and depression, anxiety, stress and Positive and Negative Affect Schedule were used for divergent validity. To analyze the data, correlation coefficient and exploratory factor analysis were used with SPSS-20 software.

Results: In the exploratory factor analysis three factors were obtained the three factor structure that in total, 50/51% of the total variance of mindfulness was explained. The results also showed that the Southampton questionnaire had a good convergence validity with self-compassion (0/59) and positive affect (0/40) and good divergent validity with negative affect (-0/35), depression scale (-0/36), anxiety (-0/30) and stress (-0/50). Cronbach’s alpha coefficient was obtained for the first factor,0/78 the second factor 0/69 and the third factor 0/62.

Conclusion: It could be concluded that the Southampton Mindfulness Questionnaire has approperiate psychometric properties in the student community. The findings of the present study indicate that the Southampton Mindfulness Questionnaire can be reliable tool for assessing the level of mindfulness.

Keywords: Mindfulness, Psychometric Properties, Exploratory Factor Analysis.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Mindfulness
  • psychometric properties
  • exploratory factor analysis

1. Kabat‐Zinn J. Mindfulness‐based interventions in context: past, present, and future. Clinical psychology: Science and practice. 2003; 10(2): 144-56.

2. Baer RA, Smith GT, Allen KB. Assessment of mindfulness by self-report: The Kentucky Inventory of Mindfulness Skills. Assessment. 2004; 11(3): 191-206.

3. Brown KW, Ryan RM. The benefits of being present: mindfulness and its role in psychological well-being. Journal of personality and social psychology. 2003; 84(4): 822.

4. Emanuel AS, Updegraff JA, Kalmbach DA, Ciesla JA. The role of mindfulness facets in affective forecasting. Personality and Individual Differences. 2010; 49(7): 815-8.

5. Siegel RD. The mindful solution: Everyday practices for everyday problems. New York: Guilford. 2010.

6. Baer RA. Mindfulness training as a clinical intervention: A conceptual and empirical review. Clinical psychology: Science and practice. 2003; 10(2): 125-43.

7. K.Germer C, Siegel RD, Fulta PR. Mindfulness and psychotherapy. Guilford Press New York, NY; 2005.

8. Buchheld N, Grossman P, Walach H. Measuring mindfulness in insight meditation (Vipassana) and meditationbased psychotherapy: The development of the Freiburg Mindfulness Inventory (FMI). JMMR. 2001.

9. Baer RA, Smith, G. T & Allen, K. B. Assessment of mindfulness by self-report: The Kentucky Inventory of Mindfulness Skills. Assessmen,. 2004:, 11(3): 191-206.

10. Feldman G, Hayes A, Kumar S, Greeson J, Laurenceau J-P. Mindfulness and emotion regulation: The development and initial validation of the Cognitive and Affective Mindfulness Scale-Revised (CAMS-R). Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment. 2007; 29(3): 177.

11. Baer RA, Smith GT, Hopkins J, Krietemeyer J, Toney L. Using self-report assessment methods to explore facets of mindfulness. Assessment. 2006; 13(1):27-45.

12. Bergomi C, Tschacher W, Kupper Z. The assessment of mindfulness with self-report measures: Existing scales and open issues. Mindfulness. 2013;4(3):191-202.

13. Chadwick P, Hember M, Symes J, Peters E, Kuipers E, Dagnan D. Responding mindfully to unpleasant thoughts and images: reliability and validity of the Southampton mindfulness questionnaire (SMQ). British Journal of Clinical Psychology. 2008; 47(4): 451-5.

14. Khanjani.S, Foroughi.A, Sadeghi.Kh, BA. Psychometric Features of Iranian Version SelfCompassion Questionnaire (Short Form). Research journal of Shaheed Beheshti University of Medical Sciences. 1395.

15. khanjani.S FA, Sadeghi K, Bahrainian SA. Psychometric properties of Iranian version of self- compassion scale(short form) Pejouhanheh. 2016; 21(5): 282-9.

16. Antony MM, Bieling PJ, Cox BJ, Enns MW, Swinson RP. Psychometric properties of the 42-item and 21-item versions of the Depression Anxiety Stress Scales in clinical groups and a community sample. Psychological assessment. 1998; 10(2): 176.

17. Samani S JB. A study of Reliability and Validity of Short Form Depression Scale of Anxiety and Stress. Social Sciences and Human Sciences University of Shiraz. 1386; 3(26): 65-78.

18. Bakhshipour R, Dezhkam M. A confirmatory factor analysis of the positive affect and negative affect scales (PANAS). 2006.

19. Watson D, Clark LA, Tellegen A. Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: the PANAS scales. Journal of personality and social psychology. 1988;54(6):1063.

20. Neff KD. The development and validation of a scale to measure self-compassion. Self and Identity. 2003; 2(3): 223-50.

21. Neff K. Self-compassion: An alternative conceptualization of a healthy attitude toward oneself. Self and identity. 2003; 2(2): 85-1011.

22. Williams M, Penman D. Mindfulness: a practical guide to finding peace in a frantic world: Hachette UK. 2011.

 

 

 

 

 

1. Kabat‐Zinn J. Mindfulness‐based interventions in context: past, present, and future. Clinical psychology: Science and practice. 2003; 10(2): 144-56.

2. Baer RA, Smith GT, Allen KB. Assessment of mindfulness by self-report: The Kentucky Inventory of Mindfulness Skills. Assessment. 2004; 11(3): 191-206.

3. Brown KW, Ryan RM. The benefits of being present: mindfulness and its role in psychological well-being. Journal of personality and social psychology. 2003; 84(4): 822.

4. Emanuel AS, Updegraff JA, Kalmbach DA, Ciesla JA. The role of mindfulness facets in affective forecasting. Personality and Individual Differences. 2010; 49(7): 815-8.

5. Siegel RD. The mindful solution: Everyday practices for everyday problems. New York: Guilford. 2010.

6. Baer RA. Mindfulness training as a clinical intervention: A conceptual and empirical review. Clinical psychology: Science and practice. 2003; 10(2): 125-43.

7. K.Germer C, Siegel RD, Fulta PR. Mindfulness and psychotherapy. Guilford Press New York, NY; 2005.

8. Buchheld N, Grossman P, Walach H. Measuring mindfulness in insight meditation (Vipassana) and meditationbased psychotherapy: The development of the Freiburg Mindfulness Inventory (FMI). JMMR. 2001.

9. Baer RA, Smith, G. T & Allen, K. B. Assessment of mindfulness by self-report: The Kentucky Inventory of Mindfulness Skills. Assessmen,. 2004:, 11(3): 191-206.

10. Feldman G, Hayes A, Kumar S, Greeson J, Laurenceau J-P. Mindfulness and emotion regulation: The development and initial validation of the Cognitive and Affective Mindfulness Scale-Revised (CAMS-R). Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment. 2007; 29(3): 177.

11. Baer RA, Smith GT, Hopkins J, Krietemeyer J, Toney L. Using self-report assessment methods to explore facets of mindfulness. Assessment. 2006; 13(1):27-45.

12. Bergomi C, Tschacher W, Kupper Z. The assessment of mindfulness with self-report measures: Existing scales and open issues. Mindfulness. 2013;4(3):191-202.

13. Chadwick P, Hember M, Symes J, Peters E, Kuipers E, Dagnan D. Responding mindfully to unpleasant thoughts and images: reliability and validity of the Southampton mindfulness questionnaire (SMQ). British Journal of Clinical Psychology. 2008; 47(4): 451-5.

14. Khanjani.S, Foroughi.A, Sadeghi.Kh, BA. Psychometric Features of Iranian Version SelfCompassion Questionnaire (Short Form). Research journal of Shaheed Beheshti University of Medical Sciences. 1395.

15. khanjani.S FA, Sadeghi K, Bahrainian SA. Psychometric properties of Iranian version of self- compassion scale(short form) Pejouhanheh. 2016; 21(5): 282-9.

16. Antony MM, Bieling PJ, Cox BJ, Enns MW, Swinson RP. Psychometric properties of the 42-item and 21-item versions of the Depression Anxiety Stress Scales in clinical groups and a community sample. Psychological assessment. 1998; 10(2): 176.

17. Samani S JB. A study of Reliability and Validity of Short Form Depression Scale of Anxiety and Stress. Social Sciences and Human Sciences University of Shiraz. 1386; 3(26): 65-78.

18. Bakhshipour R, Dezhkam M. A confirmatory factor analysis of the positive affect and negative affect scales (PANAS). 2006.

19. Watson D, Clark LA, Tellegen A. Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: the PANAS scales. Journal of personality and social psychology. 1988;54(6):1063.

20. Neff KD. The development and validation of a scale to measure self-compassion. Self and Identity. 2003; 2(3): 223-50.

21. Neff K. Self-compassion: An alternative conceptualization of a healthy attitude toward oneself. Self and identity. 2003; 2(2): 85-1011.

22. Williams M, Penman D. Mindfulness: a practical guide to finding peace in a frantic world: Hachette UK. 2011.