5. Mindfulness
• “…paying attention in a particular way, on purpose, in the
present moment, and non-judgmentally” (Kabat-Zinn, 1994,
p. 4)
• Trait-like (Brown & Ryan, 2003)
• Measuring mindfulness informed by various
conceptualizations of construct

6. The Five Facet Mindfulness Model
• Baer, Smith, Hopkins, Krietemeyer & Toney (2006)
• (1)The Mindful Attention Awareness Scale (MAAS);
Brown & Ryan 2003);
• (2) The Freiburg Mindfulness Inventory (FMI;
Buchheld, Grossman, & Walach, 2001);
• (3) The Kentucky Inventory of Mindfulness Skills
(KIMS; Baer, Smith, & Allen, 2004);
• (4) The Cognitive Affective Mindfulness Scale (CAMS;
Feldman, Hayes, Kumar, Greeson, & Laurenceau,
2007); and
• (5) The Mindfulness Questionnaire (MQ; Chadwick,
Hember, Symes, Kuipers, & Dagnan, 2008).

7. The Five Facet Mindfulness Model
• Baer, Samuel & Lykins (2011)
• Conceptualizes five mindfulness skills:
• Non-Reactivity to Inner Experience
• Observing/Noticing
• Acting with Awareness
• Describing
• Non-Judging of Experience

8. Mindfulness in an African context
 Central to the construct of mindfulness is the notion that
this mode of awareness is universal (Bishop et al., 2004)
 Thus, anyone should be able to learn and practice
mindfulness
 Does this hold true in African context?
 Individual vs collectivism
 Can the five factor mindfulness structure proposed by
Baer et al. be replicated in an African context?

10. Aim
• To determine whether the factor structure of the five
facet mindfulness model, proposed by Baer et al. (2006),
can be replicated in an African context

11. Method
• Participants: 794 undergraduate students
• Fit statistics for the five facet model of mindfulness were
examined
• A series of measurement invariance tests of the targeted
ESEM model across Black (630) and White (164)
respondents were conducted.

13. Results
• The results supported the overall model fit for the five
factor model.
• There was support for the hypothesis of equal factor
loadings (weak measurement invariance).
• The added constraint of equal measurement intercepts
led to a small, and likely trivial, deterioration in fit.
• Some items demonstrated misfit and the content of
these items provide clues as to how to best
operationalise Mindfulness

14. Results
Fit Statistics for Factor Models of the Mindfulness Scale with South African Data
Model MLR χ2 df RMSEA CFI TLI SRMR AIC
2. ESEM Baseline
3. ESEM Configural
6361.422 3070 .052 .783 .741 .044 132822.627
4. ESEM Weak
6714.340 3350
.050 .778
.758
.054 132766.931
5. ESEM Strong
7030.086 3411
.052 .761
.744
.057 132973.991
6. ESEM Strict
7299.963 3472
.053 .748
.734
.065 133186.263

16. Conclusion
• Central to the implications of these findings is the
theoretical endorsement of the Five Facets proposed by
Baer, et al. (2006) in an African context.
• This endorsement extends not only to the factor
structure itself but in addition adds support to the notion
of the cultural invariance of mindfulness.
• As a whole, the results support the transportability of the
Mindfulness construct to the African context.

17. Conclusion - Looking Forward
• Continual exploration of the construct as it pertains
derivative outcomes
• Study at the University of Johannesburg in respect to
the relationship with well-being and academic
performance of students
• Further examination of DIF as the scale is increasingly
endorsed an African context