Assessment
Alexandra Kohn, M.A.
PsyD Student
La Salle University
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
LeeAnn Cardaciotto, Ph.D.
Associate Dean, Associate Professor
La Salle University
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
Simon Moon, Ph.D.
Associate Professor
La Salle University
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
Julie C. Hill, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor
La Salle University
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
Mindfulness has been a notable topic in research and clinical application for several decades. Bishop et al. (2004) proposed an operational definition of mindfulness involving two key components: present moment awareness and a non-judgmental stance of openness, curiosity, and acceptance. Investigations of mindfulness with adolescents have increased recently, and mindfulness measures have been developed for use with this population (Goodman et al., 2017). However, there are several limitations of the current measures. Some measures are unidimensional (e.g., CAMM; Greco et al., 2011), which does not allow researchers to distinguish between different facets of mindfulness. Nevertheless, researchers have demonstrated that distinct components of mindfulness (i.e., awareness and acceptance) are related to different outcomes (Ciarrochi et al., 2011). Other adolescent mindfulness measures are multidimensional; however, some have items that overlap in content among the different factors (e.g., CHIME-A; Johnson et al., 2017), which obscures the ability to understand their individual effects.
The bidimensional definition of mindfulness by Bishop et al., (2004) has yet to be explicitly reflected in an adolescent mindfulness measure. Therefore, the aim of the current study was to examine the factor structure, internal consistency, and validity of the Philadelphia Mindfulness Scale (PHLMS; Cardaciotto et al., 2008) in an adolescent sample. The PHLMS is a 20-item, bidimensional adult mindfulness measure that assesses awareness and acceptance separately. It was hypothesized that the PHLMS subscales would have adequate internal consistency and that confirmatory factor analysis would confirm the 2-factor model. It was further expected that the PHLMS would demonstrate convergent and discriminant validity in an adolescent sample.
Adolescent participants (N = 252) ages 14-17 completed the PHLMS, another adolescent mindfulness measure (AAMS; Droutman et al., 2018), and measures of life satisfaction, internalizing symptoms, and extraversion. A significant, negative correlation was found between the PHLMS Awareness and Acceptance subscales (r = -.28, p < .01), inconsistent with previous findings in which no significant correlation was found between the two subscales (Cardaciotto et al., 2008). In the current study, the PHLMS subscales demonstrated adequate internal consistency (Acceptance subscale, ω = .84; Awareness subscale, ω = .75), as well as convergent and discriminant validity. The 2-factor model indicated a poor fit in the initial confirmatory factor analysis: χ2 = [169, N = 252] = 335.32, p < .001, TLI = .84, CFI = .85, RMSEA = .06. Exploratory factor analysis was conducted, indicating support for a 2-factor solution; however, two Awareness subscale items loaded onto both factors. Another confirmatory factor analysis was conducted, and the 2-factor model approached acceptable fit when items 11 and 15 (both Awareness items) were excluded from the analysis: χ2 = [134, N = 252] = 224.66, p < .001, TLI = .90, CFI = .91, RMSEA = .05. Directions for future research include examining the clarity of the PHLMS items with adolescent samples to further clarify the relevance of the PHLMS in measuring mindfulness in this population.