Measuring mindfulness? An Item Response Theory analysis of the Mindful Attention Awareness Scale Nicholas T. Van Dam a, * , Mitch Earleywine a , Ashley Borders b a Department of Psychology, University at Albany, SUNY, USA b Department of Psychology, The College of New Jersey, USA article info Article history: Received 22 March 2010 Received in revised form 15 July 2010 Accepted 16 July 2010 Available online 10 August 2010 Keywords: Mindfulness Item Response Theory MAAS Construct validity Meta-consciousness Psychometrics abstract The Mindful Attention Awareness Scale (MAAS) is one of the most popular measures of mindfulness, exhibiting promising psychometric properties and theoretically consistent relationships to brain activity, mindfulness-based intervention (MBI) outcomes, and mediation of MBI effects. The present study inves- tigated the response patterns and scale properties in a large sample of undergraduate students (N = 414) using Item Response Theory analyses. The findings suggest that general statements of ‘‘automatic inat- tentiveness” or ‘‘automatic pilot” confer greater statistical information about the underlying latent trait. Evidence of limited abilities to report on mindlessness and of response bias to ‘‘mindfulness-absent” items suggests challenges to the construct validity of the MAAS. The current findings, along with pre- existing data, suggest that reverse-scoring the scale may be inadequate to represent intentional attention or awareness. Further research is needed to determine which variations, components, and correlates of the numerous operationalizations of mindfulness are theoretically consistent and most salient to positive outcomes, especially in psychopathology. Ó 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. 1. Introduction Mindfulness has become an increasingly popular construct with diverse clinical and scientific applications (Bishop et al., 2004). De- spite efforts at achieving operational definitions and corresponding measurement, disagreement seems the rule rather than the excep- tion (see Psychological Inquiry, 2007, Vol. 18, 4). Traditionally, mindfulness involves the active engagement of cognitive-percep- tual processes manifest in two broad phases. ‘‘The initial phase of mindfulness is the cultivation of sustained bare attention resulting from the practice of non-forgetful attention, followed by... intro- spective awareness to understand the moment to moment work- ings of adaptive and maladaptive thoughts and feelings” (Rapgay & Bystrisky, 2009, pp. 153–154). Clinical scientists have attempted to define mindfulness in a way that makes the construct amenable to training and measurement. Bishop and colleagues (2004) pro- vided one of the most integrative and theoretically consistent def- initions of the construct. The first component involves the self-regulation of attention so that it is maintained on immediate experience, thereby allow- ing for increased recognition of mental events in the present moment. The second component involves adopting a particular orientation towards one’s experiences in the present moment, an orientation that is characterized by curiosity, openness, and acceptance (Bishop et al., 2004, p. 232). Some have argued that even this elaborate definition fails to represent the true character of mindfulness and has lead to mis- comprehension of how mindfulness is developed (Leary & Tate, 2007; Rosch, 2007). Rapgay and Bystrisky (2009) emphasize that mindfulness is an active skill developed by a combination of con- centrative and analytical insight-based meditation practices. They also provide an important distinction between attention (a partic- ular cognitive faculty) and awareness (a directable, but broader as- pect of consciousness) stating that mindfulness practice entails ‘‘...the ability to flexibly apportion...between primary attention to the foreground and secondary awareness to the background...” (p. 155). There is also debate about therapies related to the construct (e.g., Hofmann & Asmundson, 2008). While many treatments claim a theoretical reliance on mindfulness, the construct has been de- fined and applied inconsistently (Kabat-Zinn, 2003). Some defini- tions are based on the Buddhist path towards well-being (e.g., Kabat-Zinn, 1990) while others rely on a reductionist notion of mindfulness (see Hofmann and Asmundson (2008)). Despite theo- retical variations, MBIs have been shown to be efficacious treat- ments for physical and psychological symptoms and conditions (Grossman, Niemann, Schmidt, & Walach, 2004; Hofmann, Sawyer, 0191-8869/$ - see front matter Ó 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2010.07.020 * Corresponding author. Address: University at Albany, SUNY, Department of Psychology, Social Sciences 399, 1400 Washington Avenue, Albany, NY 12222, USA. Tel.: +1 (518) 445 5533; fax: +1 (518) 442 4867. E-mail address: NV122142@albany.edu (N.T. Van Dam). Personality and Individual Differences 49 (2010) 805–810 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Personality and Individual Differences journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/paid