Assessing acceptance in mindfulness with direct-worded items:The development and initial validation of the Athlete Mindfulness Questionnaire

Chun-Qing Zhng,Pk-Kwong Chung,*,Gngyn Si

aDepartment of Physical Education,Hong Kong Baptist University,Hong Kong,China

bDepartment of Health and Physical Education,Hong Kong Institute of Education,Hong Kong,China

Assessing acceptance in mindfulness with direct-worded items:The development and initial validation of the Athlete Mindfulness Questionnaire

Chun-Qing Zhanga,Pak-Kwong Chunga,*,Gangyan Sib

aDepartment of Physical Education,Hong Kong Baptist University,Hong Kong,China

bDepartment of Health and Physical Education,Hong Kong Institute of Education,Hong Kong,China

Purpose:The purpose of the current study was to develop and validate a sport-speci fic mindfulness measure,the Athlete Mindfulness Questionnaire(AMQ),through 5 related studies using 4 separate samples of Chinese athletes.The AMQ is a 3-factor measure designed to assess mindfulness that re flects present-moment attention,awareness,and acceptance in a sport context.

Methods:In Study 1,an initial pool of items was generated based on previous literature,existing mindfulness scales,as well as interviews with and feedback from the athletes,coaches,and mindfulness experts.Initial support for the 3-factor structure of the AMQ was established via exploratory factor analysis in Study 2,and cross-validated through con firmatory factor analysis in Studies 3 and 4.In Study 5,a modi fied 3-factor AMQ with direct-worded acceptance items was examined in a fourth independent sample.

Results:Convergent and concurrent validities of the acceptance subscale failed to be established in Studies 3 and 4 which may be due to the inattention and confusion of the athletes whilst interpreting the reverse-worded items.A modi fied 16-itemAMQ in Study 5 displayed satisfactory model fit and acceptable internal consistencies.Most importantly,convergent and concurrent validities of the 16-item AMQ were supported.The 3 subscales showed signi ficant positive associations with mindfulness, flow,well-being,and positive affect and signi ficant negative associations with experiential avoidance,burnout,and negative affect.

Conclusion:TheAMQ is a psychometrically sound measure of mindfulness in a sport context.The importance of using direct-worded acceptance items is discussed.

?2017 Production and hosting by Elsevier B.V.on behalf of Shanghai University of Sport.This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

Athlete;Mindfulness;Reliability;Scale;Sport;Validity

1.Introduction

Mindfulness is described as frequent receptive attention to internal and external stimuli as they occur in Buddhist philosophy and practice.1It has been adopted by sport psychology researchers and practitioners to better understand and enhance the performance of athletes for over a decade.2The characteristic of not being passively resigned to,or dissociated from, but actively engaged in the observed experience of mindfulness,3is consistent with the concept of ideal performance in a sport context.In this context,athletes must actively deal with orcoexist with both internal(e.g.,disruptive thoughts and emotions) and external stimuli(environmental or situational factors),while focusing on present-moment performance.3–5

In a sport context,the ability to self-regulate attention to present performance,awareness of internal and external experiences of bodily sensations,emotions,thoughts,and cognitions,along with an accepting and non-judgmental attitude towards these experiences have been emphasized and cultivated under the general framework of mindfulness training.6,7Accordingly,mindfulness-based approaches to performance enhancement and the general well-being of athletes have been developed.6–8Preliminary evidence of the effectiveness of mindfulness interventions for athletes has revealed sport performance enhancement,increased mindfulness states,as well as other positive states such as flow,sport con fidence,andwell-being;and the decrease of negative affect such as anxiety, burnout,worries,and perfectionism.8–12

On the other hand,examination of the associations between mindfulness and relevant key variables,such as flow,13task-orientation,14satisfaction,15and sport performance16in athletic populations,informs conceptual and intervention considerations in a sport context.Yet,existing evidence has not been built on measurements that had been speci fically developed for athletes.Given that the sporting context is quite different from the context of daily life,in terms of the intensity of stimulus and the requirements of attention and awareness, sport-speci fic mindfulness scales are needed in order to more accurately assess mindfulness among athletic population.17As such,Thienot and colleagues17developed a 15-item Mindfulness Inventory for Sport(MIS),including 3 factors:awareness, non-judgmental attitude,and refocusing.

In the MIS,athletes are asked to assess their awareness of private experiences and their refocusing ability and nonjudgmental attitude after they become aware of these experiences. Yet,it is believed that attention and awareness should be viewed as 2 inter-related components instead of one component occurring after another.18In other words,although awareness can bring attention to the present moment when the mind wanders, the nature of mindfulness is the present-moment attention and the awareness of the present-moment experiences even within a sport context.Furthermore,the original conceptualization of mindfulness19and mindfulness practice20,21stated that the presentmoment attention contains refocusing capability.Therefore, the sole assessment of refocusing skills by neglecting the capability of sustaining attention on the present-moment performance might lead to the omission of important information.

To overcome the limitation in Thienot and colleagues’17conceptualization of mindfulness,the attentional component in the current research was conceptualized as comprising (a)sustained attention on the present-moment experience and (b)bringing the attention back to the present moment.In addition,the present-moment attention and non-judgment(or acceptance)are viewed as 2 independent components of mindfulness that occur simultaneously,rather than 2 components which occur subsequent to awareness.Grounded in the framework of mindfulness within the context of sport,6we de fine mindfulness in terms of 3 components:present-moment attention,awareness,and acceptance.

In summary,the current research aimed to develop and preliminarily validate a scale that assesses athletes’dispositional mindfulness,entitled theAthlete Mindfulness Questionnaire (AMQ),via a series of 5 studies.The aim of Study 1 was to create a pool of items that captured the dispositional mindfulness of Chinese athletes,to gauge how applicable the items of the scale were in a sport context,and to provide evidence for the scale’s content validity.The aim of Study 2 was to analyze the factorial composition of the items generated in Study 1 via an exploratory factor analysis(EFA).The aim of Study 3 was to cross-validate the findings of Study 2 using con firmatory factor analysis(CFA)with another sample of athletes,and further re fine the structure of the AMQ if necessary.The aim of Study 4 was to use another sample to crossvalidate the structure of the model supported in Study 3.The convergent and concurrent validities of the AMQ were also examined in Studies 3 and 4.The aim of Study 5 was to validate the structure of a modi fied AMQ with direct-worded acceptance items,and examine its convergent and concurrent validity through testing its relationships with relevant concepts.

2.Methods

2.1.Participants

In Study 1,participants were 27 Chinese athletes(16 males and 11 females)and 8 Chinese coaches(6 males and 2 females); both were drawn from 5 sports(diving,gymnastics,synchronized swimming,table tennis,and wushu).The coaches’coaching experience ranged from 1 to 25 years(10.13±9.28,mean±SD). The athletes were between 18 and 27 years old(20.93±2.29), competed at national(n=15)or international(n=12)levels, and their competitive experience ranged from 7 to 23 years (13.37±4.34).A panel of 7 Chinese mindfulness experts was also invited to review the content validity of the items.Table 1 shows participant details of Studies 2–5.

2.2.Measures

In Studies 2–5,AMQ items were rated on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1(never true)to 5(always true).

In Study 3,4 instruments were used to build the convergent and concurrent validities of AMQ:(1)The Mindful Attention Awareness Scale(MAAS)18is a unidimensional scale with 15 items that are rated on a 6-point Likert scale from 1(almost always)to 6(almost never);higher scores indicate higher levels of mindfulness.The Chinese translated MAAS demonstrated adequate reliability and validity among an athletic sample.22(2)TheAcceptance andAction Questionnaire II(AAQ-II)23is a 7-item self-report measure with items that are rated on a 7-point Likert scale,from 1(never true)to 7(always true);higher scores indicate higher levels of experiential avoidance.The AAQ-II demonstrated adequate reliability and validity in Chinese athletes.24(3)The Short Dispositional Flow Scale (SDFS)25is a 9-item scale,with 1 item measures each of the 9 flow dimensions.The SDFS is rated on a 5-point Likert scale, ranging from 1(never)to 5(always).The SDFS demonstrated adequate reliability and validity among a Chinese athletic sample.26(4)The Training and Competition Well-being Scale (TCWS)27is a 6-item scale used to assess Chinese athletes’subjective well-being in their training and competition.All items on theTCWS are scored on a 7-point Likert scale ranging from 1(strongly disagree)to 7(strongly agree).

In Study 4,5 instruments,subsequent to the procedure of translation and back-translation,were used to test the concurrent validities of theAMQ:(1)TheAthlete Burnout Questionnaire (ABQ)28is a 15-item self-report instrument measuring 3 burnout subscales:emotional/physical exhaustion,reduced sense of accomplishment,and sport devaluation.Respondents were asked to indicate how often they felt or thought a certain way during the current season using a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (almost never)to 5(almost always).(2)The Subjective Vitality Scale(SVS)29is a 6-item unidimensional instrument used tomeasureindividuals’levelsofsubjectivevitality.Responseswere provided on a 7-point Likert scale ranging from 1(not at all true) to7(verytrue).(3)TheInternationalPositiveandNegativeAffect Schedule(PANAS)ShortForm(I-PANAS-SF)30isashortformof PANASusedtomeasureindividuals’positiveandnegativeaffect. It included 10 items,5 items each for positive affect(PA)and negative affect(NA)subscales.Respondents were requested to ratethestatementona5-pointLikertscalerangingfrom1(never) to5(always)bycomparingthemselvesduringthepastweekwith their“usual selves”.(4)The Sport Enjoyment Scale(SES)31is a 4-item unidimensional instrument used in this study to measure athletes’positive affective response to their sport experience that re flects generalized feelings such as pleasure,liking,and fun. Responseswereprovidedona5-pointLikertscalerangingfrom1 (not at all)to 5(very much).(5)The Sport CompetitionAnxiety Test(SCAT)32isa15-itemself-reportinstrumentmeasuringone’s tendency to perceive competitive situations as threatening,which can lead to increased intensity of one’s state-based reaction to competitive situations.The SCAT utilized a 3-point Likert scale (hardly ever,sometimes,and often).It demonstrated adequate reliability and validity among a Chinese athletic sample.33

Table 1 Participant characteristics.

In Study 5,6 measures were tested,including the MAAS, the AAQ-II,the SDFS,and the TCWS as outlined in Study 3, as well as the ABQ and the I-PANAS-SF as described in Study 4.

2.3.Procedure

2.3.1.Study 1

Ethical approval was obtained from the Ethics Committee of the Hong Kong Baptist University for each of the following studies.At the first stage,items relating to mindfulness in sport context were developed.Feasible items were selected and modi fied from some of the well-established self-report instruments to form the candidate items of the initial item pool.To maximize the clarity,speci ficity,and brevity of items,guidelines for item wording suggested by DeVellis34were closely followed.

At the second stage,coaches and athletes were recruited via the sport psychology consultants who were working with them at the time of data collection.Five semi-structured interviews and 1 focus group(3 wushu coaches)were conducted with the coaches.The duration of the coach interviews lasted approximately 30–60 min.Five focus groups were conducted with the athletes for approximately 90–110 min.The purpose of these interviews was to identify and generate mindfulness characteristics occurring in the sport environment.

At the third stage,a list of items from the first 2 stages were presented to athletes using a dichotomous scale(applicable vs. inapplicable),in which they were instructed to assess the relevance of each item to the sport context.Items deemed inapplicable by 33%or more of the athletes were eliminated.The athletes were also asked to rate the clarity of the applicable items using a 7-point Likert scale(1=not at all clear to 7=extremely clear).Items rated below 5 were taken as problematic,and the athletes were encouraged to suggest alternative wordings for these problematic items.

At the final stage,a reduced pool of items,which had been established following the quantitative review,were sent out to 7 experts nationwide via email to invite their expert opinions. Two steps were taken in this stage.In the first step,the experts were asked to rate how representative each item was in its ability to re flect the related components of mindfulness,using a 4-point Likert scale from 1(not relevant)to 4(highly relevant). Experts were also asked to suggest alternative or additional items.Subsequently,after necessary modi fications,4 of the 7experts were asked to rate the representation of each item using the same scale as in the second step.

2.3.2.Studies 2–5

Coaches and team managers were contacted directly to seek the permission to approach their athletes and at this point the purpose of the study was explained.Upon receiving oral approval,the primary researcher approached the athletes to arrange distribution of the questionnaires and the data collection.Informed consent was received from athletes and standardized instructions were given to them.Athletes were clearly informed of their voluntary and anonymous participation in the study.

2.4.Data analysis

2.4.1.Content validity

In Study 1,the item-level content validity index(I-CVI)35,36was calculated for each item by dividing the number of experts who rated the item as quite relevant or highly relevant(rating 3 and 4 given by experts)by the total number of experts taking part in the rating.When an expert panel consists of 6 or more reviewers,I-CVIs lower than the 0.78 criteria are believed to be less satisfactory and can be removed.35To calculate the scalelevel content validity index,all the I-CVIs were averaged.36

In Study 2,data were analyzed using an EFA in Mplus 7,37to identify the underlying dimensions of the AMQ.Owing to the documented shortcomings associated with maximum likelihood(ML)for estimating factor analysis models for ordinal data,38a polychoric correlation matrix using weighted least squares mean-and variance-adjusted(WLSMV)estimation procedurewithanoblique Geomin rotation was carried out.The percentages of missing data for the AMQ(0.165%)were negligible,and all missing data were treated using pairwise deletion to produce unbiased estimates for the parameters and their standard errors.The Geomin rotation was selected given that it was designed to minimize cross-loadings while producing statistically signi ficant factor loadings on the primary factors, which is likely to generate cleaner factor structures comparable to con firmatory factor analysis(CFA).39

Following the recommendation of Schmitt,38the number of items was determined with parallel analysis in Mplus 7,and then evaluated using the model fit indices.Although multiple fit indices such as the comparative fit index(CFI),the Tucker–Lewis index(TLI),the standardized root mean square residual (SRMR),and the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA)were only validated for CFA models40and had not been formally determined for EFA,they were used to provide additional support for the initial EFA model we obtained.41In general,a cut-off value of Cfiand TLI greater than 0.90 is considered as adequate model fit,and greater than 0.95 and above is suggested to indicate an excellent fit.For the SRMR and RMSEA along with its associated 90%con fidence interval (CI),values closed to or less than 0.08 and 0.06 are indicative of adequate model fit,respectively.40

In terms of interpreting the extracted factors,items were removed in the following order:(a)items with large factor pattern loadings on the incorrect factor(i.e.,≥0.40);(b)items with high cross-loadings,namely,secondary loadings＞0.30; and(c)items with primary factor loadings≤0.40,indicating that items did not load on any factor.Items were removed independently based on the item severity following a sequence of factor analyses until an approximate simple structure was obtained.Bivariate correlations between the subscales were also examined and small-to-moderate relationship values would indicate that the subscales are measuring related but distinct constructs.

2.4.3.CFA

In Studies 3–5,theAMQ was analyzed via CFA in Mplus 737using the polychoric correlation matrix and the WLSMV estimator,in order to cross-validate the findings of the EFA.The adequacy of the CFA model to the data was evaluated based on model fit statistics(multiple fit indices)and estimated standardized factor-loading magnitudes.The fit statistics(χ2,CFI,TLI, SRMR,and RMSEA)outlined in Study 2 for the EFA and the weighted root mean square residual(WRMR)were employed to evaluate model fit for the CFA.A WRMR value of close to or less than 1.0 has been suggested as indicative of adequate model fit.42In addition,items with factor loadings below 0.40 and large absolute valuesofstandardized residuals(＞2.00)were considered for removal.

The percentages of missing data were negligible in Study 3 (0.193%),Study 4(0.282%),and Study 5(0.543%)and missing data were treated use pairwise deletion.The low cell count of“not at all”response option was recoded from a“1”to a“2”to create a more symmetrical distribution,increase model stability,improve threshold estimation,and eliminate convergence problems.41

中國注冊(cè)會(huì)計(jì)師協(xié)會(huì)對(duì)每年的執(zhí)業(yè)質(zhì)量進(jìn)行檢查，出具執(zhí)業(yè)質(zhì)量檢查報(bào)告。報(bào)告擁有很高的可信度和權(quán)威性，作為審計(jì)質(zhì)量的替代衡量指標(biāo)有較大的現(xiàn)實(shí)意義。

Descriptive statistics and internal consistency reliabilities using composite reliability were calculated.Discriminant validity was examined through the inspection of factor correlations, as well as the existence of an alternative single-factor model. Concurrent and convergent validities were examined through SPSS statistics Version 21.0(IBM Corp.,Armonk,NY,USA).

3.Results

3.1.Study 1:item generation and content validity

Initially,64 items were generated by adapting the items of existing instruments into the context of athletes’training and competition.A total of 23 new items were added to re flect additional mindfulness descriptions that had been suggested by coaches and athletes,and subsequently,an initial pool of 87 items was obtained.The relevance and clarity of each item was also evaluated by the athletes,and as a result,41 items were deemed inapplicable to the context of sport and were eliminated,whereas 18 items were slightly modi fied to improve their clarity and broaden their applicability across sports.Based on the ratings of the resultant pool of 46 items by 7 experts,10 items that displayed an I-CVI of 0.71(5/7)or below were deleted,and the remaining items which exhibited I-CVIs ranging from 0.86(6/7)to 1.00(7/7)were retained.Minor modi fications were made to the wording of 7 items and 2 newitems were added.At the second-round rating,4 out of these 7 experts were invited again to rate the relevance of the reduced pool of 38 items and a satisfactory S-CVI/Ave of 0.96 was obtained.

Table 2 Factor loading matrix,factor loadings(λ),error variances(θ),item means(M),and standard deviations(SD)of the AMQ(Studies 2,3,and 4).

3.2.Study 2:examining the factor structure of AMQ

The initial EFA with 38 items revealed a 3-factor solution based on the parallel analysis(mean eigenvalue)using Mplus 7, although 10 eigenvalues were greater than 1.Factors 1,2,and 3 explained 21.26%,9.07%,and 4.32%of variance,respectively. Additional support for the 3-factor model was obtained using the model fit statistics,the 3-factor model indicate an adequate fit,where χ2(592)=874.02,p＜0.001,CFI=0.94,TLI=0.93, SRMR=0.05,RMSEA=0.04(90%CI:0.036–0.048).

By employing the aforementioned criteria to examine the factor loading matrix,22 items were removed in a sequence of factor analyses.The final EFA solution contained 16 items that loaded on to 3 factors,with Factors 1,2,and 3 explaining 31.96%,10.93%,and 7.54%of variance,respectively.Analysis of item content and using constructs previously identi fied in the literature,Factor 1 was labeled as present-moment attention (6 items),Factor 2 was labeled as awareness(5 items),and Factor 3 was labeled as acceptance(5 items)(Table 2).The inter-factor correlations were moderate to large in magnitude (Table 3).Based on the standardized factor loadings of the final set of items,the composite reliability was calculated(Table 3).

3.3.Study 3:validating the factor structure and providing validity evidence of AMQ

3.3.1.CFA

The CFA results suggested a marginal good fit to the data, but indicated room for improvement:χ2(101)=301.43,p＜0.001, CFI=0.90,TLI=0.88,WRMR=1.22,RMSEA=0.08(90%CI: 0.065–0.084).Large modi fication indices suggested that several items had secondary pattern coef ficients that should be addressed,and 4 items were,therefore,excluded sequentially. Excluding these 4 items improved the fit of the model to the data:χ2(51)=123.14,p＜0.001,CFI=0.95,TLI=0.93,WRMR=0.94,RMSEA=0.06(90%CI:0.049–0.077).The model included 3 factors:present-moment attention(5 items),awareness(4 items),and acceptance(3 items).In addition,a 1-factor model was tested,which produced a very poor fit to the data: χ2(54)=277.83,p＜0.001,CFI=0.83,TLI=0.80,WRMR=1.47, RMSEA=0.11(90%CI:0.095–0.120).Table 2 shows item means, standard deviations,standardized factor loadings and residuals,and Table 3 shows factor correlations and internal consistency reliabilities.

Table 3 Factor correlations and internal consistency reliabilities of the AMQ(Studies 2,3,and 4).

3.3.2.Convergent and concurrent validities

With regard to the convergent validity,present-moment attention and awareness correlated signi ficantly with mindfulness measured by MAAS,but not acceptance.On the concurrent validity,present-moment attention and awareness correlated signi ficantly with flow and subjective well-being,but acceptance had a negative association with flow.Surprisingly,presentmoment attention signi ficantly and negatively correlated with experiential avoidance,while no signi ficant correlations between awareness,acceptance and experiential avoidance were found. Taken together,the convergent and current validities of presentmoment attention and awareness have been established,except for acceptance(Table 4).

3.4.Study 4:cross-validating the factor structure of AMQ and obtaining additional validity evidence

3.4.1.CFA

The results of the CFA for the 12-item 3-factor solution indicated an excellent fit to the data:χ2(51)=101.13,p＜0.001, CFI=0.95,TLI=0.94,WRMR=0.86,RMSEA=0.06(90%CI: 0.041–0.074).Table 2 displays item means,standard deviations,standardized factor loadings and residuals,and Table 3 shows factor correlations and internal consistency estimates. In addition,a single-factor model was also tested,which produced a very poor fit to the data:χ2(54)=259.89,p＜0.001, CFI=0.81,TLI=0.76,WRMR=1.46,RMSEA=0.11(90%CI: 0.100–0.128). 3.4.2.Concurrent validity

The concurrent validity of present-moment attention was established,through the building of signi ficant and negative associations among present-moment attention and burnout, negative affect and anxiety,and signi ficant and positive associations among present-moment attention and vitality,positive affect,and enjoyment.Surprisingly,although a signi ficant and positive correlation between awareness and positive affect was found,no signi ficant correlations were revealed among awareness,acceptance and the other criteria-related variables (Table 5).

3.4.3.Development of a modi fied AMQ with direct-worded acceptance items

van Sonderen et al.43demonstrated that reverse-worded items did not prevent response bias,but instead scores were contaminated by respondent inattention and confusion.Scores of reverse-worded acceptance items used in our study might have been contaminated and misinterpreted by athletes.We therefore changed the reverse-worded acceptance items into direct-worded items.Two reverse-worded acceptance items, with high factor loadings in Study 2,were changed into direct-worded items.Four direct-worded acceptance items, with high factor loadings in Study 2,were included.Two awareness items,with high factor loadings in Study 2,were also included.Accordingly,a 17-item modi fied AMQ was developed.

Table 4 Means(M),standard deviations(SD)and Cronbach’s coef ficients(α)of all other measures,and Pearson’s correlations between the subscales of theAMQ and other measures(Study 3).

Table 5 Means(M),standard deviations(SD)and Cronbach’s coef ficients(α)of all other measures,and Pearson’s correlations between the subscales of theAMQ and other measures(Study 4).

Table 6 Item means(M),standard deviations(SD),factor loadings(λ),and error variances(θ)of the AMQ(Study 5).

3.5.Study 5:validating the factor structure and providing validity evidence of the modi fied AMQ

3.5.1.CFA

Results of CFA on the 17-item 3-factor solution suggested a satisfactory fittothedata:χ2(116)=267.54,p＜0.001, CFI=0.93,TLI=0.92,WRMR=1.10,RMSEA=0.06(90%CI: 0.050–0.068),although Item 5 was found having a low factor loading(＜0.30).After removing this item,model fit indices were signi ficantly improved:χ2(101)=221.28,p＜0.001,CFI=0.95, TLI=0.94,WRMR=1.04,RMSEA=10.06(90%CI:0.046–0.066).Table 6 displays item means,standard deviations,standardized factor loadings and residuals,and Table 7 shows factor correlations and internal consistency estimates.In addition,a single-factormodelwasalsotested,andthisproducedapoor fitto the data:χ2(104)=359.87,p＜0.001,CFI=0.89,TLI=0.87, WRMR=1.35,RMSEA=0.08(90%CI:0.070–0.088).

3.5.2.Convergent and concurrent validities

As predicted,convergent validity of present-moment attention,awareness,and acceptance was established,through establishing a signi ficant and positive relationship with mindfulness as measured by the MAAS.Concurrent validities of the 3mindfulness factors were also established via signi ficant and negative associations with experiential avoidance,and burnout(reduced sense of accomplishment,emotional/physical exhaustion,and devaluation)and signi ficant and positive associations with positive affect,dispositional flow,and wellbeing.Interestingly,no signi ficant associations were revealed among present-moment attention,awareness,and negative affect,or between awareness and experiential avoidance (Table 8).

Table 7 Factor correlations and internal consistency reliabilities of theAMQ(Study 5).

Table 8 Means(M),standard deviations(SD),and Cronbach’s coef ficients(α)of all other measures,and Pearson’s correlations between the subscales of theAMQ and other measures(Study 5).

4.Discussion

Along with the growing interest in applying mindfulness into a sport context,2the development of psychometrically sound,sport-speci fic mindfulness scales is required.17The purpose of the current study was to develop and validate a sport-speci fic mindfulness measure through 5 related studies using 4 separate samples of Chinese athletes.Based on the conceptualization of mindfulness in a sport context,6,7theAMQ consists of 3 subscales,namely,present-moment attention, awareness,and acceptance.In Study 1,evidence for content validity was provided.Although initial evidence of a 3-factor structure was established in Study 2 and further con firmed in Studies 3 and 4 using 2 independent samples,the convergent and concurrent validities of the acceptance subscale with reverse-worded items were not established in Studies 3 and 4.In Study 5,the factorial,convergent,and concurrent validities of the modi fied AMQ with direct-worded items were established, demonstrating that the AMQ is a reliable and valid measure of mindfulness in a sport context.

The 3 factors of mindfulness emerging from the current study are underpinned by the conceptual consideration of mindfulness in a sport context.6,17The psychometric evidence suggests that theAMQ adequately measures 3 key constituents of mindfulness in a sport context,namely,present-moment attention, awareness,and acceptance.Content validation by experts,coaches, and athletes has demonstrated high representativeness of the items as components of mindfulness in a sport context,and the construct validity of the AMQ was further supported in subsequent exploratory and con firmatory factor analyses.In addition to examining the 3-factor structure,a unidimensional structure was also tested;however,poor model fit was revealed consistently in Studies 3–5.This,therefore,may provide support for the proposition that mindfulness is a multidimensional construct that is represented by a number of separate but closely related factors,44rather than 1 unidimensional factor.18Nonetheless,further examination of the factor structure and construct validity of the AMQ is needed,given the fact that there are also many other general mindfulness instruments that have been developed in clinical and normal populations that may be applicable in a sport context.18,44

The current study has revealed that direct-worded items instead of reverse-worded acceptance items may be more appropriate for athletes.Mathematically,problems may arise from the use of EFA in Study 2 in which both the directworded and reverse-worded acceptance items were generated as the majority of our candidate items are reverse-worded acceptance items.That is,EFA will generate 2 factors,instead of 1,if the pool of items is comprised of indicator items with 2 opposite directions of a single underlying factor,such as where one factor consists of direct-worded items and the other factor consists of reverse-worded items.45The reason is that a linear factor analysis model cannot be fitted when the data are comprised of balanced positive and negative items of Likerttype scale.46Conceptually,athletes might have misinterpreted the acceptance items in mindfulness that were in the reversedworded format,given that the reverse-worded items contaminate scores rather than prevent response bias.43,47It is speculated that Chinese athletes may be more familiar and accustomed to the direct-worded items of acceptance and that this might align more closely with their experience(e.g.,adversities and negative experiences).48It is also speculated that athletes are normally trained to make judgments directly about experiences and ideas in a sport context.This suggests that individuals without meditation experience are more likely to make judgments whilst paying attention to present-moment experience.17,44Although athletes might agree with all statements of the items regardless of the content, findings from our study indicate thatreverse-worded acceptance items cannot prevent response bias, but instead cause confusion.43

Despite the lack of convergent and concurrent validities of the AMQ in Studies 3 and 4,the convergent and concurrent validities of a modi fied 16-item AMQ were established in Study 5 after converting the reverse-worded items into directworded items.Speci fically,the convergent validity of theAMQ was established through building signi ficant and positive relationships with mindfulness as measured by the MAAS.18The concurrent validity was established through building signi ficant associations with experiential avoidance,athlete burnout, and flow.The negative associations between mindfulness and experiential avoidance indicate that a higher level of mindfulness is related to a lower level of experiential avoidance,which is de fined as an attempt to avoid unpleasant thoughts,images, feelings,sensations,and emotions.As experiential avoidance is an important component in mindfulness-based training for athletes,6,7it can be used to capture the changing process of mindfulness training.In addition,a negative association between mindfulness and athletes’burnout was revealed.Given the importance of burnout in the subjective well-being of athletes in training and competition,49mindfulness training can be used to alleviate and prevent its occurrence.Furthermore,the positive associations between mindfulness and flow,revealed in the current study,are in line with previous findings that an increase in the state of mindfulness might facilitate athletes’ flow experience in training and competition.9,13,17

From a practical perspective,the concept of mindfulness can be applied to performance enhancement in a competitive sport context as mindfulness is not a passive or dissociated state but a state where one is actively engaged in the observed experience.3Emphasizing an accepting and nonjudgmental attitude is not to give up one’s own judgments but rather to accept the nature of experience no matter whether they are good or bad.3Thus,athletes should cultivate the capability of noticing, being aware of,and accepting both good and bad experiences (e.g.,making an important decision)through mindfulness training in order to enhance performance16or facilitate motor skill learning.50Given that the direct-worded items of acceptance have emerged as being more appropriate to athletes,a direct attitude of acceptance should be emphasized instead of simply asking athletes not to make judgments on their private experience during mindfulness training.In addition,it is important to emphasize both the ability of sustaining attention and awareness in the present moment and the ability of refocusing to the present moment when athletes become distracted which is a typical phenomenon in sport context.17

Although the AMQ with direct-worded items demonstrated psychometrically sound properties,several limitations should be noted and the findings should be taken with caution.Firstly, the questionnaires were developed using athletes without mindfulness experience,the AMQ can be further evaluated by athletes who have been trained in mindfulness.51Secondly, given that the AMQ was developed using 4 separate samples of athletes from various sport training centers in the Mainland of China,caution should be taken when generalizing the findings to other contexts.Future studies could further validate theAMQ amongWestern athletes to examine its generalizability. Thirdly,the construct validity and internal consistency reliability have been con firmed using a cross-sectional design,but test–retest reliability and predictive validity have not been examined.Given the importance of examining the dynamic process of mindfulness training in athletes,future research should adopt longitudinal and intervention designs to better capture these 2 important indicators.

5.Conclusion

Through 5 related studies,the psychometrically soundAMQ which assesses mindfulness in a sport context in terms of 3 aspects:present-moment attention,awareness,and acceptance, has been developed and initially validated.Researchers and practitioners can use the AMQ to measure athletes’dispositional mindfulness to understand the effects of mindfulness training on adaptive and maladaptive psychological functioning.The importance of using direct-worded acceptance items to avoid confusion is also highlighted.

Acknowledgment

We express our appreciation to the following colleagues for their contribution during the data collection stage:Baoming Chen,Chengyan Liu,Guoyan Feng,Daliang Zhao,Danran Bu, Hao Liu,Jie Zhu,Shuang Shan,Shuangling Zhang,Xiaoqian Wen,Xuan Wei,Yibing Tan,Yuan Wang,Zhijian Huang,and Zhiqing Gao.

Authors’contributions

CQZ conceived of the study,conducted the data collection and data analysis,and drafted the manuscript under the supervision of PKC;GS has made a signi ficant contribution to the study design,data collection,and manuscript preparation.All authors have read and approved the final version of the manuscript,and agree with the order of presentation of the authors.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

1.Bodhi B.What does mindfulness really mean?A canonical perspective. Contemp Buddh 2011;12:19–39.

2.Gardner FL,Moore ZE.Mindfulness and acceptance models in sport psychology:a decade of basic and applied scienti fic advancements.Can Psychol 2012;53:309–18.

3.Gunaratana BH.Mindfulness in plain English.Boston,MA:Wisdom Publications;2002.

4.Hardy L,Jones G,Gould D.Understanding psychological preparation for sport:theory and practice of elite performers.NewYork,NY:John Wiley &Sons;1996.

5.Si G.Pursuing“ideal”or emphasizing“coping”:the new de finition of“peak performance”and transformation of mental training pattern.Chin Sport Sci 2006;26:43–8.[in Chinese].

6.Gardner FL,Moore ZE.The psychology of enhancing human performance: themindfulness-acceptance-commitmentapproach.New York,NY: Springer;2007.

7.Si G,Zhang G,Su N,Zhang C.Theory origin and content design of mindfulness training program for Chinese athletes.Chin J Sports Med 2014;33:56–61.[in Chinese].

8.Kaufman KA,Glass CR,Arnkoff DB.An evaluation of Mindful Sport Performance Enhancement(MSPE):a new mental training approach to promote flow in athletes.J Clin Sport Psychol 2009;3:334–56.

9.Aherne C,Aidan PM,Lonsdale C.The effect of mindfulness training on athletes’ flow:an initial investigation.Sport Psychol 2011;25:177–89.

10.Bernier M,Thienot E,Codron R,Fournier JF.Mindfulness and acceptance approaches in sport performance.J Clin Sport Psychol 2009;3:320–33.

11.Jouper J,Gustafsson H.Mindful recovery:a case study of a burned-out elite shooter.Sport Psychol 2013;27:92–102.

12.Thompson RW,Kaufman KA,De Petrillo LA,Glass CR,Arnkoff DB.One year follow-up of mindful sport performance enhancement(MSPE)with archers,golfers,and runners.J Clin Sport Psychol 2011;5:99–116.

13.Kee YH,Wang JCK.Relationships between mindfulness, flow dispositions and mental skills adoption:a cluster analytic approach.Psychol Sport Exerc 2008;9:393–411.

14.McCarthy JJ.Exploring the relationship between goal achievement orientation and mindfulness in college athletics.J Clin Sport Psychol 2011;5:44–57.

15.Denny KG,Steiner H.External and internal factors in fluencing happiness in elite collegiate athletes.Child Psychiatry Hum Dev 2009;40:55–72.

16.Gooding A,Gardner FL.An investigation of the relationship between mindfulness,preshot routine,and basketball free throw percentage.J Clin Sport Psychol 2009;3:303–19.

17.Thienot E,Jackson B,Dimmock J,Grove JR,Bernier M,Fournier JF. Development and preliminary validation of the mindfulness inventory for sport.Psychol Sport Exerc 2014;15:72–80.

18.Brown KW,Ryan RM.The bene fits of being present:mindfulness and its role in psychological well-being.J Pers Soc Psychol 2003;84:822–48.

19.Kabat-Zinn J.Mindfulness-based interventions in context:past,present, and future.Clin Psychol Sci Pract 2003;10:144–56.

20.Kabat-Zinn J.Full catastrophe living:using the wisdom of your body and mind to face stress,pain and illness.New York,NY:Delta;1990.

21.Segal ZV,Williams JMG,Teasdale JD.Mindfulness-based cognitive therapy for depression:a new approach to preventing relapse.New York, NY:Guilford Press;2002.

22.Chung PK,Si G,Liu JD,Zhang CQ.Validation of the Mindful Attention Awareness Scale(MAAS)in Chinese athletes.Chin J Sports Med 2013;32:1105–11.[in Chinese].

23.Bond FW,Hayes SC,Baer RA,Carpenter KM,Guenole N,Orcutt HK, et al.Preliminary psychometric properties of the Acceptance and Action Questionnaire–II:a revised measure of psychological in flexibility and experiential avoidance.Behav Ther 2011;42:676–88.

24.Zhang CQ,Chung PK,Si G,Liu JD.Psychometric properties of the Acceptance and Action Questionnaire–II for Chinese college students and elite Chinese athletes.Meas Eval Couns Dev 2014;47:256–70.

25.Jackson SA,Martin AJ,Eklund RC.Long and short measures of flow: the construct validity of the FSS-2,DFS-2,and new brief counterparts. J Sport Exerc Psychol 2008;30:561–87.

26.Liu WN.Revision on Chinese edition of the Short Flow State Scale and the Short Dispositional Flow Scale.Chin Sport Sci 2010;30:64–70.[in Chinese].

27.Zhang LW,Liang ZP.Athletes’life satisfaction:the contributions of individual self-esteem and collective self-esteem.Acta Psychol Sinica 2002;34:160–7.[in Chinese].

28.Raedeke TD,Smith AL.Development and preliminary validation of an athlete burnout measure.J Sport Exerc Psychol 2001;23:281–306.

29.Bostic TJ,Rubio DM,Hood M.A validation of the subjective vitality scale using structural equation modeling.Soc Indic Res 2000;52:313–24.

30.Thompson ER.Development and validation of an internationally reliable short-form of the positive and negative affect schedule(PANAS).J Cross Cult Psychol 2007;38:227–42.

31.Scanlan TK,Carpenter PJ,Schmidt GW,Simons JP,Keeler B.An introduction to the sport commitment model.J Sport Exerc Psychol 1993;15:1–15.

32.Martens R,Vealey RS,Burton D.Competitive anxiety in sport. Champaign,IL:Human Kinetics;1990.

33.Zhu PL.Revision of the Chinese norm of the Sports Competition Anxiety Test.Psychol Sci 1993;16:99–103.[in Chinese].

34.DeVellis RF.Scale development:theory and applications.3rd ed. Thousand Oaks,CA:Sage;2012.

35.Lynn MR.Determination and quanti fication of content validity.Nurs Res 1986;35:382–5.

36.Polit DF,Beck CT,Owen SV.Is the CVI an acceptable indicator of content validity?Appraisal and recommendations.Res Nurs Health 2007;30: 459–67.

37.Muthén LK,Muthén BO.Mplus user’s guide.7th ed.Los Angeles,CA: Muthén&Muthén;2012.

38.Schmitt TA.Current methodological considerations in exploratory and con firmatory factor analysis.J Psychoeduc Assess 2011;29:304–21.

39.Schmitt TA,Sass DA.Rotation criteria and hypothesis testing for exploratory factor analysis:implications for factor pattern loadings and interfactor correlations.Educ Psychol Meas 2011;71:95–113.

40.Hu L,Bentler PM.Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis:conventional criteria versus new alternatives.Struct Equ Modeling 1999;6:1–55.

41.Norberg MM,Wetterneck CT,Sass DA,Kanter JW.Development and psychometric evaluation of the Milwaukee Psychotherapy Expectations Questionnaire.J Clin Psychol 2011;67:574–90.

42.Yu CY.Evaluating cutoff criteria of model fit indices for latent variable models with binary and continuous outcomes.LosAngeles,CA:University of California;2002.[Dissertation].

43.van Sonderen E,Sanderman R,Coyne JC.Ineffectiveness of reverse wording of questionnaire items:let’s learn from cows in the rain.PLoS One 2013;8:e68967.doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0068967

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

45.Lloret S,González-Romá V.How do respondents construe ambiguous response formats of affect items?J Pers Soc Psychol 2003;85:956–68.

46.van Schuur WH,Kiers HA.Why factor analysis often is the incorrect model for analyzing bipolar concepts,and what model to use instead.Appl Psychol Meas 1994;18:97–110.

47.HercheJ,EngellandB.Reversed-polarityitemsandscale unidimensionality.J Acad Mark Sci 1996;24:366–74.

48.Si G,Duan Y,Li HY,Jiang X.An exploration into socio-cultural meridians of chinese athletes’psychological training.J Clin Sport Psychol 2011;5:325–38.

49.Cui HL,Zhang LC.Relationship between athletes’burnout and career satisfaction,self-esteem and source of mental control.J Beijing Sport Univ 2008;31:1237–9.[in Chinese].

50.KeeYH,LiuYT.Effectsofdispositionalmindfulnessonthe self-controlled learning of a novel motor task.Learn Individ Differ 2011;21:468–71.

51.GrossmanP.Onmeasuringmindfulnessinpsychosomaticand psychological research.J Psychosom Res 2008;64:405–8.

13 March 2015;revised 29 July 2015;accepted 20 September 2015

Available online 14 December 2015

Peer review under responsibility of Shanghai University of Sport.

*Corresponding author.

E-mail address:pkchung@hkbu.edu.hk(P.-K.Chung)

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jshs.2015.09.010

2095-2546/?2017 Production and hosting by Elsevier B.V.on behalf of Shanghai University of Sport.This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).