Mindful Contextualization Exploring the Limits of Cross-Cultural Mindfulness Measurement

Abstract

Mindfulness has become widely studied with the development of measures such as the Kentucky Inventory of Mindfulness Skills (KIMS). Given that mindfulness is a concept that spans continents and centuries, how certain can we be that the KIMS adequately measures this complex construct? Our study addresses the paucity of validity evidence for cross-culture measurement using the KIMS in countries where mindfulness may have different cultural interpretations. Mindfulness, as measured by the KIMS, is a construct that may not necessarily “travel” given that Western and Eastern countries may conceptualize it differently (i.e. clinical origins vs. spiritual origins). One way to assess if the same construct is being measured across groups is measurement invariance (MI). To assess MI, we conducted confirmatory factor analyses of 1251 university students in Western countries, obtained during retrospective data analyses, and with data our team collected from 233 university students in India. Results indicated that there were substantial differences in global fit indices between groups and configural invariance was not obtained. This suggests that the factor structure of mindfulness is not being interpreted the same way in the Western and Indian samples. Potential reasons for this result are suggested, along with the importance of assessing cross-cultural validity evidence and establishing measurement invariance when conducting cross-cultural research using self-report scales