Una medida breve transnacional de atención plena: invarianza de medición de la Escala de Atención y Conciencia Plena de Cinco Ítems en seis países de América Latina
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.21142/mecp.2026.1.2.%25pPalabras clave:
Invariancia, Medición, Atención PlenaResumen
Objetivos: La Escala de Atención y Conciencia Plena de Cinco Ítems (MAAS-5, en inglés) es una medida de autoinforme de atención plena que ha demostrado fiabilidad y validez en varios países. Sin embargo, hasta la fecha, ningún estudio ha examinado específicamente la invariancia de la medición (IM) de la MAAS-5 en países latinoamericanos, lo que limita su comparabilidad. Por lo tanto, nos propusimos explorar si la MAAS-5 proporciona mediciones comparables en todos los países latinoamericanos. Materiales y métodos: Mediante el método de alineación, evaluamos la IM aproximada de la MAAS-5 en 2519 personas residentes en seis países latinoamericanos (El Salvador, Paraguay, Chile, Colombia, Bolivia y Perú). Se utilizó una estructura unifactorial de la MAAS-5 como modelo teórico. En el método de alineación, los parámetros de los ítems deben ser lo más invariantes posible, permitiendo alguna variabilidad en la invariancia. Así, las comparaciones de grupos pueden ser más robustas ante violaciones de la MI. Resultados: Los resultados indican que la estructura factorial es invariante tanto para las cargas factoriales (R² = 0,99) como para los interceptos de los ítems (R² = 0,99). En cuanto al porcentaje de parámetros no invariantes por país, todas las cargas factoriales e interceptos resultaron invariantes (0%). Por lo tanto, estos hallazgos proporcionan evidencia de la invariancia métrica y escalar de la MAAS-5. Esto, permitió la posibilidad de comparar las puntuaciones medias de mindfulness, donde no se observaron diferencias significativas entre los participantes de diferentes países, es decir, presentaron similares niveles de atención plena. Conclusión: Se espera que este estudio aporte evidencia para futuras investigaciones transculturales sobre atención plena y la MAAS-5. Sin embargo, hay que tener cautela con los resultados del MAAS-5 pues ha sido criticada por evaluar la inatención en lugar de la atención plena en sí. A pesar de esto, la MAAS sigue siendo un instrumento valioso en países con herramientas limitadas para evaluar la atención plena.
Descargas
Referencias
1. Ivtzan I, Young T, Lee HC, Lomas T, Daukantaitė D, Kjell ON. Mindfulness based flourishing program: a cross-cultural study of Hong Kong Chinese and British participants. J Happiness Stud. 2018;19:2205-23. doi: 10.1007/s10902-017- 9919-1.
2. Suresh K, Dar AA, Prasad DLN, Fernandes D. Mindfulness to Mental Health: Exploring Bibliometric Pathways via Metacognition, Rumination, and Emotion Regulation. J Theo Soc Psychol. 2024;2024(1):5867754. doi: 10.1155/jts5/5867754.
3. Brown KW, Ryan RM, Creswell JD. Mindfulness: Theoretical foundations and evidence for its salutary effects. Psychol Inquiry. 2007;18(4):211-37. doi: 10.1080/10478400701598298.
4. Grossman P, Niemann L, Schmidt S, Walach H. Mindfulnessbased stress reduction and health benefits: A meta-analysis. J Psychosom Res. 2004;57(1):35-43. doi: 10.1016/S0022- 3999(03)00573-7.
5. Galante J, Friedrich C, Dawson AF, Modrego-Alarcón M, Gebbing P, Delgado-Suárez I, et al. Mindfulness-based programmes for mental health promotion in adults in nonclinical settings: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. PLoS Med. 2021;18(1):e1003481. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1003481.
6. Liu H, Cai K, Wang J, Zhang H. The effects of mindfulnessbased interventions on anxiety, depression, stress, and mindfulness in menopausal women: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Front Public Health. 2023;10:1045642. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2022.1045642.
7. Martin KJ, Golijani-Moghaddam N, dasNair R. Mindfulness self-help interventions for symptoms of depression, anxiety and stress: Review and meta-analysis. Int J Ther Rehabil. 2018;25(2):82-95. doi: 10.12968/ijtr.2018.25.2.82.
8. Strohmaier S, Jones FW, Cane JE. Effects of length of mindfulness practice on mindfulness, depression, anxiety, and stress: A randomized controlled experiment. Mindfulness. 2021;12:198-214. doi: 10.1007/s12671-020-01512-5.
9. Chan RM, Mak WW, Yu BC. Going beyond mindfulness: How concentration and tranquility commonly co-arising with mindfulness account for mental health. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2023;20(8):5470. doi: 10.3390/ijerph20085470.
10. Raugh IM, Berglund AM, Strauss GP. Implementation of Mindfulness-Based Emotion Regulation Strategies: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Affect Sci. 2024;1-30. doi: 10.1007/s42761-024-00281-x.
11. Karl JA, Prado SMM, Gračanin A, Verhaeghen P, Ramos A, Mandal SP, et al. The cross-cultural validity of the Five-Facet Mindfulness Questionnaire across 16 countries. Mindfulness. 2020;11:1226-37. doi: 10.1007/s12671-020-01333-6.
12. Brown KW, Ryan RM. The benefits of being present: mindfulness and its role in psychological well-being. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2003;84(4):822-48. doi: 10.1037/0022- 3514.84.4.822.
13. Sauer S, Walach H, Schmidt S, Hinterberger T, Lynch S, Büssing A, et al. Assessment of mindfulness: Review on state of the art. Mindfulness. 2013;4(1):3-17. doi: 10.1007/s12671-012- 0122-5.
14. Brown KW, West AM, Loverich TM, Biegel GM. Assessing adolescent mindfulness: validation of an adapted Mindful Attention Awareness Scale in adolescent normative and psychiatric populations. Psychol Assess. 2011;23(4):1023-33. doi: 10.1037/a0021338.
15. Van Dam NT, Earleywine M, Borders A. Measuring mindfulness? An item response theory analysis of the Mindful Attention Awareness Scale. Pers Individ Dif. 2010;49(7):805-10. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2010.07.020.
16. Bishop SR, Lau M, Shapiro S, Carlson L, Anderson ND, Carmody J, et al. Mindfulness: A proposed operational definition. Clinical psychology: Science and practice. 2004;11(3):230-241. doi: 10.1093/clipsy/bph077.
17. Kabat-Zinn J. Full catastrophe living: Using the wisdom of your body and mind to face stress, pain and illness using mindfulness meditation. New York: Dell Publishing; 1990.
18. Segal Z, Williams M, Teasdale J. Mindfulness-based cognitive therapy for depression: A new approach to preventing relapse. New York: Guilford Press; 2002.
19. Caycho-Rodríguez T, García Cadena CH, Reyes-Bossio M, Cabrera-Orosco I, Oblitas Guadalupe LA, Arias Gallego WL. Evidencias psicométricas de una versión breve de la mindful awareness attention scale en estudiantes universitarios. Rev Argent Cienc Comport. 2019;11(3):19-32. doi: 10.32348/1852.4206.v11.n3.24870.
20. Stuart-Edwards A. Mindfulness, subjective, and psychological well-being: A comparative analysis of FFMQ and MAAS measures. Appl Psychol Health Well Being. 2025;17(2):e70019. doi: 10.1111/aphw.70019.
21. Nooripour R, Ghanbari N, Hoseinian S, Vakili Y, Dobkins K. Psychometric validation of the Farsi version of the Mindful Attention Awareness Scale (MAAS) in a sample of Iranian students in the USA. Int J Ment Health Addict. 2023;21(2):729- 39. doi: 10.1007/s11469-021-00617-9.
22. Chiesi F, Donati MA, Panno A, Giacomantonio M, Primi C. What about the different shortened versions of the Mindful Attention Awareness Scale? Psychol Rep. 2017;120(5):966-90. doi: 10.1177/0033294117711132.
23. Van Dam NT, Earleywine M, Borders A. Measuring mindfulness? An item response theory analysis of the Mindful Attention Awareness Scale. Pers Individ Dif. 2010;49(7):805-10. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2010.07.020.
24. Goh HE, Marais I, Ireland MJ. A Rasch model analysis of the mindful attention awareness scale. Assessment. 2017;24(3):387-98. doi: 10.1177/1073191115607043.
25. Medvedev ON, Siegert RJ, Feng XJ, Billington DR, Jang JY, Krägeloh CU. Measuring trait mindfulness: How to improve the precision of the Mindful Attention Awareness Scale using a Rasch model. Mindfulness. 2016;7:384-95. doi: 10.1007/ s12671-015-0454-z.
26. Black DS, Sussman S, Johnson CA, Milam J. Psychometric assessment of the mindful attention awareness scale (MAAS) among Chinese adolescents. Assessment. 2012;19(1):42-52. doi: 10.1177/1073191111415365.
27. Osman A, Lamis DA, Bagge CL, Freedenthal S, Barnes SM. The mindful attention awareness scale: Further examination of dimensionality, reliability, and concurrent validity estimates. J Pers Assess. 2016;98(2):189-99. doi: 10.1080/00223891.2015.1095761.
28. Smith OR, Melkevik O, Samdal O, Larsen TM, Haug E. Psychometric properties of the five-item version of the Mindful Awareness Attention Scale (MAAS) in Norwegian adolescents. Scand J Public Health. 2017;45(4):373-80. doi: 10.1177/1403494817699321.
29. Reyes-Bossio M, Zapparigli EL, Caycho-Rodríguez T, Carbajal-León C, Castaman LAO, Pino GLH, et al. Crosscultural validity of the five items Mindful Attention Awareness Scale (MAAS-5) in Peru and Mexico during the COVID-19 pandemic. Psicol Reflex Crit. 2022;35:12. doi: 10.1186/s41155- 022-00218-y.
30. Caycho-Rodríguez T, Tomás JM, Ventura-León J, Carranza Esteban RF, Oblitas Guadalupe LA, Reyes-Bossio M, et al. Factorial validity and invariance analysis of the five items version of Mindful Awareness Attention Scale in older adults. Aging Ment Health. 2021;25(4):756-65. doi: 10.1080/13607863.2020.1716685.
31. Vandenberg RJ, Lance CE. A review and synthesis of the measurement invariance literature: Suggestions, practices, and recommendations for organizational research. Organ Res Methods. 2000;3(1):4-70. doi: 10.1177/109442810031002.
32. Milfont TL, Fischer R. Testing measurement invariance across groups: Applications in cross-cultural research. Int J Psychol Res. 2010;3(1):111-30.
33. Beierlein C, Davidov E, Schmidt P, Schwartz SH, Rammstedt B. Testing the discriminant validity of Schwartz’Portrait Value Questionnaire items–A replication and extension of Knoppen and Saris (2009). Surv Res Methods. 2012;6(1):25-36. doi: 10.18148/srm/2012.v6i1.5092.
34. Marsh HW, Guo J, Parker PD, Nagengast B, Asparouhov T, Muthén B, et al. What to do when scalar invariance fails: The extended alignment method for multi-group factor analysis comparison of latent means across many groups. Psychol Methods. 2018;23(3):524-45. doi: 10.1037/met0000113.
35. Muthén B, Asparouhov T. IRT studies of many groups: The alignment method. Front Psychol. 2014;5:978. doi: 10.3389/ fpsyg.2014.00978.
36. Muthén B, Asparouhov T. Recent methods for the study of measurement invariance with many groups: Alignment and random effects. Sociol Methods Res. 2018;47(4):637-64. doi: 10.1177/0049124117701488.
37. Asparouhov T, Muthén B. Multiple-group factor analysis alignment. Struct Equ Modeling. 2014;21(4):495-508. doi: 10.1080/10705511.2014.919210.
38. Caycho-Rodríguez T, Valencia PD, Ventura-León J, CarbajalLeón C, Vilca LW, Reyes-Bossio M, et al. Cross-cultural invariance of the Spanish version of the COVID-19 Assessment Scorecard to measure the perception of government actions against COVID-19 in Latin America. Psicol Reflex Crit. 2023;36(1):34. doi: 10.1186/s41155-023-00277-9.
39. Caycho-Rodríguez T, Vilca LW, Cervigni M, Gallegos M, Martino P, Calandra M, et al. Cross-national measurement invariance of the Purpose in Life Test in seven Latin American countries. Front Psychol. 2022;13:974133. doi: 10.3389/ fpsyg.2022.974133.
40. Raphiphatthana B, Jose PE, Chobthamkit P. The association between mindfulness and grit: an east vs. west cross-cultural comparison. Mindfulness. 2019;10:146-58. doi: 10.1007/s12671- 018-0961-9.
41. Karl JA, Fischer R. The state of dispositional mindfulness research. Mindfulness. 2022;13(6):1357-72. doi: 10.1007/s12671- 022-01853-3
42. Demarzo MMP, Cebolla A, Garcia-Campayo JMDPD. The implementation of mindfulness in healthcare systems: a theoretical analysis. Gen Hosp Psychiatry. 2015;37(2):166-71. doi: 10.1016/j.genhosppsych.2014.11.013.
43. Hamamura T, Heine SJ, Paulhus DL. Cultural differences in response styles: The role of dialectical thinking. Personality and Individual differences. 2008;44(4):932-942. doi: 10.1016/j. paid.2007.10.034.
44. Huggins CF, Williams JH, Sato W. Cross-cultural differences in self-reported and behavioural emotional self-awareness between Japan and the UK. BMC Research Notes. 2023;16(1):380. doi: 10.1186/s13104-023-06660-0.
45. García-Campayo J, Demarzo M, Shonin E, Van Gordon W. How do cultural factors influence the teaching and practice of mindfulness and compassion in Latin countries? Front Psychol. 2017;8:1161. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01161.
46. Karl JA, Prado SMM, Gračanin A, Verhaeghen P, Ramos A, Mandal SP, et al. The cross-cultural validity of the Five-Facet Mindfulness Questionnaire across 16 countries. Mindfulness. 2020;11(5):1226-1237. doi: 10.1007/s12671-020-01333-6.
47. Wong MYC, Yuan GF, Huang SY. Lian AEZ, Derin G, Akiş AD, et al. Psychometric Evaluation of the 15-Item Five Facet Mindfulness Questionnaire: A Cross-Cultural Comparison Study Among English-and Chinese-Speaking Adult Mental Health Service Users. Healthcare. 2026;14(3):307. doi: 10.3390/healthcare14030307.
48. García-Rubio C, Rodríguez-Carvajal R, Langer AI, Paniagua D, Steinebach P, Andreu CI, et al. Validation of the Spanish version of the Child and Adolescent Mindfulness Measure (CAMM) with samples of Spanish and Chilean children and adolescents. Mindfulness. 2019;10(8):1502-1517. doi: 10.1007/ s12671-019-01108-8.
49. Hotchkiss JT, Cook-Cottone CP, Wong MYC, Guyker W, Garcia ACM. Intercultural validation of the mindful self-care scale—Rasch and factor analysis of 16 studies representing five continents. Mindfulness. 2023;14(8):2055-2072. doi: 10.1007/s12671-023-02196-3.
50. Klainin-Yobas P, Thanoi W, Vongsirimas N, Tang LK, Ramirez D, Fernandez Z, et al. Measurement invariance of the mindfulness attention awareness scale among youths across five samples. Preprints. 2023. doi: 10.20944/ preprints202309.0056.v1.
51. VanVoorhis CW, Morgan BL. Understanding power and rules of thumb for determining sample sizes. Tutor Quant Methods Psychol. 2007;3(2):43-50.
52. Pokropek A, Lüdtke O, Robitzsch A. An extension of the invariance alignment method for scale linking. Psychol Test Assess Model. 2020;62(2):305-34.
53. Brown TA. Confirmatory Factor Analysis for Applied Research, Second Edition. Guilford Publications; 2015.
54. Schumacker RE, Lomax RG. A Beginner’s Guide to Structural Equation Modeling: Fourth Edition (4th ed.). Routledge; 2015.
55. Rhemtulla M, Brosseau-Liard PÉ, Savalei V. When can categorical variables be treated as continuous? A comparison of robust continuous and categorical SEM estimation methods under suboptimal conditions. Psychological methods. 2012;17(3):354-373. doi: 10.1037/ a0029315.
56. Cronbach LJ. Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika. 1951;16(3):297-334. doi: 10.1007/ BF02310555.
57. McDonald RP. Test Theory: A Unified Treatment. Taylor & Francis; 1999.
58. Viladrich C, Angulo-Brunet A, Doval E. A journey around alpha and omega to estimate internal consistency reliability. Anales Psicol. 2017;33(3):755-82. doi: 10.6018/analesps.33.3.268401.
59. Robitzsch A. sirt: Supplementary Item Response Theory Models (R package version 3.9-4); 2020.
60. Fischer R, Karl JA. A primer to (cross-cultural) multi-group invariance testing possibilities in R. Front Psychol. 2019;10:1- 18. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01507.
61. Meade AW, Bauer DJ. Power and precision in confirmatory factor analytic tests of measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal. 2007;14(4):611- 635. doi: 10.1080/10705510701575461.
62. Rutkowski L, Svetina D. Assessing the hypothesis of measurement invariance in the context of large-scale international surveys. Educational and Psychological Measurement. 2014;74(1):31-57. doi: 10.1177/0013164413498257.
63. Chen FF. Sensitivity of goodness of fit indexes to lack of measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal. 2007;14(3):464-504. doi: 10.1080/10705510701301834.
64. Rosseel Y. lavaan: An R Package for Structural Equation Modeling. J Stat Softw. 2012;48(2):1-36. doi: 10.18637/jss.v048. i02.
65. Finney SJ, DiStefano C. Nonnormal and categorical data in structural equation modeling. In G. R. Hancock & R. O. Mueller (Eds.), Structural equation modeling: A second course (pp. 439-492). IAP Information Age Publishing; 2013.
66. Bonniga R, Saraswathi DA. Literature review of Cronbach alpha coefficient and mc donald’s omega coefficient. Eur J Mol Clin Med. 2020;7(06):2943-49.
67. Purser RE, Milillo J. Mindfulness revisited: A Buddhist-based conceptualization. J Manage Inquiry. 2015;24(1):3-24. doi: 10.1177/1056492614532315.
68. García Campayo J, Demarzo M. Manual Práctico de Mindfulness. Curiosidad y Aceptación. Siglantana; 2014.
69. Winton BG, Sabol MA. A multi-group analysis of convenience samples: free, cheap, friendly, and fancy sources. Int J Soc Res Methodol. 2022;25(6):861-76. doi: 10.1080/13645579.2021.1961187.
70. Eichel K, Gawande R, Acabchuk RL, Palitsky R, Chau S, Pham A, et al. A retrospective systematic review of diversity variables in mindfulness research, 2000–2016. Mindfulness. 2021;12:2573-92. doi: 10.1007/s12671-021-01715-4.
71. Berry JW. The role of psychology in ethnic studies. Can Ethn Stud. 1990; 23: 7-21.
72. Virtbauer G, Shaw S. Understanding mindfulness: Current epistemological, methodological, and ethical issues. SFU Forschungsbulletin. 2017;5(2):22-49. doi: 10.15135/2017.5.2.22- 49.
73. Shankland R, Tessier D, Strub L, Gauchet A, Baeyens C. Improving mental health and well-being through informal mindfulness practices: An intervention study. Appl Psychol Health Well Being. 2021;13(1):63-83. doi: 10.1111/aphw.12216.
Descargas
Publicado
Número
Sección
Licencia
Derechos de autor 2026 Medical Education & Clinical Practice

Esta obra está bajo una licencia internacional Creative Commons Atribución 4.0.


