Out of the armchair and into the streets: Measuring mindfulness advances knowledge and improves interventions: Reply to Grossman (2011).
Kirk Warren Brown, Richard M. Ryan, Tamara M. Loverich, Gina M. Biegel, Angela Marie West
Psychological Assessment November 28, 2011 DOI: 10.1037/a0025781 (opens in new tab) via OpenAlex
Summary
AI-generated from the abstractSelf-report measures of mindfulness, specifically the Mindful Attention Awareness Scale (MAAS) and its adolescent version, are valid tools for assessing mindfulness as an inherent human capacity that varies naturally, not only among trained meditators. The authors argue that attention and meta-awareness are core to mindfulness, and that scores on these scales relate to outcomes similar to those from mindfulness training. Extensive evidence supports the validity of the MAAS and MAAS–A, countering critiques that such measures cannot capture mindfulness or that mindfulness only applies to trained individuals. Construct measurement, though imperfect, is essential for building knowledge and refining interventions.
Study at a glance
| Characteristics | Theoretical or philosophical paper Peer reviewed |
|---|---|
| Topics | Meditation |
| Keywords | Grossman Psychological intervention Clinical psychology Psychotherapist |
| Citations | 108 |
| Key finding | Argues that the MAAS and MAAS–A are valid measures of mindfulness as an inherent attentional capacity, countering claims that self-report cannot assess mindfulness. |
Abstract
We address 3 critiques raised by Grossman (2011) of self-report measures of mindfulness and the Mindful Attention Awareness Scale (MAAS) and Mindful Attention Awareness Scale—Adolescent (MAAS–A) in particular. Grossman questioned whether self-report measures actually assess mindfulness, whether the construct of mindfulness can be understood apart from mindfulness training, and whether there is empirical evidence to support the validity of mindfulness measures. In response we discuss established theory that attention (and secondarily meta-awareness) is core to the meaning of mindfulness and is the central feature of the MAAS and MAAS–A. We then argue that mindfulness is an inherent capacity that varies between and within persons and is not, as Grossman claimed, a concept applicable to only a trained few. Further, as assessed by the MAAS and MAAS–A, mindfulness is associated with the same variety of outcomes as mindfulness training is theorized to yield. Finally, we provide considerable evidence that the MAAS and MAAS–A are valid instruments. We conclude that although construct measurement is inevitably imperfect, such efforts are critical to building basic knowledge and refining effective interventions.