Construct Overlap Between Two Widely Used Self-Report Measures of Dispositional Mindfulness: Evidence from Stress and Anxiety Control Outcomes

Researchers commonly conceptualise dispositional mindfulness as a multidimensional construct comprising attentional awareness, present-moment focus, and acceptance. However, widely used measures differ considerably in the dimensions they assess, raising questions regarding the extent to which they demonstrate construct overlap and can be considered interchangeable. The present study evaluated the psychometric functioning, construct overlap, and associations of the Mindful Attention Awareness Scale (MAAS) and the Freiburg Mindfulness Inventory (FMI) with stress and anxiety control outcomes. A community sample of 1,498 UK adults completed the MAAS, FMI, Perceived Stress Scale, and Anxiety Control Questionnaire. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), exploratory structural equation modelling (ESEM), Rasch analysis, and structural equation modelling (SEM) evaluated measurement properties and examined associations with stress and anxiety control outcomes. ESEM provided superior fit relative to CFA for multidimensional measures, while Rasch analyses indicated satisfactory measurement functioning across mindfulness measures. Contrary to expectations, despite satisfactory psychometric performance, the MAAS demonstrated near-zero correlations with the FMI total score and its Presence and Acceptance facets, indicating that these measures were essentially independent in this sample rather than showing substantial dimensional overlap. Structural models further revealed distinct patterns of association, with acceptance showing the strongest relationships with coping and emotion control, whereas mindfulness awareness displayed the strongest associations with threat control and stress control. Findings are consistent with multidimensional conceptualisations of mindfulness and demonstrate negligible convergence between the MAAS and FMI, indicating that researchers should not assume that these instruments are interchangeable. More broadly, the findings highlight the importance of empirically evaluating construct overlap when selecting scales intended to assess the same psychological construct.