Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Observed Mindfulness Measure (OMM)

  • Living reference work entry
  • First Online:
Handbook of Assessment in Mindfulness Research

Abstract

This chapter describes the rationale, development, and validation of the Observed Mindfulness Measure (OMM), a psychometrically valid research questionnaire for collecting second-person ratings of a known individual’s mindful behaviors. The nine-item OMM provides an overall score and separate scores for each of its three subscales (awareness, acceptance, and attentiveness). The OMM is intended to provide observer data with which to triangulate, and thereby augment findings in mindfulness research that are based on data from self-report questionnaires. The measure can also be used to advance the investigation of social and performance outcomes associated with trait mindfulness and mindfulness training. The chapter concludes with a discussion of planned refinements and potential future applications of the OMM.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Baer, R. A., Smith, G. T., Allen, K. B. (2004). Assessment of mindfulness by self-Report: The kentucky inventory of mindfulness skills. Assessment, 11(3), 191–206.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baer, R. A., Smith, G. T., Hopkins, J., Krietemeyer, J., & Toney, L. (2006). Using self-report assessment methods to explore facets of mindfulness. Assessment, 13(1), 27–45. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191105283504

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bartlett, L. (2020). Clarifying and advancing the evidence for workplace mindfulness training in relation to employee stress, mental health, wellbeing and performance [Ph.D., University of Tasmania]. https://doi.org/10.25959/100.00034785

  • Bartlett, L., Martin, A. J., Bruno, R., Kilpatrick, M., Sanderson, K., & Neil, A. L. (2021). Is mindfulness a noticeable quality? Development and validation of the observed mindfulness measure. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 44, 165–185. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10862-021-09936-6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bartlett, L., Martin, A. J., Kilpatrick, M., Otahal, P., Sanderson, K., & Neil, A. L. (2022). Effects of a mindfulness app on employee stress in an australian public sector workforce: Randomized controlled trial. JMIR mHealth and uHealth, 10(2), e30272. https://doi.org/10.2196/30272

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Baumeister, R. F., Vohs, K. D., & Funder, D. C. (2007). Psychology as the science of self-reports and finger movements: Whatever happened to actual behavior? Perspectives on Psychological Science, 2(4), 396–403. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6916.2007.00051.x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bergomi, C., Tschacher, W., Kupper, Z. (2013). The assessment of mindfulness with self-report measures: Existing scales and open issues. Mindfulness, 4(3), 191–202. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12671-012-0110-9

  • Bishop, S. R., Lau, M., Shapiro, S., Carlson, L. E., Anderson, N. D., Carmody, J., Segal, Z. V., Abbey, S., Speca, M., & Velting, D. (2004). Mindfulness: A proposed operational definition. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice, 11(3), 230–241. https://doi.org/10.1093/clipsy/bph077

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, K. W., & Ryan, R. M. (2003). The benefits of being present: Mindfulness and its role in psychological well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84(4), 822–848. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.84.4.822

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Cardaciotto, L., Herbert, J. D., Forman, E. M., Moitra, E., Farrow, V. (2008). The assessment of present-moment awareness and acceptance: The philadelphia mindfulness scale. Assessment, 15(2), 204–23. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191107311467

  • Creswell, J. D., & Lindsay, E. K. (2014). How does mindfulness training affect health? A mindfulness stress buffering account. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 23(6), 401–407. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721414547415

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davis, M. H. (1983). Measuring individual differences in empathy: Evidence for a multidimensional approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44(1), 113.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deegan, O., Fullen, B. M., Casey, M. B., Segurado, R., Hearty, C., & Doody, C. M. (2022). Combined online interactive mindfulness and exercise programme (MOVE-online) compared with a self-management guide for adults with chronic pain: Protocol for a randomised controlled feasibility trial. BMJ Open, 12(2), e058265. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2021-058265

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Dekeyser, M., Raes, F., Leijssen, M., Leysen, S., & Dewulf, D. (2008). Mindfulness skills and interpersonal behaviour. Personality and Individual Differences, 44(5), 1235–1245. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2007.11.018

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Donald, J. N., Sahdra, B. K., Van Zanden, B., Johannes Duineveld, J., Atkins, P. W. B., Marshall, S., & Ciarrochi, J. (2019). Does your mindfulness benefit others? A systematic review and meta-analysis of the link between mindfulness and prosocial behavior. British Journal of Psychology, 110(1), 101–125. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjop.12338

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Donald, J. N., Bradshaw, E. L., Ryan, R. M., Basarkod, G., Ciarrochi, J., Duineveld, J. J., Guo, J., & Sahdra, B. K. (2020). Mindfulness and its association with varied types of motivation: A systematic review and meta-analysis using self-determination theory. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 46(7), 1121–1138. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167219896136

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Duncan, L. G. (2007). Assessment of mindful parenting Among parents of early adolescents: Development and validation of the interpersonal mindfulness in parenting scale [Ph.D., Pennsylvania State University].

    Google Scholar 

  • Dunning, D. (2011). The Dunning-Kruger effect: On being ignorant of one’s own ignorance. In J. M. Olson & M. P. Zanna (Eds.), Advances in experimental social psychology (pp. 247–296). Academic.

    Google Scholar 

  • Feldman, G., Hayes, A., Kumar, S., Greeson, J., & Laurenceau, J.-P. (2007). Mindfulness and emotion regulation: The development and initial validation of the cognitive and affective mindfulness scale-revised (CAMS-R). Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 29(3), 177–190.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fitness, J., & Curtis, M. (2005). Emotional intelligence and the trait meta-mood scale: Relationships with empathy, attributional complexity, self-control, and responses to interpersonal conflict. E-Journal of Applied Psychology: Social Section, 1(1), 50–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Floyd, R. G. (2005). Measurement properties of indirect assessment methods for functional behavioral assessment: A review of research. School Psychology Review, 34(1), 58–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Galante, J., Friedrich, C., Dawson, A. F., Modrego-Alarcon, M., Gebbing, P., Delgado-Suarez, I., Gupta, R., Dean, L., Dalgleish, T., White, I. R., & Jones, P. B. (2021). Mindfulness-based programmes for mental health promotion in adults in nonclinical settings: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. PLoS Medicine, 18(1), e1003481. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1003481

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Garland, E. L., Hanley, A. W., Baker, A. K., & Howard, M. O. (2017a). Biobehavioral mechanisms of mindfulness as a treatment for chronic stress: An RDoC perspective. Chronic Stress, 1, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1177/2470547017711912

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garland, E. L., Hanley, A. W., Goldin, P. R., & Gross, J. J. (2017b). Testing the mindfulness-to-meaning theory: Evidence for mindful positive emotion regulation from a ranalysis of longitudinal data. PLoS One, 12(12), e0187727. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0187727

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Goldberg, S. B., Tucker, R. P., Greene, P. A., Simpson, T. L., Kearney, D. J., & Davidson, R. J. (2017). Is mindfulness research methodology improving over time? A systematic review. PLoS One, 12(10). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0187298

  • Hayes, S. C. (2016). Acceptance and commitment therapy, relational frame theory, and the third wave of behavioral and cognitive therapies – Republished article. Behavior Therapy, 47(6), 869–885. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.beth.2016.11.006

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hayes, S. C., Luoma, J. B., Bond, F. W., Masuda, A., & Lillis, J. (2006). Acceptance and commitment therapy: Model, processes and outcomes. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 44(1), 1–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Khoury, B., Vergara, R. C., & Spinelli, C. (2022). Interpersonal mindfulness questionnaire: Scale development and validation. Mindfulness (NY), 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12671-022-01855-1

  • Koo, T. K., Li, M. Y. (2016). A guideline of selecting and reporting intraclass correlation coefficients for reliability research. Journal of Chiropractic Medicine, 15(2), 155–63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcm.2016.02.012

  • Lietz, P. (2010). Research into questionnaire design: A summary of the literature. International Journal of Market Research, 52(2), 249–272. https://doi.org/10.2501/S147078530920120X

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lo, H. H. M., Yeung, J. W. K., Duncan, L. G., Ma, Y., Siu, A. F. Y., Chan, S. K. C., Choi, C. W., Szeto, M. P., Chow, K. K. W., & Ng, S. M. (2018). Validating of the interpersonal mindfulness in parenting scale in Hong Kong Chinese. Mindfulness, 9, 1390–1401. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12671-017-0879-7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Malinowski, P. (2017). Mindfulness. In The Blackwell companion to consciousness (pp. 203–216). Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119132363.ch14

  • Manesi, Z., van Doesum, N. J., & van Lange, P. A. M. (2017). Prosocial behavior. In Encyclopedia of personality and individual differences (pp. 1–4). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-28099-8_1894-1

  • McDonald, R. P. (1999). Test theory: A unified treatment. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miao, C., Humphrey, R. H., & Qian, S. (2018). The relationship between emotional intelligence and trait mindfulness: A meta-analytic review. Personality and Individual Differences, 135, 101–107. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2018.06.051

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Olino, T. M., & Klein, D. N. (2015). Psychometric comparison of self- and informant-reports of personality. Assessment, 22(6), 655–664. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191114567942

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Pirson, M., Langer, E., & Zilcha, S. (2018). Enabling a socio-cognitive perspective of mindfulness: The development and validation of the Langer Mindfulness Scale. Journal of Adult Development, 25, 168–185. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10804-018-9282-4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pratscher, S. D., Rose, A. J., Markovitz, L., & Bettencourt, A. (2018a). Interpersonal mindfulness: Investigating mindfulness in interpersonal interactions, co-rumination, and friendship quality. Mindfulness, 9, 1206–1215. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12671-017-0859-y

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pratscher, S. D., Wood, P. K., King, L. A., & Bettencourt, B. A. (2018b). Interpersonal mindfulness: Scale development and initial construct validation. Mindfulness, 10, 1044–1061. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12671-018-1057-2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Qu, Y., Dasborough, M. T., Todorova, G. (2015). Which mindfulness measures to choose to use? Industrial and organizational psychology, 8(04), 710–23. https://doi.org/10.1017/iop.2015.105

  • Roszkowski, M. J., & Soven, M. (2010). Shifting gears: Consequences of including two negatively worded items in the middle of a positively worded questionnaire. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 35(1), 113–130. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602930802618344

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Salovey, P., Mayer, J. D., Goldman, S. L., Turvey, C., & Palfai, T. P. (1995). Emotional attention, clarity, and repair: Exploring emotional intelligence using the trait meta-mood scale. In J. W. Pennebaker (Ed.), Emotion, disclosure, and health (pp. 125–154). American Psychological Association.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Sandelowski, M., Docherty, S., Emden, C. (1997). Qualitative metasynthesis: Issues and techniques. Research in Nursing & Health, 20(4), 365–71.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thera, S. (1998). The way of mindfulness: The Satipatthana Sutta and its commentary. Access to insight. Retrieved January, 30, 2019 from https://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/soma/wayof.html

  • Van Dam, N. T., van Vugt, M. K., Vago, D. R., Schmalzl, L., Saron, C. D., Olendzki, A., Meissner, T., Lazar, S. W., Kerr, C. E., Gorchov, J., Fox, K. C. R., Field, B. A., Britton, W. B., Brefczynski-Lewis, J. A., & Meyer, D. E. (2017). Mind the hype: A critical evaluation and prescriptive agenda for research on mindfulness and meditation. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 13(1), 36–61. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691617709589

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Van Doesum, N. J., van Lange, D. A. W., & Van Lange, P. A. M. (2013). Social mindfulness: Skill and will to navigate the social world. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 105(1), 86–103. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0032540

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Van Doesum, N. J., Karremans, J. C., Fikke, R. C., de Lange, M. A., & van Lange, P. A. M. (2018). Social mindfulness in the real world: The physical presence of others induces other-regarding motivation. Social Influence, 13(4), 209–222. https://doi.org/10.1080/15534510.2018.1544589

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Varela, F. J., & Shear, J. (1999). First-person methodologies: What, why, how? Journal of Consciousness Studies, 6(2–3), 1–14.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walach, H., Buchheld, N., Buttenmüller, V., Kleinknecht, N., & Schmidt, S. (2006). Measuring mindfulness–the Freiburg mindfulness inventory (FMI). Personality and Individual Differences, 40(8), 1543–1555. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2005.11.025

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Tasmania, Hobart, TAS, Australia

    Larissa Bartlett, Angela Martin & Amanda Neil

  2. University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK

    Kristy Sanderson

Authors
  1. Larissa Bartlett
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Angela Martin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Kristy Sanderson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Amanda Neil
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Larissa Bartlett .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. School of Psychology, University of Waikato, Hamilton, New Zealand

    Oleg N. Medvedev

  2. North Shore Campus, Auckland Univ of Technology, Auckland, New Zealand

    Christian U. Krägeloh

  3. Dept of Psychology and Neuroscience, Auckland University of Technology, Auckland, New Zealand

    Richard J. Siegert

  4. Augusta University, Raleigh, NC, USA

    Nirbhay N. Singh

Appendix

Appendix

The Observed Mindfulness Measure

Administration and Scoring Guide

Please tell us how frequently each of the following statements would be true about (enter observed person’s name), where 1 = Not at all, 2 = Occasionally, 3 = About half the time, 4 = Frequently, and 5 = All the time.

  1. 1.

    The person seems able to focus on what is happening to/around them.

  2. 2.

    The person seems aware of how emotions affect their thoughts and behavior.

  3. 3.

    The person seems to recover well from unpleasant or stressful experiences.

  4. 4.

    The person seems to pay attention to what they are doing.

  5. 5.

    When asked how they are feeling, the person can identify their emotions easily.

  6. 6.

    The person can pause before reacting to difficult situations.

  7. 7.

    The person seems to be conscious of their circumstances and surroundings.

  8. 8.

    The person seems aware of their own emotions when interacting with others.

  9. 9.

    The person remains calm, even when things get hectic and stressful.

OMM Scoring Guide

Total OMM score is the sum of scores from all nine items.

Subscale scores:

  • Awareness: sum of scores from items 2, 5, and 8.

  • *Attentiveness: sum of scores from items 1, 4, and 7.

  • Acceptance: sum of scores from items 3, 6, and 9.

*The original attentiveness items used in the Bartlett et al. (2021) validation paper have been reworded for positive orientation and gendered phrasing removed. Please contact the authors prior to using the OMM to ensure you have the most up to date materials. (Corresponding author: Larissa.Bartlett@utas.edu.au).

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2022 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this entry

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this entry

Bartlett, L., Martin, A., Sanderson, K., Neil, A. (2022). Observed Mindfulness Measure (OMM). In: Medvedev, O.N., Krägeloh, C.U., Siegert, R.J., Singh, N.N. (eds) Handbook of Assessment in Mindfulness Research. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-77644-2_89-1

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-77644-2_89-1

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-77644-2

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-77644-2

  • eBook Packages: Springer Reference Behavioral Science and PsychologyReference Module Humanities and Social SciencesReference Module Business, Economics and Social Sciences

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation