Instruments Used

Two validated, peer-reviewed self-report instruments are scored server-side using established algorithms:

• FFMQ-SF (Five Facet Mindfulness Questionnaire — Short Form), 24 items, 1–5 Likert scale (Bohlmeijer et al., 2011). Five facets: Observing, Describing, Non-Reactivity, Acting with Awareness, Non-Judging. Twelve items are reverse-scored before summing.
• PSS-10 (Perceived Stress Scale, 10-item version), 0–4 Likert scale (Cohen & Williamson, 1988). Items 4, 5, 7, and 8 are reverse-scored. Two subscales: Helplessness and Self-Efficacy.

Composite Scoring

For users who report current mindfulness practice, the composite uses all five facets (range 24–120). For users who report no current practice, the composite uses four facets — Observe is excluded — because of differential item functioning (see below).

Tier Cutoffs

Facet tier labels (Needs Development / Emerging / Developing / Proficient / Advanced) reflect approximate quintile cutoffs from large normative samples (Baer et al., 2006; Bohlmeijer et al., 2011; Kim et al., 2021). PSS-10 cutoffs follow Cohen & Williamson (1988): 0–13 Low, 14–26 Moderate, 27–40 High.

The Observing facet of the FFMQ-SF shows well-documented differential item functioning between meditators and non-meditators. In meditators, high Observing reflects mindful awareness of sensations and thoughts. In non-meditators, high Observing scores can reflect anxiety-driven hypervigilance, rumination, or self-monitoring — not mindful awareness.

References:

• Van Dam et al. (2009). Differential item functioning across meditators and non-meditators on the FFMQ. Personality and Individual Differences, 47(5), 516–521.
• de Bruin et al. (2012). The Five Facets of Mindfulness Questionnaire (FFMQ): item analysis using IRT. Mindfulness, 3(2), 105–115.
• Aguado et al. (2015). Examining the factor structure and discriminant validity of the FFMQ-SF in a Spanish sample. Psychological Assessment, 27(3), 1052–1065.

How we handle it: If you reported no current mindfulness practice, your Observing score is shown for transparency but is excluded from your overall composite. You'll also see an amber caveat note on your Observing facet card.

Self-Report Limits

The FFMQ-SF and PSS-10 are self-report instruments. They reflect your perception of your own mindfulness and stress, which can differ from observable behavior or physiological markers. Mood at the time of completion can shift scores by several points.

HRV Claims Are Hedged

You may have read that mindfulness improves heart rate variability (HRV). The largest meta-analysis to date (Rådmark et al., 2019, 19 RCTs) found a positive effect (Hedges g = 0.38), but the 95% confidence interval crossed zero (-0.014 to 0.77). We use hedged language ("emerging evidence suggests") for HRV claims throughout this report.

AI Interpretation Limits

The tailored analysis is generated by a large language model (Anthropic Claude) given your scores and context. AI is not a substitute for clinical judgment, doesn't know your full medical history, and can occasionally produce errors. Treat the AI section as educational input to a conversation with a qualified clinician — not as medical advice.

Not a Diagnostic Tool

This tool does not diagnose anxiety, depression, PTSD, or any clinical condition. If you're experiencing severe symptoms, suicidal thoughts, or a mental health crisis, please contact a qualified mental health professional or call 988 (Suicide & Crisis Lifeline) immediately.