Psychometric Properties of the Persian Version of the Multidimensional Assessment of Interoceptive Awareness, Version 2 (MAIA-2

Document Type : Original Article


1 Department of Psychology, Faculty of Psychology, Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran, Iran

2 Clinical and Health Psychology Department, Faculty of Psychology and Educational Sciences, Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran, Iran

3 Department of Family Health, Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran, Iran

4 Department of Neurology, Iranian Centre of Neurological Research, Neuroscience Institute, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran



Introduction: Interoceptive awareness is a multidimensional concept encompassing appraisals, beliefs, attention, and behavioral responses, playing a vital role in emotional regulation, decision-making, and self-awareness. As abnormal self-reported interoception is associated with mental health problems, the 37-item Multidimensional Assessment of Interoceptive Awareness version 2 (MAIA-2) is widely used in clinical and non-clinical settings. However, its psychometric properties in different linguistic and cultural contexts need to be examined to ensure its validity and reliability. This study aimed to explore the psychometric properties of a Persian translation of the MAIA-2.
Method: A cross-sectional study was conducted with 475 residents in Tehran (409 women and 66 men) who completed the translated MAIA-2 in 2021. Psychometric properties were assessed using the Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA). Additionally, validated measures of Emotion Regulation and Mindful Attention Awareness were used to evaluate divergent and convergent validity.
Results: The eight-factor model of MAIA-2 has been confirmed with appropriate fit indices (RMSEA = 0.055 [95% CI 0.052–0.058]; SRMR = 0.064), and demonstrated improved internal consistency reliability. The MAIA-2 also exhibited significant divergent validity (-0.20 to -0.59) with the Difficulties in Emotion Regulation Scale and significant convergent validity (0.18 to 0.38) with the Mindful Attention Awareness Scale, both at the 0.01 significance level. Additionally, the Cronbach's alpha coefficients for the factors were within the satisfactory range, ranging from 0.58 to 0.95.
Conclusion: The findings concluded that the Persian version of MAIA-2 is a valuable tool for assessing interoceptive awareness in Persian-speaking populations.


  1. Pollatos O, Herbert BM. Interoception: Definitions, dimensions, neural substrates. Embodiment in psychotherapy: Springer; 2018. p. 15-27.
  2. Zamariola G, Frost N, Van Oost A, Corneille O, Luminet O. Relationship between interoception and emotion regulation: new evidence from mixed methods. Journal of Affective Disorders. 2019;246:480-5.
  3. Craig AD. How do you feel? Interoception: the sense of the physiological condition of the body. Nature reviews neuroscience. 2002;3(8):655-66.
  4. Khalsa SS, Adolphs R, Cameron OG, Critchley HD, Davenport PW, Feinstein JS, et al. Interoception and mental health: a roadmap. Biological psychiatry: cognitive neuroscience and neuroimaging. 2018;3(6):501-13.
  5. Paulus MP, Feinstein JS, Khalsa SS. An active inference approach to interoceptive psychopathology. Annual review of clinical psychology. 2019;15:97-122.
  6. Kiken LG, Shook NJ, Robins JL, Clore JN. Association between mindfulness and interoceptive accuracy in patients with diabetes: Preliminary evidence from blood glucose estimates. Complementary therapies in medicine. 2018;36:90-2.
  7. Lackner RJ, Fresco DM. Interaction effect of brooding rumination and interoceptive awareness on depression and anxiety symptoms. Behaviour research and therapy. 2016;85:43-52.
  8. Smith A, Forrest L, Velkoff E. Out of touch: Interoceptive deficits are elevated in suicide attempters with eating disorders. Eating disorders. 2018;26(1):52-65.
  9. Mul C-l, Stagg SD, Herbelin B, Aspell JE. The feeling of me feeling for you: Interoception, alexithymia and empathy in autism. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders. 2018;48:2953-67.
  10. Yoris A, García AM, Traiber L, Santamaría-García H, Martorell M, Alifano F, et al. The inner world of overactive monitoring: neural markers of interoception in obsessive–compulsive disorder. Psychological medicine. 2017;47(11):1957-70.
  11. Löffler A, Foell J, Bekrater-Bodmann R. Interoception and its interaction with self, other, and emotion processing: implications for the understanding of psychosocial deficits in borderline personality disorder. Current Psychiatry Reports. 2018;20:1-9.
  12. Handy AB, Meston CM. Interoception and awareness of physiological sexual arousal in women with sexual arousal concerns. Journal of sex & marital therapy. 2018;44(4):398-409.
  13. Santangelo G, Vitale C, Baiano C, D'Iorio A, Longo K, Barone P, et al. Interoceptive processing deficit: A behavioral marker for subtyping Parkinson’s disease. Parkinsonism & related disorders. 2018;53:64-9. 10.1016/j.parkreldis.2018.05.001
  14. Garfinkel S, Critchley H, Pollatos O. The interoceptive system: implications for cognition, emotion, and health. Handbook of psychophysiology: Cambridge University Press; 2015. p. 427-43.
  15. Garfinkel SN, Seth AK, Barrett AB, Suzuki K, Critchley HD. Knowing your own heart: distinguishing interoceptive accuracy from interoceptive awareness. Biological psychology. 2015;104:65-74.
  16. Mehling WE, Price C, Daubenmier JJ, Acree M, Bartmess E, Stewart A. The multidimensional assessment of interoceptive awareness (MAIA). PloS one. 2012;7(11):e48230.
  17. Abbasi M, Ghorbani N, Hatami J, Gholamali Lavasani M. Validity and reliability of multidimensional assessment of interoceptive awareness (MAIA) in Iranian students. Journal of Sabzevar University of Medical Sciences. 2018;25(1):47-59.
  18. Reis D. Further insights into the German version of the multidimensional assessment of interoceptive awareness (MAIA). European Journal of Psychological Assessment. 2017.
  19. Calì G, Ambrosini E, Picconi L, Mehling W, Committeri G. Investigating the relationship between interoceptive accuracy, interoceptive awareness, and emotional susceptibility. Frontiers in psychology. 2015;6:1202.
  20. Valenzuela-Moguillansky C, Reyes-Reyes A. Psychometric properties of the multidimensional assessment of interoceptive awareness (MAIA) in a Chilean population. Frontiers in Psychology. 2015;6:120.
  21. Brown TA, Berner LA, Jones MD, Reilly EE, Cusack A, Anderson LK, et al. Psychometric evaluation and norms for the Multidimensional Assessment of Interoceptive Awareness (MAIA) in a clinical eating disorders sample. European Eating Disorders Review. 2017;25(5):411-6. DOI: 10.1002/erv.2532
  22. Lin F-L, Hsu C-C, Mehling W, Yeh M-L. Translation and psychometric testing of the Chinese version of the multidimensional assessment of interoceptive awareness. Journal of Nursing Research. 2017;25(1):76-84. DOI: 10.1097/jnr.0000000000000182
  23. Willem C, Gandolphe M-C, Nandrino J-L, Grynberg D. French translation and validation of the Multidimensional Assessment of Interoceptive Awareness (MAIA-FR). Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science/Revue canadienne des sciences du comportement. 2021.
  24. Baranauskas M, Grabauskaitė A, Griskova-Bulanova I. Psychometric Characteristics of Lithuanian Version of Multidimensional Assessment of Interoceptive Awareness (MAIA LT). Neurologijos seminarai. 2016;20(4).
  25. Fujino H. Further validation of the Japanese version of the Multidimensional Assessment of Interoceptive Awareness. BMC research notes. 2019;12(1):1-6. DOI: 10.1186/s13104-019-4556-x
  26. Tsakiris M, Critchley H. Interoception beyond homeostasis: affect, cognition and mental health. The Royal Society; 2016.
  27. Mehling WE, Acree M, Stewart A, Silas J, Jones A. The multidimensional assessment of interoceptive awareness, version 2 (MAIA-2). PloS one. 2018;13(12):e0208034.
  28. ÖZPINAR S, DUNDER E, Demir Y, AKYOL M. Multidimensional assessment of ınteroceptive awareness (MAIA 2): psychometric properties of the Turkish version. Journal of Health Sciences and Medicine. 2021;4(2):132-6.
  29. Fiskum C, Eik-Nes TT, Abdollahpour Ranjbar H, Andersen J, Habibi Asgarabad M. Interoceptive awareness in a Norwegian population: psychometric properties of the Multidimensional Assessment of Interoceptive Awareness (MAIA) 2. BMC psychiatry. 2023;23(1):489.
  30. Teng B, Wang D, Su C, Zhou H, Wang T, Mehling WE, et al. The multidimensional assessment of interoceptive awareness, version 2: Translation and psychometric properties of the Chinese version. Frontiers in Psychiatry. 2022;13.
  31. Da Costa Silva L, Belrose C, Trousselard M, Rea B, Seery E, Verdonk C, et al. Self-reported body awareness: validation of the Postural Awareness Scale and the Multidimensional Assessment of Interoceptive Awareness (version 2) in a non-clinical adult French-speaking sample. Frontiers in Psychology. 2022;13:946271.
  32. Волощенко ЮМ. Interoceptive awareness. verification of the adaptation of the Ukrainian version of the multidimensional assessment of interoceptive awareness (version 2) questionnaire among first-year students of Borys Grinchenko Kyiv university. Спортивна наука та здоров'я людини. 2023(1 (9)):68-90.
  33. Tabachnick BG, Fidell LS, Ullman JB. Using multivariate statistics (Vol. 5): pearson Boston. MA; 2007.
  34. Lawshe CH. A quantitative approach to content validity. Personnel psychology. 1975;28(4):563-75.
  35. Gratz KL, Roemer L. Multidimensional assessment of emotion regulation and dysregulation: Development, factor structure, and initial validation of the difficulties in emotion regulation scale. Journal of psychopathology and behavioral assessment. 2004;26(1):41-54.
  36. Besharat M. Difficulties in Emotion Regulation Scale. Thought & Behavior in Clinical Psychology. 2018;12(47):89-92.
  37. Veneziani CA, Voci A. The Italian adaptation of the Mindful Awareness Attention Scale and its relation with individual differences and quality of life indexes. Mindfulness. 2015;6(2):373-81.
  38. Ghorbani N, Watson P, Hargis MB. Integrative Self-Knowledge Scale: Correlations and incremental validity of a cross-cultural measure developed in Iran and the United States. The Journal of Psychology. 2008;142(4):395-412.
  39. Kline RB. Principles and practice of structural equation modeling [Internet]. New York: Guilford publications. 2015.
  40. Eggart M, Todd J, Valdés-Stauber J. Validation of the Multidimensional Assessment of Interoceptive Awareness (MAIA-2) questionnaire in hospitalized patients with major depressive disorder. Plos one. 2021;16(6):e0253913.
  41. Shoji M, Mehling WE, Hautzinger M, Herbert BM. Investigating multidimensional interoceptive awareness in a Japanese population: validation of the Japanese MAIA-J. Frontiers in psychology. 2018:1855.
  42. Todd J, Barron D, Aspell JE, Toh EKL, Zahari HS, Khatib NAM, et al. Translation and validation of a Bahasa Malaysia (Malay) version of the Multidimensional Assessment of Interoceptive Awareness (MAIA). Plos one. 2020;15(4):e0231048.
  43. Dunn TJ, Baguley T, Brunsden V. From alpha to omega: A practical solution to the pervasive problem of internal consistency estimation. British journal of psychology. 2014;105(3):399-412. DOI: 10.1111/bjop.12046