Cited by 104Mindfulness and Compassion InterventionsMusculoskeletal pain and rehabilitationAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes

Decentering, rumination, cognitive defusion, and psychological flexibility in people with chronic pain

McCracken, Lance M., Barker, Estelle, Chilcot, Joseph·2014·Journal of Behavioral Medicine

Abstract

The psychological flexibility model appears to be useful for organizing research into chronic pain. One component of the model is called "cognitive defusion." A process referred to as decentering, measured by the Experiences Questionnaire (EQ), appears similar to cognitive defusion. The purpose of this study is to extend previous investigations of the EQ, to evaluate its factor structure, and examine both indirect and direct roles for decentering in relation to key clinical outcomes. 352 people seeking pain treatment participated in this study. All completed the EQ and standard measures of daily functioning, including emotional functioning. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) and structural equation models (SEMs) were utilized to examine the factor structure of the EQ and evaluate the role of decentering in relation to outcomes. In CFA the overall fit of the EQ items to a two-factor model, specifying decentering and rumination factors, was poor. Separate models of decentering (a higher order model consisting of two sub-factors; cognitive defusion and self-a-context) and rumination, including reduced item sets, yielded good statistical fits. Analyses of these factors showed expected relations with emotional and social functioning but not with physical functioning. SEM revealed that both decentering and rumination have direct effects on functioning and indirect effects through measures of acceptance. A shortened 12-item measure of decentering warrants further study. Combined models of acceptance and the type of cognitive-defusion-related process reflected in decentering may improve our understanding social and emotional functioning in relation to chronic pain.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s10865-014-9570-9

Cites

48 of 48 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

3 of the 51 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
McCracken, L. M., Barker, E., & Chilcot, J.
Affiliations
  • St Thomas' Hospital (GB)
  • King's College London (GB)
Corresponding author
McCracken, Lance M.
Venue
Journal of Behavioral Medicine
Published
2014-05-17
Volume
37
Issue
6
Pages
1215-1225
ISSN
  • 0160-7715 (ISSN-L)
  • 1573-3521
OpenAlex
W2064165049
Cited by
103
References
51
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 13 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 13 · 2020: 12 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 9 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 12 · 2015: 6 · 2014: 1
FWCI
9.84
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Behavioral Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Research Portal (King's College London) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Mindfulness and Compassion Interventions
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pharmacology › Musculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
Keywords
chronic pain, decentering, rumination, cognitive defusion, psychological flexibility, acceptance, emotional functioning, social functioning, factor structure
MeSH terms
Adaptation, Psychological, Cognition, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Models, Psychological, Surveys and Questionnaires, Chronic Pain

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review