Cited by 254Mindfulness and Compassion InterventionsPsychological Well-being and Life SatisfactionStudent Stress and Coping

Making friends with yourself: a mixed methods pilot study of a mindful self-compassion program for adolescents

Open access
Bluth, Karen, Gaylord, Susan A., Campo, Rebecca A., Mullarkey, Michael C., Hobbs, Lorraine·2016·Mindfulness

Abstract

The aims of this mixed-method pilot study were to determine the feasibility, acceptability, and preliminary psychosocial outcomes of "Making Friends with Yourself: A Mindful Self-Compassion Program for Teens" (MFY), an adaptation of the adult Mindful Self-Compassion program. Thirty-four students age 14-17 enrolled in this waitlist controlled crossover study. Participants were randomized to either the waitlist or intervention group and administered online surveys at baseline, after the first cohort participated in the intervention, and after the waitlist crossovers participated in the intervention. Attendance and retention data were collected to determine feasibility, and audiorecordings of the 6-week class were analyzed to determine acceptability of the program. Findings indicated that MFY is a feasible and acceptable program for adolescents. Compared to the waitlist control, the intervention group had significantly greater self-compassion and life satisfaction and significantly lower depression than the waitlist control, with trends for greater mindfulness, greater social connectedness and lower anxiety. When waitlist crossovers results were combined with that of the first intervention group, findings indicated significantly greater mindfulness and self-compassion, and significantly less anxiety, depression, perceived stress and negative affect post-intervention. Additionally, regression results demonstrated that self-compassion and mindfulness predicted decreases in anxiety, depression, perceived stress, and increases in life satisfaction post-intervention. MFY shows promise as a program to increase psychosocial wellbeing in adolescents through increasing mindfulness and self-compassion. Further testing is needed to substantiate the findings.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s12671-015-0476-6

Cites

58 of 58 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • The SCS-SF has demonstrated good reliability (α >0.86) in an adolescent sample.

    “The scale has demonstrated good reliability (α >0.86) in an adolescent sample (Bluth et al., 2016).”

    From Pilot study of a well-being app to support New Zealand young people during the COVID-19 pandemic (2021) · cites this paper as Bluth et al., 2016

    The Method > Measures > Self-Compassion passage describes the SCS-SF's reliability as good, but reports α = .79 for this study's adolescent sample—not α > .86. Its cited reliability values from other studies are ≥ .75 and do not establish the claimed value for this sample. (LLM, conf=0.91)

    Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

4 of the 62 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Bluth, K., Gaylord, S. A., Campo, R. A., Mullarkey, M. C., & Hobbs, L.
Affiliations
  • University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (US)
  • The University of Texas at Austin (US)
  • University of California San Diego (US)
Corresponding author
Bluth, Karen
Venue
Mindfulness
Published
2015-12-19
Volume
7
Issue
2
Pages
479-492
ISSN
  • 1868-8527 (ISSN-L)
  • 1868-8535
OpenAlex
W2213554443
Cited by
253
References
62
Citations by year
2026: 14 · 2025: 27 · 2024: 26 · 2023: 36 · 2022: 33 · 2021: 22 · 2020: 29 · 2019: 23 · 2018: 19 · 2017: 17 · 2016: 7
FWCI
17.66
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Mindfulness (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • Carolina Digital Repository (University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill) (submittedVersion)
  • UNC Libraries
Funders
University of North Carolina
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Mindfulness and Compassion Interventions
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Psychological Well-being and Life Satisfaction
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Student Stress and Coping
Keywords
mindful self-compassion, adolescents, self-compassion, depression, anxiety, perceived stress, life satisfaction, social connectedness, psychosocial well-being, program feasibility, program acceptability, intervention adaptation

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