Cited by 37Mindfulness and Compassion InterventionsPsychometric Methodologies and TestingAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes

Psychometric Evaluation of the Five Facet Mindfulness Questionnaire in a Clinical Sample of African Americans

Watson-Singleton, Natalie N., Walker, James H., LoParo, Devon, Mack, Sallie A., Kaslow, Nadine J.·2018·Mindfulness

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s12671-017-0776-0

Cites

74 of 74 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, 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?

  • FFMQ non-judging was negatively correlated with self-judgement (r=-.56).

    “and self-judgement ( r= -.56; Watson–Singleton et al., 2018).”

    From Psychometric properties of acceptance measures: A systematic review (2019) · cites this paper as Watson–Singleton et al., 2018

  • FFMQ non-judging was positively associated with a self-compassion measure (r=.31).

    “Non-judging was positively associated with a self-compassion measure ( r= .31)”

    From Psychometric properties of acceptance measures: A systematic review (2019) · cites this paper as Watson–Singleton et al., 2018

  • In Watson-Singleton et al. (2018), the African-American suicide survivor sample had FFMQ non-judging internal consistency α=.69, below the recommended range.

    “The exceptions to this were the African-American suicide survivor sample in Watson-Singleton, Walker, LoParo, Mack, and Kaslow (2018; α=.69)”

    From Psychometric properties of acceptance measures: A systematic review (2019) · cites this paper as Watson-Singleton, Walker, LoParo, Mack, and Kaslow (2018)

  • FFMQ non-judging was negatively correlated with self-criticism (r=-.42).

    “and negatively correlated with self-criticism ( r= -.42)”

    From Psychometric properties of acceptance measures: A systematic review (2019) · cites this paper as Watson–Singleton et al., 2018

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 75 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Watson-Singleton, N. N., Walker, J. H., LoParo, D., Mack, S. A., & Kaslow, N. J.
Affiliations
Grady Memorial Hospital (US)
Corresponding author
Kaslow, Nadine J.
Venue
Mindfulness
Published
2017-07-29
Volume
9
Issue
1
Pages
312-324
ISSN
  • 1868-8527 (ISSN-L)
  • 1868-8535
OpenAlex
W2740249147
Cited by
37
References
75
Citations by year
2025: 5 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 5
FWCI
5.09
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Mindfulness (publishedVersion)
Funders
Emory University Research Council
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Mindfulness and Compassion Interventions
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Psychometric Methodologies and Testing
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
Keywords
Five Facet Mindfulness Questionnaire, mindfulness assessment, African Americans, suicide attempts, factor structure, test-retest reliability, construct validity, depressive symptoms, suicidal ideation, self-compassion, self-criticism, cultural relevance, underrepresented minorities, low-income adults

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