Cited by 75Mindfulness and Compassion InterventionsMind wandering and attentionCognitive Functions and Memory

Towards an objective measure of mindfulness: Replicating and extending the features of the breath-counting task

Open access
F. Wong, Kian, A. A. Massar, Stijn, Chee, Michael W. L., Lim, Julian·2018·Mindfulness

Abstract

Despite calls for objective measures of mindfulness to be adopted in the field, such practices have not yet become established. Recently, a breath-counting task (BCT) was proposed as a reliable and valid candidate for such an instrument. In this study, we show that the psychometric properties of the BCT are reproducible in a sample of 127 Asian undergraduates. Specifically, accuracy on the BCT was associated with everyday lapses and sustained attention, and weakly associated with subjectively measured mindfulness. BCT metrics also showed good test-retest reliability. Extending the use of the paradigm, we further found that two different types of task errors-miscounts and resets-were correlated with different aspects of cognition. Miscounts, or errors made without awareness, were associated with attentional lapses, whereas resets, or self-caught errors, were associated with mind-wandering. The BCT may be a suitable candidate for the standardized measurement of mindfulness that could be used in addition to mindfulness questionnaires.

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/s12671-017-0880-1

Cites

35 of 35 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?

  • Changes in internal reference standards and growing familiarity with the language of mindfulness may contribute to apparent improvements, even if underlying mindfulness skills have not shifted to the same extent.

    “In addi­ tion, changes in internal reference standards and growing familiarity with the language of mindfulness may contribute to apparent im­ provements (Sauer et al., 2013; Wong et al., 2018), even if underlying mindfulness skills have not shifted to the same extent.”

    From Measuring mindfulness: A systematic review and evaluation of self-report mindfulness scales (2026) · cites this paper as Wong et al., 2018

    The Discussion says familiarity with mindfulness concepts and language may lead people to report higher mindfulness, and that perceived gains can occur without objective evidence. It does not specifically identify changes in internal reference standards as a cause of apparent improvement. Page numbers are not available in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    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

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
F. Wong, K., A. A. Massar, S., Chee, M. W. L., & Lim, J.
Affiliations
National University of Singapore (SG)
Corresponding author
Lim, Julian
Venue
Mindfulness
Published
2018-01-22
Volume
9
Issue
5
Pages
1402-1410
ISSN
  • 1868-8527 (ISSN-L)
  • 1868-8535
OpenAlex
W2790063809
Cited by
74
References
35
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 10 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 14 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 11 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 3
FWCI
8.23
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Mindfulness (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • National University of Singapore (submittedVersion)
Funders
Far East Organization
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Mindfulness and Compassion Interventions
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Mind wandering and attention
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Cognitive Functions and Memory
Keywords
psychometric properties, test-retest reliability, attentional lapses, mind wandering, task errors, reset, sustained attention

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