Validation of the five facet mindfulness questionnaire among community-dwelling older adults.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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 FFMQ-SF has been validated in older adults.
“The FFMQ-SF has been validated in older adults (Brady et al., 2018).”
From Mindfulness-Based Intervention for People With Dementia and Their Partners: Results of a Mixed-Methods Study. (2019) · cites this paper as Brady et al., 2018
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 37 · Cited by 20
- Authors
- Brady, B., Kneebone, I. I., & Bailey, P. E.
- Affiliations
- Western Sydney University (AU)
- University of Technology Sydney (AU)
- Corresponding author
- Brady, Brooke
- Venue
- Mindfulness
- Published
- 2018-07-06
- Volume
- 10
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 529-536
- ISSN
- 1868-8527 (ISSN-L)
- 1868-8535
- OpenAlex
- W2861938649
- Cited by
- 20
- References
- 37
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 4 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 1
- FWCI
- 2.06
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Mindfulness (publishedVersion)
- UTS ePRESS (University of Technology Sydney) (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- Australian Research Council (DP130101420)
- 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 › Social Psychology › Psychological Well-being and Life Satisfaction
- Keywords
- Five Facet Mindfulness Questionnaire, trait mindfulness, community-dwelling older adults, psychometric validation, observation, description, acting with awareness, non-judgment, non-reactivity, negative affect, positive affect, cognitive reappraisal, expressive suppression, emotion regulation
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
