Cited by 23Mindfulness and Compassion InterventionsSubstance Abuse Treatment and OutcomesOpioid Use Disorder Treatment

The (Lack of) Replication of Self-Reported Mindfulness as a Mechanism of Change in Mindfulness-Based Relapse Prevention for Substance Use Disorders

Open access
Hsiao, Yu-Yu, Tofighi, Davood, Kruger, Eric S., Lee Van Horn, M., MacKinnon, David P., Witkiewitz, Katie·2019·Mindfulness

Abstract

The development and evaluation of mindfulness-based interventions for a variety of psychological and medical disorders has grown exponentially over the past 20 years. Yet, calls for increasing the rigor of mindfulness research and recognition of the difficulties of conducting research on the topic of mindfulness have also increased. One of the major difficulties is the measurement of mindfulness, with varying definitions across studies and ambiguity with respect to the meaning of mindfulness. There is also concern about the reproducibility of findings given few attempts at replication. The current secondary analysis addressed the issue of reproducibility and robustness of the construct of self-reported mindfulness across two separate randomized clinical trials of mindfulness-based relapse prevention (MBRP), as an aftercare treatment for substance use disorder. Specifically, we tested the robustness of our previously published findings, which identified a latent construct of mindfulness as a significant mediator of the effect of MBRP on reducing craving following treatment. First, we attempted to replicate the findings in a separate randomized clinical trial of MBRP. Second, we conducted sensitivity analyses to test the assumption of the no-omitted confounder bias in a mediation model. The effect of MBRP on self-reported mindfulness and overall mediation effect failed to replicate in a new sample. The effect of self-reported mindfulness in predicting craving following treatment did replicate and was robust to the no-omitted confounder bias. The results of this work shine a light on the difficulties in the measurement of mindfulness and the importance of examining the robustness of 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/s12671-018-1023-z

Cites

85 of 85 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?

  • Serious concerns have been raised about the validity of self-report measures of mindfulness because their factor structures and item functioning differ between populations, time points, and studies.

    “Serious concerns have been raised about the validity of self-report measures of mindfulness in particular because their factor structures and item functioning have been shown to be different between populations, e.g., high trait mindfulness individuals versus low trait mindfulness individuals with the Five Factor Mindfulness Questionnaire (FFMQ) (Pelham et al., 2019), between time points with the”

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 89 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. Chawla N (2010). Experiential Avoidance and Substance Use Relapse ProQuest Dissertation Publishing & Theses Global.
  2. Langer EF (1989). Mindfulness De Capo Press, Cambridge, MA.
  3. Muthén LK, & Muthén BO (1998– 2017). Mplus user’s guide (8th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Hsiao, Y.-Y., Tofighi, D., Kruger, E. S., Lee Van Horn, M., MacKinnon, D. P., & Witkiewitz, K.
Affiliations
  • University of New Mexico (US)
  • Arizona State University (US)
Corresponding author
Witkiewitz, Katie
Venue
Mindfulness
Published
2018-09-05
Volume
10
Issue
4
Pages
724-736
ISSN
  • 1868-8527 (ISSN-L)
  • 1868-8535
OpenAlex
W2892130028
Cited by
23
References
89
Citations by year
2024: 3 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 1
FWCI
3.23
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Mindfulness (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (R01 AA025539)
  • National Institute on Drug Abuse (R37 DA09757)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Mindfulness and Compassion Interventions
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Substance Abuse Treatment and Outcomes
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Opioid Use Disorder Treatment
Keywords
mindfulness-based relapse prevention, substance use disorders, craving, replication, mediation, robustness of results, secondary analysis

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