CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 20Mindfulness and Compassion InterventionsPsychometric Methodologies and TestingAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes

Validation of the German Version of the Southampton Mindfulness Questionnaire (SMQ)

Open access
Böge, Kerem, Schaeuffele, Carmen, Jacobsen, Pamela, Chadwick, Paul, Ergen, Emre, Hahne, Inge, Bergmann, Niklas, Boettcher, Johanna +3 more·2020·Mindfulness
DOI 10.1007/s12671-020-01447-x
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Objectives: The aim of the study was to assess the convergent and divergent validity, reliability, utility, and treatment sensitivity of a newly translated German version of the Southampton Mindfulness Questionnaire (SMQ). The SMQ is a 16-item instrument measuring mindful awareness of distressing thoughts, images, and perceptions, developed originally within the mindfulness for psychosis field. Methods: Overall, three studies were conducted, comprising (1) a non-clinical sample of n = 848 (638 community sample and 210 meditators); (2) a clinical sample of n = 213 (106 schizophrenia and 107 depression); and (3) a clinical sample with n = 122 participants with emotional disorders within a randomized controlled study, of which 30 participants were also included in study 2. To assess convergent validity, participants completed the SMQ, Freiburg Mindfulness Inventory (FMI), and Comprehensive Inventory of Mindfulness Experiences (CHIME). To measure divergent validity, participants completed the Brief Symptom Inventory 18 (BSI-18), Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS), Brief Experiential Avoidance Questionnaires (BEAQ), and Anxiety Sensitivity Index 3 (ASI-3). Results: Mean internal consistency (α = 0.89) and convergent ( r = 0.66 to 0.73) and divergent validity ( r = − 0.09 to − 0.50) were established and sensitivity to change over time following treatment ( d = 0.86) was shown. For the clinical sample, a single-factor structure is suggested by principal component analysis. Conclusions: Results provide first evidence for the utility of the German version of the SMQ for clinical practice and research in healthy individuals, meditators, and clinical groups. Further research is needed to examine the underlying construct of mindfulness.

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/s12671-020-01447-x

Cites

20 of 20 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?

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

Research works printed but not linked: 25

  1. American Psychiatric Association. (2000). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (4th ed.). Washington, DC. American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (5th ed.). Washington, DC.
  2. Barlow, D. H., Farchione, T. J., Sauer-Zavala, S., Latin, H. M., Ellard, K. K., Bullis, J. R., et al. (2018). Unified protocol for transdiagnostic treatment of emotional disorders: therapist guide (2nd ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.
  3. Belzer, F., Schmidt, S., & Lucius-Hoene, G. (2011). Freiburger Fragebogen zur Achtsamkeit im kognitiven Interview. Analyse der B e a n t w o r Bern, Switzerland: 3rd Conference of the Mindfulness Research Network.
  4. Bergomi, C., Tschacher, W., & Kupper, Z. (2015). Meditation practice and self-reported mindfulness: a cross-sectional investigation of meditators and non-meditators using the Comprehensive Inventory of Mindfulness Experiences (CHIME). Mindfulness, 6(6), 1411- 1421. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12671-015-0415-6. · DOI
  5. Bishop, S. R., Lau, M., Shapiro, S., Carlson, L., Anderson, N. D., Carmody, J., et al. (2004). Mindfulness: a proposed operational definition. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice, 11(3), 230- 241. https://doi.org/10.1093/clipsy/bph077. · DOI · Paper page
  6. Brown, K. W., & Ryan, R. M. (2003). The benefits of being present: mindfulness and its role in psychological well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84(4), 822-848. https://doi.org/ 10.1037/0022-3514.84.4.822. · DOI · Paper page
  7. Buchheld, N., Grossman, P., & Walach, H. (2001). Measuring mindful- ness in insight meditation (Vipassana) and meditation-based psy- chotherapy : the development of the Freiburg Mindfulness Inventory (FMI). Journal of Meditation and Meditation Research, 1(1), 11-34. https://doi.org/10.2307/1411318. · DOI
  8. Christopher, M. S., Woodrich, L. E., & Tiernan, K. A. (2014). Using cognitive interviews to assess the cultural validity of state and trait measures of mindfulness among Zen Buddhists. Mindfulness, 5(2), 145-160. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12671-012-0160-z. · DOI
  9. Derogatis, L. R. (2001). BSI 18, Brief Symptom Inventory 18: adminis- tration, scoring and procedures manual. NCS Pearson.
  10. Derogatis, L. R., & Fitzpatrick, M. (2004). The SCL-90-R, the Brief Symptom Inventory (BSI), and the BSI-18. In M. E. Maruish (Ed.), The Use of Psychological Testing for Treatment Planning and Outcomes Assessment: Volume 3: Instruments for Adults.
  11. Floyd, F. J., & Widaman, K. F. (1995). Factor analysis in the develop- ment and refinement of clinical assessment instruments. Psychological Assessment, 7(3), 286-299. https://doi.org/10.1037/ 1040-3590.7.3.286. · DOI · Paper page
  12. Heidenreich, T., Ströhle, G., & Michalak, J. (2006). Achtsamkeit: Konzeptuelle Aspekte und Ergebnisse zum Freiburger Achtsamkeitsfragebogen. Verhaltenstherapie, 16(1), 33-40.
  13. Höfling, V., Moosbrugger, H., Schermelleh-Engel, K., & Heidenreich, T. (2011). Mindfulness or mindlessness? European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 27(1), 59-64. https://doi.org/10.1027/ 1015-5759/a000045. · DOI
  14. Hooper, D., Coughlan, J., & Mullen, M. R. (2008). Structural equation modelling: guidelines for determining model fit. Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods, 6(1), 53-60.
  15. Kabat-Zinn, J. (1990). Full catastrophe living : Using the wisdom of your body and mind to face stress, pain, and illness. New York: Delacorte Press.
  16. Kemper, C. J., Ziegler, M., & Taylor, S. (2009). Überprüfung der psychometrischen Qualität der deutschen Versiondes Angstsensitivitätsindex-3. Diagnostica, 55(4), 223-233. https:// doi.org/10.1026/0012-1924.55.4.223. · DOI
  17. Kohls, N., Sauer, S., & Walach, H. (2009). Facets of mindfulness - results of an online study investigating the Freiburg mindfulness inventory. Personality and Individual Differences, 46(2), 224-230. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.PAID.2008.10.009. · DOI · Paper page
  18. Margraf, J., Cwik, J. C., Pflug, V., & Schneider, S. (2017). Strukturierte klinische Interviews zur Erfassung psychischer Störungen über die Lebensspanne. Zeitschrift für Klinische Psychologie und Psychotherapie, 46, 176-186. https://doi.org/10.1026/1616-3443/ a000430. · DOI · Paper page
  19. Öztuna, D., Elhan, A. H., & Tüccar, E. (2006). Investigation of four different normality tests in terms of type 1 error rate and power under different distributions. Turkish Journal of Medical Sciences, 36(3), 171-176.
  20. Prinz, U., Nutzinger, D. O., Schulz, H., Petermann, F., Braukhaus, C., & Andreas, S. (2013). Comparative psychometric analyses of the SCL- 90-R and its short versions in patients with affective disorders. BMC Psychiatry, 13(1), 104. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-244X-13-104. · DOI
  21. Rosseel, Y. (2012). lavaan: an R package for structural equation model- ing. Journal of Statistical Software, 48(2), 1-36 URL http://www. jstatsoft.org/v48/i02/.
  22. Sauer, S., Walach, H., Offenbächer, M., Lynch, S., & Kohls, N. (2011). Measuring mindfulness: a Rasch analysis of the Freiburg mindful- ness inventory. Religions, 2(4), 693-706.
  23. Taylor, S., Zvolensky, M. J., Cox, B. J., Deacon, B., Heimberg, R. G., Ledley, D. R., et al. (2007). Robust dimensions of anxiety sensitiv- ity: development and initial validation of the Anxiety Sensitivity Index-3. Psychological Assessment, 19(2), 176-188. https://doi. org/10.1037/1040-3590.19.2.176. · DOI · Paper page
  24. Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and val- idation of brief measures of positive and negative affect. The PANAS Scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54(6), 1063-1070.
  25. Wolf, E. J., Harrington, K. M., Clark, S. L., & Miller, M. W. (2013). Sample size requirements for structural equation models: an evalu- ation of power, bias, and solution propriety. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 73(6), 913-934.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Böge, K., Schaeuffele, C., Jacobsen, P., Chadwick, P., Ergen, E., Hahne, I., Bergmann, N., Boettcher, J., Wingenfeld, K., Bajbouj, M., & Hahn, E.
Affiliations
  • Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin (DE)
  • Freie Universität Berlin (DE)
  • University of Bath (GB)
  • Psychologische Hochschule Berlin (DE)
Corresponding author
Böge, Kerem
ORCID
Venue
Mindfulness
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2020-07-15
Volume
11
Issue
9
Pages
2219-2234
ISSN
  • 1868-8527 (ISSN-L)
  • 1868-8535
DOI
10.1007/s12671-020-01447-x
OpenAlex
W3043274867
Cited by
20
References
20
Citations by year
2025: 4 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 6
FWCI
1.29
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Mindfulness (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Pure (University of Bath) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Refubium (Universitätsbibliothek der Freien Universität Berlin) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Universitätsbibliothek der FU Berlin Hochschulschriftenstelle u. Dokumentenserver (cc-by)
Funders
Charité
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
German translation, mindfulness measurement, convergent validity, discriminant validity, reliability statistics, treatment sensitivity, schizophrenia, depression, emotional disorders, meditators, factor structure, Freiburg Mindfulness Inventory

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