Cited by 188Mindfulness and Compassion InterventionsAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive ProcessesPsychological Well-being and Life Satisfaction

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 62 of the 69 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; 2 of the 32 sources its claims cite were checked for support.

Using acceptance and commitment therapy to increase self-compassion: A randomized controlled trial

Open access
Yadavaia, James E., Hayes, Steven C., Vilardaga, Roger·2014·Journal of Contextual Behavioral Science

Abstract

Self-compassion has been shown to be related to several types of psychopathology, including traumatic stress, and has been shown to improve in response to various kinds of interventions. Current conceptualizations of self-compassion fit well with the psychological flexibility model, which underlies acceptance and commitment therapy (ACT). However, there has been no research on ACT interventions specifically aimed at self-compassion. This randomized trial therefore compared a 6-hour ACT-based workshop targeting self-compassion to a wait-list control. From pretreatment to 2-month follow-up, ACT was significantly superior to the control condition in self-compassion, general psychological distress, and anxiety. Process analyses revealed psychological flexibility to be a significant mediator of changes in self-compassion, general psychological distress, depression, anxiety, and stress. Exploratory moderation analyses revealed the intervention to be of more benefit in terms of depression, anxiety, and stress to those with greater trauma history. © 2014.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jcbs.2014.09.002

Cites

62 of 62 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

2 of 32 cited sources checked · 1 supported · 0 flagged · accuracy not yet measured

Show all 55 claims

  • Probably not a substantial claim. 14
  • It may state two separate claims as one. 16
  • The quote only partly states this claim. 1
25 of 25
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Missing data in the outcome analyses are missing at random.

    “MMRM is a mixed regression model that retains most of the advantages of HLM for an intent-to-treat analysis (Raudenbush & Bryk, 2002) in using all available data from all subjects and taking into account the obtained outcome and missingness, thus reducing the problem of missing data.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Pre-to-post changes in psychological flexibility causally mediate pre-to-follow-up changes in outcomes.

    “Pre to follow-up changes in the outcome variable were entered as outcomes, and pre to post changes in the process variable (AAQ-II) were entered as mediators.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Missing data in the moderation analyses are missing at random.

    “Using bootstrapping, 30 imputed datasets were generated, and missing data were imputed based on values for all other variables in the dataset.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The AAQ-II validly measures psychological flexibility.

    “The functional role of psychological flexibility (AAQ-II) in producing effects on the outcome measures was examined by mediation analysis.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The SLESQ-R validly measures trauma history or stressful life events.

    “To evaluate whether the workshop was differentially effective for individuals according to trauma history, the SLESQ-R (taken at pretreatment) was evaluated as a moderator of the effect of treatment condition on outcomes.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The SCS, GHQ, DASS-D, DASS-A, and DASS-S validly measure their target constructs.

    “An MMRM analysis with a heterogeneous compound symmetry covariance structure best fit the data from the SCS and revealed a significant effect for treatment condition (p < .001) and time (p < .001), and a significant and medium time-by-condition interaction [F(2, 102.61) = 10.18, p < .001, effect size = .74].”
6 of 6

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?

Statistics recomputed

Every reported test result, recomputed from its test statistic and degrees of freedom. A result shows as not adding up only once an independent check has confirmed it.

  • ConsistentF(2, 102.61) = 10.18reported p < .001 · recomputed p < .001

    “F(2, 102.61) = 10.18, p < .001”

  • Consistentt(109.56) = 3.08reported p < .01 · recomputed p = .003

    “t (109.56) = 3.08, p < .01”

  • Consistentt(109.37) = 8.21reported p < .001 · recomputed p < .001

    “t (109.37) = 8.21, p < .001”

  • Consistentt(109.45) = -4.32reported p < .001 · recomputed p < .001

    “t (109.45) = −4.32, p < .001”

  • ConsistentF(2, 106.8) = 3.69reported p = .03 · recomputed p = .028

    “F(2, 106.80) = 3.69, p = .03”

  • Consistentt(108.29) = -3.34reported p < .01 · recomputed p = .001

    “t (108.29) = −3.34, p < .01”

  • Consistentt(108.08) = -5.56reported p < .001 · recomputed p < .001

    “t (108.08) = −5.56, p < .001”

  • Consistentt(108.17) = 2.13reported p = .04 · recomputed p = .035

    “t (108.17) = 2.13, p = .04”

  • ConsistentF(2, 87.45) = 3.11reported p = .0498 · recomputed p = .050

    “F(2, 87.45) = 3.11, p = .0498”

  • Consistentt(63.18) = -2.73reported p = .01 · recomputed p = .008

    “t (63.18) = −2.73, p = .01”

  • Consistentt(133.02) = 2.49reported p = .01 · recomputed p = .014

    “t (133.02) = 2.49, p = .01”

  • ConsistentF(2, 67.21) = 7.48reported p < .01 · recomputed p = .001

    “F(2, 67.21) = 7.48, p < .01”

  • Consistentt(71.37) = -3.48reported p < .01 · recomputed p < .001

    “t (71.37) = −3.48, p < .01”

  • Consistentt(70.47) = 2.76reported p = .01 · recomputed p = .007

    “t (70.47) = 2.76, p = .01”

  • Consistentt(111.53) = -3.02reported p < .01 · recomputed p = .003

    “t (111.53) = −3.02, p < .01”

  • Consistentt(111.64) = 1.88reported p = .06 · recomputed p = .063

    “t (111.64) = 1.88, p = .06”

  • Consistentt(63) = 3.72reported p < .01 · recomputed p < .001

    “t(63) = 3.72, p < .01”

  • Consistentt(63) = 3.03reported p < .01 · recomputed p = .004

    “t(63) = 3.03, p < .01”

  • Consistentt(63) = -2.01reported p = .049 · recomputed p = .049

    “t(63) = −2.01, p = .049”

  • Consistentt(63) = -1.14reported p = .26 · recomputed p = .259

    “t(63) = −1.14, p = .26”

  • Consistentt(63) = -1.79reported p = .08 · recomputed p = .078

    “t(63) = −1.79, p = .08”

  • Consistentt(63) = -0.8reported p = .43 · recomputed p = .427

    “t(63) = −.80, p = .43”

  • Consistentt(63) = -2.4reported p = .02 · recomputed p = .019

    “t(63) = −2.40, p = .02”

  • Consistentt(63) = -1.59reported p = .12 · recomputed p = .117

    “t(63) = −1.59, p = .12”

  • Consistentt(63) = -1.86reported p = .07 · recomputed p = .068

    “t(63) = −1.86, p = .07”

  • Consistentt(63) = -1.09reported p = .28 · recomputed p = .280

    “t(63) = −1.09, p = .28”

  • ConsistentF(1, 64) = 6.18reported p = .02 · recomputed p = .016

    “F(1,64) = 6.18, p = .02”

  • ConsistentF(1, 64) = 7.55reported p < .01 · recomputed p = .008

    “F(1,64) = 7.55, p < .01”

  • ConsistentF(1, 64) = 5.41reported p = .02 · recomputed p = .023

    “F(1, 64) = 5.41, p = .02”

29 of 29

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.

  • Self-compassion estimate falls outside its reported confidence interval

    Major

    The reported mediation estimate is 2.51, but the upper limit of its reported 95% confidence interval is 2.01. The point estimate therefore lies outside the interval presented alongside it, suggesting that at least one value was reported incorrectly.

1 of 1

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 69 references

7 of the 69 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 101–186 of 186

Metadata

Authors
Yadavaia, J. E., Hayes, S. C., & Vilardaga, R.
Affiliations
  • University of Nevada, Reno (US)
  • University of Washington (US)
Corresponding author
Yadavaia, James E.
Venue
Journal of Contextual Behavioral Science
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2014-10
Volume
3
Issue
4
Pages
248-257
ISSN
2212-1447 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2141219537
Cited by
188
References
69
Citations by year
2026: 20 · 2025: 27 · 2024: 18 · 2023: 21 · 2022: 18 · 2021: 26 · 2020: 21 · 2019: 14 · 2018: 11 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 1
FWCI
4.73
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Contextual Behavioral Science (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
National Institute on Drug Abuse (K99DA037276)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Mindfulness and Compassion Interventions
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Psychological Well-being and Life Satisfaction
Keywords
acceptance and commitment therapy, self-compassion, psychological flexibility, psychological distress, anxiety, depression, stress, trauma history, workshop intervention, mediation, moderation

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.

A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-09-28, under version 3 of the claim definition (prompt extract-v3).

A second model labelled each claim on 2026-09-28 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).

Cited sources are checked with a language model’s help (gpt-6-sol).

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