Cited by 16Mindfulness and Compassion InterventionsDigital Mental Health InterventionsAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes

The Mindful Way through the Semester: Evaluating the feasibility of delivering an acceptance-based behavioral program online

Sagon, Alison L., Danitz, Sara B., Suvak, Michael K., Orsillo, Susan M.·2018·Journal of Contextual Behavioral Science

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jcbs.2018.06.004

Cites

32 of 32 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Sagon, A. L., Danitz, S. B., Suvak, M. K., & Orsillo, S. M.
Affiliations
Suffolk University (US)
Corresponding author
Sagon, Alison L.
Venue
Journal of Contextual Behavioral Science
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2018-07
Volume
9
Pages
36-44
ISSN
2212-1447 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2808394602
Cited by
16
References
32
Citations by year
2024: 2 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 1
FWCI
2.06
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Journal of Contextual Behavioral Science (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Mindfulness and Compassion Interventions
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Digital Mental Health Interventions
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
Keywords
online intervention, first-year college students, depression prevention, acceptance, mindfulness, values practice, feasibility, student mental health

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