Cited by 69Mindfulness and Compassion InterventionsSport Psychology and PerformancePsychometric Methodologies and Testing

Assessing acceptance in mindfulness with direct-worded items: The development and initial validation of the athlete mindfulness questionnaire

Open access
Zhang, Chun-Qing, Chung, Pak-Kwong, Si, Gangyan·2017·Journal of Sport and Health Science

Abstract

PURPOSE: The purpose of the current study was to develop and validate a sport-specific mindfulness measure, the Athlete Mindfulness Questionnaire (AMQ), through 5 related studies using 4 separate samples of Chinese athletes. The AMQ is a 3-factor measure designed to assess mindfulness that reflects present-moment attention, awareness, and acceptance in a sport context. METHODS: In Study 1, an initial pool of items was generated based on previous literature, existing mindfulness scales, as well as interviews with and feedback from the athletes, coaches, and mindfulness experts. Initial support for the 3-factor structure of the AMQ was established via exploratory factor analysis in Study 2, and cross-validated through confirmatory factor analysis in Studies 3 and 4. In Study 5, a modified 3-factor AMQ with direct-worded acceptance items was examined in a fourth independent sample. RESULTS: Convergent and concurrent validities of the acceptance subscale failed to be established in Studies 3 and 4 which may be due to the inattention and confusion of the athletes whilst interpreting the reverse-worded items. A modified 16-item AMQ in Study 5 displayed satisfactory model fit and acceptable internal consistencies. Most importantly, convergent and concurrent validities of the 16-item AMQ were supported. The 3 subscales showed significant positive associations with mindfulness, flow, well-being, and positive affect and significant negative associations with experiential avoidance, burnout, and negative affect. CONCLUSION: The AMQ is a psychometrically sound measure of mindfulness in a sport context. The importance of using direct-worded acceptance items is discussed.

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 · 10.1016/j.jshs.2015.09.010

Cites

51 of 51 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?

  • Because awareness and refocusing are well-known phenomena in sport, control group athletes may have properly interpreted and understood the items related to these two subscales, making it easier to self-assess these two skills than acceptance.

    “Given that awareness and refocusing are typical well-known phenomena in a sport context, control group athletes may have properly interpreted and understood the items related to these two subscales because they may relate closely to their experience. As such, it may be easier to self-assess these two skills than acceptance (Zhang et al., 2015).”

    From Integrated mindfulness-based intervention: Effects on mindfulness skills, cognitive interference and performance satisfaction of young elite badminton players. (2020) · cites this paper as Zhang et al., 2015

    The Discussion describes refocusing after distraction as relevant to sport and says athletes may misinterpret reverse-worded acceptance items. It does not say that control-group athletes understood awareness and refocusing items better, or that those skills are easier to self-assess than acceptance. The cited copy provides no page numbers for these passages. (LLM, conf=0.83)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

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

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Zhang, C.-Q., Chung, P.-K., & Si, G.
Affiliations
  • Hong Kong Baptist University (HK)
  • Education University of Hong Kong (HK)
Corresponding author
Chung, Pak-Kwong
Venue
Journal of Sport and Health Science
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2017-09
Volume
6
Issue
3
Pages
311-320
ISSN
  • 2213-2961 (ISSN-L)
  • 2095-2546
OpenAlex
W2210339916
Cited by
69
References
51
Citations by year
2026: 12 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 10 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 2
FWCI
2.48
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of sport and health science/Journal of Sport and Health Science (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • HKBU Institutional Repository (Hong Kong Baptist University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Mindfulness and Compassion Interventions
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Sport Psychology and Performance
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Psychometric Methodologies and Testing
Keywords
mindfulness, acceptance, sport psychology, scale development, psychometric validation, awareness, Chinese athletes, burnout, experiential avoidance, flow, well-being, positive affect

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