The DOI matches its Crossref record; 38 of the 42 references it cites were found in a registry or an index, and 1 are not checked yet; none of the 21 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.
Mindfulness and emotional outcomes: Identifying subgroups of college students using latent profile analysis
Open accessAbstract
In non-meditating samples, distinct facets of mindfulness are found to be negatively correlated, preventing the meaningful creation of a total mindfulness score. The present study used person-centered analyses to distinguish subgroups of college students based on their mindfulness scores, which allows the examination of individuals who are high (or low) on all facets of mindfulness. Using the Lo-Mendell-Rubin Adjusted LRT test, we settled on a 4-class solution that included a high mindfulness group (high on all 5 facets, N = 245), low mindfulness group (moderately low on all 5 facets, N = 563), judgmentally observing group (high on observing, but low on non-judging and acting with awareness, N =63), and non-judgmentally aware group (low on observing, but high on non-judging and acting with awareness, N =70). Consistent across all emotional outcomes including depressive symptoms, anxiety symptoms (i.e., worry), affective instability, and distress intolerance, we found that the judgmentally observing group had the most maladaptive emotional outcomes followed by the low mindfulness group. Both the high mindfulness group and the non-judgmentally aware group had the most adaptive emotional outcomes. We discuss the implications of person-centered analyses to exploring mindfulness as it relates to important psychological health outcomes.
Checked 2026-10-05 · 1 reference not checked yet
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
12 Not checked yet · 9 Own result · 6 Own interpretation · 1 Own method
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, we also found that the non-judgmentally aware group, which was low on the observing, describing, and non-reactivity to inner experience facets, had adaptive emotional outcomes as well.”
§ Mindfulness and Emotional Outcomes: Identifying Subgroups of College Students using Latent Profile Analysis > Discussion
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- The authors state this as an assumption: Differences in mindfulness profiles play a meaningful role in accounting for variation in emotional functioning between subgroups.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Finally, the largest group, Class 4, comprised 57.45% of the sample (N = 540.59), and we label this class the “low mindfulness group” as they were moderately low on all facets of mindfulness (−.330 < zs < −.110).”
- Also stated in: § Discussion · plain
“It is important to note that the largest class in this sample of college students was the low mindfulness group, comprising 57.44% of the sample, suggesting that mindfulness-based interventions could have a meaningful impact in this population.”
§ Mindfulness and Emotional Outcomes: Identifying Subgroups of College Students using Latent Profile Analysis > Results
plainn = 540- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- The authors state this as an assumption: The population contains separate subgroups that differ in their mindfulness levels.
- Also stated in: § Discussion · plain
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Further, the judgmentally observing group closely resembled the low mindfulness group in terms of emotional outcomes despite being the highest on the observing facet of all groups.”
§ Mindfulness and Emotional Outcomes: Identifying Subgroups of College Students using Latent Profile Analysis > Discussion
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- The authors state this as an assumption: Differences in mindfulness profiles play a meaningful role in accounting for variation in emotional functioning between subgroups.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Thus, in a factor analytic model, mindfulness becomes defined as individuals who are high in four of the five facets of mindfulness, but low in observing.”
§ Mindfulness and Emotional Outcomes: Identifying Subgroups of College Students using Latent Profile Analysis > Abstract
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Therefore, individuals high on all facets of mindfulness should be expected to experience the health benefits associated with mindfulness.”
§ Mindfulness and Emotional Outcomes: Identifying Subgroups of College Students using Latent Profile Analysis > Abstract
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“in a factor analysis model using the five FFMQ subscales as indicators, we find that the observing facet loads negatively on an overall latent construct of mindfulness (Author et al., 2014), which is consistent with Baer et al. (2006) who reported that loading the observing facet onto a latent mindfulness factor in a non-meditating sample fit poorly.”
§ Mindfulness and Emotional Outcomes: Identifying Subgroups of College Students using Latent Profile Analysis > Abstract
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Author et al., 2014
- Not checked yetcites Baer et al., 2006 source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“These negative intercorrelations of FFMQ facets prevent the meaningful creation of a total composite score.”
§ Mindfulness and Emotional Outcomes: Identifying Subgroups of College Students using Latent Profile Analysis > Abstract
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Despite the negative correlations between some mindfulness facets, LPA is able to distinguish between classes that are high on all facets of mindfulness, or low on all facets of mindfulness.”
§ Mindfulness and Emotional Outcomes: Identifying Subgroups of College Students using Latent Profile Analysis > Abstract
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“These latter two groups appear to drive the negative correlation between the observing facet with these other mindfulness facets (i.e., non-judging, acting with awareness).”
§ Mindfulness and Emotional Outcomes: Identifying Subgroups of College Students using Latent Profile Analysis > Discussion
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“multiple studies in primarily non-meditating samples have found some negative correlations among mindfulness facets, especially between observing and non-judging of inner experience (r = −.07, Baer et al., 2006; r = −.38, Brown et al., 2014).”
§ Mindfulness and Emotional Outcomes: Identifying Subgroups of College Students using Latent Profile Analysis > Abstract
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Baer et al., 2006 source
- Not checked yetcites Brown et al., 2014
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- It may state two separate claims as one. 15
- Probably not a substantial claim. 4
- The quote only partly states this claim. 1
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Class 3 comprised 7.61% of the sample (N = 71.61), and we label this class the “non-judgmentally aware group” as they were high on non-judging of inner experience (z = 1.278) and acting with awareness (z = 1.082), but very low on the observing facet of mindfulness (z = −1.535).”
§ Mindfulness and Emotional Outcomes: Identifying Subgroups of College Students using Latent Profile Analysis > Results
plainn = 71- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- The authors state this as an assumption: The population contains separate subgroups that differ in their mindfulness levels.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Given the results of the Likelihood Ratio Test, we settled on the 4-class solution.”
§ Mindfulness and Emotional Outcomes: Identifying Subgroups of College Students using Latent Profile Analysis > Results
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Lo et al., 2001
- Not checked yetcites Vuong, 1989 source
plain- Asserted: fails — The authors may not put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The authors may not put it forward as true. The paper may give no reason why it holds. The quote only partly states this claim.
- The authors state this as an assumption: The population contains separate subgroups that differ in their mindfulness levels.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Class 2 comprised 27.15% of the sample (N = 255.49), and we label this class the “high mindfulness group” as they were relatively high on every facet of mindfulness (.472 < zs < .911).”
§ Mindfulness and Emotional Outcomes: Identifying Subgroups of College Students using Latent Profile Analysis > Results
plainn = 255- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- The authors state this as an assumption: The population contains separate subgroups that differ in their mindfulness levels.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Despite the limitations of the present study, we were able to distinguish between four subgroups of individuals based on their mindfulness profiles, and found two ‘adaptive’ and two ‘maladaptive’ groups.”
§ Mindfulness and Emotional Outcomes: Identifying Subgroups of College Students using Latent Profile Analysis > Discussion > Conclusion
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- The authors state this as an assumption: The population contains separate subgroups that differ in their mindfulness levels.
- The authors state this as an assumption: Differences in mindfulness profiles play a meaningful role in accounting for variation in emotional functioning between subgroups.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Across each emotional outcome, we found that the “high mindfulness” (Class 2) and “non-judgmentally aware” (Class 3) groups had the most adaptive emotional outcomes (i.e., lower depressive symptoms, anxiety symptoms, affective lability, and distress intolerance), and did not significantly differ from each other on any outcome.”
§ Mindfulness and Emotional Outcomes: Identifying Subgroups of College Students using Latent Profile Analysis > Results
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- The authors state this as an assumption: The population contains separate subgroups that differ in their mindfulness levels.
- The authors state this as an assumption: Differences in mindfulness profiles play a meaningful role in accounting for variation in emotional functioning between subgroups.
- Rests on an assumption: Depressive symptoms, anxiety symptoms, affective instability, and distress intolerance have high prevalence among college students.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“The Likelihood Ratio Test suggests that a 2-class solution fit better than a 1-class solution (p < .001), a 3-class solution fit better than a 2-class solution (p = .020), and a 4-class solution fit better than a 3-class solution (p = .025); however, a 5-class solution did not fit significantly better than a 4-class solution (p = .413).”
§ Mindfulness and Emotional Outcomes: Identifying Subgroups of College Students using Latent Profile Analysis > Results
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Lo et al., 2001
- Not checked yetcites Vuong, 1989 source
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- The authors state this as an assumption: The population contains separate subgroups that differ in their mindfulness levels.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In contrast, the “judgmentally observing” group (Class 1) had the poorest emotional outcomes (i.e., highest depressive symptoms, anxiety symptoms, affective lability, and distress intolerance), which were significantly worse than all other groups.”
§ Mindfulness and Emotional Outcomes: Identifying Subgroups of College Students using Latent Profile Analysis > Results
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- The authors state this as an assumption: The population contains separate subgroups that differ in their mindfulness levels.
- The authors state this as an assumption: Differences in mindfulness profiles play a meaningful role in accounting for variation in emotional functioning between subgroups.
- Rests on an assumption: Depressive symptoms, anxiety symptoms, affective instability, and distress intolerance have high prevalence among college students.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Finally, the “low mindfulness group” was always significantly better than the “judgmentally observing” group (Class 4) on these outcomes, but significantly worse than the “non-judgmentally aware” and “high mindfulness groups.””
- Also stated in: § Discussion · plain
“Consistent with variable-centered analyses that show negative correlations between mindfulness and emotional disturbances (Barnhofer, Duggan, & Griffith, 2011; Carlson, Ursuliak, Goodey, & Speca, 2001; Goldin & Gross, 2010; Keng, Smoski, & Robins, 2011; Teasdale, Segal, Williams, Ridgeway, Soulsby, & Lau, 2000), we found that the low mindfulness group had more negative emotional symptoms compared”
§ Mindfulness and Emotional Outcomes: Identifying Subgroups of College Students using Latent Profile Analysis > Results
What the sources say
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- The authors state this as an assumption: The population contains separate subgroups that differ in their mindfulness levels.
- The authors state this as an assumption: Differences in mindfulness profiles play a meaningful role in accounting for variation in emotional functioning between subgroups.
- Rests on an assumption: Depressive symptoms, anxiety symptoms, affective instability, and distress intolerance have high prevalence among college students.
- Also stated in: § Discussion · plain
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Class 1 comprised 7.79% of the sample (N = 73.32), and we tentatively label this class the “judgmentally observing group” as they were the highest on observing (z = 1.001), but very low on non-judging of inner experience (z = −1.660) and acting with awareness (z = −1.545).”
§ Mindfulness and Emotional Outcomes: Identifying Subgroups of College Students using Latent Profile Analysis > Results
hedgedn = 73- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- The authors state this as an assumption: The population contains separate subgroups that differ in their mindfulness levels.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Although the Akaike Information Criterion (AIC; Akaike, 1973, 1974; and see Sakamato, Ishiguro, & Kitagawa, 1986) and Bayesian Information Criterion (BIC, Schwarz, 1978) continue to improve (i.e., decrease) from 1 through 6 class solutions, Entropy was highest for the 5-class solution.”
§ Mindfulness and Emotional Outcomes: Identifying Subgroups of College Students using Latent Profile Analysis > Results
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Akaike, 1973, 1974
- Not checked yetcites Schwarz, 1978 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- The authors state this as an assumption: The population contains separate subgroups that differ in their mindfulness levels.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“observing has been found to be the mindfulness facet that is most strongly positively correlated with meditation experience (Baer et al.) and increases following mindfulness based interventions (Carmody & Baer, 2008).”
§ Mindfulness and Emotional Outcomes: Identifying Subgroups of College Students using Latent Profile Analysis > Abstract
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Baer et al.
- Not checked yetcites Carmody & Baer, 2008 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“These results confirm that observing is an important facet of mindfulness that can be cultivated through mindfulness practices.”
§ Mindfulness and Emotional Outcomes: Identifying Subgroups of College Students using Latent Profile Analysis > Abstract
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Lilja et al. (2013) used hierarchical cluster analysis to identify 13 clusters of individuals based on their mindfulness scores (cluster size ranged from 37 to 93 participants).”
- Also stated in: § Abstract · plain
“meditators were overrepresented in four clusters, all of which had higher than average observing scores, and meditators were underrepresented in three clusters, all of which had lower than average observing scores.”
§ Mindfulness and Emotional Outcomes: Identifying Subgroups of College Students using Latent Profile Analysis > Abstract
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Lilja et al., 2013 source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Also stated in: § Abstract · plain
In the paper
“observing has been shown to be positively related to psychological symptoms among college students without prior meditation experience, whereas it has been shown to be negatively related to these outcomes among individuals with meditation experience (Baer et al., 2008).”
§ Mindfulness and Emotional Outcomes: Identifying Subgroups of College Students using Latent Profile Analysis > Abstract
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Baer et al., 2008 source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Finally, the cross-sectional study design prevents our ability to make causal inferences.”
§ Mindfulness and Emotional Outcomes: Identifying Subgroups of College Students using Latent Profile Analysis > Discussion > Limitations
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“The entropy value of .748 indicates that it is estimated that about three-fourths of subjects were correctly classified in the appropriate latent class, which approaches a level of entropy that is considered high (i.e., 80, Clark & Muthén, 2009).”
§ Mindfulness and Emotional Outcomes: Identifying Subgroups of College Students using Latent Profile Analysis > Results
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Clark & Muthén, 2009
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- The authors state this as an assumption: The population contains separate subgroups that differ in their mindfulness levels.
In the paper
“According to some theoretical models (e.g., Shapiro et al., 2006), mindfulness is best understood as an integrated whole, that is, cultivating high mindfulness should be associated with being high on all of the components of mindfulness.”
§ Mindfulness and Emotional Outcomes: Identifying Subgroups of College Students using Latent Profile Analysis > Abstract
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Shapiro et al., 2006 source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“The sharp contrast in emotional functioning of the non-judgmentally aware and judgmentally observing groups suggests the relative importance of non-judging of inner experience and acting with awareness to achieve adaptive emotional functioning, which supports previous definitions of mindfulness (Bishop et al., 2004; Kabat-Zinn, 1994).”
§ Mindfulness and Emotional Outcomes: Identifying Subgroups of College Students using Latent Profile Analysis > Discussion
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Bishop et al., 2004
- Not checked yetcites Kabat-Zinn, 1994
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- The authors state this as an assumption: Differences in mindfulness profiles play a meaningful role in accounting for variation in emotional functioning between subgroups.
The authors state this as an assumption.
The population contains separate subgroups that differ in their mindfulness levels.
“if we assume that there are distinct classes of individuals in terms of their level of mindfulness, LPA is a technique that can be usefully applied to analyzing mindfulness data and has several strengths over more traditional variable-centered analyses.”
The authors state this as an assumption.
Differences in mindfulness profiles play a meaningful role in accounting for variation in emotional functioning between subgroups.
“Although we have assumed that mindfulness profiles are important in explaining differences across subgroups’ emotional functioning, there are several ‘third variable’ explanations for our findings for which we cannot account.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Depressive symptoms, anxiety symptoms, affective instability, and distress intolerance have high prevalence among college students.
“four distinct emotional health outcomes that were selected given their high prevalence among college students including depressive symptoms, anxiety symptoms (i.e., worry), affective instability, and distress intolerance.”
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?
In the citing paper
“In another student sample, participants high in monitoring (Observe) but low in acceptance (Nonjudgment) had higher levels of depressive and anxiety symptoms, affective lability, and distress intolerance than participants low in both monitoring and acceptance skills (Pearson, Lawless, Brown, & Bravo, 2015).”
From Mechanisms of mindfulness training: Monitor and Acceptance Theory (MAT (2017) · cites this paper as Pearson, Lawless, Brown, & Bravo, 2015
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.
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ Mindfulness and Emotional Outcomes: Identifying Subgroups of College Students using Latent Profile Analysis > Results
“Finally, the “low mindfulness group” was always significantly better than the “judgmentally observing” group (Class 4) on these outcomes”
§ Mindfulness and Emotional Outcomes: Identifying Subgroups of College Students using Latent Profile Analysis > Results
“Finally, the largest group, Class 4, comprised 57.45% of the sample (N = 540.59), and we label this class the “low mindfulness group””
Citations
Cites
Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders
Williams, J. B. W., & First, M. B. (2013) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/acrefore/9780199975839.013.104 · Cited by 109,845
A new look at the statistical model identification
Akaike, H. (1974) · IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control · doi:10.1109/tac.1974.1100705 · Cited by 51,879
Estimating the Dimension of a Model
Schwarz, G. (1978) · The Annals of Statistics · doi:10.1214/aos/1176344136 · Cited by 47,033
Information Theory and an Extension of the Maximum Likelihood Principle
Akaike, H. (1998) · Springer series in statistics · doi:10.1007/978-1-4612-1694-0_15 · Cited by 18,636
Using Self-Report Assessment Methods to Explore Facets of Mindfulness
Baer, R. A., Smith, G. T., Hopkins, J., Krietemeyer, J., & Toney, L. (2006) · Assessment · doi:10.1177/1073191105283504 · Cited by 7,511 · cited 6×
“Mindfulness—Mindfulness was assessed using the 39-item Five Facet Mindfulness Questionnaire (FFMQ; Baer et al., 2006) measured on a 5-point response scale (1 = Never or very rarely true, 5 = Very often or always true).”
BackgroundMethodResultInfluentialMindfulness: A proposed operational definition.
Bishop, S. R., Lau, M., Shapiro, S., Carlson, L., Anderson, N. D., Carmody, J., Segal, Z. V., Abbey, S., Speca, M., Velting, D., et al. (2004) · Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice · doi:10.1093/clipsy.bph077 · Cited by 7,234
Likelihood Ratio Tests for Model Selection and Non-Nested Hypotheses
Vuong, Q. H. (1989) · Econometrica · doi:10.2307/1912557 · Cited by 5,929
Development and validation of the Penn State Worry Questionnaire
Meyer, T. J., Miller, M. L., Metzger, R. L., & Borkovec, T. D. (1990) · Behaviour Research and Therapy · doi:10.1016/0005-7967(90)90135-6 · Cited by 5,099
Testing the number of components in a normal mixture
Lo, Y. (2001) · Biometrika · doi:10.1093/biomet/88.3.767 · Cited by 4,640
Kabat-Zinn, J. (1982) · General Hospital Psychiatry · doi:10.1016/0163-8343(82)90026-3 · Cited by 4,255
Research works printed but not linked: 1
- Eaton, 2004, Center for epidemiologic studies depression scale: Review and revision (CESD and CESD-R), 363
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Items 101–141 of 141
Unveiling the mirage of mindfulness profiles through mindfulness-based stress reduction
Lecuona, O. Z., García‐Rubio, C., de Rivas, S., Vidal, J., Moreno‐Jiménez, J. E., & Rodríguez‐Carvajal, R. (2024) · Journal of Contextual Behavioral Science · doi:10.1016/j.jcbs.2024.100775 · Cited by 2
ZÜMBÜL, S., & Kağnıcı, D. Y. (2022) · International Journal for the Advancement of Counselling · doi:10.1007/s10447-022-09469-x · Cited by 2
Gawrysiak, M. J., Loomis, D., Armao, M., Gillooly, E., Kearns, L., & Walsh, J. C. (2023) · Mindfulness · doi:10.1007/s12671-023-02136-1 · Cited by 2
Toh, S. H. Y., Kanter, J. W., Lim, C. H., & Sündermann, O. (2024) · Mindfulness · doi:10.1007/s12671-024-02447-x · Cited by 3
Effects of an adapted mindfulness-based intervention on well-being in a Filipino college sample
Fernandez, K. T. G., Centeno, R. P. R., & Samaco-Zamora, M. C. (2022) · Asia Pacific Journal of Counselling and Psychotherapy · doi:10.1080/21507686.2022.2112246 · Cited by 3
Flowers, J., Alsup, S., Bowen, S. W., Lafavor, T. L., & Christopher, M. (2023) · Journal of Substance Use · doi:10.1080/14659891.2023.2266749 · Cited by 2
MULTI-FACTORIAL PATTERNS OF ONLINE HOMEWORK USAGE IN ENGINEERING: A PILOT STUDY
D’Entremont, A. G., Verrett, J., Hu, S., Abelló, J., Harandi, N. M., Leonzio, T., & Fong, W. C. W. (2020) · Proceedings of the Canadian Engineering Education Association (CEEA) · doi:10.24908/pceea.vi0.14122 · Cited by 2
Well-Being at Work: A Balanced Approach to Positive Organizational Studies
Gruman, J. A., & Choi, E. (2021) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-30025-8_84 · Cited by 3
Vollbehr, N. K., Hoenders, R. H. J., Bartels‐Velthuis, A. A., de Jong, P. J., & Ostafin, B. D. (2023) · Journal of Experimental Psychopathology · doi:10.1177/20438087231183777 · Cited by 1
Mindfulness and physical health among college students: A latent profile analysis
Jaurequi, M. E., Love, H., Taylor, S., & Barnes, A. (2025) · Journal of American College Health · doi:10.1080/07448481.2025.2459749 · Cited by 2
Jo, D., Pan, M. C., & Masuda, A. (2025) · Mindfulness · doi:10.1007/s12671-025-02536-5 · Cited by 1
Galiana, L., Sánchez‐Ruiz, J., Vidal‐Blanco, G., Guillén-Solà, M., & Sansó, N. (2025) · Mindfulness · doi:10.1007/s12671-025-02663-z · Cited by 1
Treatments of Ordinal Scales in Latent Profile Analyses: A Comparison with Monte Carlo Simulations
Yang, C., Olsen, J. A., & Carlyle, C. (2025) · Chinese/English Journal of Educational Measurement and Evaluation · doi:10.59863/civh2487 · Cited by 1
Chen, R., Ming, D., Zhou, T., Hao, X., & Fan, C.-Y. (2026) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2026.1798978 · Cited by 1
The Effects of Mindfulness on Affect and Substance Use
Carter, A. D. (2015) · Cited by 1
Be Here Now: Dispositional Mindfulness Enhances Fading Affect Bias
Crawford, M. T., Marsh, C., & Clegg, J. (2023) · Mindfulness · doi:10.1007/s12671-023-02243-z · Cited by 2
Mindfulness-Based Interventions as School-Based Mental Health Promoting Programs
der Gucht, K. V., Kuppens, P., Maex, E., & Raes, F. (2016) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-29866-5_19 · Cited by 1
Neural mechanisms of affective instability in substance use
Bodkyn, C. N. (2017) · UVic’s Research and Learning Repository (University of Victoria)
Pass/Fail and Other Dichotomies
Leppink, J. (2020) · Springer texts in education · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-43082-5_5
Dispositional Mindfulness in Context: Cultural and Individual Perspectives
Karl, J. A. (2021) · Open Access Victoria University of Wellington | Te Herenga Waka (Figshare) · doi:10.26686/wgtn.16892419
Schaal, D. D. (2019) · Digital Repository Service (Northeastern University) · doi:10.17760/d20320146
Concomitant effects of Mindfulness: The Mindfulness Strategies and Difficulties QuestionnairePreprint
O’Driscoll, C., bhansali, A., Bell, V., & Shaikh, M. (2018) · OSF Preprints (OSF Preprints) · doi:10.31219/osf.io/2juzc
Social, Emotional and Behavioral Screening Profiles Among Students in a Large Urban School District
Robinson-Link, P. M., Fowler, D., Daniels, B., & Battal, J. (2023) · Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment · doi:10.1177/07342829231157474
Wen, X., Zhou, Y., Du, J., Liu, X., & Xu, W. (2024) · International Journal of Mental Health Promotion · doi:10.32604/ijmhp.2024.053095
Saptır, A. B., & Çolak, T. S. (2025) · Balıkesir Medical Journal · doi:10.33716/bmedj.1633691
Han, C. S., & Kim, B. (2025) · Korean Journal of Stress Research · doi:10.17547/kjsr.2025.33.2.103
Nature, Assessment, and Mechanisms of Mindfulness
Bravo, A. J., Lindsay, E. K., & Pearson, M. R. (2025) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-47219-0_2
Self-citationKentucky Inventory of Mindfulness Skills (KIMS)
Baer, R. A., Gu, J., & Strauss, C. (2025) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-47219-0_14
Here’s why you may not be getting the benefits you expected from mindfulness
Johnson, N., & Kil, H. (2024) · doi:10.64628/aam.a5yn4xpv4
Mechanisms of Mindfulness Interventions: Perspectives from Monitor and Acceptance Theory (MAT)
Lindsay, E. K., Berry, D. R., & Dutcher, J. M. (2025) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-91451-5_6
Yang, C., Olsen, J. A., Carlyle, C., & Shen, Y. (2025) · Chinese/English Journal of Educational Measurement and Evaluation · doi:10.59863/zoda2166
de Sousa, G. M., Lima-Araújo, G. L. D., Araújo, D. B. D., & de Sousa, M. B. C. (2021) · Figshare · doi:10.6084/m9.figshare.13684528
de Sousa, G. M., Lima-Araújo, G. L. D., Araújo, D. B. D., & de Sousa, M. B. C. (2021) · Figshare · doi:10.6084/m9.figshare.13684534
de Sousa, G. M., Lima-Araújo, G. L. D., Araújo, D. B. D., & de Sousa, M. B. C. (2021) · Figshare · doi:10.6084/m9.figshare.13684531
Ciarrochi, J., Parker, P., Basarkod, G., Bradshaw, E., Baer, R. A., & Sahdra, B. K. (2018) · OSF Preprints (OSF Preprints)
Gan, Y., Zhao, Z., Zeng, G., Chen, S., & Mao, Z. (2026) · Mindfulness · doi:10.1007/s12671-026-02815-9
Liu, Y., Zeng, J. Z., & Gong, J. (2026) · Mindfulness · doi:10.1007/s12671-026-02833-7
Li, J., Dong, J., & Liu, H. (2026) · Mindfulness · doi:10.1007/s12671-026-02879-7
Mirandi, M., Luminet, O., De, E. F., Delvecchio, E., & Mazzeschi, C. (2026) · Youth & Society · doi:10.1177/0044118x261478263
Metadata
- Authors
- Pearson, M. R., Lawless, A. K., Brown, D. B., & Bravo, A. J.
- Affiliations
- University of New Mexico (US)
- Old Dominion University (US)
- Corresponding author
- Pearson, Matthew R.
- Venue
- Personality and Individual Differences
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2015-04
- Volume
- 76
- Pages
- 33-38
- ISSN
- 0191-8869 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC4269250
- OpenAlex
- W2063435023
- Cited by
- 140
- References
- 42
- Citations by year
- 2026: 5 · 2025: 15 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 16 · 2022: 10 · 2021: 18 · 2020: 19 · 2019: 14 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 15 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 3
- FWCI
- 9.47
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
- Locations
- Personality and Individual Differences (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
- ODU Digital Commons (Old Dominion University) (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- National Institute of Alcoholism and Alcohol Abuse (K01AA023233)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Mindfulness and Compassion Interventions
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Psychological Well-being and Life Satisfaction
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
- Keywords
- mindfulness, mindfulness facets, person-centered analysis, latent profile analysis, university students, depressive symptoms, anxiety symptoms, worry, neuroticism, distress intolerance, non-judgmental awareness, observation, emotional outcomes
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 2026-10-05, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-05 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
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
