Cited by 775Mindfulness and Compassion InterventionsReligion, Spirituality, and PsychologyPsychotherapy Techniques and Applications

Conceptual and methodological issues in research on mindfulness and meditation.

Open access
Davidson, Richard J., Kaszniak, Alfred W.·2015·American Psychologist

Abstract

Both basic science and clinical research on mindfulness, meditation, and related constructs have dramatically increased in recent years. However, interpretation of these research results has been challenging. The present article addresses unique conceptual and methodological problems posed by research in this area. Included among the key topics is the role of first-person experience and how it can be best studied, the challenges posed by intervention research designs in which true double-blinding is not possible, the nature of control and comparison conditions for research that includes mindfulness or other meditation-based interventions, issues in the adequate description of mindfulness and related trainings and interventions, the question of how mindfulness can be measured, questions regarding what can and cannot be inferred from self-report measures, and considerations regarding the structure of study design and data analyses. Most of these topics are germane to both basic and clinical research studies and have important bearing on the future scientific understanding of mindfulness and meditation.

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 · 10.1037/a0039512

Cites

69 of 69 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?

  • ACM was designed to control for nonspecific aspects of meditation while excluding explicit mindfulness training.

    “ACM was designed to control for nonspecific aspects of meditation—such as dedicated self‐care time, structured practice, and expectation of benefit—while excluding explicit mindfulness training (Davidson & Kaszniak, 2015; Kinser & Robins, 2013).”

    From The effects of mindfulness meditation on burnout in clinical genetic counselors: A three-arm randomized controlled trial (2026) · cites this paper as Davidson & Kaszniak, 2015

    Section IX (Comparison and control groups; page unavailable) describes HEP as a comparison intervention matched to MBSR on group format, instructor training, expected benefit, and daily practice. Its intervention table lists non-mindfulness activities for HEP. The copy does not identify ACM or establish that ACM was designed this way, so the citation supports the control-design rationale but not the claim about that specific intervention. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Comparisons to a passive control can both overestimate effect sizes and identify effectiveness erroneously.

    “These findings need to be interpreted with caution, given that they arise from secondary analyses, and because it has been well demonstrated that comparisons to a passive control can both overestimate effect sizes and identify effectiveness erroneously (Davidson & Kaszniak, 2015; Goldberg et al., 2022; Kinser & Robins, 2013).”

    From The effects of mindfulness meditation on burnout in clinical genetic counselors: A three-arm randomized controlled trial (2026) · cites this paper as Davidson & Kaszniak, 2015

    Section IX (Comparison and control groups; page unavailable) says wait-list controls cannot establish that clinical change is due to mindfulness, because participants know their assignments and differential demand characteristics are likely. It also reports outcomes on which mindfulness did not outperform an active comparison. These passages support the risk of erroneously identifying a mindfulness-specific effect, but do not explicitly establish that passive controls overestimate effect sizes. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Participants were not blinded regarding which group (MBSR or ACT) they belonged to, but were blinded to which treatment group was the focus of the study and the different expected effects of each group.

    “Participants of the study were not blinded regarding which group (MBSR or ACT) they belong to.They were, however, blinded to which treatment group was the focus of the study and the different expected effects of each group as recommended by Davidson & Kaszniak (2015).”

    From Effects of mindfulness meditation and Acceptance and commitment therapy in patients with obstructive sleep apnea with residual excessive sleepiness: A randomized controlled pilot study (2023) · cites this paper as Davidson & Kaszniak (2015)

    In “IX. Comparison and control groups” (page unavailable), Davidson and Kaszniak say participants cannot be blinded to their assigned group but recommend blinding them to which intervention is the focus of the research. The section does not recommend blinding participants to the different expected effects of the groups. The MBSR–ACT study’s reported procedure is the citing authors’ own, not a procedure documented in this source. (LLM, conf=0.83)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • In mindfulness-based programs, participants are explicitly introduced to concepts and practices that overlap with the items they later complete, which increases the risk of demand characteristics and responses shaped by perceived expectations.

    “In mindfulness-based programs, participants are explicitly introduced to concepts and practices that overlap with the items they later complete, which increases the risk of demand characteristics and responses shaped by perceived expectations (Davidson & Kaszniak, 2015; Ghanbari Noshari et al., 2023).”

    From Measuring mindfulness: A systematic review and evaluation of self-report mindfulness scales (2026) · cites this paper as Davidson & Kaszniak, 2015

    Split into 2 atoms — 0 confirmed, 2 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • No gold standard active control for mindfulness meditation exists.

    “However, these have been challenging to design and no gold standard active control for MM exists (Davidson & Kaszniak, 2015; Kinser & Robins, 2013).”

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

1 of the 70 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Jacobson E Progressive relaxation 1938 2nd ed. Oxford, England Univ. Chicago Press

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Davidson, R. J., & Kaszniak, A. W.
Affiliations
  • University of Wisconsin–Madison (US)
  • University of Arizona (US)
Venue
American Psychologist
Published
2015-10
Volume
70
Issue
7
Pages
581-592
ISSN
  • 0003-066X (ISSN-L)
  • 1935-990X
OpenAlex
W2406560806
Cited by
773
References
70
Citations by year
2026: 44 · 2025: 69 · 2024: 69 · 2023: 87 · 2022: 86 · 2021: 91 · 2020: 86 · 2019: 87 · 2018: 66 · 2017: 50 · 2016: 30 · 2015: 4 · 2012: 1
FWCI
62.09
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • American Psychologist (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health (P01AT004952)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Mindfulness and Compassion Interventions
  • Social Sciences › Health › Religion, Spirituality, and Psychology
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychotherapy Techniques and Applications
Keywords
mindfulness, meditation, first-person experience, meditation-based interventions, control conditions, mindfulness measurement, self-report measures, research design, data analysis, conceptual difficulties
MeSH terms
Clinical Trials as Topic, Humans, Research Design, Meditation, Biomedical Research, Mindfulness

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