The metacognitive processes of decentering scale: Development and initial validation of trait and state versions

Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

Only items with a primary factor loading greater than .40 and a secondary loading less than .20 were retained.

“only items meeting our predefined criteria -- a minimum loading > .40 on a primary factor and loading < .20 on a secondary factor -- were retained”

• cites Baer et al., 2006 sourcePartly supported

  The Exploratory Factor Analyses section (p. 7) specifies a minimum loading of .40 on one factor, supporting the primary-loading threshold. But its second criterion is a difference of at least .20 between the highest and next-highest loadings—not a secondary loading below .20. It describes these criteria for inclusion in Table 3. (LLM, conf=0.90)

  Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
• cites Stevens, 2012Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

The metacognitive processes model proposes that decentering is an emergent, multidimensional construct made up of three core processes: meta-awareness, (dis)identification with internal experience, and (non)reactivity to thought content.

“Synthesizing these literatures, Bernstein et al. (2015) proposed the metacognitive processes model of decentering. Decentering is conceptualized in this model as an emergent, multidimensional construct, comprised of three core metacognitive processes: meta-awareness, (dis)identification with internal experience, and (non)reactivity to thought content.”

• cites Bernstein et al., 2015 sourceSupported

Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

Decentering is identified as a mechanism of action in models of mindfulness.

“As decentering is a mechanism of action identified in models of mindfulness (Bernstein et al., 2015; Dahl, Lutz, & Davidson, 2015; Lau et al., 2006; Shapiro et al., 2006)”

• cites Bernstein et al., 2015 sourceSupported
• cites Dahl et al., 2015 sourceSupported
• cites Lau et al., 2006 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

Meta-awareness involves awareness of internal experience or of the processes unfolding in consciousness.

“Bernstein et al. (2015) proposed that meta-awareness involves awareness of internal experience or the processes unfolding in consciousness.”

• cites Bernstein et al., 2015 sourceSupported

May combine two claims.

The tendency to become immersed in internal experiences differs between individuals, over time, and across contexts.

“The tendency to become immersed in internal experiences – such as thoughts, emotions, and physical sensations – differs between individuals, over time, and across contexts (e.g., Davis, Lau, & Cairns, 2009; Fresco et al., 2007; Lau et al., 2006).”

• cites Davis et al., 2009Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

• cites Fresco et al., 2007 sourcePartly supported

  The general discussion (p. 10) describes decentering—the ability to take a detached view of thoughts and feelings—as an individual-difference variable that is naturally malleable, supporting variation between people and over time. The paper does not establish that the tendency varies across contexts; its discussion of sensations concerns mindfulness rather than decentering. (LLM, conf=0.84)

  Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
• cites Lau et al., 2006 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

The Scales of Psychological Well-being (SPWB) is an 18-item measure of eudaimonic well-being, scored on a 7-point Likert scale, and has demonstrated good internal reliability (α = .83-.88).

“The Scales of Psychological Well-being (SPWB; Ryff, 1989; Ryff & Keyes, 1995) is a 18-item measure of eudaimonic well-being. The SPWB is scored on a 7-point Likert-type scale (1 = Strongly agree to 7 = Strongly disagree) and has demonstrated good internal reliability (α=.83–88; Hanley & Garland, 2017; Hanley, Warner, & Garland, 2014).”

• cites Ryff, 1989Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

• cites Ryff & Keyes, 1995 sourceSupported
• cites Hanley & Garland, 2017Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

Immersion may amplify emotional and behavioral reactivity to internal experience.

“whereas immersion may amplify emotional and behavioral reactivity to internal experience”

• cites Ayduk & Kross, 2010 sourcePartly supported

  The General Discussion (page unavailable) reports less emotional reactivity with greater self-distancing while reflecting on negative experiences, supporting the emotional part of the claim. Study 3’s Summary and Discussion (page unavailable) reports that people low in self-distancing more strongly reciprocated their partners’ negative behavior. That supports a behavioral association in interpersonal conflicts, but not the broader claim of behavioral reactivity to internal experience generally. (LLM, conf=0.82)

  Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
• cites Bernstein et al., 2015 sourcePartly supported

  The Self-distanced perspective section reports less emotional reactivity when people analyze negative memories from a self-distanced rather than self-immersed perspective. The Reduced Reactivity to Thought Content section describes avoidance as a possible behavioral consequence of elevated reactivity to thoughts, but does not link that behavioral response specifically to immersion. The emotional part is supported; the behavioral part is not established for immersion. (LLM, conf=0.83)

  Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
• cites Kross & Ayduk, 2017Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

Decentering may facilitate equanimity and behavioral choice.

“decentering may facilitate equanimity and behavioral choice (Ayduk & Kross, 2010; Bernstein et al., 2015; Kross & Ayduk, 2017; Kross & Grossmann, 2012; Shoham, Hadash, & Bernstein, 2018; Verduyn, Mechelen, Kross, Chezzi, & Bever, 2012).”

• cites Ayduk & Kross, 2010 sourceSupported
• cites Bernstein et al., 2015 sourceSupported
• cites Kross & Ayduk, 2017Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

May combine two claims.

It may be that meta-awareness alone is not directly associated with psychological well-being, and confers psychological benefit only through, or in combination with, non-reactivity and dis-identification with internal experience.

“It may be that meta-awareness, alone, is not directly associated with psychological well-being, and confers psychological benefit only through, or in combination with, non-reactivity and dis-identification with internal experience (Bernstein et al., 2015; Desrosiers, Vine, Curtiss, Klemanski, 2014).”

• cites Bernstein et al., 2015 sourcePartly supported

  In “Decentering and metacognitive awareness” (page unavailable), the review says disidentification may mediate the effects of meta-awareness on mental-health outcomes. But it does not establish that meta-awareness alone lacks a direct association with well-being or that benefit occurs only through or alongside the other processes. “Future Directions—Mental health mechanisms” also proposes possible mechanisms for meta-awareness itself. (LLM, conf=0.83)

  Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
• cites Desrosiers, Vine, Curtiss, Klemanski, 2014Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

• AssumptionRests on an assumption: Participants are able to accurately know and report how frequently they decenter.

May combine two claims.

Items in the (non)reactivity to internal experience factor reflect (non)reactivity to thoughts, feelings, and emotions, and therefore reflect reactivity to internal experience beyond thought content per se.

“Second, items in the (non)reactivity to internal experience factor reflect (non)reactivity to thoughts, feelings, and emotions, and therefore reflect reactivity to internal experience beyond thought content per se (Bernstein et al., 2015; Hadash et al., 2017).”

• cites Bernstein et al., 2015 sourcePartly supported

  The “Reduced Reactivity to Thought Content” section describes thoughts having reduced effects on other processes, including emotion, and “Disidentification from internal experience” includes thoughts and emotions among internal states. But the paper does not describe the cited factor’s items or establish that they measure reactivity to feelings and emotions beyond thought content. (LLM, conf=0.82)

  Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
• cites Hadash et al., 2017Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

May combine two claims.

EFA and B-ESEM results from Studies 1 and 2 indicated that the MPoD-t was multidimensional and could assess a global higher-order decentering factor and three independent yet related lower-order metacognitive processes: meta-awareness, (dis)identification, and (non)reactivity.

“First, EFA and B-ESEM results from Studies 1 and 2 indicated that the MPoD-t was multidimensional and could be used to assess a global, higher-order decentering factor and three independent yet related lower-order metacognitive processes: meta-awareness (e.g., “I can watch my thoughts and emotions drift by like leaves on a stream.”), (dis)identification with internal experience (e.g., “My sense of”

• cites Bernstein et al., 2015 sourcePartly supported

  Split into 2 atoms — 0 confirmed, 1 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 1 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.

  Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

• AssumptionThe authors state this as an assumption: The pool of items generated for the MPoD-t adequately represents the theorized metacognitive processes of decentering.

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable).

In moments of immersion, one is often reflexively identified with and reactive to internal experience.

“In moments of immersion, one is often reflexively identified with and reactive to internal experience (e.g., Dorjee, 2016; Kross & Ayduk, 2017).”

• cites Dorjee, 2016 sourcePartly supported

  In “Modes of Existential Awareness” (page unavailable), Dorjee describes ordinary awareness as shaped by cognitions and habits, and decentering as seeing thoughts and feelings as fleeting rather than fixed facts. The section also reports less reactivity in meditators. These passages support the general contrast, but do not directly characterize moments of immersion as reflexive identification with and reactivity to internal experience. (LLM, conf=0.77)

  Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
• cites Kross & Ayduk, 2017Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

Negative emotional reactivity to negative thought content was found to mediate the effects of negative thought content on internal attention, cognitive vulnerability, depression, and anxiety symptoms.

“In fact, negative emotional reactivity to negative thought content was found to mediate the effects of negative thought content on internal attention, cognitive vulnerability, depression and anxiety symptoms (Bernstein et al, 2019).”

• cites Bernstein et al, 2019 sourcePartly supported

  The Behavioral Assessment section reports that negative emotional reactivity to negative self-referential thoughts predicted difficulty disengaging internal attention; that difficulty predicted cognitive vulnerability measures, which in turn predicted depression and anxiety symptoms. It does not report that emotional reactivity mediated an effect of negative thought content on those outcomes. Page numbers are unavailable in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.86)

  Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

May combine two claims.

In the initial exploratory factor analysis, the first factor reflected (non)reactivity to internal experience and the second reflected meta-awareness.

“The first factor reflected (non)reactivity to internal experience and the second meta-awareness.”

May combine two claims.

The remaining three factors in the initial exploratory factor analysis reflected variations on (dis)identification with internal experience and explained limited variance independently.

“The remaining three factors reflected variations on (dis)identification with internal experience and explained limited variance independently.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

In Study 1, items measuring (dis)identification with internal experience were noticeably lacking in the initial item pool.

“Items measuring (dis)identification with internal experience were noticeably lacking.”

May combine two claims.

Mindfulness practitioners reported higher MPoD-t scores than non-practitioners, providing known-groups criterion validity.

“as well as known-groups criterion validity, wherein mindfulness practitioners reported higher MPoD-t scores than non-practitioners.”

May combine two claims.

The model accounted for 26% of the variance in decentering scores, 46% of the variance in pain ratings, 13% of the variance in pain medication desire ratings, and 20% of the variance in anxiety ratings.

“The model accounted for 26% of the variance in decentering scores, 46% of the variance in pain ratings, 13% of the variance in pain medication desire ratings, and 20% of the variance in anxiety ratings.”

• AssumptionRests on an assumption: Participants are able to accurately know and report how frequently they decenter.

May combine two claims.

The MPoD-t captured a global higher-order decentering factor, and the three metacognitive process factors explained significant variance not accounted for by the global factor.

“These results indicated that 1) the MPoD-t captured a global, higher-order, decentering factor and 2) the three metacognitive process factors explained significant amounts of variance not accounted for by the global factor.”

May combine two claims.

The mindfulness induction and decentering had significant direct effects on pain, pain medication desire, and anxiety.

“The mindfulness induction and decentering, measured via MPoD-s, had significant direct effects on pain, pain medication desire, and anxiety.”

• AssumptionRests on an assumption: Participants are able to accurately know and report how frequently they decenter.

May combine two claims.

Mindfulness practitioners reported significantly higher MPoD-t, meta-awareness, (dis)identification, and (non)reactivity scores than non-practitioners.

“Mindfulness practitioners reported significantly higher MPoD-t, meta-awareness, (dis)identification, and (non)reactivity scores than non-practitioners.”

• AssumptionRests on an assumption: Participants are able to accurately know and report how frequently they decenter.

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

The sample used to examine the MPoD-s' sensitivity to intervention in Study 4 was primarily older, white American adults.

“Similarly, the sample used to examine the MPoD-s’ sensitivity to intervention in Study 4 was primarily older, white American adults.”

May combine two claims.

Item discrimination parameters for the meta-awareness dimension ranged from 1.55 to 2.63 (M = 2.12, SD = 0.44); for (dis)identification from 0.80 to 2.10 (M = 1.56, SD = 0.56); and for (non)reactivity from 1.13 to 2.31 (M = 1.58, SD = 0.46).

“Item discrimination parameters (a) for the meta-awareness dimension ranged from 1.55 to 2.63 [M(SD)=2.12(0.44)]; the (dis)identification dimension ranged from 0.80 to 2.10 [M(SD)=1.56(0.56)]; and the (non)reactivity dimension ranged from 1.13 to 2.31 [M(SD)=1.58(0.46)].”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

One item from each of the three MPoD-t subscales provided more information than the other subscale items.

“However, one item from each of the three MPoD-t subscales provided more information than the other subscale items.”

May combine two claims.

The mindfulness induction had a significant indirect effect on pain (β = −.20, p = .002), pain medication desire (β = −.14, p = .026), and anxiety (β = −.16, p = .004) via decentering.

“The mindfulness induction also had a significant indirect effect on pain (β=−.20, p=.002), pain medication desire (β=−.14, p=.026), and anxiety (β=−.16, p=.004) via decentering.”

• AssumptionRests on an assumption: Participants are able to accurately know and report how frequently they decenter.

May combine two claims.

Bivariate associations between the three metacognitive processes and constructs of interest were largely consistent with those observed for the full scale score, and people practicing mindfulness had higher scores on all three metacognitive processes compared to people who do not practice mindfulness.

“Third, bivariate associations between the three metacognitive processes of decentering and constructs of interest were largely consistent with those observed for the full scale score, and people practicing mindfulness had higher scores on all three metacognitive processes compared to people who do not practice mindfulness.”

• AssumptionRests on an assumption: Participants are able to accurately know and report how frequently they decenter.

May combine two claims.

In a MANCOVA controlling for pre-intervention levels, the mindfulness condition showed significantly greater decentering and significantly less pain, pain medication desire, and anxiety than the psychoeducation condition post-intervention.

“A MANCOVA – controlling for pre-intervention levels of decentering, pain, pain medication desire, and anxiety – documented that relative to participants in the psychoeducation condition, participants in the mindfulness condition reported significantly greater decentering (F1,70=34.81, p<.001, η2=.332), less pain (F1,70=38.60, p<.001, η2=.355), pain medication desire (F1,70=7.82, p=.007, η2=.100),”

• AssumptionRests on an assumption: Participants are able to accurately know and report how frequently they decenter.

May combine two claims.

Preoperative orthopedic surgery patients who briefly practiced mindfulness reported elevated state decentering, measured by the MPoD-s, which mediated the therapeutic effects of mindfulness on pain, pain medication desire, and anxiety.

“Preoperative orthopedic surgery patients who briefly practiced mindfulness reported elevated state of decentering, measured by the MPoD-s, which thereby mediated the therapeutic effects of mindfulness on pain, pain medication desire, and anxiety.”

• AssumptionRests on an assumption: Participants are able to accurately know and report how frequently they decenter.

May combine two claims.

Significant positive associations were observed between the MPoD-t total score and each of the MPoD-t metacognitive processes and multiple previously validated measures of decentering, dispositional mindfulness, self-transcendence, psychological well-being, and positive affectivity.

“Significant positive associations were observed between the MPoD-t total score (i.e., decentering) and each of the MPoD-t metacognitive processes and multiple, previously validated measures of decentering, dispositional mindfulness, self-transcendence, psychological well-being, and positive affectivity (Table 6).”

• AssumptionRests on an assumption: Participants are able to accurately know and report how frequently they decenter.

May combine two claims.

B-ESEM produced a better fitting model than CFA, with the lowest AIC, a CFI increase of .049, and a marginal RMSEA decrease of .009.

“B-ESEM produced the best fitting model – the lowest AIC value, a notable CFI increase (CFI Δ=.049) and a marginal RMSEA decrease (RMSEA Δ=.009) (Morin et al., 2016) relative to CFA.”

• cites Morin et al., 2016Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

In Study 1, only MTurk workers with more than 500 previous tasks and an approval rate above 95% were invited.

“only MTurk workers with a proven history of providing good quality data were invited to participate in this survey (i.e., successful completion of >500 previous tasks with a task approval rate of >95%).”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

In Study 1, participants who did not complete all survey items were excluded.

“First, we excluded participants that did not complete all survey items (n=88).”

Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

Two levels of awareness can be distinguished: an object level oriented to contents of awareness and a meta level oriented to the process or experience of thinking.

“Indeed, two levels of awareness may be distinguished (Nelson, Stuart, Howard, & Crowley, 1999). The object level of awareness is oriented to the contents of awareness such as awareness of the content of thought, whereas the meta level of awareness is oriented to the process or experience of thinking.”

• cites Nelson et al., 1999Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

Naragon-Gainey and DeMarree labeled their factors Observer Perspective and Reduced Struggle with Inner Experience.

“Naragon-Gainey and DeMarree (2017) labeled their two factors Observer Perspective, which they conceptually linked with two metacognitive processes of decentering, meta-awareness and (dis)identification with internal experience, and Reduced Struggle with Inner Experience, conceptually linked (non)reactivity to thought content.”

• cites Naragon-Gainey & DeMarree, 2017 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

The Study 1 survey was approved by a large Western university's institutional review board.

“A large Western university’s institutional review board approved this study.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

In Study 1, IP addresses and geographic coordinates were reviewed to ensure each response came from a unique participant.

“Finally, IP addresses and geographic coordinates were reviewed to ensure each response was from a unique participant (n=2).”

Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

Improving decentering is a frequent therapeutic target, especially in mindfulness-based interventions.

“Consequently, improving decentering is a common therapeutic target, particularly for mindfulness-based interventions.”

• cites Beck, 1979Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

• cites Garland, 2013Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

• cites Hayes et al., 1999Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

In Study 1, participants who completed the survey at a reading rate of 300 or more words per minute were excluded.

“Second, we excluded participants (n=213) that completed the survey at a reading rate of 300+ words per minute (i.e., in 7 minutes and 30 seconds), as 300 English word per minute is the expected reading rate of a college educated adult (Brysbaert, 2019; Carver, 1982; Taylor, 1965).”

• cites Brysbaert, 2019Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

• cites Carver, 1982Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

• cites Taylor, 1965Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

B-ESEM can account for the likelihood that an MPoD-t item may be associated with multiple sources of true score variance.

“An alternative to confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), B-ESEM is capable of accounting for the likelihood that a MPoD-t item may be associated with multiple sources of true score variance (Morin et al., 2016).”

• cites Morin et al., 2016Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable).

The MPoD may help advance understanding of how the metacognitive processes of decentering support mental health and well-being.

“As such, the MPoD may help advance our understanding of how the metacognitive processes of decentering support mental health and well-being.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

Hadash et al. labeled their factors Intentional Decentered Perspective and Automatic Reactivity to Thought Content.

“Based on item composition, Hadash et al. (2017) labeled their factors Intentional Decentered Perspective (i.e., “intentional states of dis-identified and non-reactive meta-awareness of mental phenomena,” p. 1683) and Automatic Reactivity to Thought Content.”

• cites Hadash et al., 2017Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

B-ESEM is not bound by the independent cluster model constraints of confirmatory factor analysis.

“B-ESEM was chosen instead of confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) because it is not bound by the independent cluster model constraints of CFA (Morin et al., 2016).”

• cites Morin et al., 2016Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

May combine two claims.

Neither prior factor-analytic study found a distinct meta-awareness factor or a distinct (dis)identification with internal experience factor.

“Neither study revealed a distinct meta-awareness factor or a distinct (dis)identification with internal experience factor.”

• cites Hadash et al., 2017Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

• cites Naragon-Gainey & DeMarree, 2017 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

May combine two claims.

Bartlett's Test of Sphericity was highly significant (.96), exceeding the minimum recommended value (.60).

“Item factorability was supported by a highly significant Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity value (.96), which well exceeded the minimum recommended value (.60; Tabacnick & Fidell, 2007).”

• cites Tabacnick & Fidell, 2007Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

May combine two claims.

The MPoD-t full scale score reflects not only the unique contribution of each metacognitive process but also an integration between the processes that together reflect more than the individual processes.

“In other words, the MPoD-t full scale score reflects not only the unique contribution of each metacognitive processes but an integration between the metacognitive processes that together reflect more than the individual processes.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

The short form of the Positive and Negative Affect Scale (PANAS) is a 10-item measure of positive and negative affectivity, scored on a 5-point Likert scale, and has demonstrated good internal reliability (α = .74-.82).

“The short form of the Positive and Negative Affect Scale (PANAS; Thompson, 2007; Watson, Clark, & Tellegen, 1988) is a 10-item measure of positive (e.g., “Inspired”) and negative (e.g., “Upset”) affectivity. The PANAS is scored on a 5-point Likert-type scale (1 = Never to 5 = Always) and has demonstrated good internal reliability (α=.74–82; Thompson, 2007).”

• cites Thompson, 2007Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

• cites Watson, Clark, & Tellegen, 1988 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

May combine two claims.

The MPoD-t was minimally associated with dispositional mindfulness, emphasizing that these two constructs are related but conceptually distinct and separable.

“The MPoD-t was minimally associated with dispositional mindfulness, a result that emphasizes the fact that these two constructs are related but conceptually distinct and separable (Bernstein et al., 2015, 2019).”

• cites Bernstein et al., 2015, 2019Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

• AssumptionRests on an assumption: Participants are able to accurately know and report how frequently they decenter.

May combine two claims.

Collectively, these findings support the construct validity and known-groups criterion validity of the MPoD-t as a measure of decentering.

“Collectively, these findings support the construct validity and known-groups criterion validity of the MPoD-t as a measure of decentering.”

• AssumptionThe authors state this as an assumption: The pool of items generated for the MPoD-t adequately represents the theorized metacognitive processes of decentering.
• AssumptionRests on an assumption: Participants are able to accurately know and report how frequently they decenter.

Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

In Study 2, participants who had completed the Study 1 survey were excluded.

“and completed the Study 1 survey (n=41)”

May combine two claims.

Three separate studies, including a total of 1,079 participants, provided strong initial support for the factor structure, internal reliability, convergent validity, and known-groups criterion validity of the MPoD-t.

“Three separate studies, including a total of 1,079 participants, provided strong initial support for the factor structure, internal reliability, convergent validity, and known-groups criterion validity of the MPoD-t.”

• AssumptionThe authors state this as an assumption: The pool of items generated for the MPoD-t adequately represents the theorized metacognitive processes of decentering.
• AssumptionRests on an assumption: Participants are able to accurately know and report how frequently they decenter.

May combine two claims.

An independent samples t-test revealed no between-group differences in decentering, pain, pain medication desire, or anxiety at baseline, indicating that randomization was successful.

“An independent samples t-test revealed no between-group differences in decentering (t78=1.04, p=.30), pain (t80=0.32, p=.75), pain medication desire (t80=0.94, p=.35), or anxiety (t80=0.33, p=.74) at baseline (Table 8), indicating that randomization was successful.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

In Study 2, participants who did not fully complete all survey items were excluded.

“participants were exclude if they did not fully complete all survey items (n=83)”

May combine two claims.

Randomization was successful; groups did not differ with respect to age, gender, or race.

“Randomization was successful – groups did not differ with respect to age (t63=0.62, p=.54), gender (X2=0.81, p=.37), or race (X2=8.74, p=.12).”

May combine two claims.

The MPoD-t can discriminate mindfulness practitioners from non-practitioners, and mindfulness practice is associated with greater levels of trait decentering as measured by the MPoD-t.

“These results suggest that the MPoD-t can discriminate mindfulness practitioners from non-practitioners, and that mindfulness practice is associated with greater levels of trait decentering as measured by the MPoD-t.”

• AssumptionRests on an assumption: Participants are able to accurately know and report how frequently they decenter.

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

This finding is in line with non-significant associations previously found between observing experience and psychological well-being among non-meditators.

“This is in line with non-significant associations previously found between observing experience and psychological well-being among non-meditators (Baer et al., 2008).”

• cites Baer et al., 2008Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

May combine two claims.

Data were normally distributed for all individual items (skewness and kurtosis < .88) and each subscale (skewness and kurtosis < .57).

“Data were normally distributed for all individual items (skewness and kurtosis <.88) and each subscale (skewness and kurtosis <.57).”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

These results may not generalize beyond the specific samples used in the current studies.

“Third, these results may not generalize beyond the specific samples used in the current studies.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

In Study 2, participants who completed the survey at a reading rate of 300 or more words per minute were excluded.

“completed the survey at a reading rate of 300+ words per minute (n=193)”

Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

Immersion in internal experience may bias attention, shape thought, and motivate behavior.

“Consequently, immersion in internal experience may bias attention, shape thought, and motivate behavior.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

Self-report scales were the primary data acquisition method, raising the possibility that common method variance and related response style similarities influenced results.

“Fourth, self-report scales were the primary data acquisition method in these studies, raising the possibility that common method variance and related response style similarities influenced results.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

The observed factor solution was circumscribed and limited to the pool of items included.

“First, as in all similar psychometric and factor analytically-derived measures, the observed factor solution was circumscribed and limited to the pool of items included.”

May combine two claims.

The MPoD's development advances the study of decentering as a multidimensional trait and state, contributes to mindfulness and mental health intervention research, allows investigation of state by trait interactions, and contributes a psychometrically sound measure for studying the metacognitive processes of decentering in wellbeing and mental health.

“We believe the MPoD’s development: (a) advances the study of decentering as a multidimensional trait and state; (b) contributes to mindfulness and mental health intervention research by providing a sound measurement option for a central mechanism of mindfulness-based and related interventions; (c) allows for direct investigation of state by trait interactions occurring in daily living and in the”

• AssumptionThe authors state this as an assumption: The pool of items generated for the MPoD-t adequately represents the theorized metacognitive processes of decentering.
• AssumptionRests on an assumption: Participants are able to accurately know and report how frequently they decenter.

May combine two claims.

The MPoD-t and the MPoD-s appear to be psychometrically sound and useful scales to assess decentering and its metacognitive processes.

“In summary, the MPoD-t and the MPoD-s appear to be psychometrically sound and useful scales to assess decentering and the metacognitive process of decentering including meta-awareness, (dis)identification with internal experience, and (non)reactivity to internal experience.”

• AssumptionThe authors state this as an assumption: The pool of items generated for the MPoD-t adequately represents the theorized metacognitive processes of decentering.
• AssumptionRests on an assumption: Participants are able to accurately know and report how frequently they decenter.

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).

Individuals likely differ in their abilities to accurately know and report how frequently they decenter.

“Moreover, individuals likely differ with respects to their abilities to accurately know and report how frequently they decenter.”