Cited by 90Mindfulness and Compassion InterventionsPersonality Disorders and PsychopathologyAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes

Incremental validity of mindfulness skills in relation to emotional dysregulation among a young adult community sample.

Open access
Vujanovic, Anka A., Bonn-Miller, Marcel O., Bernstein, Amit, McKee, Laura G., Zvolensky, Michael J.·2010·Cognitive Behaviour Therapy

Abstract

The present investigation examined the incremental predictive validity of mindfulness skills, as measured by the Kentucky Inventory of Mindfulness Skills (KIMS), in relation to multiple facets of emotional dysregulation, as indexed by the Difficulties in Emotion Regulation Scale (DERS), above and beyond variance explained by negative affectivity, anxiety sensitivity, and distress tolerance. Participants were a nonclinical community sample of 193 young adults (106 women, 87 men; M(age) = 23.91 years). The KIMS Accepting without Judgment subscale was incrementally negatively predictive of all facets of emotional dysregulation, as measured by the DERS. Furthermore, KIMS Acting with Awareness was incrementally negatively related to difficulties engaging in goal-directed behavior. Additionally, both observing and describing mindfulness skills were incrementally negatively related to lack of emotional awareness, and describing skills also were incrementally negatively related to lack of emotional clarity. Findings are discussed in relation to advancing scientific understanding of emotional dysregulation from a mindfulness skills-based framework.

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 · 10.1080/16506070903441630

Cites

39 of 39 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?

  • Mindfulness tends to predict more emotional self-regulation ability.

    “Mindfulness tends to predict more emotional self-regulation ability because it is characterized with awareness and clarity of emotions, and acceptance without judgment were associated with less difficulties of emotion regulation”

    From Adolescents' mindfulness and psychological distress: The mediating role of emotion regulation (2019) · cites this paper as Vujanovic et al., 2010

    The Discussion reports that accepting without judgment statistically predicted fewer emotion-regulation difficulties, while observing and describing were associated with greater emotional awareness and clarity. It also says awareness alone was less strongly associated with regulation difficulties. Because the study was cross-sectional, it cannot establish the causal explanation implied by “because.” (LLM, conf=0.84)

    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

1 of the 40 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. First M Spitzer R Gibbon M Williams J Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV (nonpatient edition) 1995 Biometrics Research Department, New York State Psychiatric Institute New York

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Vujanovic, A. A., Bonn-Miller, M. O., Bernstein, A., McKee, L. G., & Zvolensky, M. J.
Affiliations
  • VA Boston Healthcare System (US)
  • University of Haifa (IL)
  • University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (US)
  • University of Vermont (US)
Corresponding author
Vujanovic, Anka A.
Venue
Cognitive Behaviour Therapy
Published
2010-09
Volume
39
Issue
3
Pages
203-213
ISSN
  • 1650-6073 (ISSN-L)
  • 1651-2316
OpenAlex
W2036642808
Cited by
90
References
40
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 14 · 2014: 10 · 2013: 9 · 2012: 2
FWCI
5.28
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Cognitive Behaviour Therapy (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs
  • University of Vermont
  • Department of Health, Vermont
  • National Institute of Mental Health (R01MH076629)
  • Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (T32HD007376)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Mindfulness and Compassion Interventions
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Personality Disorders and Psychopathology
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
Keywords
mindfulness skills, emotional dysregulation, incremental validity, Difficulties in Emotion Regulation Scale, negative affectivity, anxiety sensitivity, distress tolerance, acting with awareness, observation, description, emotional awareness, emotional clarity, goal-directed behavior, young adults
MeSH terms
Adaptation, Psychological, Adult, Affect, Anxiety, Awareness, Emotions, Female, Frustration, Humans, Judgment, Male, Personality Inventory, Predictive Value of Tests, Surveys and Questionnaires, Sampling Studies, Severity of Illness Index, Stress, Psychological, Reproducibility of Results, Young Adult

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