Cited by 76Mindfulness and Compassion InterventionsPsychometric Methodologies and TestingAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes

The Psychometric Properties of the Kentucky Inventory of Mindfulness Skills in Clinical Populations

Baum, Corinna, Kuyken, Willem, Bohus, Martin, Heidenreich, Thomas, Michalak, Johannes, Steil, Regina·2010·Assessment

Abstract

The Kentucky Inventory of Mindfulness Skills (KIMS) is a well-validated multidimensional questionnaire measuring dimensions of mindfulness on four scales: Observing, Describing, Act With Awareness, and Accept Without Judgment. Even though the KIMS has been used in several clinical studies no information is available about the psychometric properties in different clinical samples. The present study includes two clinical samples: a German sample of people diagnosed with borderline personality disorder, posttraumatic stress disorder, or major depression and an English sample of people diagnosed with recurrent depression. Results of confirmatory factor analysis offer good support for the hypothesized model of four correlated factors, whereas the model of one general underlying mindfulness factor as a second order construct was not confirmed. Furthermore, our analyses revealed that the KIMS scales show high internal consistency and that all KIMS scales are sensitive to change in a subsample of participants taking part in Mindfulness-Based Cognitive Therapy.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/1073191109356525

Cites

41 of 41 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Baum, C., Kuyken, W., Bohus, M., Heidenreich, T., Michalak, J., & Steil, R.
Affiliations
  • University of Bamberg (DE)
  • University of Exeter (GB)
  • Central Institute of Mental Health (DE)
  • Esslingen University of Applied Sciences (DE)
  • Ruhr University Bochum (DE)
Corresponding author
Baum, Corinna
Venue
Assessment
Published
2009-12-29
Volume
17
Issue
2
Pages
220-229
ISSN
  • 1073-1911 (ISSN-L)
  • 1552-3489
OpenAlex
W2118691522
Cited by
76
References
41
Citations by year
2025: 5 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 10 · 2014: 7 · 2013: 6 · 2012: 9
FWCI
6.70
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Assessment (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Mindfulness and Compassion Interventions
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Psychometric Methodologies and Testing
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
Keywords
mindfulness, psychometric properties, borderline personality disorder, post-traumatic stress disorder, major depressive disorder, recurrent depression, second-order factor structure, mindfulness-based cognitive therapy, sensitivity to change, clinical populations
MeSH terms
Adult, Attention, Awareness, Borderline Personality Disorder, Depression, Factor Analysis, Statistical, Female, Germany, Humans, Kentucky, Male, Mental Health, Middle Aged, Models, Psychological, Personality Tests, Psychometrics, Surveys and Questionnaires, Self-Assessment, Statistics as Topic, Stress Disorders, Post-Traumatic, United States, Reproducibility of Results, Confidence Intervals, Secondary Prevention, 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