CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 517Mindfulness and Compassion InterventionsReligion, Spirituality, and PsychologyAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 11 of the 12 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Responding mindfully to unpleasant thoughts and images: Reliability and validity of the Southampton mindfulness questionnaire (SMQ)

Chadwick, Paul, Hember, Martin, Symes, Janette, Peters, Emmanuelle, Kuipers, Elizabeth, Dagnan, Dave·2008·British Journal of Clinical Psychology
DOI 10.1348/014466508x314891
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Objective: To assess the reliability and validity of the Southampton mindfulness questionnaire (SMQ), a 16‐item measure of mindful awareness of distressing thoughts and images. Methods: A total of 256 people participated, comprising a non‐clinical community sample of 134 (83 meditators and 51 non‐meditators) and a clinical sample of 122 people with a current distressing psychosis. To assess concurrent validity, non‐clinical participants and half clinical participants (total 197 participants) completed the mindful attention awareness scale (MAAS). Predicted links were assessed with affect, and 59 patients completed a validated measure to assess link between mindfulness and intensity of ‘delusional’ experience. Results: The scale has a single factor structure, was internally reliable, significantly correlated with the MAAS, showed expected associations with affect, and distinguished among meditators, non‐meditators and people with psychosis. Conclusions: The data support use of the SMQ in clinical practice and research to assess mindful responding to distressing thoughts and images.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1348/014466508x314891

Cites

11 of 11 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Verification

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?

Citations

Cites

Show all 12 references

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Kabat‐Zinn J., 1990, Full catastrophe living: The program of the stress reduction clinic at the University of Massachusetts Medical Centre

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 501–517 of 517

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Chadwick, P., Hember, M., Symes, J., Peters, E., Kuipers, E., & Dagnan, D.
Affiliations
  • Royal South Hants Hospital (GB)
  • University of Southampton (GB)
  • King's College London (GB)
  • Lancaster University (GB)
Corresponding author
Chadwick, Paul
ORCID
Venue
British Journal of Clinical Psychology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2008-11
Volume
47
Issue
4
Pages
451-455
ISSN
  • 0144-6657 (ISSN-L)
  • 2044-8260
DOI
10.1348/014466508x314891
OpenAlex
W2028960724
Cited by
517
References
12
Citations by year
2026: 16 · 2025: 43 · 2024: 31 · 2023: 34 · 2022: 44 · 2021: 45 · 2020: 35 · 2019: 27 · 2018: 20 · 2017: 23 · 2016: 39 · 2015: 30 · 2014: 25 · 2013: 32 · 2012: 33
FWCI
13.40
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/termsAndConditions#vor (vor, 783 d)
Locations
  • British Journal of Clinical Psychology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Lancaster EPrints (Lancaster University) (submittedVersion)
  • Insight (University of Cumbria) (submittedVersion)
  • Research Portal (King's College London) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Mindfulness and Compassion Interventions
  • Social Sciences › Health › Religion, Spirituality, and Psychology
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
Keywords
mindfulness, psychosis, delusional experiences, Mindful Attention Awareness Scale, meditators, affect, psychometric validation, factor structure
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Aged, Attention, Awareness, Cognition Disorders, Delusions, Factor Analysis, Statistical, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Personality Inventory, Psychiatric Status Rating Scales, Psychometrics, Psychotic Disorders, Surveys and Questionnaires, Sensitivity and Specificity, Reproducibility of Results

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