Cited by 138Mindfulness and Compassion InterventionsReligion, Spirituality, and PsychologyPsychological Well-being and Life Satisfaction

Relationship between meditative practice and self-reported mindfulness: the MINDSENS composite index

Open access
Soler, Joaquim, Cebolla, Ausiàs, Feliu-Soler, Albert, Demarzo, Marcelo M. P., Pascual, Juan C., Baños, Rosa, García-Campayo, Javier·2014·PLoS ONE

Abstract

Mindfulness has been described as an inherent human capability that can be learned and trained, and its improvement has been associated with better health outcomes in both medicine and psychology. Although the role of practice is central to most mindfulness programs, practice-related improvements in mindfulness skills is not consistently reported and little is known about how the characteristics of meditative practice affect different components of mindfulness. The present study explores the role of practice parameters on self-reported mindfulness skills. A total of 670 voluntary participants with and without previous meditation experience (n = 384 and n = 286, respectively) responded to an internet-based survey on various aspects of their meditative practice (type of meditation, length of session, frequency, and lifetime practice). Participants also completed the Five Facets Mindfulness Questionnaire (FFMQ), and the Experiences Questionnaire (EQ). The group with meditation experience obtained significantly higher scores on all facets of FFMQ and EQ questionnaires compared to the group without experience. However different effect sizes were observed, with stronger effects for the Observing and Non-Reactivity facets of the FFMQ, moderate effects for Decentering in EQ, and a weak effect for Non-judging, Describing, and Acting with awareness on the FFMQ. Our results indicate that not all practice variables are equally relevant in terms of developing mindfulness skills. Frequency and lifetime practice--but not session length or meditation type--were associated with higher mindfulness skills. Given that these 6 mindfulness aspects show variable sensitivity to practice, we created a composite index (MINDSENS) consisting of those items from FFMQ and EQ that showed the strongest response to practice. The MINDSENS index was able to correctly discriminate daily meditators from non-meditators in 82.3% of cases. These findings may contribute to the understanding of the development of mindfulness skills and support trainers and researchers in improving mindfulness-oriented practices and programs.

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 · 10.1371/journal.pone.0086622

Cites

45 of 45 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?

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

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. [9]Linehan MM (1993a) Cognitive behavioral therapy of borderline personality disorder. New York: Guilford Press. 558 p.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Soler, J., Cebolla, A., Feliu-Soler, A., Demarzo, M. M. P., Pascual, J. C., Baños, R., & García-Campayo, J.
Affiliations
  • Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona (ES)
  • Universitat Jaume I (ES)
  • Universidade Federal de São Paulo (BR)
  • Universitat de València (ES)
Corresponding author
Soler, Joaquim
Venue
PLoS ONE
Published
2014-01-22
Volume
9
Issue
1
Pages
e86622
ISSN
1932-6203 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2063037512
Cited by
138
References
44
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 10 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 19 · 2020: 12 · 2019: 14 · 2018: 11 · 2017: 13 · 2016: 8 · 2015: 16 · 2014: 5
FWCI
16.57
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • PLoS ONE (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Repositori UJI (Universitat Jaume I) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • Dipòsit Digital de Documents de la UAB (Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • Americanae (AECID Library) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • LA Referencia (Red Federada de Repositorios Institucionales de Publicaciones Científicas) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • LA Referencia (Red Federada de Repositorios Institucionales de Publicaciones Científicas) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Zaguan (Universidad de Zaragoza) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Mindfulness and Compassion Interventions
  • Social Sciences › Health › Religion, Spirituality, and Psychology
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Psychological Well-being and Life Satisfaction
Keywords
mindfulness, meditation practice, session duration, observation, non-reactivity, decentering, non-judgment, description, acting with awareness
MeSH terms
Adult, Cross-Sectional Studies, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Meditation, Self Report, 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