Cited by 401Mind wandering and attentionCognitive Functions and MemoryPsychological and Educational Research Studies

Young and restless: validation of the Mind-Wandering Questionnaire (MWQ) reveals disruptive impact of mind-wandering for youth

Open access
Mrazek, Michael D., Phillips, Dawa T., Franklin, Michael S., Broadway, James M., Schooler, Jonathan W.·2013·Frontiers in Psychology

Abstract

Mind-wandering is the focus of extensive investigation, yet until recently there has been no validated scale to directly measure trait levels of task-unrelated thought. Scales commonly used to assess mind-wandering lack face validity, measuring related constructs such as daydreaming or behavioral errors. Here we report four studies validating a Mind-Wandering Questionnaire (MWQ) across college, high school, and middle school samples. The 5-item scale showed high internal consistency, as well as convergent validity with existing measures of mind-wandering and related constructs. Trait levels of mind-wandering, as measured by the MWQ, were correlated with task-unrelated thought measured by thought sampling during a test of reading comprehension. In both middle school and high school samples, mind-wandering during testing was associated with worse reading comprehension. By contrast, elevated trait levels of mind-wandering predicted worse mood, less life-satisfaction, greater stress, and lower self-esteem. By extending the use of thought sampling to measure mind-wandering among adolescents, our findings also validate the use of this methodology with younger populations. Both the MWQ and thought sampling indicate that mind-wandering is a pervasive-and problematic-influence on the performance and well-being of adolescents.

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 · 10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00560

Cites

38 of 38 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?

  • Children aged 8-13 are able to report mind wandering in a valid way.

    “Previous evidence has documented that children in the chosen age range (i.e., 8-13) were (a) able to report MW in a valid way (Keulers & Jonkman, 2019;Mrazek et al., 2013;Ye et al., 2014)”

    From Text‐to‐speech applications to reduce mind wandering in students with dyslexia (2022) · cites this paper as Mrazek et al., 2013

    The General discussion says children as young as 11 could report their attention in a way that correlated with reading comprehension and well-being. Study 4 tested sixth- and seventh-grade students, so this paper supports valid reporting for part of the stated 8–13 age range, but provides no evidence for children aged 8–10. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • The MWQ has a reliability of 0.84 (Cronbach's alpha).

    “Scores were from 6 to 30, and reliability was 0.84 (Cronbach's alpha).”

    From Text‐to‐speech applications to reduce mind wandering in students with dyslexia (2022) · cites this paper as Mrazek et al., 2013

    Study 1 Results and discussion (page not specified) reports good MWQ internal consistency, but gives Cronbach’s alpha as 0.850, not 0.84. Table 1 lists five items scored from 1 to 6, implying a summed range of 5 to 30 rather than 6 to 30. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • The Japanese-translated version of the Mind-Wandering Questionnaire has construct validity and internal consistency.

    “This questionnaire assesses the frequency of the interruption of task-focus (distraction) by task-unrelated thought (five items; e.g., “I mind-wander during lectures or presentations”) and has construct validity and internal consistency [72, 73].”

    From Benefits of mindfulness in academic settings: trait mindfulness has incremental validity over motivational factors in predicting academic affect, cognition, and behavior (2022) · cites this paper as [73]

    Study 1, Results and discussion, reports good internal consistency and homogeneity for the five-item MWQ; Study 2 reports convergent validity. The paper validates the MWQ in college, high-school, and middle-school samples, but does not establish those properties for a Japanese-translated version. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Items for the MWQ were written in simple language, and the MWQ has also been used with young participants.

    “Items for the MWQ were written in simple language, and it has also been used with young participants.”

    From Text‐to‐speech applications to reduce mind wandering in students with dyslexia (2022) · cites this paper as Mrazek et al., 2013

  • The Mind Wandering Questionnaire (MWQ) is a 5-item self-report measure of the frequency of mind-wandering, irrespective of whether mind-wandering is deliberate or spontaneous.

    “The Mind Wandering Questionnaire (MWQ;Mrazek et al., 2013) is a 5-item self-report measure of the frequency of mind-wandering, irrespective of whether mind-wandering is deliberate or spontaneous.”

    From Text‐to‐speech applications to reduce mind wandering in students with dyslexia (2022) · cites this paper as Mrazek et al., 2013

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

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Mrazek, M. D., Phillips, D. T., Franklin, M. S., Broadway, J. M., & Schooler, J. W.
Affiliations
University of California, Santa Barbara (US)
Corresponding author
Mrazek, Michael D.
Venue
Frontiers in Psychology
Published
2013
Volume
4
Pages
560-560
ISSN
1664-1078 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2077185468
Cited by
400
References
38
Citations by year
2026: 40 · 2025: 46 · 2024: 36 · 2023: 45 · 2022: 58 · 2021: 49 · 2020: 30 · 2019: 28 · 2018: 29 · 2017: 13 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 8 · 2014: 9 · 2013: 2
FWCI
4.57
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • Frontiers in Psychology (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
U.S. Department of Education (R305A110277)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Mind wandering and attention
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Cognitive Functions and Memory
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Psychological and Educational Research Studies
Keywords
mind wandering, task-unrelated thoughts, adolescents, reading comprehension, mood, life satisfaction, stress, self-esteem, scale validation, face validity

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