The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Measuring and evaluating mindfulness based on its origin
Open accessAbstract
Mindfulness is originated from the core of Buddhist meditation which has a history of over 2500 years. Since mindfulness-based interventions were successfully applied in helping patients with different symptoms in the West three decades ago, scientific researches in mindfulness have increased exponentially. However, to date there is no consensus on the definition and measurement scales of mindfulness. The prevailing conceptualizations of mindfulness seem to be confounded with different mindfulness attitudes and skills. Their content also seems to be watered-down without capturing all the essential domains of mindfulness. Leading mindfulness researchers suggest referring to the origin of mindfulness to resolve the confounding and watered-down problems. This thesis thus aims to empirically investigate the construct and model of mindfulness with reference to its original Buddha’s mindfulness discourse. \n \nIn study 1, three self-report scales were developed based on Buddha’s conceptualization of mindfulness, namely the Body-Mind-Senses Awareness Scale, the Greed-Distress Unclinging Scale and the Mindfulness-related Features Scale. A quantitative survey was conducted with 415 participants to evaluate the scales. They demonstrated good factor structure, construct validity and internal consistency. Unexpectedly, the body-mind-sense awareness had no relation with greed-distress unclinging. But both of them were positively correlated with all mindfulness-related features. \n \nStudy 2 aims to answer the call for using multiple assessment modalities to clarify the construct of mindfulness. A semi-structured interview (interview mindfulness) and experience sampling method (momentary mindfulness) are developed to address the response and memory bias of self-report scale. Semi-structured interview focuses more on the unclinging aspect while experience sampling focuses more on the present-moment awareness aspect. The results show that interview mindfulness has a low correlation with momentary mindfulness. When triangulated with study 1, the body-mind-senses awareness was positively correlated with momentary mindfulness but not related to interview mindfulness. The greed-distress unclinging was positively correlated with interview mindfulness but not related to momentary mindfulness. The results are consistent with hypotheses and support the validity of self-report questionnaire. It further supports that awareness is not necessarily positively associated with unclinging. These two aspects are better measured and analyzed separately. \n \nStudy 3 aims to address the confounding and watered-down problem by building and evaluating a “pure” discernment-nonattachment mindfulness model that describes the pathway from mindfulness to stress reduction based on the Buddha’s discourse of mindfulness. It is then compared to a mindfulness-related features model to evaluate their contribution to stress reduction. The results reveal that awareness and unclinging contribute separately to stress reduction via self emotion appraisal, emotion regulation and nonattachment (complete mediation). No further explanatory contributions gained even when the mindfulness-related features model is incorporated into the “pure” mindfulness model. \n \nThis thesis proposes a conceptualization of mindfulness based on the original Buddha’s mindfulness discourse and develops three different measurements. Accordingly it constructs a “pure” discernment-nonattachment mindfulness model for stress reduction to address the confounding and watered-down problems of prevailing conceptualization of mindfulness. The implications, limitations and future directions are discussed as well.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
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?
The rater-rated mindfulness measure showed fair internal consistency, with Cronbach's alphas ranging from 0.47 to 0.49.
“The measure showed fair internal consistency, with Cronbach's alphas ranging from 0.47 to 0.49 (Teasdale et al. 2002; Chow 2015).”
From Awareness Versus Un-Clinging: Which Matters in Mindfulness? (2017) · cites this paper as Chow 2015
Citations
Cites
Still being checked.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Awareness Versus Un-Clinging: Which Matters in Mindfulness?
Ng, S.-M., Chow, K. W., Lau, H. P., & Wang, Q. (2017) · Contemporary Buddhism · doi:10.1080/14639947.2017.1374326 · Cited by 8
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Chow, K.-W.
- Corresponding author
- Chow, King-wo
- Published
- 2015-01-01
- OpenAlex
- W2237457123
- Cited by
- 1
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2017: 1
- Type
- dissertation
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- cc-by-nc-nd
- Locations
- The HKU Scholars Hub (University of Hong Kong) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Mindfulness and Compassion Interventions
- Social Sciences › Health › Religion, Spirituality, and Psychology
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Religious studies › Indian and Buddhist Studies
- Keywords
- mindfulness, Buddhist meditation, mindfulness measurement, self-report scale, ecological momentary assessment, stress reduction, emotion regulation, self-emotion appraisal, non-attachment, discernment, mindfulness-based interventions, construct validity, scale development, present-moment awareness
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