Pacific University CommonKnowledge School of Professional Psychology eses, Dissertations and Capstone Projects 12-7-2007 Self Report Measures of Mindfulness: A Review of the Literature Ninfa Johnson Pacific University is esis is brought to you for free and open access by the eses, Dissertations and Capstone Projects at CommonKnowledge. It has been accepted for inclusion in School of Professional Psychology by an authorized administrator of CommonKnowledge. For more information, please contact CommonKnowledge@pacificu.edu. Recommended Citation Johnson, Ninfa (2007). Self Report Measures of Mindfulness: A Review of the Literature (Master's thesis, Pacific University). Retrieved from: hp://commons.pacificu.edu/spp/6
51
Embed
Self Report Measures of Mindfulness: A Review of the ... · mindfulness during everyday activities (Baer, 2003). MBSR has been applied to a vruiety of problems and is considered a
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
Pacific UniversityCommonKnowledge
School of Professional Psychology Theses, Dissertations and Capstone Projects
12-7-2007
Self Report Measures of Mindfulness: A Review ofthe LiteratureNinfa JohnsonPacific University
This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Theses, Dissertations and Capstone Projects at CommonKnowledge. It has been acceptedfor inclusion in School of Professional Psychology by an authorized administrator of CommonKnowledge. For more information, please [email protected].
Recommended CitationJohnson, Ninfa (2007). Self Report Measures of Mindfulness: A Review of the Literature (Master's thesis, Pacific University).Retrieved from:http://commons.pacificu.edu/spp/6
Self Report Measures of Mindfulness: A Review of the Literature
AbstractThe aim of this review is to examine mindfulness measures and determine future directions for mindfulnessassessment. Mindfulness has become established in clinical psychology as an intervention for many disordersincluding substance abuse and depression. Seven mindfulness measures were reviewed, including theirdevelopment and normative sample psychometrics. Current mindfulness measures were found to be generallypsychometrically sound and to assess some (albeit differing) aspects of the construct of mindfulness. A newfive factor measure created from the amalgamation of several mindfulness measures was also reviewed of thisscale appears to be the most inclusive assessment of mindfulness at present.
Degree TypeThesis
RightsTerms of use for work posted in CommonKnowledge.
This thesis is available at CommonKnowledge: http://commons.pacificu.edu/spp/6
If you have downloaded this document directly from the web or from CommonKnowledge, see the“Rights” section on the previous page for the terms of use.
If you have received this document through an interlibrary loan/document delivery service, thefollowing terms of use apply:
Copyright in this work is held by the author(s). You may download or print any portion of this documentfor personal use only, or for any use that is allowed by fair use (Title 17, §107 U.S.C.). Except for personalor fair use, you or your borrowing library may not reproduce, remix, republish, post, transmit, ordistribute this document, or any portion thereof, without the permission of the copyright owner. [Note:If this document is licensed under a Creative Commons license (see “Rights” on the previous page)which allows broader usage rights, your use is governed by the terms of that license.]
Inquiries regarding further use of these materials should be addressed to: CommonKnowledge Rights,Pacific University Library, 2043 College Way, Forest Grove, OR 97116, (503) 352-7209. Email inquiriesmay be directed to:. [email protected]
This thesis is available at CommonKnowledge: http://commons.pacificu.edu/spp/6
which was judged to be comparable to non-meditators in the first sample. At the start of
session 3, the mean SMQ score was 51.7 (SD = 15.8) and at the end of session 6 the
mean score was 59.6 (SD = 16.7). A repeated measures ANa VA determined there was a
significant interaction between time and SMQ score (F = 8.579, dt= 19, p = -.001). Paired
samples t-tests showed no statistical significance between SMQ scores at session 1 and
session 3 (t = -1.414, dt= 19, p = .173), a statistically significant difference between
session 1 and session 6 (t = -3.350, dt = 19, p = .003), and between session 3 and session
6 (t = -3.186, dt= 19,p = .005). Therefore, Chadwick et al. (2007) asseli that attendance
of the MBSR program increased mindfulness as measured by the SMQ. They concluded
that the SMQ has a good internal consistency and correlated significantly with the.
MAAS, another measure of mindfulness. The SMQ detected differences between
meditators and non-meditators, as well as increases in mindfulness skills over the course
of mindfulness training and was significantly correlated with mood rating. Chadwick et
al.-concluded that the SMQ evaluates the degree to which individuals can experience
unpleasant thoughts and images with decentered awareness and suggest the SMQ may be
useful for cognitive therapy and research.
Experiences Questionnaire (EQ)
The EQ is a 20-item self report questionnaire developed by Fresco et al. (in press)
that measures an individual's ability to decenter, which is defined as the ability to view
thoughts and feelings as impermanent and temporary. Cognitive therapy has highlighted
dec entering as an important mechanism of change and stresses that clients learn how
thoughts and feelings do not always accurately represent reality (Safran and Segal, 1990).
Inability to decenter is believed to be related to psychological and social dysfunction,
33
namely depression (Fresco et aI., in press). The EQ was created to operationalize changes
due to MECT (Fresco et aI., in press). Items were written to assess three facets of
decentering: the ability to view one's self as separate from one's thoughts, the ability to
non-judgmentally observe one's negative experiences without habitually reacting, and the
capacity for self-compassion (Fresco et aI., in press). Two subscales were constructed in
the EQ; one which measured changes due to MECT, including decentering and one
which measured rumination, which was used as a control against response bias (Fresco et
al., in press). Items are rated on a 5 point Likert-type scale from 1 (never) to 5 (all the
time).
Initial psychometric properties were tested for the EQ using a student sample
enrolled in university introductory psychology courses. The first sample (n = 1150)
consisted of 765 women (66.5%) and 385 men (33.5%) with a mean age of 19.1 years
(SD = 4.1). The second sample (n = 519) was made up of 335 women (64.5%) and 184
men (35.5%) with a mean age of 19.3 years (SD = 2.4).
A confirmatory factor analysis was completed using Sample 1, although the data
did not fit the expected three factor structure, thus an exploratory factor analysis was
perfOlmed. The data most strongly supported a two-factor model (X2[151] = 742.22; X2/dJ
= 4.92; RMSEA = .06), although a three-factor model (X2[133] = 408.46; X2/dJ= 3.07;
RMSEA = .05) was also considered, but the third factor had low item representation and
interpretability. The Decentering factor showed good internal consistency in Sample 1 (a
= .83). The Rumination factor was adequate (a = .70). To confinn the two-factor model, a
, CFA was completed using Sample 2, but was found to provide a poor fit to the data
(l[147] = 558.06; X2/dJ= 3.80; RMSEA = .08; SRMR = .09). The model was run again
34
with only the decentering items, allowing items to intercorrelate and was determined to
provide a good fit to the data (jt[41] = 103.79; x2ldf= 2.53; RMSEA = .06; SRMR = .04)
with good internal consistency (a = .80). Gender differences were also examined with
this model and none of the items were found to load unequally between groups. Factor
analyses resulted in the authors' retention of 11 items of the Decentering scale which
includes items such as 'I can slow my thinking at times of stress', 'I can actually see that
1 am not my thoughts' and 'I view things from a wider perspective'.
The concurrent and discriminant validity of the II-item Decentering scale was
determined by Fresco et al. (in press) by comparison to measures of depressive
rumination, experiential avoidance, cognitive reappraisal, and emotion suppression. The
participants were 61 college students of which 56% were female and 88 % were
Caucasian. The average age of the sample was 19.81 years (SD = 2.87). The Emotion
Regulation Questionnaire (Gross & John, 2003) was found to correlate positively with
the decentering items (r = .25, P < .05). The AAQ, the Ruminative Responses Subscale of
the Response Styles Questionnaire (Nolen-Hoeksema & Morrow, 1991), the Beck
Depression Inventory - IT (Beck, Steer & Brown, 1996) and the Mood and Anxiety
Symptom Questionnaire Short Form (Watson & Clark, 1991) had negative statistically
significant correlations with the decentering scale with values ranging from -.31 to -.49.
Individuals diagnosed with major depression were compared with persons without
clinical diagnoses and were found to report significantly lower levels of dec entering
(F[I,59] = 5.77,p = .02, d= .68).
Fresco et al. (in press) further evaluated the factor structure and clinical validity of
the EQ using a sample of individuals with major depression in remission. Data for 145
35
individuals with major depression in remission was obtained from Teasdale et al. (2000)
who had examined the efficacy of ME CT. Participant data was utilized from another
MECT trial of Ma and Teasdale (2004). The depression in remission group total 220
individuals of which 165 were female (75%) with a mean age of 43.7 years (SD = 9.6).
Participants were from parts of Canada and Cambridge, England. The control group
consisted of 50 individuals of which 37 were female (74%) with a mean age of 44.5 (SD
= 8.9) who received treatment-as-usual prior to and during the data collection. The
unifactorial model was found to provide a good fit to the data (i[41] = 61.87; xJdf=
1.51; CFI = .97, RMSEA = .06; SRMR = .05) with good internal consistency (a = .90).
The depression group (M = 1.81, SD = .54) scored significantly lower than the control
group (M= 2.47, SD = .42) with a large effect size (F[1,117] = 50.32,p < .0001; Cohen's
d = 1.31). Fresco et al. (in press) found amount of decentering was negatively correlated
with self-report (r = -.46) and clinician assessment (r = -.31) of depressive symptoms.
Fresco et al. (in press) conclude that the Experiences Questionnaire is a
unifactorial measure that taps into the construct of decentering. The measure has been
tested on a variety of samples including a student sample and a clinical sample,
expanding the generalizability of the measure. Adequate to good internal consistency has
been demonstrated, as well as preliminary convergent and discriminant validity. The
authors presumed the EQ is a reliable and valid measure of decentering, although
comparisons to other measures of mindfulness will need to be established in the future.
F.uture Areas of Research
Baer, Smith, Hopkins, Krietemeyer and Toney (2006) examined a number of
mindfulness measures, including the MAAS, the FMI, the KIMS, the CAMS and the
-------_._-_._---- - -
36
MQ, to detennine the facet structure of mindfulness captured by the new measures. The
sample included 613 undergraduate psychology students with an age range of 18 to 57 (M
= 20.5) of which 70% were female and 90% were Caucasian. All examined measures had
good internal consistency, ranging from .81 to .87, and were positively correlated with
each other. Baer et al. also found the measures correlated in predicted directions with
other variables.
Using the same sample and a combined data set of 112 items from all 5 measures,
an exploratory factor analysis was run by Baer et al. (2006). Five factors were suggested
by the scree plot and another factor analysis was conducted that confirmed this model
with 33% of the variance accounted for. Four of the 5 factors were determined to be
similar to those found in the KIMS (Baer et al., 2004). The additional fifth factor
included many items from the FMI and the MQ and appeared to involve a nonreactive
stance toward internal experience. Items with the highest loadings for each factor were
selected with eight items for four factors (observing, acting with awareness, nonjudging,
describing) and seven items for the nonreactivity factor. The five facet scales displayed
adequate to good internal consistency, with alpha values ranging from .75 (nonreactivity)
to .91 (describing). Correlations between the five factors were modest, but significant,
varying from .15 to .34. A regression analysis was also conducted by Baer and colleagues
with systematic variance values from .56 to .75 that provide evidence of variance distinct
to each facet.
A confirmatory factor analysis was run on this newly created measure, the Five
Facet Mindfulness Questionnaire (FFMQ) with a sample of 268 undergraduate
psychology students of which 77% were female and 90% were Caucasian with a mean
37
age of 18.9 years. The FFMQ includes 39 items that are rated on a 5 point Likert-type
scale from 1 (Never or very rarely true) to 5 (Very often or always true). Baer et a1.
(2006) found a hierarchical model with the five factors as indicators of an overall
mindfulness factor was a good fit with CFI and NNFI values greater than .90, but the
observe factor loaded non significantly on the overall factor. An alternative hierarchical
model was tested where describe, act with awareness, nonjudge, and nonreact were
defined as facets of an overall mindfulness construct with observe excluded from the
model. The model fit well (CFI = .97, NNFI = .96, RMSEA = .06) and no loss of fit was
observed when compared with a four-factor nonhierarchical model (X2 = 3.08, ns). The
observe facet was included in the factor model that was retested using a sample with
meditation experience and was found to load significantly with a value of .34 with an
overall five-factor hierarchical model found to be a good fit (CFI = .96, NNFI = .94,
RMSEA = .07).
Using data from both previous samples, Baer et a1. (2006) examined relationships
between mindfulness facets and other constructs. Constructs that are believed to
incorporate aspects of mindfulness were expected to positively correlate with the five
factors and constructs that suggest an absence of mindfulness were expected to be I
negatively correlated. Openness, was expected to be most strongly correlated with the
observe facet which was found to be true (r = .42, p < .001). Unexpectedly, observe was
also found to correlate with dissociation (r = .27, P < .001), absent-mindedness (r = .16, P
< .001), psychological symptoms (r= .17,p < .001), and thought suppression, (r= .16,p
< .001). As expected, the describe facet was strongly correlated with emotional
intelligence (r = .60, p < .001) and alexithymia (r = ,-.68, p < .001). The nonreact factor
38
was most highly correlated with self-compassion (r = .53, p < .001). As expected, the act
with awareness facet was most strongly correlated with dissociation (r = -.62, p < .001)
and absent-mindedness (r = -.61, P < .001). Nonjudge had the strongest correlations of all
five facets with psychological symptoms (r = -.50, p < .001), neuroticism (r = -.55, p <
.001), thought suppression (r = -.56, p < .001), difficulties in emotion regulation (r = -.52,
p < .001) and experiential avoidance (r = -.49, p < .001). The unexpected findings with
the observe factor were found to be nonsignificant when tested with a sample that had
meditation experience. The authors suggested that the observe facet may be more
sensitive to meditation experience than the other facets of the FFMQ.
The FFMQ may be the most promising mindfulness measure in terms of captUling
all facets of the construct. A strength of this particular measure is its derivation from
other mindfulness measures which enabled the authors to combine the factors that each
measure tapped into, resulting in a five factor model that is currently the most
comprehensive measure of mindfulness. As Baer et al. (2006) suggested additional
research is needed to validate the ~Q with a variety of samples and to continue to
strengthen its psychometric properties.
Currently, all existing mindfulness measures show good psychometric properties
and many have been correlated with a number of theoretically-linked constructs induding
openness to experience, psychopathology, emotional intelligence, experiential avoidance
and rumination. Certain measures tap into selective factors of mindfulness and thus the
uses of these measures are limited, such as the SMQ and the EQ which are both
unifactoral measures of decentering or nonreactivity to thoughts and feelings. The authors
of the FMI had concerns about the validity of the measure with nonmeditator samples
39
(Walach et aI., 2006), but Baer and colleagues (2006) found the FMI to be valid with
meditator and nonmeditator samples, removing possible restrictions for that measure. The
CAMS-R and the EQ have not been compared with meditators and non-meditators; this
type of evaluation would help strengthen their validity. To reiterate the main conclusions
of Baer et al. (2006), many of the current mindfulness measures have yet to be examined
. with clinical samples, which is important as mindfulness-based interventions are used
with those who have mental health disorders. Also, an objective measure of mindfulness
would be beneficial to aid laboratory studies of mindfulness-based strategies for copin.g
with stressors and balance the subjective assessment of the construct, as only self-report
assessments currently exist. All measures may benefit from further research to cla1ify the
multifaceted conceptualization of mindfulness and reduce the effect of confounding
variables.
References
Baer, R A. (2003). Mindfulness training as a clinical intervention: A conceptual and empirical review. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice, 10, 125-142.
40
Baer, R A., Smith, G. T., & Allen, K. B. (2004). Assessment of mindfulness by self-report: he Kentucky Inventory of Mindfulness Skills. Assessment, 11, 191-206.
Baer, R A., Smith, G. T., Hopkins, J., Krietemeyer, J., & Toney, L. (2006). Using self-report assessment methods to explore facets of mindfulness. Assessment, 13,27-45.
Beck, A. T., Steer, R A., & Brown, G. K. (1996). Manual for the Beck Depression Inventory, 2nd ed. San Antonio, TX: The Psychological Corporation.
Bishop, S. (2002). What do we really know about Mindfulness-Based Stress Reduction? Psychosomatic Medicine, 64,71-84.
Bishop, S. R., Lau, M., Shapiro, S., Carlson, L., Anderson, N. D., & Carmody, J. et al. (2004). Mindfulness: A proposed operational definition. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice, 11, 230-241.
Bodner, T. E., & Langer, E. J. (2001, June). Individual differences in mindfulness: The MindfulnesslMindlessness Scale. Poster presented at the 13th annual American Psychological Society Convention, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Broadbent, D. E., Cooper, P. F., Fitzgerald, P., & Parkes, K. R (1982). The Cognitive Failures Ques'tionnaire (CFQ) and its correlates. British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 21, 1-16.
Brown, K. W., & Ryan, R. M. (2003). The benefits of being present: Mindfulness and its role in psychological well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84(4), 822-848.
Buchheld, N., Grossman, P., & Walach, H. (2001). Measuring mindfulness in insight meditation (vipassana) and meditation-based psychotherapy: The development of the Freiburg Mindfulness Inventory (PMI). Journal for Meditation and Meditation Research, 1, 11-34.
Cahn, B. R, & Polich, J. (2006). Meditation states and traits: EEG, ERP, and neuroimaging studies. Psychological Bulletin, 132, 180-211.
Chadwick, P., Hember, M., Mead, S., Lilley, B., & Dagnan, D. (2007). Responding mindfully to unpleasant thoughts and images: Reliability and validity of the Southampton Mindfulness Questionnaire (SMQ). Unpublished manuscript, University of Southampton Royal South Hants Hospital, UK.
Cohen, S., Kamarck, T., & Mermelstein, R (1983). A global measure of perceived stress. Journal 0/ Health and Social Behavior, 24, 385-396.
Conte, H. R, Plutchik, R, Jung, B. B., Picard, S., Karasu, T. B., & Lotterman, A. (1990). Psychological mindedness as a predictor of psychotherapy outcome: A preliminary report. Comprehensive Psychiatry, 31,426-431.
41
Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Revised NEG Personality Invent01Y (NEG PI-R) and NEO Five-Factor Inventory (NEG-FFI): Professional manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.
Crowne, D. P., & Marlowe, D. (1960). A new scale of social desirability independent of psychopathology. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 24, 349-354.
Davidson, R. J., Kabat-Zinn, l, Schumacher, l, Rosenkranz, M., Muller, D., Santorelli, S. F. et al. (2003). Alterations in brain and immune function produced by mindfulness meditation. Psychosomatic Medicine, 65,564-570.
Derogatis, L. R (1993). BSI Brief Symptom Inventory. Administration, scoring, and procedures manual (4th ed.) Minneapolis: National .Computer Systems. ·
Dimidjian, S., & Linehan, M. M. (2003). Defining an agenda for the future research on the clinical application of mindfulness practice. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice, 10, 166-171.
Feldman, G., Hayes, A., Kumar, S., Greeson, l, Laurenceau, J. P. (in press). Mindfulness and emotion regulation: The development and initial validation of the Cognitive and Affective Mindfulness Scale-Revised (CAMS-R). Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment.
Fenigstein, A., Scheier, M. F., & Buss, A. H. (1975). Public and private self-consciousness: Assessment and theory. Journal o/Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 43, 522-527.
Fresco, D. M., Moore, M.T., Van Dulmen, M. H. M., Segal, Z. V., Ma, S. R., Teasdale, l D., & Williams, J. M. G. (in press). Initial psychometric properties of the Experiences Questionnaire: Validation of a self-report measure of decentering. Behavior Therapy.
Germer, C. K., Siegel, RD., & Fulton, P. R. (Eds) (2005). Mindfulness and psychotherapy. New York: Guilford Press.
Govern, J. M., & Marsh, L. A. (2001). Development and validation of the situational selfawareness scale. Consciousness and Cognition, 10,366-378.
Gross, J. J., & John, O. P. (2003). Individual differences in two emotion regulation processes: Implications for affect, relationships, and well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 348-362.
42
Hayes, S. C., Follette, V. M., & Linehan, M. M. (Eds.) (2004). Mindfulness and acceptance: Expanding the cognitive-behavioral tradition. New York: Guilford Press.
Hayes, S. C. & Strosahl, K. D. (Eds) (2004). A practical guide to Acceptance and Commitment Therapy. New York: Springer.
Hayes, S. C., Strosahl, K., & Wilson, K. G. (1999). Acceptance and Commitment Therapy: An experiential approach to behavior change. New York: Guilford Press.
Hirst, 1. S. (2003). Perspectives of mindfulness. Journal of Psychiatric and Mental Health Nursing, 10, 359-366. .
Kabat-Zinn, J., Massion, A. 0 ., Kristeller, J., Peterson, L. G., Fletcher, K. E., Pbert, L. et al. (1992). Effectiveness of a meditation-based stress reduction program in the treatment of anxiety disorders. American Journal of Psychiatry, 149,936-943.
Kabat-Zinn, J. (2000). Indra's net at work: The mainstreaming of Dharma practice in society. In G. Watson, S. Batchelor & G. Claxton (Eds.), The Psychology of Awakening: Buddhism, Science and Our Day-to-day Lives (pp. 225-249). Boston, MA: Weiser Books. '
Kumar, S. M. (2002). An introduction to Buddhism for the cognitive-behavioral therapist. Cognitive and Behavioral Practice, 9,40-43.
Kumar, S. M., Feldman, G. C., & Hayes, A. M. (2005). Change in mindfulness and emotional regulation in an integrative therapy for depression. Manuscript under review.
Lau, M. A., Bishop, S. R., Segal, Z. V., Buis, T., Anderson, N. D., & Carlson, L. et al. (2006). The Toronto Mindfulness Scale: Development and validation. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 62, 1445-1467.
Langer, E. J. (1989). Mindfulness. Reading, MA: Addison Wesley.
Linehan, M. M. (1993). Cognitive-behavioral treatment of borderline personality disorder. New York: Guilford Press.
Ma, S. R., & Teasdale, J. D. (2004). Mindfulness-based cognitive therapy for depression: Replication and exploration of differential relapse prevention effects. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 72, 31-40.
Marlatt, G. A. (2002). Buddhist psychology and the treatment of addictive behavior. Cognitive and Behavioral Practice, 9,44-49.
McPhail, C. M., Walker, J. R., Clara, 1., Graff, L. A, Feldman, G. C., & Bernstein, C. N. (2005). Confirmatory factor analysis of the CAMS-R Mindfulness Scale with the Manitoba Inflammatory Bowel Disorder Cohort. Manuscript in preparation.
43
Nolen-Hoeksema, S. & Morrow, J. (1991) . Effects of rumination and distraction on naturally occurring depressed mood. Cognition & Emotion, 7,561-570.
Robins, C. J., Schmidt, H. III & Linehan, M. M. (2004). In S. C. Hayes, V. M. Follette & M. M. Linehan (Eds.), Mindfulness and Acceptance (pp.30-44). New York: Guilford Press.
Ryff,C. D., & Keyes, C. L. M. (1995). The structure of psychological well7being revisited. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 719-727.
Safran, J. D., & Segal, Z. V. (1990). Interpersonal Process in Cognitive Therapy. New York: Basic Books.
Salovey, P., Mayer, J. D., Goldman, S. L. , Turvey, C., & Palfai, T. P. (1995). Emotional attention, clarity, and repair: Exploring emotional intelligence using the Trait MetaMood Scale. In J. W. Pennebaker (Ed.), Emotion, disclosure, & health (pp. 125-154). Washington, DC: American Psychological Assocation.
Segal, Z. V., Williams, J. M. G., & Teasdale, J. D. (2002). Mindfulness-based cognitive therapy for depression: A neW approach to preventing relapse. New York: Guilford.
Sole-Leris, A. (1994). Die Meditation, die der Buddha selber lehrte: wie man Ruhe und Klarblick gewinnen kann. Freiburg i. Br.: Herder.
Teasdale, J. D., Segal, Z. V., Williams, J. M. G., Ridgeway, V. A, Soulsby, J. M., & Lau, M. A (2000). Prevention of relapse/recurrence in major depression by mindfulnessbased cognitive therapy. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 68, 615-623.
Tellegen, A (1982). Content categories: Absorption items (Revised). Unpublished manuscript, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis.
Trapnell, P. D., & Campbell, J. (1999). Private self-consciousness and the five-factor model of personality: Distinguishing rumination from reflection. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76, 284-304. '
Watson, D., Clark, L. A, Weber, K., Assenheimer, J. S., Strauss, M. E., & McCormick, R. A (1995a). Testing a tripartite model: ll. Exploring the symptom structure of anxiety and depression in student, adult, and patient samples. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 104, 15-25.
Watson, D., Weber, K., Assenheimer, J. S., Clark, L. A, Strauss, M. E., & McCormick, R. A (1995b). Testing a tripartite model: 1. Evaluating the convergent and discriminant validity of anxiety and depression symptoms scales. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 104,3-14.
Witkiewitz, K., Marlatt, G. A., & Walker, D. (2005) . Mindfulness-based relapse prevention for alcohol and substance use disorders. Journal of Cognitive Psychotherapy: An International Quarterly, 19(3),211-228.