↓ Skip to main content

Relationship between Meditative Practice and Self-Reported Mindfulness: The MINDSENS Composite Index

Overview of attention for article published in PLOS ONE, January 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (78th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (69th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
7 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
106 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
307 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Relationship between Meditative Practice and Self-Reported Mindfulness: The MINDSENS Composite Index
Published in
PLOS ONE, January 2014
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0086622
Pubmed ID
Authors

Joaquim Soler, Ausiàs Cebolla, Albert Feliu-Soler, Marcelo M. P. Demarzo, Juan C. Pascual, Rosa Baños, Javier García-Campayo

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.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 307 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 4 1%
Brazil 3 <1%
France 1 <1%
Austria 1 <1%
Sweden 1 <1%
Norway 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Finland 1 <1%
Russia 1 <1%
Other 1 <1%
Unknown 292 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 52 17%
Student > Master 41 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 38 12%
Researcher 36 12%
Student > Bachelor 24 8%
Other 73 24%
Unknown 43 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 139 45%
Medicine and Dentistry 30 10%
Neuroscience 14 5%
Social Sciences 13 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 12 4%
Other 38 12%
Unknown 61 20%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 09 May 2014.
All research outputs
#5,877,602
of 23,577,654 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#75,344
of 202,026 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#67,013
of 309,492 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#1,678
of 5,576 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,577,654 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 74th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 202,026 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.3. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 62% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 309,492 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 5,576 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 69% of its contemporaries.