What Do We Know About the Validity and Reliability of Mindfulness Self-Report Measures in Persons with Dementia?: A Critical Narrative Review

Kód výsledku v IS VaVaI

<a href="https://www.isvavai.cz/riv?ss=detail&h=RIV%2F00216208%3A11240%2F25%3A10501201" target="_blank" >RIV/00216208:11240/25:10501201 - isvavai.cz</a>

Výsledek na webu

<a href="https://verso.is.cuni.cz/pub/verso.fpl?fname=obd_publikace_handle&handle=X_CJX02xoJ" target="_blank" >https://verso.is.cuni.cz/pub/verso.fpl?fname=obd_publikace_handle&handle=X_CJX02xoJ</a>

DOI - Digital Object Identifier

<a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/07317115.2024.2427268" target="_blank" >10.1080/07317115.2024.2427268</a>

Jazyk výsledku

angličtina

Název v původním jazyce

What Do We Know About the Validity and Reliability of Mindfulness Self-Report Measures in Persons with Dementia?: A Critical Narrative Review

Popis výsledku v původním jazyce

ObjectivesMindfulness-based interventions (MBIs) for persons with dementia (PwD) have yielded mixed results, possibly attributable to the fact that little is known about the validity and reliability of trait mindfulness self-report measures in PwD. This narrative review sought to identify studies involving self-reported trait mindfulness and other clinical measures that may hold information on the convergent validity and reliability of these measures in PwD.MethodsScientific databases were searched for studies involving PwD and mindfulness assessments.ResultsN = 426 studies from PubMed and N = 156 from PsychInfo databases were reviewed. Four cross-sectional studies were identified that allowed inferences about the validity of mindfulness measures. A qualitative review indicated that convergent validity with other measures varied with sample heterogeneity and cognitive impairment. Merely one MBI included self-reported trait mindfulness, however without reporting sample-specific validity or reliability.ConclusionsDespite efforts to implement MBIs in PwD, information on basic methodological psychometric issues is minimal. Future studies ought to address the validity and reliability of self-reported mindfulness in detail across different stages of dementia.Clinical ImplicationsResults of MBIs need to be considered cautiously. Basic information about psychometric properties of mindfulness self-report measures is required and these measures need to be included systematically in MBIs.

Název v anglickém jazyce

What Do We Know About the Validity and Reliability of Mindfulness Self-Report Measures in Persons with Dementia?: A Critical Narrative Review

Popis výsledku anglicky

ObjectivesMindfulness-based interventions (MBIs) for persons with dementia (PwD) have yielded mixed results, possibly attributable to the fact that little is known about the validity and reliability of trait mindfulness self-report measures in PwD. This narrative review sought to identify studies involving self-reported trait mindfulness and other clinical measures that may hold information on the convergent validity and reliability of these measures in PwD.MethodsScientific databases were searched for studies involving PwD and mindfulness assessments.ResultsN = 426 studies from PubMed and N = 156 from PsychInfo databases were reviewed. Four cross-sectional studies were identified that allowed inferences about the validity of mindfulness measures. A qualitative review indicated that convergent validity with other measures varied with sample heterogeneity and cognitive impairment. Merely one MBI included self-reported trait mindfulness, however without reporting sample-specific validity or reliability.ConclusionsDespite efforts to implement MBIs in PwD, information on basic methodological psychometric issues is minimal. Future studies ought to address the validity and reliability of self-reported mindfulness in detail across different stages of dementia.Clinical ImplicationsResults of MBIs need to be considered cautiously. Basic information about psychometric properties of mindfulness self-report measures is required and these measures need to be included systematically in MBIs.

Druh

J_imp - Článek v periodiku v databázi Web of Science

CEP obor

—

OECD FORD obor

30300 - Health sciences

Projekt

—

Návaznosti

I - Institucionalni podpora na dlouhodoby koncepcni rozvoj vyzkumne organizace

Rok uplatnění

2025

Kód důvěrnosti údajů

S - Úplné a pravdivé údaje o projektu nepodléhají ochraně podle zvláštních právních předpisů

Název periodika

Clinical Gerontologist

ISSN

0731-7115

e-ISSN

1545-2301

Svazek periodika

48

Číslo periodika v rámci svazku

3

Stát vydavatele periodika

US - Spojené státy americké

Počet stran výsledku

15

Strana od-do

386-400

Kód UT WoS článku

001359375900001

EID výsledku v databázi Scopus

2-s2.0-85210018343