Table 5

Methodological quality of each study per measurement property and instrument

	Internal consistency	Reliability	Content validity	Structural validity	Hypotheses testing	Responsiveness
MAAS
Brown and Ryan (2003)	Good^c	Good^c	Fair^a	Good^b
Brown and Ryan – substudy 1 (2003)					Fair^c
Brown and Ryan – substudy 2 (2003)					Good^c
Brown and Ryan – substudy 3 (2003)	Good^c				Good^c
Brown and Ryan – substudy 4 (2003)	Good^c				Good^c
Brown and Ryan – substudy 5 (2003)	Fair^c					Fair^c
Carlson and Brown (2005)	Good^c			Good^c	Good^c
Baer et al. (2006)	Good^c				Good^c
Zvolensky et al. (2006)					Fair^c
MacKillop and Anderson (2007)	Excellent^c			Excellent^c	Good^c
McCracken et al. (2007)	Good^c				Good^c
Vujanovic et al. (2007)					Fair^c
Argus and Thomson (2008)	Good^c				Fair^c
Cordon and Finney (2008)	Good^c			Good^c	Fair^c
Frewen et al – substudy 1 (2008)	Good^c	Poor^c			Good^c
Frewen et al – substudy 2 (2008)	Fair^c	Poor^c			Fair^c
Herndon (2008)	Fair^c				Fair^c
Christopher et al. (2009)				Fair^c
Ghorbani et al. (2009)	Good^c			Good^c	Good^c
McCracken and Thompson (2009)				Good^c
Roemer et al. – substudy 1 (2009)	Good^c				Good^c
Roemer et al. – substudy 2 (2009)	Fair^c				Fair^c
Schmertz et al. (2009)	Good^c				Fair^c
Waters et al. (2009)					Good^c
Christopher and Gilbert (2010)	Good^c				Good^c
Van Dam et al. (2010)	Excellent^c			Fair^c
Bernstein et al. (2011)					Good^c
KIMS
Baer et al. – substudy 1 (2004)			Fair^d
Baer et al. – substudy 2 (2004)	Good^e			Good^e
Baer et al. – substudy 3 (2004)		Fair^e
Baer et al. – substudy 4 (2004)					Fair^e
Baer et al. – substudy 5 (2004)					Good^e
Baer et al. – substudy 6 (2004)					Fair^e
Baer et al. (2006)	Good^e				Good^e
McKee et al. (2007)					Good^e
Frewen et al – substudy 1 (2008)	Good^e	Poor^e			Fair^e
Frewen et al – substudy 2 (2008)	Fair^e	Poor^e			Fair^e
Christopher et al. (2009)				Fair^e
Vujanovic et al. (2009)					Good^e
Waters et al. (2009)					Good^e
Baum et al. (2010)	Good^e
Christopher and Gilbert (2010)	Good^e				Good^e
Vujanovic et al. (2010)					Good^e
FMI
Buchheld et al. (2001)	Good			Fair
Leigh et al. (2005)	Good			Good	Fair
Baer et al. (2006)	Good				Good
Walach et al. (2006)	Excellent			Good	Good
CAMS-R
Baer et al. (2006)	Good				Good
Feldman et al. – substudy 1 (2007)	Good			Good
Feldman et al. – substudy 2 (2007)	Good				Good
Schmertz et al. (2009)	Fair				Fair
SMQ
Baer et al. (2006)	Good				Good
Chadwick et al. (2008)	Good			Good	Fair
FFMQ
Baer et al. (2006)	Good			Good	Good
Baer et al. (2008)	Good			Good	Good
Van Dam et al. (2009)	Poor				Fair
Barns and Lynn (2010-2011)	Good				Fair
Cash and Whittingham (2010)					Good
Emanuel et al. (2010)	Good				Fair
Fernandez et al. (2010)	Good			Good	Fair
Baer et al. (2011)					Good
Hollis-Walker and Colosimo (2011)					Good
Lavender et al. (2011)	Good				Good
Christopher et al. (2012)	Good			Good	Fair
Fisak and von Lehe (2012)	Good				Good
TMS
Lau et al. (2006)			Poor
Lau et al. – substudy 1 (2006)	Good			Good	Good
Lau et al. – substudy 2 (2006)					Good	Good
Davis et al. (2009)	Good				Good
EQ
Fresco et al. – substudy 1 (2007)	Good			Good
Fresco et al. – substudy 2 (2007)					Good
Fresco et al. – substudy 3 (2007)	Good			Good	Good
MMS
Haigh et al. (2011)	Excellent			Excellent
PHLMS
Cardaciotto et al. – substudy 1 (2008)			Fair^f
Cardaciotto et al. – substudy 2 (2008)	Good^g
Cardaciotto et al. – substudy 3 (2008)	Good^g		Good^g		Good^g
Cardaciotto et al. – substudy 4 (2008)	Fair^g				Good^g
Cardaciotto et al. – substudy 5 (2008)	Fair^g				Fair^g
Cardaciotto et al. – substudy 6 (2008)	Fair^g				Good^g

Open in a separate window

Note: The original COSMIN checklist was modified so that studies could receive an overall rating of good, if the only flaw noted was inadequate reporting of the methods for handling missing data.

^aAssessed with a pool of 184 items,

^bwith a set of 24 items,

^cand with the final 15 items

^dAssessed with a pool of 77 items,

^eand with the final 39 items

^fAssessed with a pool of 105 items,

^gand with the final 20 items