Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37803484›Full record

ArticleBMC psychology2023

Assessment of the mind-body connection: preliminary psychometric evidence for a new self-report questionnaire.

Kristen Van Bael, Michelle Ball, Jessica Scarfo, Emra Suleyman

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC psychology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Kristen Van BaelInstitute for Health and Sport, Victoria University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia. kristen.vanbael@live.vu.edu.au.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6646-1067
Michelle BallInstitute for Health and Sport, Victoria University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Jessica ScarfoInstitute for Health and Sport, Victoria University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Emra SuleymanInstitute for Health and Sport, Victoria University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesWhile interoceptive self-report scales provide a foundation for measuring the mind-body connection, they variably consider other important factors that could influence interpretations of internal bodily sensations and perceptions related to mind-body integration. The proposed Body-Mind Connection Questionnaire (BMCQ) aimed to operationalise the notion that this construct involves three major components: (a) Interoceptive Attention, (b) Sensation-Emotion Articulation, and (c) Body-Mind Values.

methodsFollowing panel review and piloting with the target population, the developed BMCQ was evaluated in 316 participants (189 identifying as female) aged 18-50 (M

resultsExploratory factor analysis supported three scales of the BMCQ, which explained 54.03% of variance. Factor loadings (>0.44) and reliability indices (0.74 to 0.85) were acceptable. Inter-scale correlations suggested that the scales are distinct but related (rs=0.38 to 0.59). BMCQ scales were supported by convergent (r=0.33 to 0.67) and discriminant evidence (rs=0.01 to 0.39, p range n.s. to <.05).

conclusionsPreliminary psychometric properties indicate that the BMCQ is multidimensional and consists of three constructs that differentially relate to theoretically associated measures. Interoceptive Attention, Sensation-Emotion Articulation, and Body-Mind Values may serve as a basis for efficiently assessing the mind-body connection more holistically, which could be useful for developing interventions aimed at enhancing mind-body integration.

Indexed as

InteroceptionFemaleHumansPsychometricsReproducibility of ResultsSelf ReportSurveys and QuestionnairesEmotionInteroceptionMind-body connectionReliabilityScale developmentValidity

Identifiers

PMID37803484
PMCPMC10557351

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.