Predictive Validity and Response Shift in the Equanimity Scale-16

Shires, A; Osborne, S; Cayoun, BA; Williams, E; Rogers, K

Predictive Validity and Response Shift in the Equanimity Scale-16

Shires, A

Osborne, S Cayoun, BA Williams, E Rogers, K

Permalink

Publisher:: SPRINGER
Publication Type:: Journal Article
Citation:: Mindfulness, 2023
Issue Date:: 2023-01-01

Closed Access

	Filename	Description	Size
	f0602f93-7426-4fc0-b223-580bebd9574a.pdf		915.08 kB	Adobe PDF	View/Open

Copyright Clearance Process

Recently Added
In Progress
Closed Access

This item is closed access and not available.

Full metadata record

Field	Value	Language
dc.contributor.author	Shires, A https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8153-1126
dc.contributor.author	Osborne, S
dc.contributor.author	Cayoun, BA
dc.contributor.author	Williams, E
dc.contributor.author	Rogers, K https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5497-4298
dc.date.accessioned	2024-01-09T00:51:16Z
dc.date.available	2024-01-09T00:51:16Z
dc.date.issued	2023-01-01
dc.identifier.citation	Mindfulness, 2023
dc.identifier.issn	1868-8527
dc.identifier.issn	1868-8535
dc.identifier.uri	http://hdl.handle.net/10453/174123
dc.description.abstract	Objectives: The predictive validity of the Equanimity Scale-16 (ES-16) has not yet been examined, despite its suggested utility in measuring reduced reactivity and increased experiential acceptance following a mindfulness-based intervention (MBI). In this study, we examined the predictive validity of the ES-16 in a heterogeneous clinical group who underwent a 10-session mindfulness-integrated cognitive behavior therapy (MiCBT) and a general population (control) group. As the advantage of accounting for response shifts in MBIs has been demonstrated but not evaluated on equanimity scales, this study also investigates potential response shifts on the ES-16. Method: A heterogeneous clinical group (n = 52; 46.2% males, 53.9% females; age 19–67) with one or more mental health conditions undertaking a mindfulness-based intervention (MiCBT) and a control group (n = 67; 43.3% males, 56.7% females, age 18–67) were recruited from the general population via social network platforms. All completed measures of equanimity, depression, anxiety, stress, and five facets of mindfulness at pre-treatment and post-treatment, and pre-treatment ratings were re-scored retrospectively after treatment in order to assess response-shift effects in both clinical and control samples. Results: As predicted, the clinical group scored the ES-16 significantly lower than the control group at pre-treatment (p < 0.001) and significantly higher than the control group at post-treatment (p < 0.001). A significant interaction between Group and Time was found on all measures (p < 0.001). Follow-up pairwise comparisons detected response-shift effects on all measures in the clinical group, but not in the control group. Conclusions: The ES-16 was sensitive to improvements from pre- to post-intervention in the clinical group and discriminated clearly between participants with one or more mental health conditions from those in the general population, both at pre- and post-treatment, showing good predictive validity. Response shift was detected on all measures in the clinical group, suggesting that pre-/post-assessment may underestimate the effectiveness of MiCBT, and possibly other MBIs. Results support both the use of the ES-16 in clinical contexts and the utility of retrospective scores to detect and quantify response shift as a measure of increased experiential awareness following an MBI. Preregistration: This study is not pre-registered.
dc.language	English
dc.publisher	SPRINGER
dc.relation.ispartof	Mindfulness
dc.relation.isbasedon	10.1007/s12671-023-02257-7
dc.rights	info:eu-repo/semantics/closedAccess
dc.subject	1103 Clinical Sciences, 1608 Sociology, 1701 Psychology
dc.subject.classification	5201 Applied and developmental psychology
dc.subject.classification	5203 Clinical and health psychology
dc.subject.classification	5205 Social and personality psychology
dc.title	Predictive Validity and Response Shift in the Equanimity Scale-16
dc.type	Journal Article
utslib.for	1103 Clinical Sciences
utslib.for	1608 Sociology
utslib.for	1701 Psychology
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney/Faculty of Health
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney/Faculty of Health/Graduate School of Health
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney/Faculty of Health/Graduate School of Health/GSH.Clinical Psychology
utslib.copyright.status	closed_access	*
dc.date.updated	2024-01-09T00:51:09Z
pubs.publication-status	Published

Abstract:

Objectives: The predictive validity of the Equanimity Scale-16 (ES-16) has not yet been examined, despite its suggested utility in measuring reduced reactivity and increased experiential acceptance following a mindfulness-based intervention (MBI). In this study, we examined the predictive validity of the ES-16 in a heterogeneous clinical group who underwent a 10-session mindfulness-integrated cognitive behavior therapy (MiCBT) and a general population (control) group. As the advantage of accounting for response shifts in MBIs has been demonstrated but not evaluated on equanimity scales, this study also investigates potential response shifts on the ES-16. Method: A heterogeneous clinical group (n = 52; 46.2% males, 53.9% females; age 19–67) with one or more mental health conditions undertaking a mindfulness-based intervention (MiCBT) and a control group (n = 67; 43.3% males, 56.7% females, age 18–67) were recruited from the general population via social network platforms. All completed measures of equanimity, depression, anxiety, stress, and five facets of mindfulness at pre-treatment and post-treatment, and pre-treatment ratings were re-scored retrospectively after treatment in order to assess response-shift effects in both clinical and control samples. Results: As predicted, the clinical group scored the ES-16 significantly lower than the control group at pre-treatment (p < 0.001) and significantly higher than the control group at post-treatment (p < 0.001). A significant interaction between Group and Time was found on all measures (p < 0.001). Follow-up pairwise comparisons detected response-shift effects on all measures in the clinical group, but not in the control group. Conclusions: The ES-16 was sensitive to improvements from pre- to post-intervention in the clinical group and discriminated clearly between participants with one or more mental health conditions from those in the general population, both at pre- and post-treatment, showing good predictive validity. Response shift was detected on all measures in the clinical group, suggesting that pre-/post-assessment may underestimate the effectiveness of MiCBT, and possibly other MBIs. Results support both the use of the ES-16 in clinical contexts and the utility of retrospective scores to detect and quantify response shift as a measure of increased experiential awareness following an MBI. Preregistration: This study is not pre-registered.

Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:

http://hdl.handle.net/10453/174123