The Study of Reliability and Validity of the Korean Version of the Toronto Mindfulness Scale
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives In this study, we examined the reliability and validity of the Korean version of the Toronto Mindfulness Scale (K-TMS), a brief self-report measure to assess state mindfulness. Methods We administered the K-TMS, Beck Depression Inventory, Experiences Questionnaire (K-EQ), Mindfulness Attention Awareness Scale (MAAS), Positive Affect and Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS), and Rumination-Reflection Questionnaire (RRQ) to 205 university students and conducted exploratory factor analyses (EFA), confirmatory factor analyses, and correlation analyses among the related variables. Results The K-TMS demonstrated high internal consistency, and its corrected item-total correlations ranged from .37 to .73. Exploratory factor analyses resulted in a two-factor solution (curiosity, de-centering), based on an examination of the scree plot and eigenvalues, which was structurally similar to the original TMS scale. Confirmatory factor analyses indicated that a correlated 2-factor model, with correlated error terms, showed an adequate fit to the data. The K-TMS was positively correlated with de-centering (r=.304, p
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".