The Toronto and Philadelphia Mindfulness Scales: Associations with Satisfaction with Life and Health-Related Symptoms
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The treatment efficacy of mindfulness for improved quality of life and health-related symptoms has reliably been found in the literature. Questionnaires have been developed to assess both state mindfulness (Toronto Mindfulness Scale, TMS) and trait mindfulness (Philadelphia Mindfulness Scale, PHLMS). The objective of this study was to directly compare state and trait mindfulness measures to self-reported satisfaction with life and health outcomes. Healthy adults (n= 28) completed self-report questionnaires assessing mindfulness, a Satisfaction with Life Scale and a health outcome measure (Symptom Checklist 90-revised) prior to and after undergoing a 10-week mindfulness meditation intervention program. Correlational analyses between the mindfulness measures and outcome measures clearly demonstrated the association between the PHLMS Acceptance subscale and reductions in symptom severity r(26)= -.46, p= .015. These results suggest that a trait mindfulness measure (i.e., PHLMS) can detect change in mindfulness that is associated with health outcome measures whereas the state-like mindfulness (i.e., TMS) did not.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".