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)	Goodc	Goodc	Faira	Goodb
Brown and Ryan – substudy 1 (2003)					Fairc
Brown and Ryan – substudy 2 (2003)					Goodc
Brown and Ryan – substudy 3 (2003)	Goodc				Goodc
Brown and Ryan – substudy 4 (2003)	Goodc				Goodc
Brown and Ryan – substudy 5 (2003)	Fairc					Fairc
Carlson and Brown (2005)	Goodc			Goodc	Goodc
Baer et al. (2006)	Goodc				Goodc
Zvolensky et al. (2006)					Fairc
MacKillop and Anderson (2007)	Excellentc			Excellentc	Goodc
McCracken et al. (2007)	Goodc				Goodc
Vujanovic et al. (2007)					Fairc
Argus and Thomson (2008)	Goodc				Fairc
Cordon and Finney (2008)	Goodc			Goodc	Fairc
Frewen et al – substudy 1 (2008)	Goodc	Poorc			Goodc
Frewen et al – substudy 2 (2008)	Fairc	Poorc			Fairc
Herndon (2008)	Fairc				Fairc
Christopher et al. (2009)				Fairc
Ghorbani et al. (2009)	Goodc			Goodc	Goodc
McCracken and Thompson (2009)				Goodc
Roemer et al. – substudy 1 (2009)	Goodc				Goodc
Roemer et al. – substudy 2 (2009)	Fairc				Fairc
Schmertz et al. (2009)	Goodc				Fairc
Waters et al. (2009)					Goodc
Christopher and Gilbert (2010)	Goodc				Goodc
Van Dam et al. (2010)	Excellentc			Fairc
Bernstein et al. (2011)					Goodc
KIMS
Baer et al. – substudy 1 (2004)			Faird
Baer et al. – substudy 2 (2004)	Goode			Goode
Baer et al. – substudy 3 (2004)		Faire
Baer et al. – substudy 4 (2004)					Faire
Baer et al. – substudy 5 (2004)					Goode
Baer et al. – substudy 6 (2004)					Faire
Baer et al. (2006)	Goode				Goode
McKee et al. (2007)					Goode
Frewen et al – substudy 1 (2008)	Goode	Poore			Faire
Frewen et al – substudy 2 (2008)	Faire	Poore			Faire
Christopher et al. (2009)				Faire
Vujanovic et al. (2009)					Goode
Waters et al. (2009)					Goode
Baum et al. (2010)	Goode
Christopher and Gilbert (2010)	Goode				Goode
Vujanovic et al. (2010)					Goode
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)			Fairf
Cardaciotto et al. – substudy 2 (2008)	Goodg
Cardaciotto et al. – substudy 3 (2008)	Goodg		Goodg		Goodg
Cardaciotto et al. – substudy 4 (2008)	Fairg				Goodg
Cardaciotto et al. – substudy 5 (2008)	Fairg				Fairg
Cardaciotto et al. – substudy 6 (2008)	Fairg				Goodg

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