Mindfulness DOI 10.1007/s12671-015-0461-0
ORIGINAL PAPER
Validation of the Mindfulness in Teaching Scale Jennifer L. Frank 1 & Patricia A. Jennings 2 & Mark T. Greenberg 3
# Springer Science+Business Media New York 2015
Abstract This article presents the results of a series of studies conducted to develop and validate a self-report measure of the Mindfulness in Teaching Scale. Results from study 1 suggested the presence of two distinct factors measuring teacher intrapersonal mindfulness and teacher interpersonal mindfulness. Both constructs demonstrated strong positive loadings, weak cross-loadings, and adequate internal consistency. In study 2, the validity of these two constructs was confirmed though confirmatory factor analysis. In study 3, we examined the 6-month test–retest reliability, concurrent validity, and predictive validity of scales in a separate sample of 392 teachers. Test–retest reliabilities for both scales were medium–large range. Absolute values of concurrent correlations with measures of teacher burnout and instructional efficacy were in the small-medium range for the teacher interpersonal mindfulness scale whereas teacher intrapersonal mindfulness was unrelated to burnout or instructional efficacy measures. Over a 6-month period, interpersonal mindfulness predicted scores on teacher burnout (emotional exhaustion, depersonalization) and instructional efficacy in working with students (social-emotional and behavior management) whereas intrapersonal mindfulness failed to predict burnout our efficacy measures over this same time period. Results suggest
* Jennifer L. Frank
[email protected] 1
Department of Educational Psychology, Counseling, and Special Education, Pennsylvania State University, 308 CEDAR Building, University Park, PA 16802-3108, USA
2
CISE Department, University of Virginia, Curry School of Education, 206D Bavaro Hall, Charlottesville, VA 22904, USA
3
Human Development and Family Studies, Pennsylvania State University, 306 BBH Building, University Park, PA 16802, USA
that the Mindfulness in Teaching scale is a promising measure of mindfulness in teachers with good psychometric properties, with the interpersonal subscale predictive of teacher burnout and instructional efficacy over time. Keywords Mindfulness . Measurement . Teachers . Education
Introduction There have been numerous theoretical and measurement models developed to assess self-reported mindfulness (Baer et al. 2004; Bergomi et al. 2012; Shapiro et al. 2006). While there are a variety of measures with varying theoretical and empirically derived factors, none take into account any particular context within which one might experience mindfulness (except those that are designed to measure mindfulness during meditation). Moreover, current measures do not typically tap into both the intrapersonal and interpersonal behaviors that may be associated with mindfulness in a specific context. The most commonly used well-validated measures are the Five Facet Mindfulness Questionnaire (FFMQ; Baer et al. 2006) and the Mindful Attention Awareness Scale (MAAS; Brown and Ryan 2003). Other validated measures of mindfulness include the Cognitive and Affective Mindfulness Scale - Revised (CAMS-R; Feldman et al. 2007; Hayes and Feldman 2004), the Southampton Mindfulness Questionnaire (SMQ; Chadwick et al. 2008), the Kentucky Inventory of Mindfulness Scale (KIMS; Baer et al. 2004), and the Philadelphia Mindfulness Scale (PHLMS; Cardaciotto et al. 2008). Two additional measures, the Freiburg Mindfulness Inventory (FMI; Buchheld et al. 2001), and the Toronto Mindfulness Scale (TMS; Lau et al. 2006), include items related to the practice of
Mindfulness
meditation and their use is therefore limited to populations with meditation experience. The six measures listed above capture five dimensions of mindfulness: Observe, Awareness/Attention, Non-judge/Acceptance, Non-react and Describe (see Table 1). Each of these dimensions focuses on the intrapersonal dimensions of mindfulness and items are worded in such a way as to indicate mindfulness directed towards one’s own experience (rather than interpersonal experience). For example, “When I take a shower or bath, I stay alert to the sensations of water on my body,” (FFMQ 6) taps the ability to observe one’s sensations, whereas the negatively worded item: “It seems I am ‘running on automatic’ without much awareness of what I’m doing,” (MAAS 7) focuses on a lack of intrapersonal awareness. This reverse scored item: “I tell myself that I shouldn’t be thinking the way I’m thinking,” (FFMQ 25) aims to assess one’s ability to refrain from judgment of oneself, and this item: “Usually, when I have distressing thoughts or images I am able to just notice them without reacting,” (SMQ 1) taps the non-react dimension of intrapersonal mindfulness. “I’m good at finding words to describe my feelings,” (FFMQ 2) aims to assess one’s ability to describe intrapersonal emotional experience. These measures have facilitated the examination of both the associations and influences of mindfulness on a variety of intrapersonal psychological variables. For example, the MAAS has demonstrated significant positive relationships with optimism, positive affect, life satisfaction and vitality, and negative relationships with impulsiveness and negative affect (Brown and Ryan 2003). The MAAS has also been shown to be a significant negative predictor of depressive symptoms (Argus and Thompson 2008). The KIMS has demonstrated significant positive relationships with emotional intelligence and self-compassion, and negative relationships with alexithymia and dissociation (Baer et al. 2006). Two KIMS factors (Describe and Act with Awareness) have shown a significant positive relationship with life satisfaction (Baer et al. 2004) and the Describe, Act with Awareness, and Accept without Judgment factors have demonstrated an inverse relationship with negative affect (McKee et al. 2007). The FFMQ has demonstrated negative correlations between all facets except Observe with alexithymia, thought suppression, rumination, worry, and dissociation (de Bruin et al. 2012). The central focus of literature on mindfulness to date has been on relieving symptoms of pain and stress, brain activity and its correlates, psychophysiology and its effects, and selfreports of intrapersonal mindfulness (Sedlmeier et al. 2012). A central goal here is to establish a reliable and valid scale that assesses by self-reporting the interpersonal aspects of mindfulness in the context of responsive teaching behavior. While the majority of empirical research and intervention development has focused on intrapersonal mindfulness (e.g., the development of present moment, non-judgemental awareness of one’s own thoughts, feelings and behavior), a central tenant of the wisdom traditions from which a secular approach
to mindfulness has been adapted, is that mindfulness is a construct that also considers one’s awareness and behavior towards others. We define interpersonal mindfulness as having the following qualities: (1) Listening with full attention to others; (2) Present-centered awareness of emotions experienced by the self and others during interactions; (3) Openness, acceptance and receptivity to others’ thoughts and feelings; (4) Self-regulation, which includes low emotional and behavioral reactivity and low automaticity in responses to the everyday behavior of others; (4) Compassion for the self and others (Duncan et al. 2009). Today there are discussions regarding what qualities and dispositions are required to be a good teacher and there is growing interest in applying mindfulness-based approaches to teacher professional development (Roeser et al. 2012). We argue that both interpersonal and intrapersonal mindfulness may play important roles in effective teaching. Teaching is a particularly demanding profession that requires complex cognitive, social and emotional competence (Jennings and Greenberg 2009). Early studies of effective classroom management found that the best teachers have an uncanny ability to maintain a broad awareness of the array of activities taking place in the classroom while, at the same time, paying close attention to one child or a group of children (Kounin 1977). This ability allows the teacher to manage the classroom proactively because she can tell when children are about to go off task or become disruptive and she can position herself to prevent problems. To be aware of what is happening in the whole classroom at any given moment and at the same time respond to individual children’s needs, a teacher must be able to shift her attention from awareness of the whole classroom to an individual child and back again on a regular basis. The observe and aware dimensions of mindfulness may play important roles in supporting these competencies. Because teachers spend a great deal of time focusing attention on the subject matter they are presenting, they may not notice their own emotions or those of their students. Furthermore, despite working in a highly emotionally challenging environment (high-stakes testing, students who are unprepared or unmotivated), they are expected to maintain composure and meet the various needs of students, parents, and administrators. When teachers take time to mindfully observe their emotional experience, it may help them to understand the roots of their emotional reactivity and to find ways to better manage it in ways that are self-compassionate (Jennings et al. 2011; Jennings et al. 2013). In this way, the non-react and non-judge dimensions of intrapersonal mindfulness may play an important role. While these intrapersonal dimensions of mindfulness may support critical teaching behaviors, the application of mindfulness to intrapersonal dimensions may also be important. Listening with full attention to others and openness, acceptance and receptivity to others’ thoughts and feelings can help teachers tune in to their students’ learning processes so they can be more responsive to individual needs. Present-centered
Mindfulness
awareness of emotions experienced by the self and others during interactions along with self-regulation (low emotional and behavioral reactivity and low automaticity) in responses to the everyday behavior of others can support teachers’ ability to manage challenging behavior. The compassion dimension of interpersonal mindfulness may be the most critical to supporting responsive teaching behavior. It is important to note that a distinction has been made between empathy and compassion. While experiencing compassion, one experiences a feeling of care and concern for a person rather than sharing a feeling with them. This distinction is critical for teachers and other caring professionals because engaging with a person who is experiencing difficult or unpleasant emotions can lead to emotional exhaustion whereas feeling concern for a person under these conditions is less stressful because it involves agency (e.g., engaging in concrete helping action) rather than shared emotional distress (Klimecki and Singer 2012). Such conceptual distinctions have been supported by research demonstrating differential activation of cortical networks engaged in empathy and compassion (Klimecki et al. 2014). To conclude, these interpersonal qualities of mindful awareness and behavior main support teachers in helping them maintain composure, compassion, and sensitivity to their students’ needs and interests. The aim of the present study is to develop and psychometrically validate a new self-report measure of teacher mindfulness. In doing so, we sought to create and validate a scale containing items that reflect important dimensions of mindfulness as it might be manifested in the day-to-day behaviors and activities of K-12 teachers.
Study 1: Item Development and Factor Structure Participants Participants in study 1 (n=263) had a mean age of 39.8 years (SD=10.6 years, range=22.5 to 66.1 years), and 95.8 % were female. Approximately 1.5 % of the sample identified as ethnically Hispanic/Latino. Racially, 14.1 % identified as African American, 85.2 % identified as Caucasian, and 0.8 % identified as Native American or Native Alaskan. Participants reported an average of 13.6 years of teaching experience (SD = 9.3), 99 % were regular education teachers, and 95.8 % taught in public school settings in the USA. Procedure
Method
Item Development Initially, existing published mindfulness scales were reviewed, and 20 items were written to reflect aspects of mindfulness believed to be most salient to the teaching context. These items were developed by the research team who included internationally recognized experts in the field of mindfulness and educational research who oversaw the initial construction, development, modification, and adaptations to existing items as well as the construction of new items. The final pool of items included a mixture of new unique items and items modified from existing scales (e.g., MAAS: Brown and Ryan 2003). These included items pertaining to teacher focus during instruction, and daily school activities, emotional awareness, self-regulation, and responsivity and sensitivity during student-teacher interactions. Instructions asked teachers to read statements that describe how true each statement was for them within the past month on a 1 (never true) to 5 (always true) Likert scale.
Overview of Study Procedures
Data Analysis
Participants in studies 1 and 2 were recruited from a sample of 526 public elementary-level school teachers in the USA. Prior to conducting analyses, the sample was randomly divided to an initial exploratory (study 1, n=263) and cross-validation sample (study 2; n=263). The success of sample randomization was examined and no significant differences in participant demographics were found between the two samples. Data was missing on one or more items for less than 1 % of the sample (n=3) and was handled using listwise deletion. Participants in study 3 were derived from a separate sample of 392 teachers from 24 highly diverse inner-city schools in an eastern US city. Participants were recruited from a sample participating in an unrelated study examining the effectiveness of Social-Emotional Learning curricula. In study 3, we utilized participant data collected at baseline; prior to intervention activities.
Responses of the 263 participants in the initial item pool of 20 items were subjected to an exploratory factor analysis (EFA) using principal axis factoring and oblique rotation. We utilized an oblique rotation because we hypothesized derived factors would be correlated. Prior to analyses, Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin values verified sampling adequacy (KMO=0.87), and inspection of all KMO values on the diagonal of the anti-image correlation matrix revealed no KMO values less than the acceptable limit of 0.5 (M=0.84, SD =0.07; see Field, 2009). Bartlett’s test of sphericity χ2 (190) = 1595.06, p=2.0) on more than one factor. We then examined a two factor model and found conceptually similar results, with one 9-item factor measuring Teacher Intrapersonal Mindfulness and one 5-item factor measuring Teacher Interpersonal Mindfulness. The six items that displayed low factor loadings or high cross-loadings were then dropped from the scale. The pattern matrix for the final factor structure is presented
in Table 1. The overall model accounted for 40.68 % of variance. Specifically, Teacher Intrapersonal Mindfulness accounted for 30.94 % of variance, and Teacher Interpersonal Mindfulness. accounted for 9.74 %. The correlation between factors was 0.351. Standardized alpha values for scales derived from this analysis were 0.865 for the Teacher Intrapersonal Mindfulness scale and 0.711 for the Teacher Interpersonal Mindfulness scale. Study 2: Confirmatory Factor Analysis Study 2 attempted to validate the factor structure identified in the previous EFA, using the cross-validation sample described previously. Participants Participants in study 2 (n=263) had a mean age of 40.4 years (SD=11.4 years, range=22.1 to 72.5 years), and 97.7 % were female. Approximately 0.8 % of the sample identified as ethnically Hispanic/Latino. Racially, 9.5 % identified as African American, 89.7 % identified as Caucasian, and 0.8 % identified as having an “Other” racial background. Participants reported an average of 13.3 years of teaching experience (SD=9.8) and 93.5 % taught in public school settings.
Table 1 Items and factor loadings
Factor Intrapersonal When I am teaching it seems I am Brunning on automatic,^ without much awareness of what I am doing. When I am in the classroom I have difficulty staying focused on what is happening in the present. When I am teaching I find myself doing things without paying attention When I am teaching I get so focused on the goal I want to achieve that I lose touch with what I’m doing right now to get there At school I tend to walk quickly to get where I’m going without paying attention to what I experience along the way. I rush through activities with my class without being really attentive to them. When something painful happens at school I tend to blow the incident out of proportion. I am often so busy thinking about other things that I am not really listening to my students. When I’m really struggling with teaching, I tend to feel like other teachers must be having an easier time of it. Even when it makes me uncomfortable, I allow my students to express their feelings. I listen carefully to my student’s ideas, even when I disagree with them. I am aware of how my moods affect the way I treat my students. When I’m upset with my students, I notice how I am feeling before I take action. When I am upset with my class, I calmly tell them how I am feeling.
Interpersonal
0.830
0.104
0.729
−0.041
0.692 0.691
−0.001 0.079
0.667
0.045
0.615 0.570
−0.160 −0.126
0.504
−0.142
0.450
0.039
0.145
0.768
−0.110 −0.052 −0.167
0.608 0.542 0.484
0.034
0.432
Note: 1=intrapersonal mindfulness, Factor 2=interpersonal mindfulness. Items on the Teacher Intrapersonal Mindfulness Scale are reversed
Mindfulness
Data Analysis Confirmatory factor analyses were run in AMOS 17.0 (Arbuckle 2008). In examining fit, we considered multiple absolute fit, relative fit, and non-centrality based indices. Specifically, we report Comparative Fit Index (CFI) which compares observed chi-squire values to baseline model assuming variable independence, the Tucker-Lewis Index, and the Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA). Although guidelines for model fit indices vary, we considered a significant CFI ≥ 0.95, TLI > 0.95 as evidence of good fit (Hu and Bentler 1998, 1999). In light of Steiger’s (2007) recent recommendations, we adopted a more stringent RMSEA criteria with values ≤ 0.07 as an indicator of good fit. Although we report chi-square values as well, readers are reminded that with large sample sizes such as these (n= 263), chi-square is inflated thus erroneously implying a poor data-to-model fit (Kline 2005; Schumacker and Lomax 2004).
suggested excellent fit to the data. As demonstrated in Table 2 and Fig. 1, standardized item loadings ranged from high to moderate, and each item loaded significantly to its respective factor. Considered together, study 2 demonstrated the validity of the factor structure identified in study 1 within a separate confirmatory sample. The confirmatory model showed a good fit to the data, and validated hypothesized relationships between items and latent factor relationships as well. Study 3: Concurrent Validity, Test–Retest Reliability, and Predictive Validity Study 3 further assessed the validity of MTS constructs by examining six month test–retest reliability, concurrent relationships to known variables associated with teacher stress, burnout, and professional efficacy, and predictive validity across a six month period using an independent sample of elementary school teachers.
Results and Discussion Participants Results from the CFA showed evidence of excellent fit for the 2-factor model on most absolute and relative index. As expected, chi-square values for the overall model were significant χ2 (76)=105.36, p=0.015. However, TLI (TLI=0.969, CFI (CFI = 0.974) and RMSEA (RMSEA = 0.038) all Table 2 Unstandardized, standardized, and significance levels for CFA model (standard errors in parentheses; N=263)
Participants in this study included a separate sample of 392 teachers from 24 highly-diverse inner-city schools in a eastern US city. Within this sample, 86.8 % were female and 14 % taught kindergarten, 18.9 % taught first grade, 17.3 % second
Parameter estimate
Unstandardized
Standardized
p
When I am teaching it seems I am Brunning on automatic,^ without much awareness of what I am doing. When I am in the classroom I have difficulty staying focused on what is happening in the present. When I am teaching I find myself doing things without paying attention When I am teaching I get so focused on the goal I want to achieve that I lose touch with what I’m doing right now to get there At school I tend to walk quickly to get where I’m going without paying attention to what I experience along the way. I rush through activities with my class without being really attentive to them. When something painful happens at school I tend to blow the incident out of proportion. I am often so busy thinking about other things that I am not really listening to my students. When I’m really struggling with teaching, I tend to feel like other teachers must be having an easier time of it. Even when it makes me uncomfortable, I allow my students to express their feelings. I listen carefully to my student’s ideas, even when I disagree with them. I am aware of how my moods affect the way I treat my students. When I’m upset with my students, I notice how I am feeling before I take action. When I am upset with my class, I calmly tell them how I am feeling.
0.657 (0.040)
0.844
