Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
DEVELOPMENT OF A STATE MINDFULNESS
SCALE
by
Paul Rock Krech
A Thesis Presented In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree
Master of Arts
ARIZONA STATE UNIVERSITY
August 2006
DEVELOPMENT OF A STATE MINDFULNESS
SCALE
by
Paul Rock Krech
has been approved
May, 2006
APPROVED:
,Chair _____________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________
Supervisory Committee ACCEPTED: ____________________________________ Maria T. Allison, Ph.D. ____________________________________ Dean, Division of Graduate Studies
iii
ABSTRACT
Mindfulness could be considered to be a psychological state, trait, or a cognitive
ability. As a state, it could be conceptualized as a facilitator of positive psychological
flow or wellbeing. For the purposes of this study, the definition of mindfulness draws
from the literature as a function of an individual’s conscious, purposeful choice and
ability to be fully-aware in the present moment. In psychology, mindfulness has been
portrayed many ways: a technique that individuals perform toward some outcome, a
personality attribute that varies among individuals, or a mental ability. Dr. Ellen Langer
begins the process of unpacking mindfulness as a psychological construct. As a
construct, Langer views mindfulness as both a state and a trait. Langer, however, does not
describe mindfulness as a process, but as a product.
The chief purpose of this study is to develop a state mindfulness instrument to
further the understanding how individuals vary in their mindfulness propensity at any
time. This study builds upon the current trait conceptualization of mindfulness as a
psychological construct and develops a state mindfulness scale, the Current Experiences
Inventory (CEI). The CEI is expected detect individual differences in mindfulness
propensity on different occasions of assessment; whereas the LMS tends to assess
individuals’ overall mindfulness propensity independent of time.
Methods describing expert content analysis, CEI item generation, and factor
analytic (exploratory and confirmatory) schemes are demonstrated. Confirmatory factor
Analysis (CFA) was used as a means to reproduce the hypothesized data structure and
produce appropriate fit. When CFAs of the hypothesized model were difficult to
meaningfully interpret, exploratory factor analyses (EFAs) were conducted as a way to
iv
eliminate items contributing to the poor fit of the original confirmatory model. Item
elimination aided toward specification of a new model. CFA was then examined to assess
inter-item relationships of the most plausible model. Correlations were then calculated to
assess the relationship of each factor with external scales. The conclusions show that
subscales for the CEI differed from the a priori hypothesized LMS subscales. The
originally hypothesized four factor model did not yield to meaningful interpretation. An
alternative model based on four modified factors was respecified and interpreted.
Differences and similarities of the two models are discussed, as are recommendations for
further research.
v
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
LIST OF TABLES ……………………………………………………………………. viii LIST OF FIGURES ……………………………………………………………………...ix CHAPTER
1. INTRODUCTION……………………………………………………………1
A brief historical discussion of mindfulness ……………………………. 2
Perspectives of mindfulness as a construct ………………………………7
The importance of mindfulness as a psychological construct …………..20
Purpose of the research ………………………………………………….21
2. METHODS ………………………………………………………………….23
Design …………………………………………………………………...24
Participants ……………………………………………………………... 30
Instruments……………………………………………………………….33
Methods of data analysis ………………………………………………...38
Conclusion ……………………………………………………………....39
3. RESULTS …………………………………………………………………...41
Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the CEI …………………………….....41 Exploratory Factor Analysis of the CEI ………………………………....43
Item Deletion Using Exploratory Factor Analysis ………………………43
Renaming of Factors Based on Empirical Data …………………………44
vi
CHAPTER Page
Secondary Confirmatory Factor Analysis ……………………………….45
Correlations with External Scales ……………………………………….46
4. DISCUSSION ……………………………………………………………….47 Recommendations ……………………………………………………….49
REFERENCES ………………………………………………………………………….51 APPENDIX MINDFULNESS ATTENTION AWARENESS SCALE……………….74 Langer Mindfulness Scale ………………………………………………76 Initial positive mindfulness terms and phrases ………………………….78
Initial negative mindfulness terms and phrases …………………………79 Inter-rater agreement on mindfulness item selection ……………………80 Cross-tabulation analysis of raters one and three for 48
surviving positive mindfulness items …………………………...81 Cross-tabulation analysis of raters one and three for 35
surviving negative mindfulness items …………………………..82 CEI Scale items …………………………………………………………83 Letter to instructor ………………………………………………………85 Letter of consent (respondent) …………………………………………..86 Demographic cover sheet ……………………………………………….87 Mindfulness Attention Awareness Scale (MAAS) ……………………...88 Langer Mindfulness Scale (LMS) ………………………………………90
vii
Page
Current Experiences Inventory (CEI) …………………………………..92 Positive Negative Affect Scale-Lower 11 ………………………………94 IPIP NEO-50 Personality Inventory …………………………………….95 Instruments for assessing external validity of the Current
Experiences Inventory, CEI ……………………………………..99 Scale Abbreviation Key ………………………………………………..100
viii
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
1. CFI results for hypothesized model ………………………………………...62 2. Pattern matrix for theoretical four-factor solution ………………………….63
3. Structure matrix for theoretical four-factor solution ………………………..64
4. Correlation matrix four-factor solution ……………………………………..64
5. Pattern matrix for alternative four-factor solution ………………………….65
6. Structure matrix for alternative four-factor solution ………………………..66
7. Correlation matrix for alternative four-factor solution ……………………...68
8. AGLS and R2 indices for 15 item model …………………………………... 67
9. CFA AGLS factor correlations ……………………………………………...67
10. Residual covariance matrix for AGLS CFA for 15 item model …………….68 11. Correlations of CEI scales with external measures ………………..………..69
12. Polychoric correlations of empirically derived 15 items…………………....70
ix
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Page
1. Scree and parallel plot overlay ……………………………………………...71
2. CFA model for 15-item four-factor solution ………………………………..72
INTRODUCTION
Over the course of the previous three decades, various practitioners have become
interested in the concept of mindfulness. I will discuss the historical underpinnings of
mindfulness as it originated and was practiced within the Eastern Buddhist philosophy,
and the Buddhist influence on contemporary Western mindfulness practice. I will also
describe how mindfulness has been employed in both medical mindfulness-based stress
reduction training as a process, and as a dependent variable in social and cognitive
psychological research. From this foundation, I will explore both mindfulness-based
training and individual mindfulness personality measurement. I will then discuss both
the progress and shortcomings of measurement efforts through the various methodologies
for measuring both processes and products. It is from this base of information that I will
develop a theoretical orientation to develop a state-mindfulness scale that is related to a
published trait-mindfulness scale.
Mindfulness could be considered to be a psychological state, trait or a cognitive
ability. As a state, it could be conceptualized as a facilitator of a positive psychological
flow or wellbeing (Czikszentmihalyi & Czikszentmihalyi, 1988; Kabat-Zinn, 1990;
Brown & Ryan, 2003; Clark, 2003). As a trait, it is examined within the framework of
individual differences from which personality scales may be developed (Langer, 1989;
Langer & Bodner, 2001; Dimidjian & Linehan, 2003). As a cognitive ability, mindfulness
can be viewed as a cognitive style describing an individual’s typical mode of thinking,
remembering or problem solving (Carroll, 1993; Sternberg, 2000). The literature on
mindfulness and mindfulness-training has grown especially over the last decade.
Mindfulness has been proposed to be useful in psychotherapy, counseling and
educational psychology instruction. Mindfulness-training has been proposed as a method
2
of advancing sports, social, organizational leadership, and ability (Ritchhart & Perkins,
2000; Martin, 2002; Rhoder, 2002; Hayes, 2003; Roemer & Orsillo, 2003). For the
purposes of this study, mindfulness will be viewed as a permanent characteristic that may
exhibit change across time.
A brief historical discussion of mindfulness
For the purposes of this study, the definition of mindfulness draws from the
literature as a function of an individual’s conscious, purposeful choice and ability to be
fully-aware in the present moment (Nyanaponika Thera, 1972; Hanh, 1976). By ‘fully-
aware’, I mean that mindful-awareness corresponds with all types of sensation awareness:
visual, auditory, gustatory, tactile, cognitive awareness, consciousness, and human
emotion. By being fully aware, one is not distracted by intrusive thought from
experiencing any internally or externally generated stimulus. Neither does one attach any
philosophical value or judgment to any sensory input. When practicing mindfulness, one
has the opportunity to experience life events as they occur, without an attachment to
outcome. An individual functions neither avoiding nor denying an experience. Likewise,
the individual does not attempt to savor an occurrence or delay a pleasant stimuli’s decay.
When committed to mindfulness, one has the opportunity to be attentive to subtle stimuli
that an individual not practicing mindfulness would ordinarily overlook. That is to say,
the attention to subtle stimuli offers an incentive to individuals that can heighten the
capacity for mental insight into problems ranging from the mundane to the novel. This
capacity for insight can be examined in the history of the concept of mindfulness as it
relates to Eastern philosophical underpinnings.
3
Mindfulness is not a new concept, but can be traced to the fifth-century B.C. and
to the Indian Prince Siddhartha Guatama (b. 563 B.C.), the founder of the non-theistic
practice of Buddhism. As a result of his self-discovering journey as a wandering ascetic,
Siddhartha Guatama became Shakyamuni Buddha or The Enlightened One (Demi, 1996).
By attaining this enlightenment, the Buddha was able to strip away the routine mental
perceptions of self, desires, and wants, thereby glimpsing the bare truth of consciousness.
This keen state of consciousness directed “The Enlightened One” to an overarching
acquiescence to life events as they actually are, not as one wishes them to be. I will soon
expand upon this feature of mindfulness in a discussion of Buddhist meditation practice.
The practice of Buddhism is less like a religion and more a practice of self-
psychology. It is a deliberate and ongoing investigation of one’s mind, intentions,
actions, and, most importantly, perceptions (Mahathera, 1990). Liberation is the goal of
Buddhist practice, which results in freedom from the constraints of our usual thinking,
comprehension, needs, and desires. With this freedom of thought and awareness of
subtle truth based in the roots of consciousness, comes insight and tranquility of mind,
which is purported to be permanent.
There are a number of distinct sects within Buddhism. However, this study will
focus on the modern Buddhist practice of Mahayana. Mahayana Buddhism prevails
throughout East Asia, shaping the cultures of China, Korea, Japan, Nepal, Tibet, and
Vietnam. The most widely known of the Mahayana systems is Zen, practiced mainly in
Japan, Korea, Vietnam, and the United States (Mahathera, 1990). However, Zen itself
strives to be free from writings, models, and even an operational definition of Zen. For
one to practice Zen, one must truly understand the nature of non-being. What is most
4
closely meant by non-being is to un-become or to be freed from one’s current
conceptualization of conscious as it is now. In Zen, the practitioner endeavors to develop
a purer form of consciousness that does not depend upon the symbolism, sensation, or
understanding that limits ‘being’ as it truly is. To address the Eastern underpinnings of
mindfulness, I will turn to contemporary translations of Buddhist writings.
The teachings of The Enlightened One have been shared among the peoples of
East Asia since Fifth Century B.C. Most of the teachings of the Buddha remained
isolated from the West for nearly the next two millennia. In 1958, the Buddhist
Publication Society, BPS, a charitable organization, was founded in Kandy, Sri Lanka.
The goal of the BPS was to translate the Buddha’s discourses from the original Pali
canon to share with people of other creeds and nationalities so they too could find a path
to peace and enlightenment. Buddhist scholars translated numerous discourses into a
series of Wheel Booklets that expounded upon the philosophy of the Buddhism. These
included an annotated text entitled, The Power of Mindfulness (Nyanaponika Thera,
1972). Nyanaponika Thera’s volume addressed the four rudimentary concepts of the
“bareness of attention,” which is the foundation of mindfulness. These four basic
concepts include (a) the organization and identification of sources of mental “confusion”,
(b) the non-coerciveness nature of bare attention, (c) the capacity of slowing down the
mental processes, and (d) the gaining of direct vision as a result of developing bare
attention. Generally, meditation focuses on a singular aspect, such as the breath, a word,
a tone, or an image.
Bareness of Attention. The first concept of bare-attention, organizing and
identifying, describes the process of mentally inspecting the flow of thoughts, emotions,
5
incomplete ideas, perceptions, and a host of other mental activity ongoing not only daily,
but also throughout one’s life. Through contemplative meditation, sitting cross-legged
with straightened back, the practitioner can become attuned to the complexity of one’s
mental activity. It is when the practitioner becomes able to both broaden and sharpen
attunement to his or her mental activity that the process of mental purification may begin.
Mental purification is generally taught as the initial step toward developing clarity of
thought or mindfulness. In this way, naming and identifying the random thoughts,
passions, impulses, and other impure cognitive processes highlights those processes so
the practitioner may become more aware of them. It is the awareness of activities that
block mental clarity that leads to their taming or elimination over time. When obstacles to
meditation (i.e., external noise, emotion, or daydreaming) are recognized as existing, then
an individual is able to know simply the nature of them.
Non-coerciveness. The second concept of the non-coercive nature of the bareness
of attention is a guide to moving beyond distractions a practitioner will encounter during
meditation. The practitioner is not necessarily taught to suppress such obstacles via an
escapist mechanism, but to accept and understand them. It is through acceptance and
understanding of random mental activity that an individual is able to learn to co-exist
with them. This co-existence becomes the way of diminishing and even eliminating
counterproductive activity from the mind. By simply noticing the disturbance lightly,
with a minimum of response, and an attitude of withdrawal, one may return to the focus
of contemplation in concert with the disturbance. If the practitioner is not able to focus,
however, often he or she is directed to turn the focus to the disturbance and give it full
attention. Therefore, the momentary refocusing transforms disturbances into objects of
6
contemplation. Each disturbance is actually regarded as a life-teacher and a constant
companion. Once this attitudinal shift occurs, the disturbances tend to become
surmountable. With experience, the practitioner is able to focus in the presence of
disturbances and not be subjected to them.
Stopping and slowing. The third concept of stopping or slowing down
paradoxically seems to address the nature of mindfulness in that it is not a passive
activity, but an active one. The practice of mindful-meditation acts as a clarifying force
of cognitive activity. Integral to the practice is the stopping and slowing of interference
by external and internal wants, desires, emotions, and judgment. In ‘keeping still’, one is
able to modify his or her conduct and increase a sense of mental tranquility. Often
conduct may be a product of rash or impulsive thought. The practitioner initially learns to
stop and pause, suspend reactions, and to look inward, waiting, toward impulses of his or
her own choosing. It is the practice of curbing reactions that once seemed automatic that
aids the practitioner in re-establishing habits, releasing unconscious rituals, and averting
interfering thoughts. Eventually a practitioner’s sense of mindfulness sharpens and he or
she grows more capable in anticipating disturbances of focus, and their influences can
diminish. By diminishing the disturbance, one may experience purity of thought and
tranquility of mind, leading to a singular focus of mental activity.
Direct or singular vision. Finally, gaining a direct, or singular vision as a result
of developing bare attention, one becomes attuned to “direct knowledge”. Direct
knowledge is the practitioner’s ability to view his or her own physical and mental
processes without contamination. The general contamination of these mindfulness
processes is usually with emotionality, conjecture, judgment or impatience. It is this
7
direct vision that can be conceptualized as insight that expands mental processes for
learning, experiencing, and clarity of decision-making. Developing an attitude of
mindfulness serves to reinforce thought and action. An individual who learns
mindfulness cannot experience life the same as he or she did before.
In 1976, Thich Nat Hanh, a Buddhist monk from Vietnam living as an exile at Plum
Village, France, authored and published The Miracle of Mindfulness. Mobi Ho then
translated the book into English. The goal of Hanh’s work was to bridge Eastern mindful
meditation practice and contemporary Western thought. It is this cultural bridging which
demonstrates the similarities of humanity in terms of desire for understanding and
serenity. The text began to be recognized as an important work in Western circles
concerned about the study of holistic healing. It outlined a realistic approach whereby
individuals may learn to cope with hectic everyday living and reduce stress by becoming
more attuned to unconscious thoughts, emotions, and actions. This recognition was
paralleled by a health and fitness trend that embraced forms of exercise not entirely
familiar to Westerners, such as meditation, yoga, and breath-work in an effort to reduce
life stress. It is Hanh’s work that fueled interest in mindfulness as a Western
psychological concept throughout the next decades. Yet, in a sense, it is the original
practice of the Buddhists that makes mindfulness an attribute worth studying.
Perspectives of mindfulness as a construct
In psychology, mindfulness has been portrayed many ways: a technique that
individuals perform toward some outcome, a personality attribute that varies among
individuals, or a mental ability. I explore next mindfulness from a newer if different
psychological perspective.
8
Mindfulness as a process. Jon Kabat-Zinn, a biochemist, published the first study on
the effects of mindfulness-based stress reduction (MBSR), for patients suffering from
stress and chronic pain (Kabat-Zinn, 1982). He and colleagues later founded the Stress
Reduction Clinic at the Massachusetts Medical Center. Later they conducted several
MBSR training sessions and outcome studies. They also trained other clinicians to
perform the intervention. Kabat-Zinn further authored or co-authored dozens of peer-
reviewed manuscripts pertaining to MBSR, and its benefits to different patient
populations the clinic engaged. He suggested that use of MBSR by “chronic pain”
patients might lead to desensitization to pain, with a reduction of emotional response to it
over time. Kabat-Zinn later authored a noteworthy work entitled, Full Catastrophe
Living, which sent an invitation for the reader to “embark on a journey of self-
development, self-discovery, learning and healing” (1990, p. 1).
Much of Kabat-Zinn’s concept of the benefits of MBSR highlights the successes
in teaching medical patients to cope with chronic pain and stress (Miller, Fletcher &
Kabat-Zinn, 1995). Kabat-Zinn describes mindfulness as a disciplined awareness,
whereby one may take responsibility for each moment experienced, whether the moment
be one of comfort, pain, stress, or joy. In this manner, Kabat-Zinn focused on
mindfulness as a psychological state that can be cultivated. With such responsibility, an
individual may take ownership of his or her experience by paying attention to that
moment and cultivating a different attitude toward life events.
Based largely upon the Buddhist writings of both Suzuki (1970) and Hanh (1976),
Kabat-Zinn expanded upon seven attitudinal development factors of mindfulness practice
for use in the stress clinic. Mindfulness meditation may be learned and practiced in a
9
clinical setting without involving the fullness of Buddhist philosophy, nor appealing to
endorsement by the East. Kabat-Zinn’s foundation of mindfulness practice rested upon
such “major pillars” as non-judging, patience, having a beginner’s mind, trust, non-
striving, acceptance, and letting go (1990, p. 33). Not only did he advocate the seven
attitudes, but the practice of yoga as well. I will address the integration of yoga into
mindfulness practice as I develop Kabat-Zinn’s perspective.
Kabat-Zinn’s concept of non-judging falls in line with earlier Buddhist meditation
not only in its simplicity, but its description of the habit of mental categorization and
judgment that he posits acts to constrain individuals’ growth via mechanical thoughts and
behavior. By developing an awareness of one’s propensity to be judgmental in certain
circumstances without being cognizant of it, an individual can gain an awareness of their
aversions to accompanying thoughts and feelings which may be uncomfortable. A
familiarity with one’s aversions or prejudices begins the process of learning to suspend
them. In suspending prejudices, one can begin the work of focusing on an object of
contemplation. Kabat-Zinn, like Buddhist practitioners, found the rhythmic nature of
diaphragmic breathing an appropriate target of concentration. By suspending judgment,
one develops a deeper patience and a realization that events often occur in their own time.
There is really no need to force things to happen. Patience also reinforces the idea that
individuals do not actually need to continually fill the mind up with activity. Patience
may lead to one’s being open to each moment as it comes without expectation or
suspense.
Kabat-Zinn’s concept of the beginner’s mind is a state of being receptive to novel
ideas and ways about thinking. The beginner’s mind is humble and learns to eschew
10
to begin restructuring of one’s current mental representations or contravening long-held
blocking beliefs. Trust of one’s own inner wisdom and viewing the self as a work-in-
progress become hallmarks of the previous attitudes of mindfulness. With this attitude,
comes the knowledge of practicing progress toward one’s desired goals, as opposed to
rigidity or perfection.
Non-striving or allowing events to unfold as they do without compelling is a way
of overcoming the stress and disappointment of a hectic schedule. In this busy world, it is
not uncommon for professionals, especially business people, to be scheduled for multiple
meetings in diverse settings within the same day. Often patients came to the stress clinic
recognizing they were suffering physically from purely mental causes. In terms of non-
striving, an individual learns not to attempt to “fix” some malady, but to develop an
understanding and simple awareness of the problem. From this non-striving attitude, an
individual develops an attitude of acceptance. This acceptance is, like in the Buddhist
practice, neither passive nor retreating, but a reformulation of one’s belief and attitude
about things one has little control over. The act of simply noticing and deciding to co-
exist with the disturbance in this way precedes the act of letting go. It is a coexistence
that leads to a freedom from any imposition brought about by disturbance and an open-
minded peace. From this peace, one becomes more able to re-evaluate one’s relationship
with the disturbance.
A method for teaching patients suffering from chronic stress and pain to begin the
practice of mindfulness is through the practice of physical or Hatha yoga (Radha, 1999).
Hatha yoga teaches various postures, breathing, and simple stretching techniques that
tend to assist individuals in gaining balance, strength, and flexibility. To Kabat-Zinn,
11
yoga is meditation. Many stress clinic patients reported a reduction of stress and pain
symptoms as a result of weekly or bi-weekly trainings (Kabat-Zinn, 2003). Patients also
reported clearer thinking, planning, and perception (Altman, 2001).
Mindfulness as a correlate. Brown and Ryan (2003) published the first
mindfulness-based psychometric instrument in English, the Mindfulness Attention
Awareness Scale (MAAS). They conceptualized mindfulness as an attribute of
consciousness related to well-being and as a naturally occurring individual characteristic.
The well-being concept gave rise to the notion that individual differences in the
frequency of mindful states over time could be measured with a single instrument.
Furthermore, Brown and Ryan argued that their instrument could differentiate between
individuals’ with a higher propensity to cultivate mindful states than others. Brown and
Ryan postulate that not only are attention and consciousness interrelated, but that
mindfulness is actually an enhanced awareness of experience. Their conceptualization of
mindfulness is chiefly concerned with cognitive processing of both internal and external
stimuli.
Brown and Ryan set out to establish a nomological network and assess convergent
and discriminant validity of mindfulness as a construct. Some representative constructs
related to mindfulness are attention, clarity, and repair as measured by the Trait Meta-
Mood Scale (TMMS, Salovey, Mayer, Goldman, Turvey & Palfai, 1995); openness as
assessed by the subscale of the NEO Personality Inventory (NEO-PI) and the NEO Five-
factor Inventory, (NEO-FFI, Costa & McCrae, 1992); intellectual self-attentiveness, as
measured by the Rumination-Reflection Questionnaire (RRQ, Trapnell & Campbell,
1999); and the internal state awareness as assessed by the Self-Consciousness Scale
12
(SCS, Cramer, 2000). Conversely, constructs that should not have a positive relationship
with mindfulness, for example, might be anxiety, as measured by the State-Trait Anxiety
Inventory (STAI, Spielberger, 1983); mood lability, such as assessed by the neuroticism
subscale of the NEO Personality Inventory (NEO-PI) and the NEO Five-factor Inventory
(NEO-FFI) (Costa & McCrae, 1992); self-reflectiveness as measured by the Self-
Consciousness Scale (SCS, Cramer, 2000); rumination as assessed by the Rumination-
Reflection Questionnaire (RRQ, Trapnell & Campbell, 1999); and depression such as
measured by the Beck Depression Inventory (BDI, Beckham & Leber, 1985).
The authors consulted with several content experts in mindfulness and initially
developed a pool of 184 items. Items were initially reduced via exclusion criteria, or
retained if the statements implied or assumed a refined state of consciousness. Through a
series of ratings by content experts, a scale emerged that was composed of 15 Likert-type
indicators. See Appendix 1.
The authors utilized seven different adult samples in the scale construction. As
expected, positive correlations of the MAAS with subscales the NEO-FFI and NEO-PI
(i.e., feelings, actions, ideas, and values), ranged from .17 to .20; internal state awareness
on the SCS values ranged from .17 to .23; attention, clarity and repair on the TMMS
values ranged from .17 to .50; and intellectual self-attentiveness subscale on the RRQ
ranged from .16 to .20. Likewise, negative correlations were reported with measures
such as the neuroticism subscale of the NEO-PI and the NEO-FFI with values that ranged
from between -.29 and -.56; self-reflectiveness on the Self-Consciousness Scale, SCS
with values that ranged from -.13 to -.19; the rumination subscale on the RRQ with
values that ranged from -.29 to -.39; and depression measures as assessed by the BDI
13
with values that ranged from -.37 to -.42. Trait and state measures of well-being also
correlated positively with mindfulness.
A confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), utilizing maximum likelihood estimation
was performed for a single factor model of the MAAS using a sample of 327 university
students. The chief indices of fit Brown and Ryan utilized were the goodness-of-fit (GFI)
and the root mean square error of association (RMSEA) indices. The age range of the
respondent population was 17 to 28 years old with a mean age of 19.6, and was largely
female, 64%, Caucasian, 77%, Asian, 10, African-American, 5%, Hispanic, 3%, and
others, 5%. The model fit reported was χ2 (90, N = 327) = 189.57, GFA = .92, RMSEA =
.06. The fit indices indicate correspondence between the single factor model and the
sample covariance matrix. The internal consistency alpha of the scale with this sample
was .82.
A CFA was then performed with a second independent US-wide sample of 239
adults. The age range of the respondent population was 18 to 77 years old with a mean
age of 43.3, and was largely female, 66%, and Caucasian, 97%. The model fit reported
was χ2 (90, N = 239) = 179.14, GFI = .91, RMSEA = .07. The internal consistency alpha
of the scale using second sample was .87. In both samples, all scale items were
significantly related to the latent factor.
Finally, utilizing their instrument, Brown and Ryan conducted a study of prostate
cancer patients in a clinical population, N = 41. Patient characteristics such as stage of
disorder progress, time since diagnosis, physical functioning, fatigue, pain, MAAS
mindfulness, mood disturbance and stress symptoms were recorded at the outset. Speca,
Carlson, Goodey and Angen (2000) conducted a clinical intervention based on training
14
by Kabat-Zinn (1990), adapted standardized for a cancer population. The intervention
consisted of eight weekly 90-minute hospital-based sessions, and a 3-hour retreat held
between weeks six and seven.
The results of the clinical intervention showed that higher levels of mindfulness
were related to decreased levels of mental and physical disturbance both before and after
treatment. Brown and Ryan seem to have produced an adequately valid and reliable
measure for assessing one’s propensity toward mindfulness in terms of wellbeing, but as
far as responsiveness to components of mindfulness training, more needs to be done in
this area.
Mindfulness as a product. In 1989, Ellen J. Langer, a social psychologist,
published a work based on the culmination of empirical research entitled: Mindfulness.
Langer’s text discussed mindfulness as a unidimensional, bipolar construct. Mindfulness
is at one end of a bipolar continuum and is contrasted with mindlessness. Mindlessness is
defined as mainly an absence of or reduction in mindfulness (p. 9). Langer postulated
that many individuals self-limit their performance and success because of habitual modes
of thinking about reality, thereby experiencing a reduction in mindfulness propensity.
Langer also posits that mindfulness is reduced when an individual performs mental
shortcuts, behaving seemingly without conscious control. The behavior appears to be
carried out in a habitual, unquestioning manner, as if on automatic pilot (p. 12). This
postulate would be in agreement with cognitive information processing theory, especially
in the area of the implicit memory (Schacter, 1987), more specifically, activating
procedural memory (Matlin, 1998, p. 88). In the development of learning and
performance, informational retrieval tends to become more ecological as an individual’s
15
level of cognitive sophistication increases efficacy in the performance of tasks
(Bransford, 1979).
As a result of Langer and others’ work (Chanowitz & Langer, 1981; Langer,
Blank & Chanowitz, 1978), general concepts emerged describing mindfulness in terms of
individual differences. More importantly, Langer begins the process of unpacking
mindfulness as a psychological construct. As a construct, she views mindfulness as both
a state and a trait. Langer (1989) states that the mindlessness construct is generally
thought of as the “default state” of cognitive processing (p. 2). Langer describes a state
as having attributes of being situation specific and transitory over short periods of time.
But, Langer also discusses individual differences of mindfulness as an individual
propensity or a trait. The Langer Mindfulness Scale (LMS, 2004) arises from earlier
work by Langer and Bodner (2000) via development of their Mindfulness/Mindlessness
Scale (MMS), and solely addresses the trait aspect of individual differences in
mindfulness as a starting point in her psychometric research. See Appendix 2. Item-
stems such as “always, seldom, and rarely,” used in the context of the LMS indicate trait-
type indicators.
Langer’s mindfulness trait measure is actually based on four cognitive domains:
novelty producing, novelty seeking, flexibility, and engagement. Apart, these domains
describe differential traits or propensities that individuals possess, where the whole of
mindfulness appears to be less than the sum of its parts. Together these domains describe
a person’s relative openness to experience, willingness to challenge strict cognitive and
nomological categories, and the continual reassessment of the environment and their
reactions to it. Langer performed numerous classroom and laboratory studies in the
16
course of developing her four-domain concept of mindfulness (Langer, Janis, & Wolfer,
1974; Langer, Blank, & Chanowitz, 1978; Langer & Imber, 1979; Langer, Beck, Janoff-
Bulman, & Timko, 1984; Langer, Heffernan, & Kiester, 1988; Langer, 1993, 1989;
Langer, & Moldoveanu, 2000).
Langer and Bodner performed the initial psychometric assessment on what was
then termed the Mindfulness – Mindlessness Scale (MMS, 2001). It is noteworthy that
this information appears to be propagated in the technical manual for the LMS (2004).
The initial sample consisted of 952 undergraduate college students attending either a
university or a community college in the Northeastern U.S. In order to evaluate
homogeneity of items, Langer and Bodner initially fitted all 21 items on a single factor
within a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) framework. All of the items were positively
related to a single factor with standardized factor loadings ranging from .28 to .69.
Indices of χ2 (188) = 1581.35, GFI = .95 and RMSEA = .074, indicate moderately
adequate fit. This would indicate it would be reasonable to combine the items into a
single scale score.
Next, Langer and Bodner assessed the fit of a four correlated factor model to
support the existence of four related domains. The standardized factor loadings ranged
from .36 to .71. CFI indices, χ2 (183) = 818.38, GFI = .97 and RMSEA = .06, indicated a
better fit.
Langer and Bodner then appear to have parceled items into sums based on the
theoretical domains of the MMS/LMS. This was performed to assess the existence of a
second order factor. Summed items 1, 7, 8, 11, 12, and 19 were parceled into the Novelty
Producing domain, summed items 2, 4, 9, 10, 13, and 15, into the Novelty Seeking
17
domain, items 5, 16, 18, 20 and 21 into the Engagement domain, and finally, summed
items 3, 6, 14, and 17 into the Flexibility domain. These four domains of summed items
than were fitted onto a single factor. Within their respective domains, items exhibited
standardized factor loadings ranging from .36 to .71. CFI test indices, χ2 (1) = 28.37, GFI
= .99 and RMSEA = .03, indicating very good fit. It would appear that a single factor
underlies all 21 items on the LMS and that the four domains support a second order factor
as well.
From Langer’s and other psychologists’ work, a clearer picture develops as the
common factors of a mindfulness theory began to emerge. Much of the work of Hahn,
Kabat-Zinn, and Langer was done in collaboration with each other and other
practitioners. It was from these earlier efforts that other psychologists and educators
began to draw upon the knowledge based of mindfulness to develop interventions,
learning strategies and measurement instruments. Langer, however, does not describe
mindfulness as a process, but as a product. Her approach to measuring mindfulness was
explored empirically, without alluding to interventions, exercises, or training in
meditation and yoga.
Mindfulness at the interface of personality and cognition. Mindfulness, up to this
point, can be thought of as either a product or a process. Robert Sternberg critically
examined Langer’s delineation of the product of mindfulness (2002). He and his
colleagues investigated mindfulness as a cognitive ability, a personality trait, and a
cognitive style, or preferred way of thinking (Messick, 1976; Sternberg, 1997). Cognitive
styles represent a bridge between what might seem to be two fairly distinct areas of
psychological investigation: cognition and personality. While mindfulness does not
18
necessarily fit with any of the general cognitive styles as described by Carroll (1993, p.
554), it may be a further cognitive style not yet considered.
Sternberg inferred that in terms of cognitive abilities, mindfulness was most
related to abilities of attention and concentration. Sternberg examined individuals’
openness to novelty domain of mindfulness by use of conceptual-projection tasks,
inductive reasoning, and insight problems. Sternberg and colleagues utilized maximum-
performance tasks as opposed to typical-performance tasks, as the latter seemed to be
heavily influenced by demand characteristics, thereby compromising validity (p. 16).
The authors used a conceptual-projection task in which individuals were assessed on their
ability to switch between conventional and unconventional problem solving. Some of the
respondents were quite adept at thinking in conventional ways, but rather uncomfortable
thinking in novel or unconventional ways. Other respondents relished the opportunity to
think flexibly and performed quite well on the maximum performance tasks. Sternberg
and Gastel (1989) also developed a non-entrenched inductive reasoning problem to
examine openness to novelty. In this task, individuals were given a set of factual
statements, and non-factual statements and respondents were instructed to solve problems
as if the non-factual premise was true. Difference scores between novel thinking and
ordinary thinking were calculated on response time and error rate of problem solving.
Novel or ordinary thinking scores were based on whether or not the problem containing
factual or non-factual information. These results also gave the authors evidence of an
individual’s openness to novel ways of perception. Finally a convergent task utilizing
insight, whereby participants were given problems to solve that although sounded
mathematical in nature, were actually common sense problems. The authors found that
19
even though some individuals performed well in one domain, they were not always adept
at problem solving in other domains.
From the efforts of Sternberg and colleagues, it was determined that mindfulness
could actually be conceptualized as perhaps three singularly exclusive and
unidimensional constructs. Sternberg’s critique demonstrates that while one must possess
a threshold of cognitive ability to effectively practice mindfulness, one also has to have
the personality and the motivation to be mindful. While mindfulness is not a preferred
perpetual state of being, it is nonetheless a valuable capacity for an individual to access.
The importance of mindfulness as a psychological construct
Whether mindfulness is conceptualized as a process, a state, a trait, or a cognitive
style is a very important consideration in developing a psychometric measurement
instrument. A practitioner determined to learn to reduce stress or discomfort due to
lifestyle habits is developing a change in psychological state. In this instance, both
process and outcome seem to be interrelated. In psychotherapy for example,
improvement of an individual’s coping ability is a common goal and is often a chief
treatment planning issue. Indeed, an individual learning to think mindfully may grow to
develop a fuller quality of attentiveness to psychological disturbance. By recognizing the
process, the patient can learn to tolerate and to reduce anxious or depressive symptoms.
An individual seeking to develop a strategy for reconstructing overall personality
attributes to improve his or her interpersonal relationships undertakes a more
considerable task.
20
Purpose of the research
The chief purpose of this study is to develop a state mindfulness instrument to
further the understanding how individuals’ vary in their mindfulness propensity over
time. This study will build upon the current trait conceptualization of mindfulness as a
construct. It is then within the scope of this study to add information and utility to that
set of concepts by developing a state mindfulness scale, the Current Experiences
Inventory (CEI). The CEI is expected detect individual differences in mindfulness
propensity on different occasions of assessment, whereas the LMS tends to assess
individuals’ overall mindfulness propensity. The state measure could then buttress the
existing LMS trait measure by detecting mindfulness propensity which does not maintain
the same rank ordering of respondents’ scores over occasions of measurement. This
fluctuation is the result of the time-specificity of measurement due to environmental
stimuli such as fatigue, stress, or anxiety. While the LMS should demonstrate less
measurement variance over time, the state measure should account for more of that
variance. The state and trait measures can then be used jointly to obtain a fuller
understanding of individuals’ mindfulness propensity variance over time.
In the development of the state scale, key theoretical underpinnings and methods
of the trait scale (LMS) development will be utilized. In doing so, I (a) developed a pool
of state measure items, (b) utilized independent raters to assess appropriateness of items,
(c) discarded or retained state items based rater-feedback, empirical assessment, and
other criteria, (d) constructed a scale using an iterative processes for administration to a
pool of respondents recruited for the purpose of assessment, (e) record data in a person-
level table, (f) assess dimensionality and reliability of the instrument, (g) examine the
21
relationship between the state measure of mindfulness and other state measures over
time, (h) examine the relationship between state measure of mindfulness and other trait
measures of mindfulness over time and, (i) propose and test a series of confirmatory
factor analytic models for fit based on the sample data, (j) and analyzed observed CEI
total scores by treating “time” as a random factor utilizing a linear mixed modeling
approach.
METHODS
The construct of mindfulness is in a stage of developmental infancy. Little
psychometric literature exists on the construct of mindfulness in the study of
psychological states especially as an occasion-specific or longitudinal measure over time.
The overarching goal is to develop a state instrument that models change over the course
of time. Progress has been made toward increasing the threshold of measurement efficacy
of mindfulness propensity (Langer, 2004). However it has been developed from a
generally time-invariant (trait-like) viewpoint, but not an occasion-variant (state-like)
mindfulness perspective. In this section, I developed a mindfulness state scale based on
key theoretical underpinnings and methods of the trait scale (LMS). In doing so, I
discuss (a) development of a pool of state measure items, (b) the use of independent
raters to classify items, (c) a criteria for retaining, modifying or discarding items, (d)
construction of an instrument for administration, (e) recruitment of respondents, (e)
logistics of administering and recording instrument data, (f) assessing dimensionality and
reliability of the instrument, (g) examining the relationship between the state measure of
mindfulness and other state measures (h) examining the relationship between state
measure of mindfulness and other external trait measures, (i) and by using those results,
determining the viability of the instrument as a research tool.
Prior to investigating instrument reliability and score validity of the CEI, it is
prudent to examine the factor structure utilizing a confirmatory factor analytic (CFA)
approach. The CFA should determine the measured factor structure of the LMS and the
CEI are identical. However, if the measured CEI factor structure does not mirror that of
the LMS, an oblique principal axis factor (PAF) analysis is employed to identify an
24alternative factor structure from the data. The alternative factor structure is then utilized
to test a series of competing CFA models to determine structure and interpretability of the
CEI.
Design
In this subsection, I differentiate between psychological states and traits from
within the framework of personality construct assessment. I then outline a sequential
process of procedures for scale development of the Current Experiences Inventory (CEI).
To this end, I explain the steps of item generation, item selection, item refinement, and
psychometric item behavior. Jackson (1970) outlines a design scheme that provides the
most appropriate and thorough domain coverage at the outset of this project.
The CEI is primarily concerned with here-and-now responses of those individuals
assessed. Theoretically based on the trait-like LMS factor structure, the CEI is
presumably designed to cover four domains. The four domains of the CEI are essentially
unidimensional and substantively support the state construct. With the goal of construct
coverage, it is important to represent both positive and negative poles of the mindfulness
construct in item development. The state measure covers both positive definitions of
mindfulness as well as negative instances of mindfulness. By negative instances, I
simply mean that when individuals are engaged in activities or processes not conducive
to mindfulness practice. I also developed items to be relatively free from ambiguity. In
the spirit of Langer, Brown and Williams’ methods, I sampled respondents from a
college-age population for consistency in this progressive stage. Items are written at the
freshman collegiate reading level based on a score for text utilizing a Flesch-Kincaid
Grade Level (FKGL) scoring scheme. FKGL score rates text based on the U.S. high
25school grade level system. A score of 7.0 would mean a seventh-grade student should be
able to comprehend the text, and a score of 13.0 (or lower) would be appropriate for
college freshman students (Flesch, 1948).
State-trait models are useful in that they can provide information about how traits
influence behavior in terms of causality (Matthews, Deary, & Whiteman, 2003).
Although the state-trait distinction is an important concept in personality research, for
example in anxiety (Spielberger 1966), it has not been considered in the context of other
traits such as mindfulness. In developing a more encompassing measurement scheme of
the construct of mindfulness as both a state and a trait, further information is discussed as
to what the phenomenon of mindfulness actually is.
Issues of invariance and variance. Traits are viewed as stable human dispositions
over time across varying circumstances and settings. States on the other hand, are seen as
temporary responses or conditions related to different circumstances and settings
(Eysenck & Eysenck, 1980). From a measurement perspective, states are conceptualized
as discreet intervals of conscious experience, whereas traits are often assessed on a
continuous dimension. Thus the initial characteristics I utilize in distinguishing a state
from a trait lie in the phrasing of the temporal item-questions.
In order to determine if a scale is measuring a state or a trait, Zuckerman (1976)
solidified the proposition of psychometric criteria for making the distinction:
(1) Trait and state tests should both have high internal consistency. Trait tests
should show high retest reliability, but state tests should not. This would be a reasonable
assumption, in that the state instrument should be sensitive to the degree that it will
26fluctuate over lag times; for example lags over the course of a semester, a week, and even
from morning to afternoon within the same day.
(2) Trait and state tests that purport to measure the same construct should
correlate to a modest degree, but valid trait tests should correlate moderately with the
aggregate mean of a series of state tests completed on different occasions.
(3) A valid trait test should correlate more highly with related trait measures than
with other state tests. In contrast, a state test should correlate more highly with other
concurrent state measures than with trait measures.
(4) State, but not trait measures should be sensitive to immediate conditions that
are expected to affect the relevant construct.
Positive mindfulness items as well as negative ‘mindlessness’ items are
administered together on the CEI. That is, items that suggest both presence and absence
of mindful thinking are included.This administration is analogous to the LMS scheme.
Each of the four domains of the CEI have an equal number of positive and negative
mindfulness items with responses ranging from 1, “very much unlike my experience” to
5, “very much like my experience.” Negative mindfulness items are reverse scored in the
analysis. There are three each positive and three each negative items, for a total of six
items per domain, for a scale total of 24 items. The items are arranged on one page. This
arrangement requires the combination of both positive and negative mindfulness items on
the same instrument with no particular grouping scheme. The literature suggests the
ordering of items has a negligible effect on the outcomes of multiple-choice self-report
scales (Dambrot, 1980; Balch, 1989; Perlini, Lind, & Zumbo, 1998; Neely, Springston, &
27McCann-Stewart, 2002). A total score for each domain is computed from the mindfulness
state terms.
Item development. Although there are several potential sources for error in survey
data, the validity of surveys is dependent upon the design of the question asked. It then
becomes incumbent upon a scale developer to choose the best items possible to represent
the underlying construct of interest. Ideas for the CEI items came from several sources.
These sources included literature on states, traits, and specific literature on mindfulness.
Ideas also came from the interaction and collaboration with other researchers interested in
the practice of mindfulness. In fidelity to the current research, I utilized Langer’s four
domains: Novelty producing, which on the CEI is labeled, CEI-NP; novelty seeking,
CEI-NS; engagement, CEI-E, and flexibility, CEI-F for guidance in the choice of state-
mindfulness items. The novelty-producing (NP) domain covers an individual’s internally
motivated or initiated activities that create new categories, behaviors, or concepts. (NP)
items indicate thinking, doing, or constructing. The novelty-seeking (NS) domain
suggests receptivity to external sensations and experiences as well as the individual’s
motivation to pursue them. (NS) items indicate the search for feeling, sensing, or
experiencing of some novel phenomenon that would further individual growth and life-
experience. Measurement of the flexibility (F) domain actually implies an assessment of
an individual’s level of cognitive flexibility. Cognitive flexibility in the (F) domain is
addressed by assessing an individual’s propensity to change or update his or her point-of-
view based on new information, challenge of core beliefs, and change in the range of the
intellectual ‘comfort-zone.’ Finally, the engagement (E) domain indicates an individual’s
propensity toward involvement in the environment. Items in the (E) domain address
28individuals’ involvement with others, sensitivity to external activity or stimuli, and level
of connection with the world around them.
I initially generated 100 positive mindfulness terms (Appendix 3) and 100
negative mindfulness terms (Appendix 4) based on both Langer’s domains and the
literature. A panel of three content experts, one male and two female professional
mindfulness practice trainers was consulted and recruited for initial item selection in a
five-step process. Each of the raters is presently engaged in a career path in the wellness
and community health professions.
Item-editing. The process of editing items proposed for the CEI was the most
time-consuming as well as iterative portion of scale development. For this task, each rater
was consulted independently, and issued written instructions through each iterative step
of the item refinement process. Initially, the raters were provided copies of the four
Langer LMS domains, and on a separate sheet, a copy of the LMS items for review prior
to review of the CEI items. After review of the LMS domains and items, raters were
provided a brief review of CEI domain descriptions, and a list of 200 CEI items. Each
rater independently reviewed all 100 of the positive mindfulness and the 100 negative
mindfulness terms separately with the goal of domain-matching each item to one, and
only one domain.
In the first step of domain matching all 100 of the positive mindfulness state items
were reviewed by each rater. Based on the raters’ knowledge about mindfulness and the
supporting literature, each made a choice to categorize each item within one and only one
of the domains, NP, NS, F or E. Each rater also performed an identical set of operations
with the 100 negative mindfulness items. In the second step of domain matching the
29raters were instructed to eliminate leftover items based on perceived misfit with any one
of the domains or perceived ambiguity of an item. The raters then performed an identical
operation with the negative mindfulness terms. The writer subsequently eliminated those
items that at least 2 raters did not endorse for retention in any domain.
During this initial phase of evaluation, panel members reported that they had a
great degree of difficulty in eliminating positive mindfulness items, but found it relatively
simple to eliminate negative mindfulness items. The male rater remarked that, “It would
be easy for me to make an argument to keep all 100 of the [positive] mindfulness terms,
because they all really describe mindfulness as I teach it” (P. Sugar, personal
communication, July 17, 2004).
The panel members were then instructed to select terms that “best described” one
of the four mindfulness domains. One of the members, female rater number 2 exhibited a
high degree of divergence from both member 1’s and member 3’s item endorsements.
Likewise, rater 2 failed to choose any terms for the positive domains of both novelty
seeking and flexibility, and the negative domain of engagement. The inclusion of rater
two’s contribution toward a kappa statistic was unworkable because of the absence of
matrix symmetry due to two missing (non-endorsed) positive mindfulness domains, and
one missing domain in the negative realm. Subsequently, panel member two’s ratings
were set aside. Rater one’s and rater three’s responses were utilized in computing a
kappa statistic. A total of 48 positive mindfulness items, κ1, 3 = .74, p < .001; and a total
of 35 negative mindfulness items, κ1, 3 = .68, p < .001 emerged from the analysis of inter-
rater agreement between raters one and three. See Appendix 5. Cross tabulations of rater
30one and three were examined to visually inspect agreement on positive and negative
mindfulness items retained. See Appendices 6 and 7.
In the next iteration of editing, positive and negative mindfulness terms were
chosen from surviving items for each domain for each positive or negative mindfulness
set. These choices were based upon the combination of inter-rater agreement, empirical
match of item and domain, and FKGL score. Items such as “pontificating,” and “fishing-
out,” survived the inter-rater agreement stage, yet were ultimately determined to not be
the best items in terms of substantive value. Likewise, these terms may not have similar
meanings for different people, and they may be ambiguous to college freshmen. Finally a
total of 12 positive and 12 negative mindfulness adjectives emerged, 3 each for each of
the four domains by two positive/negative poles, for a total of 6 terms in each domain,
and a total of 24 items. See Appendix 8.
Participants
Mindfulness has been most recently studied utilizing younger, middle, and older
adults as subjects. Therefore, like preceding studies, this study continues with early
traditional-age college students. Over the course of the summer of 2004, I contacted
several course instructors with whom I had a pre-existing working relationship. See
Appendix 9.
Over the first six weeks of the spring 2005 semester, a total of 226 respondents
completed the initial assessment at time one. The 136 female to 90 male students were
enrolled in undergraduate a plant biology course taught at the University. Seven
respondents did not disclose their gender. The mean age of respondents was 22.4 years,
with a range from 18 to 39 years old. Each respondent was offered the opportunity to
31enroll in a drawing offering four awards of one-hundred dollars each, four awards of fifty
dollars each, and four awards of twenty-five dollars each, for a total of seven-hundred
dollars. The prospect of winning an award served as an incentive for respondents to
participate throughout the course of the study to its completion.
Recruitment. Potential respondents are given the opportunity to voluntarily
enroll in the study. The researcher addressed each of the classes as a whole each in a
single session. Each respondent was given a cover letter, a “consent for participation”
form, and a set of participants’ rights and participation instructions. Confidentiality of
participants’ responses was addressed in the cover (information) letter. The respondents
were initially instructed to read and sign the consent approved by the IRB containing the
student name, last-five of the University identification (ID) number, and signature. Each
student was informed about security procedures surrounding the safeguarding of his or
her “University ID last five” for assignment of study number. Each five-digit case
number was entered into a statistical package and recoded into a 5 digit study number,
10001-10324. The information with the five digit Univeruty ID numbers were separated
from the rest of the responses and shredded upon completion of the analysis. The syntax
containing the last five University ID numbers was kept in a double locked file cabinet, in
a lock-secured records room. Only the primary author has access to information about
respondents’ personal ID information in order to facilitate administration of the
instruments. Furthermore, respondents’ individual responses are not the focus of this
study. The information letter to participants is included in Appendix 10.
Packets of instruments were provided to each willing respondent in the classroom.
Each respondent had the opportunity to complete the instruments by endorsing form
32fields (i.e. one of five response ovals) on an NCS Pearson Scantron sheet, series 229633.
Respondents returned their completed forms to the writer in person immediately after the
assessment.
Administration. Kinney & Zaustra (2001) suggest close time intervals for studies
such as this to control of major life changes within respondents that might lead to
measurement artifacts. This may be especially timely for new freshman students, many
of whom are experiencing a college adjustment process anyway. Therefore, individual
assessments were planned and conducted over three, one-week intervals. At each
occasion, each respondent was provided in person, one initial survey booklet, a
demographic sheet, the initial five instruments, and the Scantron response sheets. The
researcher issued and collected the materials at the beginning of the class period.
Respondents were then given the second occasion materials at the next occasion of
assessment one week later, and again in another week on the third occasion. However,
due to a low number of respondents completing the assessments at all three times (N =
75), interpretation of time-series results was not plausible. Therefore, only the first
occasion of measurement was analyzed for this study.
This initial administration was designed to distribute the LMS, CEI, PANAS-L11,
IPIP-NEO-50, and the MAAS scales for a total of 121 items. The instruments were
administered in one, single-sided booklet and numbered sequentially so each scale
composed a single section of the entire survey. Each booklet section has its own set of
instructions to guide respondents for item endorsement. Each respondent completed the
demographic items (in the “Identification #” and “Special Codes” sections) of the series
229633 sheet and the five instruments listed PART ONE through PART FIVE. Each
33item in the main response section is numbered sequentially 1 through 121. See Appendix
11. The response time burden for this exercise was 45 minutes.
Additional measures were administered to this group of respondents, but were not
used in this study.
Subjects self-assessed perceived mindfulness states by way of responding to the
CEI and the LMS instruments. The respondents did not have a benchmark with which to
reference item endorsement, but approached each administration period from a naive
perspective. By naive, I mean that were no inherent demand characteristics within the
scale influencing respondents to answer one way or another.
Instruments
The instruments used are chiefly for (a) obtaining statistics for the CEI, (2)
obtaining responses on trait measures, and (c) obtaining responses on other state
measures. The respondents completed seven scales. These scales consist of four trait-like
measures, and three state-like measures.
Assessment of Validity. Validity refers to the accuracy of a construct’s
operationalization, in that the instrument of interest adequately measures that construct.
The variable measure’s accuracy also falls on a continuum between inclusiveness and
exclusiveness. The element of CEI validity that I am generally concerned with in this
initial task is construct validity. Construct validity refers to the degree to which we can
rightfully make inferences based on responses to an instrument depending upon how a
construct is operationalized. A valid construct for state mindfulness then represents to
what degree is an individual aware of the environmental context in the present setting.
34The CEI is expected to share common variability with similar trait-like constructs,
such as those assessed by the LMS (Langer, 2004), the MAAS (Brown & Ryan, 2001)
and the IPIP-NEO-50 (Goldberg, 1999). The CEI is also expected to share common
variability with a state-like instrument such as the Positive Affect Negative Affect,
Lower-11 Scale (PANAS-L11: Watson & Clark, 1994b).
Trait-like instrument: IPIP-NEO-50, LMS, and MAAS. Mindfulness addresses an
inter-individual performance ability or skill. By assessing an individual’s mindfulness
propensity over time, I am assessing an individual’s propensity toward thinking
mindfully on different occasions of measurement. The IPIP-NEO is a public-domain
five-factor personality inventory similar to the NEO-Five Factor Inventory, NEO-FFI
(Costa & McCrae, 1989). Like the NEO-FFI, the domains of the IPIP-NEO-50 are
similar and easily translate into NEO-FFI-like domains. The IPIP-NEO has the similar
domains (NEO-FFI in parentheses): Surgency (Extroversion-Factor one), where the IPIP
has a 10 item scale, five positively keyed and five negatively keyed items, (α = .87);
Agreeableness (Factor two) 10 each or six positively keyed and four negatively keyed
items (α = .82); Conscientiousness (Factor three) 10 each or six positively keyed and four
negatively keyed items (α = .79); Emotional Stability (Neuroticism-Factor four), 10 each
or two positively keyed and eight negatively keyed items (α = .86); and an extra factor,
Intellect or Imagination (Factor five), 10 each or seven positively keyed and three
negatively keyed items (α = .84). In terms of external validity, I am most interested in
conscientiousness and neuroticism, C and N constructs of the IPIP-NEO. The C factor is
35expected to positively correlate with the NP+ and NS+ and negatively correlate with the
NP- and NS- domains of the CEI.
The LMS has four domains that behave within a CFA framework like separate
factors. Furthermore, the LMS domains are not expected to correlate one-to-one with the
CEI domains, chiefly because of the theoretical construction of the CEI by positive and
negative domains, and the LMS consisting of four total domains, and one total-score
higher order factor. The LMS is then expected to positively correlate with the CEI
positive domains of NP+, NS+, F+, and E+, and conversely correlate negatively with the
CEI negative domains NP-, NS-, F-, and E-. The MAAS consists of a single underlying
factor, in accordance with Brown & Ryan’s CFA outcome, and therefore is expected to
positively correlate with the LMS domains and CEI positive domains of NP+, NS+, F+,
and E+, and conversely correlate negatively with the CEI negative domains NP-, NS-, F-,
and E-.
In terms of content validity, I assessed whether or not our instrument adequately
samples the mindfulness construct. The four Langer domains of mindfulness propensity
(NP-, NS-, F-, and E-) provided guidance in the item construction process. Care was
taken in choosing the instrument items, and whether they fully assess what the existing
theory and literature states each domain’s theoretical meaning indicates. As an effort to
construct a valid instrument, I utilized expert agreement on what should and what should
not be included as items. I also utilized standards that provided guidance as to appropriate
reading level terms for freshman college students. Furthermore, to avoid issues such as
gender bias in item selection, the initial item reviewers were both male and female.
36State-like Measures: CEI and PANAS-L11. In terms of criterion validity, I attend
to the aspects of predictive and concurrent validities of the CEI. While trait scores are
expected to correlate with each other over occasions of measurement, the state measures
are expected to behave somewhat differently over time. State scores positively correlate,
at least moderately with the trait scores but weakly with each other. The state error scores
are uncorrelated.
The state measure demonstrates a relationship to other state scales that assess
affect, such as the PANAS-L11, which was developed as a short form of the Positive
Affect Negative Affect Scale, PANAS (Watson, Clark, & Tellegen, 1988). Correlations
of the PANAS-L11 with the full PANAS with state instructions are .94 for positive affect
and .91 for negative affect. A sample PANAS-L11 is shown in Appendix 11.
Concurrent validity: In determining concurrent validity, the negative affect state
portion of the PANAS-L11, is expected to exhibit a negative correlation with all the LMS
and the eight CEI domains, whereas the positive affect of the PANAS-L11 is expected to
positively correlate with LMS and CEI domains In terms of face validity, the content
experts reviewed the completed initial item selection and provided feedback.
Construct validity: Construct validity is crucial to the stability of the instrument as
a measure of the state of mindfulness. The CEI is built upon a foundation of theoretical
underpinnings addressing the time variant state-like properties of novelty seeking,
novelty producing, cognitive flexibility and engagement. For the assessment of external
validity, care is taken in instrument selection to determine assessment of convergent and
discriminant validity. Anxiety, neuroticism as assessed by the IPIP-NEO exhibits a
relationship with the negative mindfulness items. Likewise, conscientiousness as
37assessed by the IPIP-NEO shows a positive relationship with positive mindfulness items
on the CEI. Alternate instruments that are expected to indicate external validly are listed
in Appendix 13, whereas instrument abbreviations are listed in Appendix 14. The
negative affect of the PANAS-L11 should negatively correlate with the CEI as an index
of anxiety. The PANAS-L11 will provide added coverage, in that some respondents may
be either experiencing mood lability, or anxiety. However, each of the two scales might
not be sensitive enough to detect the other. By this statement I mean that I do not expect
the anxiety scale to detect mood lability, and conversely, I do not expect the neuroticism
scale to detect anxiety. However, I argue that the detection and measurement of both
lability and anxiety are important in establishing external validity of our scale. Anxiety,
whatever its cause on an occasion, may influence the brain in such a way that non-
rational responses become overwhelming, and intellectual learning or critical thinking
become difficult if not impossible (O’Keefe & Nadel, 1978; Jacobs & Nadel, 1985; Caine
& Caine, 1991). I then argue that individuals who are experiencing anxiety or mood
lability are generally not engaged in higher order cognitive processing. Such individuals
will not be in a state of novelty seeking, but will be most likely seeking familiarity as a
coping mechanism to deal with anxiety or stress brought about by a situation.
Methods of data analysis
The strategy for this particular episode of scale development uses first
measurement occasion data. The trait-like scales, IPIP-NEO, LMS, and MAAS, used for
establishing external validity are administered only once at the initial assessment period.
The LMS and the CEI are administered over all occasions of measurement to facilitate
38examination of mindfulness state change in relationship to Langer’s theoretical
underlying mindfulness trait-based ancestry.
Factor analysis. Factor analysis helps to determine the number of factors, and the
relationship of each factor to one another, and to the construct of interest. Initially, a
confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) is conducted to determine how well the proposed
items and factors fit a hypothesized a priori model. The overarching goal of these
analyses is to determine an interpretable and parsimonious solution. A CFA is conducted
utilizing EQS software (Multivariate Software, Inc., 2003). Exploratory factor analysis
(EFA) is a method to performing an analysis on a newly developed scale or test. It is also
useful for evaluating candidates for deletion based on item mismatch when CFI analyses
fit poorly, or are difficult to interpret. However in many cases, factor analysis is actually
performed as a sole method for determining the item retention decision-making process
(Gorsuch, 1997). The CEI factors are expected to be correlated reflecting a single
underlying construct; therefore an oblique rotation (i.e. Promax) is employed.
Reliability of the initial, single CEI administration. Reliability is concerned about
the degree of consistency a set of items yields. For the purposes of this analysis,
coefficient alpha is the indicator of internal consistency or reliability.
Determination of the number and structure of factors. The goal of factor analysis
is to identify the least number of factors or constructs that will reproduce the original data
while building a foundation for subsequent analyses (DeVellis, 2003). Based on Langer’s
essentially unidimensional LMS, it is expected that the CEI will yield a unidimensional
structure. However, the CEI was constructed with both positive and negative instances of
each of the four Langer domains, or potentially eight domains. It might therefore then be
39unrealistic to assume that we would observe the new state-like measure, with “today”
instructions to yield a similar single-factor structure such as the LMS. Therefore, a range
from two to eight potential factors is likely to emerge from an analysis of the CEI. It
would then be prudent to perform a common factor (principal axis) analysis to aid in
making decisions about item retention or deletion. The resulting factor solution is
expected to yield more immediate information pertaining to the factor structure of the
instrument. Expectations about an EFA-based factor structure could range from a single
“state mindfulness” factor, one positive and one negative factor each, four overall domain
factors (NP, NS, F and E), or up to eight factors composed of four positive and four
negative domains.
Parallel factor analysis. A parallel factor analysis is an iterative method for
determining the number of factors (O'Connor, 2000). It offers information in terms of a
non-subjective decision about the number of factors to extract.
Conclusion
In this section, I have discussed a map outlining CEI instrument development. I
differentiated between psychological states and traits from within the framework of
multivariate and empirical personality construct assessment. I outlined a sequential
process of procedures for scale development of the CEI to facilitate measurement of the
construct of state mindfulness. By describing the methods and steps I outlined how I
developed the instrument. Developmental elements include a scheme for item generation,
item selection, item refinement/editing, sampling, and scale administration. I then gave a
brief discussion of the statistical methodology I utilize in assessing the relationship
between state, trait, occasion and individual. I finally outlined the methods for
40determining factor structure of the instrument, as well as internal consistency based on
sample data.
RESULTS
A number of analyses were conducted to evaluate the CEI. First, confirmatory factor
analyses were conducted to assess the proposed four factor model for the CEI. Then, based on
the difficulty in finding meaningful results, confirmatory and exploratory factor analyses were
performed to determine a new item structure. Exploratory factor analyses were then conducted as
a way to eliminate items contributing to the poor fit of the original confirmatory model. Item
elimination aided toward specification of a new model. Confirmatory factor analysis was then
examined to assess inter-item relationships of the most plausible model. Correlations were then
calculated to assess the relationship of each factor with external scales.
Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the CEI
A series of confirmatory factor analyses (CFA) were conducted to assess the fit of the
proposed four factor model of the CEI as well as to consider alternative models. By fit, I mean
the ability of the model specified to reproduce the variance-covariance matrix. By “good fit,” I
mean a low chi-square statistic relative to degrees of freedom, a high confirmatory fit index (CFI
≥ .95), and a low root mean squared error of approximation (RMSEA ≤ .05) statistic (Hu and
Bentler, 1995). Although alternative methods of determining model fit exist (Fan and Sivo,
2005), I use the Hu and Bentler standard for convention. Due to non-multivariate normality of
the data, robust methods were utilized to conduct the CFAs. The robust methods assist in model
assessment by adjusting the obtained model fit chi-square statistic based on the degree of non-
normality in the sample data. Results of the CFAs may be seen in Table 1.
Initially, a single factor model was fitted to the item variance-covariance matrix, for
baseline comparisons with the other factor models. As expected, the model fit the data poorly,
particularly when assessed using indices that compare the fit of the one factor model to the null
model (i.e. NFI and CFI).
42
Next, the hypothesized four factor model was assessed. The factors—flexibility (F),
engagement (E), novelty seeking (NS), and novelty producing (NP) —were allowed to be
correlated. When taking model parsimony into account, the hypothesized model fit as poorly as
or worse than the one factor model. In particular, the AIC and RMSEA indicated poorer fit for
the four factor model.
Given the lack of fit of the hypothesized mode, an unrestricted four factor model was fit
to the data. The unrestricted model was fit to determine if the hypothesized model would produce
better fit if particular cross-loadings were allowed. With the unrestricted four factor model, one
item is specified as salient for each factor. The weight between the salient item and its factor is
freely estimated, but all other weights for the salient item are constrained to zero. All non-salient
items have freely estimated weights. Unrestricted factor analysis should produce results similar
to an exploratory factor analysis. The salient items for the four hypothesized factors were item
14, (I feel flexible in my thinking), for the F factor, item 7 (I am in tune with my surroundings).
for the E factor, item 19 (I feel like seeking out new things to experience,) for the NS factor, and
item 12 (I feel as though I have original ideas,) for the NP factor. As shown in Table 1, the
unrestricted model exhibited only a slight improvement in fit over and above the hypothesized
four factor model with no cross-loadings.
Finally, a bifactor model was specified that allowed the loadings of each item onto the
general factor to be freely estimated. Although this model fit as well or better that any of the
previous models, it still failed to fit adequately. See Table 1.
Exploratory Factor Analysis of the CEI
Given the hypothesized model and its variants failed to fit the data, exploratory factory
analyses were conducted. Principal axis factor analysis was used to extract the factors and then
43
rotation was accomplished by the oblique Procrustean method (Promax) with Kaiser
normalization. The scree plot “first elbow” was examined as a cutoff criterion (Cattell, 1966) as
was a parallel analysis (Horn, 1965) in an effort to identify the number of interpretable factors. A
common practice in utilization of the scree plot is to use the eigenvalue greater-than-one
criterion. However, at times, this criterion may yield ambiguous results; therefore a parallel
analysis is used in conjunction with the scree plot. By use of this additional check, one may
compare the number of factors retained based on actual data that exceed eigenvalues of the mean
of the number of factors extracted based on random data such as generated by the parallel
analysis. As predicted, the scree and parallel analysis suggested that four factors be extracted.
See Figure 1. The four factor solution accounted for approximately 49.6% of the variance.
Consistent with the CFA, these results did not support the hypothesized model and in general
were difficult to interpret. The pattern matrix may be seen in Table 2. Many of the items failed
to load on their specified factors or loaded onto their specified factors as well as other factors
(i.e., cross-loaded). Several items loaded and cross-loaded on factors other than those specified a
priori, thereby confounding interpretation even further. The structure matrix and the correlation
matrix between factors may be seen in Table 4, and to facilitate interpretation of the scale a
decision was made to delete some of the 24 CEI items based a simple set of rules.
Item Deletion Using Exploratory Factor Analysis
Exploratory factor analytic use of the three rules was an iterative process to obtain the
results. Items were chosen for deletion if:
• their loading values were low (i.e. < .38),
• their loadings were in the wrong direction with respect to the other items on the factors,
• the item substantively made little sense being grouped together with other items on factors.
44
Items loading on the wrong factors based on the a priori model were not necessarily deleted if
they were interpretable within the present factor structure.
A total of five items were eliminated in the initial iteration according to rule 1 and 2.
These items were 1, 2, 9, 20, and 24. The remaining 19 items were assigned to the four factors
based on their highest loading, .90.
The model was then re-estimated, and two more items were eliminated based on the third
rule. Items 5 and 10 were eliminated yielding 17 remaining items. The model was then re-
estimated a final time. Two more items, items 11 and 12, were eliminated in accordance with
rules one and three. The pattern matrix of this model with 15 items may be seen in Table 5. The
resultant structure matrix may be seen in Table 6. The correlation matrix between factors may
be seen in Table 7.
Renaming of Factors Based on Empirical Data
As item deletion progressed, an alternative relationship between factors and items
appeared to emerge. Each of the factors appeared appropriate for renaming using the item
content as a guide.
The F factor appeared to become more of an “inflexibility” (IF) factor, for example “I am
against making any changes to my attitude toward life,” item 18, “I feel like rejecting others'
ideas that aren’t like mine.” The items indicate cognitive inflexibility, or an unwillingness to be
open to new ideas, activities, or opportunities. The IF factor excluded items that suggested
flexible thinking.
The E factor appeared to become more a “disengagement” (DE) factor. An example is, “I
feel detached from the world around me.” The DE factor included items like the negative aspect
of the E factor in that they indicate a lack of awareness or sensitivity to external or
45
environmental cues, and excluded items suggesting engagement. Likewise, the DE factor was
very similar to the a priori intent of the negative portion of the E factor.
The NS factor appeared to become a “flexibility” (FLEX) factor for example, “I feel
flexible in my thinking.” The new FLEX factor included items like the original F factor
suggesting a general openness and willingness to consider points of view and activities other
than one’s own. The factor excluded items that suggested inflexibility.
Finally, the NP factor assumed characteristics of an “engagement” (ENG) factor for
example, “I am in tune with my surroundings,” identical to the original E factor. The new ENG
factor was moderately different from the original E factor in that it contained two novelty
producing-like phrases that addressed an engagement-with-environment orientation. An example
of this would be item 7, “I am in tune with my surroundings.” Each of the four factors were
renamed in accordance with these observations to inflexibility (IF), disengagement (DE),
flexibility (FLEX), and engagement (ENG).
Secondary Confirmatory Factor Analysis
An additional post-hoc CFA utilizing polychoric correlations and the arbitrary generalized
least squares (AGLS) estimation method was performed on the remaining 15-item four factor
model. This model fit the best of all CFA models assessed, χ2 AGLS (84) = 193.37, Adjusted
AGLS fit index (AAFI) = .94, AGLS corrected comparative fit index (ACFI) = .95. RMSEA =
.08, and AIC = 25.37. Standardized and unstandardized solutions as well as R-square indices may
be seen in Table 8. The CFA factor correlations of IF, DE, FLEX, and ENG factors may be seen
in Table 9. The standardized residual matrix for the final CFA may be seen in Table 10.
Correlations with External Scales
46
A comparison of external factor correlations with the CEI scales was examined. The
correlations, although some rather modest, were in the expected direction as shown in Table 11.
Because the data are responses to Likert scales, correlations were estimated between each
item. Because of the fewer items, polychoric correlations were appropriate to show these
relationships. As seen in Table 12, each of the 15 items appeared to exhibit moderate-to-large
correlations with other items composing each factor with a few exceptions. These polychoric
correlations ranged from .16 between item 23 (I feel receptive to others' ideas) and item 7 (I am
in tune with my surroundings) on the ENG factor, to .73 between item 17 (I feel like I am closed
off to new ways of thinking) and item 18 (I feel like rejecting others' ideas that aren’t like mine)
on the IF factor. Coefficient alpha internal consistency estimates to reflect each subscale were
computed. The coefficient alphas for IF, DE, FLEX, and ENG ranged from .73 to .85.
DISCUSSION
I can reach a number of conclusions based on the findings. First, the Current
Experiences Inventory (CEI – state-like scale) appears to be very different from the
hypothesized model based on the Langer Mindfulness Scale (LMS – trait-like scale).
Four factors appear to fit the CEI data; however, each of the factors appears to be in a
single direction only. That is, each CEI factor is composed exclusively of items that
suggest either presence of a participant’s (positive mindfulness) or absence (negative
mindfulness) at the current time of administration. A mix of positive and negative items,
such as was hypothesized a priori that suggests both presence and absence of
mindfulness within any state-like factor did not hold. The original intent of each CEI
factor was to be bipolar like LMS factors.
The divergence between LMS (trait) and CEI (state) may be an artifact of the
major differences in pertinence of the factors to this sample of respondents. It could be
that novelty seeking and novelty producing are a function of longer-standing trait-like
qualities of individuals. Similarly, flexibility/inflexibility and engagement/disengagement
may be more palpable functions of an individual’s day-to-day experience. Perhaps
novelty seeking/producing is not a uniform state-like issue for this sample of students
coping with the rigors of learning, studying, working, and socializing.
Second, the coefficient alpha reliability reflected by the CEI subscales is
moderate; ranging from α = .73 to .85. The reliability estimates are similar to those for
the LMS, which ranged from .71 to .77.
Third, the CEI factor correlations with external measures diverged from
expectations. CEI scales that were hypothesized to be highly correlated with external
48
measures did not do so. External measures that did not correlate highly with the CEI were
the PANAS negative affect, PANAS positive affect, IPIP-NEO N factor, and IPIP-NEO
O factor. On the PANAS scales, factors were correlated in the correct direction; however
the correlations were modest.. On the IPIP-NEO Neuroticism factor, IF and DE were
positively but moderately correlated; for the IPIP-NEO Openness factor, FLEX and ENG
were also positively, but moderately correlated. For correlations between CEI and LMS
subscales, FLEX and ENG were positively correlated with LMS NP, NS, and F factors.
IF was negatively correlated with all four LMS factors. CEI DE were positively
correlated with LMS NP and E factors, and negatively correlated with NS and F factors.
All correlations between the LMS and CEI were moderate as well.
The results might have been influenced by the wording of the CEI. Although
none of the items exceeded a grade level of 7 according to the Flesch-Kincaid Grade
Level (FKGL), respondents still asked a number of question about the verbal meaning of
certain items. For example, many participants considered item 20 “I feel like taking
mental shortcuts” to be particularly difficult to understand. The response is
understandable because “mental shortcuts” may have a positive connotation to some
respondents and a negative connotation to others. It is consistent with the study of Langer
and Bodner (2001) that certain items were considered less understandable by respondents
who were unfamiliar with the topic. It is not surprising because for individuals not
familiar with the concept of mindfulness, the content of some items may be interpreted as
having negative consequences rather than helpful.
49
Recommendations
Based on the findings of this study, two alternative hypotheses could be generated
about the nature of the state-like measure. First, that the respecified CEI model is the
correct model, and that several additional items may be constructed to buttress findings
related the flexibility/inflexibility engagement/disengagement factors. The alternative
hypothesis is that the respecified model was actually an artifact of the sample. In this
case, items should be re-written to model the original four factors CEI. This assumption
is also modeled after the spirit of the one-to-one relationship of trait and state like
measures of mindfulness.
Overall, I recommend that both hypotheses related to CEI factor design should be
explored. Then the state-like scale should be administered over multiple occasions to
assess its state-like quality. Furthermore, increasing an individual understanding about
the concept of mindfulness might help with scale administration. Thus, a brief
description of mindfulness might be included in the front material of subsequent
occasions of measurement.
The measurement of mindfulness appears to be a complex phenomenon. The
scale should eventually be useful in giving providers of mindfulness interventions
information about how their training has impacted clients. Some researchers such as
Kabat-Zinn (1982), Kabat-Zinn, Massion, Kristeller, and Peterson, (1992), and
Czikszentmihalyi and Czikszentmihalyi (1988) argued that mindfulness training can help
to develop high level cognitive skills. However, a means of directly modeling outcomes
for mindfulness states as a psychological construct does not exist. The state-like scale
50
should be developed for these purposes not only to measure treatment efficacy, but to
also yield insight into the process of mindfulness development.
REFERENCES
Altman, K. E. R. (2001). A brief therapy model to reduce stress by practicing breathing
exercises, mindful meditation, and yoga stretching. Dissertation Abstracts International:
Section B: The Sciences and Engineering, 62, 530.
Alwin, D. F., & Hauser, R. M. (1975). The decomposition of effects in path analysis. American
Sociological Review, 40, 37 – 47.
Balch, W. R. (1989). Item order affects performance on multiple-choice exams. Teaching of
Psychology, 16, 75 – 77.
Bentler, P. (2004). EQS version 6.1 software. Encino, CA: Multivariate Software, Inc.
Bentler, P. M. (2002). EQS 6 Structural Equations Program Manual. Encino, CA: Multivariate
Software, Inc.
Broadbent, D. (1958). Perception and communication. London: Pergamon Press.
Brown, K. W. & Ryan, R. M. (2003). The benefits of being present: Mindfulness and its role in
psychological well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 822 – 848.
Byrne, B. N. (2001). Structural Equation Modeling with AMOS. Rahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.
Caine, R. M., & Caine, G. (1991). Making Connections: Teaching and the Human Brain.
Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Cattell, R. B. (1946). The Description and Measurement of Personality. Yonkers – on – Hudson,
NY: World Book.
Cattell, R. B. (1966). The scree test for the number of factors. Multivariate Behavioral Research,
1, 245 – 276.
52
Center, D. & Kemp, D. (2003). Temperament and personality as potential factors in the
development and treatment of conduct disorders. Education and Treatment of Children,
26, 75 – 88.
Cheung, S. (1999). Relaxation training for high school students in Hong Kong, International
Journal for Health, Physical Education, Recreation, Sport and Dance, 35, 133 – 135.
Clark, S. R. (2002) The impact of self-regulated attention control on the amount of
time spent in flow. Dissertation Abstracts International, AAT 3055205 63/05, p. 2615.
Cohen, J. (1977). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (revised edition). New
York: Academic Press.
Costa, P. T. & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO PI – R) and
NEO Five-Factor Inventory (NEO – FFI) Professional Manual. Odessa, FL:
Psychological Assessment Resources.
Czikszentmihalyi, M. & Czikszentmihalyi, I. S. (1988). Optimal experience:
Psychological Studies of Flow in Consciousness. New York: Cambridge University
Press.
Dambrot, F. (1980). Test item order and academic ability, or should you shuffle the test item
deck? Teaching of Psychology, 7, 94 – 96.
Davidson, R. J., Kabat-Zinn, J., Schumacher, J., Rosenkranz, M., Muller, D., Santorelli, S. F..,
Urbanowski, F., Harrington, A., Bonus, K., Sheridan, J. F. (2003). Alternations in brain
and immune function produced by mindfulness meditation. Psychosomatic Medicine, 65,
564 – 570.
Demi, A. (1996). Buddha. New York: Henry Holt and Company, Inc.
DeVellis, R. F. (2003). Scale Development: Theory and Applications. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
53
Diggle, P. J. (1988). An approach to the analysis of repeated measures. Biometrics, 11, 1 – 42.
Dimidjian, S. & Linehan, M. M. (2003). Defining an agenda for future research on the
clinical application of mindfulness practice. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice,
10, 166 – 171.
Dumenci, L. & Windle, M. (1996). A latent trait-state model of adolescent depression using the
Center for Epidemiologic Studies-Depression Scale. Multivariate Behavioral Research,
31, 313 - 330.
Eid, M. (1996). Longitudinal confirmatory factor analysis for polytomous item responses: model
definition and model selection on the basis of stochastic measurement theory. Methods of
Psychological Research Online (http://www.pabst-publishers.de/mpr), 1, 65 – 85.
Eysenck, H. J. & Eysenck, S. B. G. (1993). The Eysenck Personality Questionnaire – Revised.
London: Hodder & Stoughton.
Fan, X. and Sivo, S.A. (2005) Sensitivity of fit indices to misspecified structural or measurement
model components: rationale of two-index strategy revisited. Structural Equation
Modeling, 12, 343 – 367.
Goldberg, L. R. (1999). A broad-bandwidth, public domain, personality inventory measuring the
lower-level facets of several five-factor models. In I. Mervielde, I. Deary, F. De Fruyt, &
F. Ostendorf (Eds.), Personality Psychology in Europe, Vol. 7 (pp. 7-28). Tilburg, The
Netherlands: Tilburg University Press.
Gorenflo, D. & Crano, W. (1998). The multiple perspectives inventory: A measure of
perspective taking. Swiss Journal of Psychology, 57, 163 – 177.
Gorsuch, R. L. (1997). Exploratory factor analysis: Its role in item analysis. Journal of
Personality Assessment, 68, 532 – 560.
54
Hanh, T. N. (1976) The Miracle of Mindfulness. Beacon Press, Boston, MA.
Hayes, S. C. & Wilson, K. G. (2003). Mindfulness: Method and Process. Clinical Psychology:
Science and Practice, 10, 161 – 165.
Horn, J. L. (1965). A rationale and test for the number of factors in factor analysis.
Psychometrika, 30, 179 – 185.
Hu, L. & Bentler, P. M. (1995). Evaluating model fit. In R. H. Hoyle (Ed.), Structural
Equation Modeling. Concepts, Issues, and Applications (pp. 76-99). London: Sage.
Hu, L. & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis:
Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1 – 55.
Jackson, D. N. (1970). A sequential system for personality scale development. In, Spielberger, C.
(Ed.) Current Topics in Clinical and Community Psychology, Vol. 2. New York:
Academic Press.
Jacobs, W. J. & Nadel, L. (1985). Stress-induced recovery of fears and phobias.
Psychological Review, 92, 512 – 531.
Jöreskog, K. G. (1971). Simultaneous factor analysis in several populations. Psychometrika, 57,
409 – 449.
Kabat-Zinn, J. (1982). An outpatient program in behavioral medicine for chronic pain patients
based on the practice of mindfulness meditation. General Hospital Psychiatry, 4, 33 – 47.
Kabat-Zinn, J. (1990). Full catastrophe living: Using the wisdom of your body and mind to face
stress, pain and illness. New York: Delta.
Kabat-Zinn, J., Massion, A.O., Kristeller, J., Peterson, L.G. (1992). Effectiveness of a
meditation-based stress reduction program in the treatment of anxiety disorders.
American Journal of Psychiatry. 149, 936 – 943.
55
Kabat-Zinn, J. & Chapman-Waldrop, A. (1988). Compliance with an outpatient stress reduction
program: Rates and predictors of program completion. Journal of Behavioral Medicine.
11, 333 – 352.
Kabat-Zinn, J., Lipworth, L., Burney, R. (1985). The clinical use of mindfulness meditation for
the self-regulation of chronic pain. Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 8, 163 – 190.
Kiesler, D. J. (1983). The 1982 interpersonal circle: A taxonomy for complementarity in human
transactions. Psychological Review, 90, 185 – 214.
Lane, D. M. (1979). Developmental changes in attention deployment skills. Journal of
Experimental Child Psychology, 28, 16-29.
Lane, D. M., & Pearson, D. A. (1982). The development of selective attention. Merrill
Palmer Quarterly, 28, 317-337.
Langer, E. J. (2004). Langer Mindfulness Scale User Guide and Technical Manual. Worthington,
OH: IDS Publishing Corporation.
Langer, E. J. (1993). A mindful education. Educational Psychologist, 28, 43 – 50.
Langer, E. J. (1989). Mindfulness. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Langer, E. J., Beck, P., Janoff-Bulman, R., & Timko, C. (1984). The relationship between
cognitive deprivation and longevity in senile and non-senile populations. Academic
Psychology Bulletin, 6, 211 – 226.
Langer, E. J., Blank, A., & Chanowitz, B. (1978). The mindlessness of ostensibly
thoughtful action: The role of “placebic” information in interpersonal interaction. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 36, 635 – 642.
Langer, E. J. & Imber, L. G. (1979). When practice makes imperfect: Debilitating effects
of overlearning. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 2014 – 2024.
56
Langer, E. J., Janis, I., & Wolfer, J. A. (1974). Reduction of psychological stress in
surgical patients. Journal of Experimental and Social Psychology, 11, 155 – 165.
Langer, E. J., Heffernan, D., & Kiester, M. (1988). Reducing Burnout in an Institutional
Setting: An Experimental Investigation. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Langer, E. J. & Moldoveanu, M. (2000). The Construct of mindfulness. Journal of Social
Issues, 56, 1 – 9.
Liederman, J., & Kinsbourne, M. (1980). The mechanisms of neonatal rightward turning bias: A
sensory or motor asymmetry? Infant Behavior and Development, 3, 223 – 238.
Loehlin, J. C. (1998). Latent Variable Models (3rd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates Publishers.
Lord, F. M. & Novick, M. R. (1968). Statistical Theories of Mental Test Scores. Reading, MA:
Addison – Wesley.
Lorr, M. (1971). Manual for the Psychiatric Outpatient Mood Scale (POMS). San Diego, CA:
Educational and Industrial Testing, Inc.
Mahathera, N. (1990). A Manual of Abhidhamma: Abhidhammattha Sangaha. Somerville, MA:
Wisdom Publications.
Marsh, H. W. & Grayson, D. (1994). Longitudinal confirmatory factor analysis: Common, time
specific, item-specific, and residual error components of variance. Structural Equation
Modeling, 1, 116 – 145.
Martin, J. R. (2002). The common factor of mindfulness – an expanding discourse: Comment on
Horowitz . Journal of Psychotherapy Integration, 12, 139 – 142.
57
Martin, D. J., & Hoover, H. D. (1987). Sex differences in educational achievement; A
longitudinal study. Special issue: Sex differences in early adolescents. Journal of Early
Adolescence, 7, 65 - 83.
Mathews, G., Deary, I, J., & Whiteman, M .C. (2003). Personality Traits (2nd ed.). Cambridge,
UK: Cambridge University Press.
McAdams, D. P. (2001). The Person: An Integrated Introduction to Personality Psychology
(3rd ed.). Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt, Brace.
McGuiness, D. (1976). Sex differences in the organization of perception and cognition. In
B. Lloyd & J. Archer (Eds.), Exploring Sex Differences. New York: Academic Press.
Meehl, P. E. (1945). The dynamics of “structured” personality tests. Journal of Clinical
Psychology, 1, 296 – 303.
Meehl, P. E. (1950). Configural Scoring. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 14, 165 – 171.
Messick, S. (1976). Individuality in Learning. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Messick, S. (1995). Validity of psychological measurement: Validation of inferences from a
person’s responses and performance in scientific inquiry into score meaning. American
Psychologist, 50, 741 – 749.
Miller, J., Fletcher, K., & Kabat-Zinn, J. (1995). Three-year follow-up and clinical implications
of a mindfulness meditation-based stress reduction intervention in the treatment of
anxiety disorders. General Hospital Psychiatry, 17, 192 – 200.
Mischel, W. (1968). Personality and Assessment. New York: Wiley.
Mischel, W. (1973). Toward a cognitive social reconceptualization of personality. Psychological
Review, 80, 252 – 283.
58
Mithaug, D. E. (1993). Self-Regulation Theory: How Optimal Adjustment Maximizes Gain.
Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers.
Neely, D. L., Springston, F. J., & McCann-Stewart, J. H. (2002). Does item order affect
performance on multiple choice exams? In R. A. Griggs (Ed.), Handbook for teaching
introductory psychology: Vol. 3: With an emphasis on assessment. (pp. 108-110).
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.
Norman, D. (1977). Memory and attention: An introduction to human information processing
(2nd ed.). New York: Wiley.
Nowlis, V. (1965). Research with the Mood Adjective Check List. In, Tomkins, S. & Izard, C.
(Eds.). Affect, Cognition and Personality. New York: Springer, pp 325 – 389.
Nyanaponika Thera. (1972). The Power of Mindfulness. San Francisco, CA: Unity Press.
Nyanaponika Thera (1993). The Wheel Publication #19- Satipatthana Sutta: The Foundations of
Mindfulness. Kandy, Sri Lanka: Buddhist Publication Society.
O'Connor, B. P. (2000). SPSS and SAS programs for determining the number of components
using parallel analysis and Velicer's MAP test. Behavior Research Methods,
Instrumentation, and Computers, 32, 396 – 402.
O’Keefe, J. & Nadel, L. (1978). The hippocampus as a cognitive map. Oxford: Clarendon
Press.
Perlini, A. H., Lind, D. L., & Zumbo, B. D. (1998). Context effects on examinations: The effects
of time, item order and item difficulty. Canadian Psychology, 39, 299 – 307.
Radha, S. S. (1999). Hatha Yoga: The Hidden Language: Symbols, Secrets, and Metaphor.
Kootenay Bay, B.C: Timeless Books, Inc.
59
Rapaport, D. (1959). The structure of psychoanalytic theory: A systematizing attempt. In S.
Koch (Ed.), Psychology: A Study of a Science (Vol. 3, pp. 55 – 138). New York: McGraw
Hill.
Reise, S. P., Waller, N. G., & Comrey, A. L. (2000). Factor analysis and scale revision.
Psychological Assessment, 12, 287 – 297.
Rhoder, C. (2002). Mindful reading: strategy training that facilitates transfer-learning reading
strategies in isolation often prevents students from transferring them to their content area
studies. This model of strategy training leads to mindful, thoughtful reading. Journal of
Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 45, 498.
Ritchhart, R. & Perkins, D. (2000). Life in the mindful classroom: Nurturing the
disposition of mindfulness. Journal of Social Issues, 56, 27 – 47.
Roemer, L. & Orsillo, S. M. (2003). Mindfulness: A promising intervention strategy in need of
further study. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice, 10, 172 – 178.
Rutschman, J. (2004). Effects of techniques of receptive meditation and relaxation on attentional
processing. Canadian Journal of Cognitive Science, 6, 6 – 16.
Salmon, P. G., Santorelli, S. F., & Kabat-Zinn, J. (1998). Intervention elements promoting
adherence to mindfulness-based stress reduction programs in the clinical behavioral
medicine setting. In, Shumaker, S. A. & Schron, E. B. (Eds.). The handbook of health
behavior change, 2nd ed. (pp. 239-266). New York: Springer Publishing Co.
SAS Institute, Inc. (2005). SAS, Version 9.0. Cary, NC: SAS Institute, Inc.
SAS Institute, Inc. (2003). SAS/STAT User’s Guide, Version 9, Vol. 1. Cary, NC: SAS Institute,
Inc.
60
Satorra, A., & Bentler, P. M. (1994). Corrections to test statistics and standard errors in
covariance structure analysis. In A. von Eye & C. C. Clogg (Eds.), Latent variables
analysis: Applications for developmental research (pp. 399-419). Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
Saunders, A. M. (1995). Stress Reduction in Sixth-Grade Students. Journal of
Experimental Education, 63, 315.
Spielberger, C. D., Gorsuch, R. & Lushene, R. (1970). The State – Trait Anxiety Inventory
(STAI) Manual. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychology Press.
Spielberger, C. D. (1966). Theory and research on anxiety. In Spielberger, C. D. (Ed.). Anxiety
and Human Behavior. New York: Academic Press, pp. 3 – 20.
SPSS, Inc. (2004). Statistical Package for the Social Sciences, Version 12.0. Chicago: SPSS, Inc.
Sternberg, R. J. (1997). Thinking styles. Boston: Cambridge University Press.
Sternberg, R. J. (2000). Images of mindfulness. Journal of Social Issues, 56, 11 – 26.
Sternberg, R. J., & Grigorenko, E. L. (1997). Are Cognitive Styles Still in Style? American
Psychologist, 52, 700 – 712.
Stipek, D., de la Sota, A., & Weishaupt, L. (1999). Life lessons: An embedded classroom
approach to preventing high-risk behaviors among preadolescents. The Elementary
School Journal, 9, 434 – 451.
Steyer, R., Schmitt, M., & Eid, M. (1999). Latent trait-state models and research in personality
and individual differences. European Journal of Personality, 13, 389 – 408.
Suzuki, S. (1970). Zen: The Beginner’s Mind. New York: Weatherhill.
Thompson, B. (2004). Exploratory and Confirmatory factor Analysis. Washington: American
Psychological Association Press.
61
Trapnell, P.D., & Campbell, J.D. (1999). Private self-consciousness and the Five-Factor Model
of personality: Distinguishing rumination from reflection. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 76, 284 – 304.
Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and validation of brief measures
of positive and negative affect: The PANAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 54, 1063-1070.
Widaman, K. F. (1993). Common factor analysis versus principal components analysis:
Differential bias in representing model parameters? Multivariate Behavioral Research,
28, 263 – 311.
Wigging, J. S. (Ed.)(2003). Paradigms of Personality Assessment. New York: Guildford Press.
Zuckerman, M. (1960). The development of an affect adjective checklist for the measurement of
anxiety. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 24, 457 – 462.
Zuckerman, M. (1976). General and situation-specific traits and states: New approaches to
assessment of anxiety and other constructs. In Zuckerman, M. & Spielberger, C. D.
(Eds.), Emotions and Anxiety: New Concepts, Methods and Applications. Hillsdale, NJ:
Erlbaum, pp. 133 – 174.
Zuckerman, M., & Lubin, B. (1985). Multiple Affect Adjective Check List-Revised: Manual.
San Diego, CA: Educational and Industrial Testing Service.
62
Table 1. CFI results for hypothesized model
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Model χ2 df NFI CFI AIC RMSEA
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
CEI
Single factor 596.72 252 .56 .68 92.72 .08
Four factor 637.88 246 .65 .69 145.88 .09
Unrestricted 625.21 242 .60 .70 141.21 .08
Bi-factor 491.74 227 .68 .79 37.74 .07
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________
63 Table 2. Pattern matrix for theoretical four-factor solution Factor
Item F E NS NP
I feel like I am closed off to new ways of thinking 17F 0.75 0.03 0.06 -0.14I feel like rejecting others' ideas that aren’t like mine 18F 0.75 0.10 0.08 0.01I am against trying new ways of doing things4F 0.56 -0.02 0.02 -0.13I feel receptive to others' ideas 23F -0.10 0.10 0.65 -0.08I feel flexible in my thinking 14F -0.10 0.01 0.62 0.01I feel open to beliefs that challenge my own 21F -0.36 0.14 0.34 0.03I feel detached from the world around me 13E 0.08 0.72 0.11 0.02I feel I am unaware of what others are doing 15E -0.04 0.58 -0.11 -0.02I am sensitive to other people8E -0.31 0.02 -0.04 0.39I am absorbed in my private thoughts1E 0.27 -0.04 0.48 0.01I am in tune with my surroundings7E -0.11 -0.22 -0.19 0.68I am alert to the world around me5E 0.18 -0.44 0.30 0.26I feel like seeking out new things to experience 19NS 0.04 -0.23 0.50 0.14I am trying to define new goals for myself 10NS 0.15 -0.04 0.41 0.34I want to experience life in novel ways 24NS -0.16 0.26 0.29 0.26I feel out of touch with my surroundings 22NS -0.01 0.79 0.02 0.00I am against exploring new activities2NS 0.21 0.19 -0.29 0.03I am trying not to cloud my mind with new ideas9NS 0.21 0.20 -0.46 0.22I am turning my ideas into action 11NP -0.05 0.10 0.06 0.66I am building on opportunities for my own progress6NP -0.26 -0.02 0.02 0.47I feel like taking mental "shortcuts" 20NP 0.16 0.37 -0.10 0.39I feel as though I have original ideas 12NP -0.17 0.16 0.13 0.38I am against making any changes to my attitude toward life3NP 0.52 -0.07 -0.07 0.00I feel like avoiding experiences that are unlike ones I've tried 16NP 0.50 0.18 0.11 -0.09
F = Flexibility, E = Engagement, NS = Novelty seeking, NP = Novelty producing
64 Table 3. Structure matrix for theoretical four-factor solution
Factor
Item F E NS NP
I feel like I am closed off to new ways of thinking 17F 0.81 0.32 -0.36 -0.50I feel like rejecting others' ideas that aren’t like mine 18F 0.74 0.35 -0.30 -0.36I am against trying new ways of doing things4F 0.61 0.21 -0.29 -0.39I feel receptive to others' ideas 23F -0.33 -0.14 0.63 0.22I feel flexible in my thinking 14F -0.39 -0.24 0.67 0.32I feel open to beliefs that challenge my own 21F -0.49 -0.12 0.48 0.32I feel detached from the world around me 13E 0.28 0.71 -0.16 -0.15I feel I am unaware of what others are doing 15E 0.24 0.61 -0.30 -0.19I am absorbed in my private thoughts1E 0.03 -0.11 0.37 0.09I am sensitive to other people8E -0.48 -0.18 0.26 0.52I am in tune with my surroundings7E -0.45 -0.37 0.22 0.71I am alert to the world around me5E -0.26 -0.54 0.48 0.41I feel like seeking out new things to experience 19NS -0.35 -0.41 0.62 0.39I am trying to define new goals for myself 10NS -0.22 -0.20 0.50 0.44I want to experience life in novel ways 24NS -0.33 0.04 0.38 0.40I feel out of touch with my surroundings 22NS 0.27 0.78 -0.24 -0.18I am against exploring new activities2NS 0.39 0.35 -0.43 -0.24I am trying not to cloud my mind with new ideas9NS 0.38 0.38 -0.53 -0.13I am turning my ideas into action 11NP -0.37 -0.11 0.33 0.68I am building on opportunities for my own progress6NP -0.51 -0.24 0.34 0.61I feel as though I have original ideas 12NP -0.37 -0.04 0.32 0.49I feel like taking mental "shortcuts" 20NP 0.15 0.37 -0.14 0.18I am against making any changes to my attitude toward life3NP 0.52 0.14 -0.29 -0.27I feel like avoiding experiences that are unlike ones I've tried 16NP 0.56 0.35 -0.23 -0.34
Table 4. Correlation matrix four-factor solution.
Factor F E NS
E 0.37 NS -0.46 -0.34 NP -0.50 -0.25 0.42
F = Flexibility, E = Engagement, NS = Novelty seeking, NP = Novelty producing
65 Table 5. Pattern matrix for alternative four-factor solution. Factor Item 1 2 3 4 I am against making any changes to my attitude toward life 3 0.45 -0.11 -0.07 -0.09
I am against trying new ways of doing things 4 0.48 -0.05 -0.02 -0.18 I feel like avoiding experiences that are unlike ones I've tried 16 0.50 0.15 0.01 -0.04
I feel like I am closed off to new ways of thinking 17 0.83 0.01 0.01 0.00 I feel like rejecting others' ideas that aren’t like mine 18 0.83 0.10 0.05 0.14 I feel detached from the world around me 13 0.03 0.66 0.08 -0.09 I feel I am unaware of what others are doing 15 0.06 0.49 -0.09 0.00 I feel out of touch with my surroundings 22 -0.04 0.90 -0.02 0.02 I feel flexible in my thinking 14 0.04 0.00 0.73 0.04 I feel like seeking out new things to experience 19 -0.01 -0.23 0.50 0.00 I feel open to beliefs that challenge my own 21 -0.21 0.07 0.43 0.04 I feel receptive to others' ideas 23 0.02 0.05 0.72 -0.08 I am building on opportunities for my own progress 6 -0.22 0.06 0.09 0.43 I am in tune with my surroundings 7 0.05 -0.15 -0.06 0.80 I am sensitive to other people 8 -0.27 0.11 0.00 0.43
DE = Disengagement, IF = Inflexibility, FLEX = Flexibility, ENG = Engagement
66
Table 6. Structure matrix for alternative four-factor solution.
Factor
Item IF DE
FLEX
ENG I am against making any changes to my attitude toward life 3 0.51 0.10 -0.32 -0.37 I am against trying new ways of doing things 4 0.59 0.18 -0.33 -0.47 I feel like avoiding experiences that are unlike ones I've tried 16 0.57 0.34 -0.32 -0.40 I feel like I am closed off to new ways of thinking 17 0.83 0.29 -0.44 -0.52 I feel like rejecting others' ideas that aren’t like mine 18 0.74 0.32 -0.37 -0.39 I feel detached from the world around me 13 0.27 0.67 -0.15 -0.29 I feel I am unaware of what others are doing 15 0.27 0.53 -0.25 -0.22 I feel out of touch with my surroundings 22 0.28 0.89 -0.25 -0.26 I feel flexible in my thinking 14 -0.38 -0.21 0.72 0.29 I feel like seeking out new things to experience 19 -0.36 -0.38 0.57 0.27 I feel open to beliefs that challenge my own 21 -0.45 -0.14 0.54 0.32 I feel receptive to others' ideas 23 -0.31 -0.12 0.67 0.16 I am building on opportunities for my own progress 6 -0.53 -0.19 0.36 0.59 I am in tune with my surroundings 7 -0.47 -0.37 0.25 0.79 I am sensitive to other people 8 -0.50 -0.13 0.28 0.57 Table 7. Correlation matrix for alternative four-factor solution. Factor DE IF FLEX IF 0.35 FLEX -0.55 -0.28 ENG -0.63 -0.33 0.38 DE = Disengagement, IF = Inflexibility, FLEX = Flexibility, ENG = Engagement
67
Table 8. AGLS R2 indices for 15 item CEI model
Item R2
I am against making any changes to my attitude toward life 3 0.36 I am against trying new ways of doing things 4 0.42 I feel like avoiding experiences that are unlike ones I've tried 16 0.57 I feel like I am closed off to new ways of thinking 17 0.66 I feel like rejecting others' ideas that aren’t like mine 18 0.63 I feel detached from the world around me 13 0.60 I feel I am unaware of what others are doing 15 0.36 I feel out of touch with my surroundings 22 0.76 I feel flexible in my thinking 14 0.54 I feel like seeking out new things to experience 19 0.60 I feel open to beliefs that challenge my own 21 0.53 I feel receptive to others' ideas 23 0.55 I am building on opportunities for my own progress 6 0.46 I am in tune with my surroundings 7 0.32 I am sensitive to other people 8 0.25
Table 9. CFA AGLS factor correlations
Factor IF DE FLEX
DE .83 FLEX -.68 -.73 ENG -.52 -.85 .70
68
Table 10. Residual covariance matrix (S-Σ) for CFA AGLS 15-item four factor model
Items 3 4 16 17 18 13 15 22 14 19 21 23 6 7
4 0.11 16 -0.15 -0.08 17 -0.02 0.04 -0.04 18 -0.10 -0.03 -0.05 0.08 13 -0.26 -0.20 -0.17 -0.25 -0.21 15 -0.11 -0.13 -0.07 -0.09 -0.16 -0.01 22 -0.32 -0.31 -0.26 -0.31 -0.21 -0.01 -0.02 14 0.05 0.01 0.07 0.03 0.10 0.13 0.08 0.13 19 0.15 0.04 0.09 0.00 0.09 0.14 -0.09 -0.07 -0.09 21 -0.06 0.05 0.07 -0.03 -0.03 0.17 0.12 0.17 -0.06 -0.24 23 0.05 0.15 0.19 0.14 0.13 0.24 0.03 0.24 -0.02 -0.19 -0.11 6 -0.04 -0.08 -0.05 -0.13 -0.04 0.24 0.18 0.35 0.00 -0.01 -0.08 -0.09 7 0.01 -0.18 -0.06 -0.13 -0.01 0.03 0.05 0.05 -0.06 -0.08 0.03 -0.17 0.13 8 -0.20 -0.17 -0.05 -0.15 -0.15 0.23 0.04 0.26 -0.05 -0.04 0.03 -0.07 0.12 0.20
Standardized residuals
69
Table 11. Correlations of CEI scales with external measures
PANAS IPIP-NEO-50 scales Langer mindfulness scales (LMS)
CEI scales MAAS NEG POS IPIP A IPIP N IPIP C IPIP O IPIP E LMS NP LMS NS LMS E LMS F
IF -0.35 0.18 -0.10 -0.12 0.23 -0.16 -0.12 -0.10 -0.26 -0.32 -0.32 -0.23
DE -0.37 0.39 -0.12 -0.07 0.36 0.14 -0.11 0.04 0.33 -0.16 0.48 -0.21
FLEX -0.04 -0.03 0.26 0.24 -0.05 0.04 0.23 -0.03 0.48 0.41 -0.45 0.36
ENG 0.26 -0.26 0.14 0.42 -0.21 0.24 0.11 0.16 0.24 0.39 -0.22 0.34
CEI scales: IF = Inflexibility, DE = Disengagement, FLEX = Flexibility, ENG = Engagement PANAS scales: NEG = PANAS negative affect, POS = PANAS positive affect IPIP-NEO-50 scales: A = Agreeableness, N = Neuroticism, C = Conscientiousness, O = Openness, E = Extroversion LMS scales: NP = Novelty producing, NS = Novelty seeking, E = Engagement, F = Flexibility
70
Table 12. Polychoric correlations of empirically derived 15 items
Item 3 4 16 17 18 13 15 22 14 19 21 23 6 7
4 0.51 IF
16 0.31 0.42 17 0.49 0.57 0.58 18 0.39 0.49 0.56 0.73 13 0.12 0.21 0.31 0.27 0.29 DE 15 0.22 0.22 0.33 0.34 0.26 0.44 22 0.13 0.18 0.31 0.30 0.38 0.64 0.49 14 -0.23 -0.30 -0.30 -0.36 -0.29 -0.17 -0.12 -0.18 FLEX 19 -0.18 -0.30 -0.31 -0.45 -0.34 -0.18 -0.33 -0.40 0.47 21 -0.33 -0.25 -0.27 -0.41 -0.40 -0.15 -0.13 -0.16 0.50 0.35 23 -0.27 -0.21 -0.21 -0.29 -0.29 -0.03 -0.19 -0.09 0.48 0.35 0.43 ENG 6 -0.33 -0.40 -0.43 -0.52 -0.43 -0.20 -0.18 -0.17 0.34 0.35 0.24 0.28 7 -0.24 -0.46 -0.38 -0.46 -0.34 -0.33 -0.27 -0.40 0.22 0.22 0.29 0.16 0.51 8 -0.38 -0.38 -0.29 -0.41 -0.41 -0.12 -0.23 -0.10 0.23 0.24 0.28 0.18 0.43 0.46
IF I am against making any changes to my attitude toward life 3 FLEX I feel flexible in my thinking 14 I am against trying new ways of doing things 4 I feel like seeking out new things to experience 19 I feel like avoiding experiences that are unlike ones I've tried 16 I feel open to beliefs that challenge my own 21 I feel like I am closed off to new ways of thinking 17 I feel like rejecting others' ideas that aren’t like mine 18 ENG I feel receptive to others' ideas 23 DE I feel detached from the world around me 13 I am building on opportunities for my own progress 6 I feel I am unaware of what others are doing 15 I am in tune with my surroundings 7 I feel out of touch with my surroundings 22 I am sensitive to other people 8
71
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24Item/Root
Eige
nval
ue
EigenvaluesRawdataMeansPercentile
Figure 1. Scree and parallel analysis plot overlays
72
Figure 2. CFA Model for 15 Item four factor Solution
IF = Inflexibility, DE = Disengagement, FLEX = Flexibility, ENG = Engagement
74
Appendix 1.
Mindfulness Attention Awareness Scale (MAAS) – Brown & Ryan, 2003. ________________________________________________________________________
Instructions: Below is a collection of statements about your everyday experience. Using
the 1 – 5 scale below please indicate how frequently or infrequently you currently have
each experience. Please answer according to what really reflects your experience rather
than what you think your experience should be. Please treat each item separately from
every other item.
________________________________________________________________________
1. 2. 3. 4. 5.
Almost Almost
Always Never
________________________________________________________________________
1. I could be experiencing some emotion and not be conscious of it until some time
later.
2. I break or spill things because of carelessness, not paying attention, or thinking of
something else.
3. I find it difficult to stay focused on what’s happening in the present.
4. I tend to walk quickly to get where I’m going without paying attention to what I
experience along the way.
5. I tend not to notice feelings of physical tension or discomfort until they really grab
my attention.
________________________________________________________________________
75
Appendix 1. Continued
________________________________________________________________________
2. 2. 3. 4. 5.
Almost Almost
Always Never
________________________________________________________________________
6. I forget a person’s name almost as soon as I’ve been told it for the first time.
7. It seems I am “running on automatic,” without much awareness of what I’m doing.
8. I rush through activities without being really attentive to them.
9. 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.
10. I do jobs or tasks automatically, without being aware of what I'm doing.
11. I find myself listening to someone with one ear, doing something else at the same
time.
12. I drive places on ‘automatic pilot’ and then wonder why I went there.
13. I find myself preoccupied with the future or the past.
14. I find myself doing things without paying attention.
15. I snack without being aware that I’m eating.
________________________________________________________________________
76
Appendix 2.
Langer Mindfulness Scale (LMS) Langer, 2004.
INSTRUCTIONS: Below are a number of statements that refer to your personal outlook.
Please rate the extent to which you agree with each of these statements. If you are
confused by the wording of an item, have no opinion, or neither agree or disagree, use the
“4” or “NEUTRAL” rating. Thank you for your assistance.
________________________________________________________________________
1 2 3 4 5
Strongly Neutral Strongly
Disagree Agree
________________________________________________________________________
1. I generate few novel ideas (reverse score)
2. I like being challenged intellectually
3. I am always open to new ways of doing things
4. I like to investigate things
5. I have an open-mind about everything, even things that challenge my core beliefs
6. I am rarely alert to new developments (reverse score)
7. I try to think of new ways of doing things
8. I find it easy to create new and effective ideas
9. I am very curious
10. I avoid thought provoking conversations (reverse score)
11. I am very creative
_______________________________________________________________________
77
Appendix 2. continued
______________________________________________________________________
1 2 3 4 5
Strongly Neutral Strongly
Disagree Agree
________________________________________________________________________
12. I make many novel contributions
13. I can behave in many different ways for a given situation
14. I do not actively seek to learn new things (reverse score)
15. I like to figure out how things work
16. I seldom notice what other people are up to
17. I stay with the old tried and true ways of doing things (reverse score)
18. I attend to the “big picture”
19. I am not an original thinker (reverse score)
20. I “get involved” in almost everything I do
21. I am rarely aware of changes (reverse score)
________________________________________________________________________
78
Appendix 3.
Initial positive mindfulness terms and phrases
________________________________________________________________________
Absorbing Accepting Accommodating Acknowledging Active Adaptable Adjustable Adventurous Alert Analyzing Ardent Artistic Associating Attempting Attending Attention to detail Aware Building Causing Challenge seeking Changing Composed Composing Conceptualizing Conducting Connected Connecting Constructive Converting Creating Curious Devising Devising new thinking styles Dreaming
Effecting Effortful Empathic Endeavoring Engaged Envisioning Fabricating Feeling (tactile) Fishing-out Flexible Formulating Fresh Full of new ideas Generating Imaginative Innovative Interactive Interpersonal Inventing Involved Judgment-free Learning Linking Lithe Making Modifying Multidimensional thinking Multiple-perspective Noticing Noticing the subtle Novel Open to new experiences Original thinking
Patient Present (Being) Present (Tense) Problem-solving Productive Questing Receptive Relaxed Revolutionary Sampling Searching Seeing the big-picture Seeking Sensing Smelling Solving Striving Subtle Suiting Supple Sympathetic Tasting Teasing-out Thinking creatively Thoughtful Trying new things Understanding Unusual Updating Variable Voracious Wondering Working to solve problems
________________________________________________________________________
79
Appendix 4.
Initial negative mindfulness terms and phrases _______________________________________________________________________ Absent-minded Accidental Agreeable Alone Aloof Argumentative Assuming Automatic Avoiding Avoiding intellectual challenges Being unaware of my surroundings Boring Brash Closed Closed-off Comfortable with myself Complacent Confused Copying Cynical Cynical Delegating Destroying Destructive Disaffected Disconnected Disengaged Dissociating Dull Eating without tasting Efficient Faking Feeling distant
Fixed Forgetful Giving up Having preconceived notions Hiding Hostile about change Impatient Imperceptive Inflexible Insensitive Intellectually foggy Intellectually lazy Invariable Judgmental Listless Monotonous Myopic Negative Nitpicking Noticing Notwithstanding Numb Obtuse Passive Pedantic Permanent Plagiaristic thinking Pontificating Practical Pragmatic Prejudiced Preserving the status quo Problem-making Refusing
Rejecting Rigid Set in my ways Single dimension thinking Solo Stale Standard Staying with the old Stodgy Stolid Stubborn Taking things for granted Tense Thoughtless Tried-and-true Trite Tunnel-vision Unaware Unchanging Unexcited Uniformity Unimaginative Uninspired Uninterested Uninvolved Unoriginal Unproductive Unstable Unsure Unthinking Untried Usual
________________________________________________________________________
80
Appendix 5.
Inter-rater agreement on mindfulness item selection ________________________________________________________________________ Domain N κ SE Approximate T ________________________________________________________________________ Positive mindfulness items 48 .74 .07 9.71**
Negative mindfulness
items 35 .68 .07 9.44** ________________________________________________________________________ **p < .001
81
Appendix 6.
Cross-tabulation analysis of raters one and three for 48 surviving positive mindfulness
items.
________________________________________________________________________
Rater 1 Choice Code N/C NS NP F E Total
________________________________________________________________________
Rater 3
Choice code N/C 0 1 0 0 4
NS 5 18 0 0 0
NP 0 0 7 0 0
F 0 0 0 4 0
E 2 0 0 0 19
_______________________________________________________
Total 48
________________________________________________________________________
The diagonal portion of the matrix highlight the number of items agreed upon by both
raters for retention in the item pool for each of the domains. Off-diagonal portions show
rater disagreement on the number of domain items chosen by only one rater.
Domain choice code N/C = Not Chosen, NP = Novelty Producing
NS = Novelty Seeking, F = Flexibility
E = Engagement
82
Appendix 7.
Cross-tabulation analysis of raters one and three for 35 surviving negative mindfulness
items.
_______________________________________________________________________
Rater 1 Choice Code N/C NP NS F E Total
_______________________________________________________________________
Rater 3
Choice code N/C 0 0 2 0 0
NP 4 4 0 0 0
NS 6 0 7 0 0
F 0 0 0 11 0
E 0 0 0 0 13
______________________________________________________
Total 35
________________________________________________________________________
_
The diagonal portion of the matrix highlights the number of items agreed upon by both
raters for retention in the item pool for each of the domains. Off-diagonal portions show
rater disagreement on the number of domain items chosen by only one rater.
Domain choice code N/C = Not Chosen, NP = Novelty Producing
NS = Novelty Seeking, F = Flexibility
E = Engagement
83
Appendix 8. CEI Scale items INSTRUCTIONS: Below are a number of adjectives that you may or may not describe your experience today. Please rate the extent to which you agree with each of these statements. Thank you for your assistance. ________________________________________________________________________ 1 2 3 4 5 Very much Very much unlike like my experience Neutral my experience ________________________________________________________________________
TODAY…
1. I am absorbed in my private thoughts
2. I am against exploring new activities
3. I am against making any changes to my attitude toward life
4. I am against trying new ways of doing things
5. I am alert to the world around me
6. I am building on opportunities for my own progress
7. I am in tune with my surroundings
8. I am sensitive to other people
9. I am trying not to cloud my mind with new ideas
10. I am trying to define new goals for myself
11. I am turning my ideas into action
12. I feel as though I have original ideas
13. I feel detached from the world around me
_______________________________________________________________________
84
Appendix 8. Continued
________________________________________________________________________ 1 2 3 4 5 Very much Very much unlike like my experience Neutral my experience ________________________________________________________________________
14. I feel flexible in my thinking
15. I feel I am unaware of what others are doing
16. I feel like avoiding experiences that are unlike ones I've tried
17. I feel like I am closed off to new ways of thinking
18. I feel like rejecting others' ideas that aren’t like mine
19. I feel like seeking out new things to experience
20. I feel like taking mental “shortcuts”
21. I feel open to beliefs that challenge my own
22. I feel out of touch with my surroundings
23. I feel receptive to others' ideas
24. I want to experience life in novel ways
________________________________________________________________________
85
Appendix 9.
Letter to instructor
Paul Rock Krech, MSW, LCSW, LISAC 625 South Westwood Drive #112 Mesa, AZ 85210-2242 (602) 339-4777 [email protected] May 18, 2006 To Whom It May Concern:: I am a doctoral student in Educational Psychology, Measurement, Statistics and Methodological Studies, within the College of Education at Arizona State University. I am also a clinical social worker at Counseling and Consultation at Student Services. I am constructing a State Mindfulness Scale, SMS, for my masters-in-passing thesis, and am in need of a number of undergraduate respondents. In the spirit of earlier populations studied, I am hoping to recruit some of the students from the UNI-100 program. Overall, I need approximately 300 students to complete several instruments initially and the SMS on 3 other occasions over the course of the semester. As an incentive, I will be offering a drawing to participants, and will award several substantial cash prizes and ASU Book-Store gift certificates to respondents who complete and submit the entire time-series of measures. I would require approximately 45 minutes to 1 hour of an initial meeting with each set of students, and students would be expected to complete their SMS scales on a pre-determined schedule within the semester. I would also need the students to turn in their scale packets to me at the end of the semester as well. For this scale construction, all responses will be kept confidential, and the lottery will be handled independently from the instruments. I am enclosing some sample instruments for your review. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact me at the number above, or at Counseling and Consultation, (480) 965-6147. Thank You. Paul Rock Krech
86
Appendix 10. Letter of consent (student)
LETTER OF CONSENT Dear Respondent: My name is Paul Rock Krech, and I am a graduate student in the Measurement, Statistics, and Methodological Studies program at Arizona State University. I am conducting this study to aid in the development of a new personal experiences inventory for college students. I am requesting your participation, in completing this series of surveys. The goal of this study is to understand how to measure personal outlook change over time among college students. I am requesting your participation in filling out surveys on three different occasions approximately a week apart each, about your experiences in daily thinking and noticing. The first survey will take approximately 30 to 45 minutes to complete. The next two surveys will take approximately 15 minutes of your time. Your identity will not be shared with anyone, nor will there be any results generated in which you are specifically identified. Once the primary researcher has reviewed the answers, the informed consent form will be separated from your answer forms, and any further specific identification of you will not be possible. Your participation in this study is voluntary. If you choose not to participate or to withdraw from the study at any time, there will be no penalty. The results of the research study may be published, but your name will not be used. There will be several cash prizes awarded to participants who complete the study. A drawing will be held at the end of the study, and four each $100, four each $50, and four each $25 prizes will be awarded to individuals whose participation numbers are drawn. There will also be several gift certificates to the ASU Book Store awarded participants well. If you have any questions concerning the research study, please contact the primary researcher, Dr. Sam Green at 480-965-1142 or by email at [email protected]. Sincerely, Paul Rock Krech, MSW, LCSW, LISAC By signing below, you are giving consent to participate in the above study. _____________________________ _______________________________ __________ Signature Printed Name Date If you have any questions about your rights as a subject/participant in this research, or if you feel you have been placed at risk, you can contact the Chair of the Human Subjects Institutional Review Board, through Karol Householder, at (480) 965-6788.
87
Appendix 11. Demographic Cover Sheet
1. Gender (please check one): ON SCANTRON “Gender” (Top, middle)
1. ______ Male 2. ______ Female
2. Grade level (please check one): ON SCANTRON “Grade Level” (Top, middle)
1______ Freshman 2______ Sophomore 3______ Junior 4______ Senior
5______ Graduate
3. Last five digits of your ASU ID (example: 5-6789) ON SCANTRON “Identification #” blocks A-B-C-D-E
_______________________________________________________________________ (Please note this number will be temporarily used to generate a study ID number ranging from 001 to 300. Once these demographic materials are entered into the study data, this sheet will be shredded).
4. Age category (please check one) ON SCANTRON “Identification #” Block F
1.______18-22 2.______23-27 3.______27-31 4.______32 or older
5. Race (please check one): ON SCANTRON “Identification #” Block G
1______ White, non-Latino 2______ Black or African-American 3______ Asian, Asian Indian of Pacific Islander 4______ Latino or Hispanic 5______ American Indian or Alaskan Native 6______ Bi-racial or Multiracial 7______ Other
6. Today’s Date: ON SCANTRON “Special Codes #” Blocks K through P.
0 1 0 3 0 5
88
Appendix 12.
Assessment Instruments
(MAAS)
________________________________________________________________________
Instructions: Below is a collection of statements about your everyday experience. Using
the 1 through 5 scale below, please indicate how frequently or infrequently you currently
have each experience. Please answer according to what really reflects your experience
rather than what you think your experience should be. Please treat each item separately
from every other item.
________________________________________________________________________
1. 2. 3. 4. 5.
Almost Almost
Always Never
________________________________________________________________________
1. I could be experiencing some emotion and not be conscious of it until some time
later.
2. I break or spill things because of carelessness, not paying attention, or thinking of
something else.
3. I find it difficult to stay focused on what’s happening in the present.
4. I tend to walk quickly to get where I’m going without paying attention to what I
experience along the way.
________________________________________________________________________
89
Appendix 12. Continued
________________________________________________________________________
1. 2. 3. 4. 5.
Almost Almost
Always Never
________________________________________________________________________
5. I tend not to notice feelings of physical tension or discomfort until they really grab
my attention.
6. I forget a person’s name almost as soon as I’ve been told it for the first time.
7. It seems I am "running on automatic," without much awareness of what I’m doing.
8. I rush through activities without being really attentive to them.
9. 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.
10. I do jobs or tasks automatically, without being aware of what I'm doing.
11. I find myself listening to someone with one ear, doing something else at the same
time.
12. I drive places on ‘automatic pilot’ and then wonder why I went there.
13. I find myself preoccupied with the future or the past.
14. I find myself doing things without paying attention.
15. I snack without being aware that I’m eating.
________________________________________________________________________
90
Appendix 13.
Langer Mindfulness Scale (LMS)
________________________________________________________________________
Instructions: Below are a number of statements that refer to your personal outlook.
Please rate the extent to which you agree with each of these statements. Thank you for
your assistance.
________________________________________________________________________
1 2 3 4 5
Strongly Strongly
Disagree Agree
________________________________________________________________________
16. I generate few novel ideas (reverse score)
17. I like being challenged intellectually
18. I am always open to new ways of doing things
19. I like to investigate things
20. I have an open-mind about everything, even things that challenge my core beliefs
21. I am rarely alert to new developments (reverse score)
22. I try to think of new ways of doing things
23. I find it easy to create new and effective ideas
24. I am very curious
25. I avoid thought provoking conversations (reverse score)
________________________________________________________________________
91
Appendix 13. Continued
________________________________________________________________________
1 2 3 4 5
Strongly Strongly
Disagree Agree
________________________________________________________________________
26. I am very creative
27. I make many novel contributions
28. I can behave in many different ways for a given situation
29. I do not actively seek to learn new things (reverse score)
30. I like to figure out how things work
31. I seldom notice what other people are up to
32. I stay with the old tried and true ways of doing things (reverse score)
33. I attend to the "big picture"
34. I am not an original thinker (reverse score)
35. I "get involved" in almost everything I do
36. I am rarely aware of changes (reverse score)
________________________________________________________________________
92
Appendix 14.
Current Experiences Inventory (CEI)
INSTRUCTIONS: Below are a number of adjectives that you may or may not describe
your experience today. Please rate the extent to which you agree with each of these
statements.
________________________________________________________________________
1 2 3 4 5
Very much unlike Very much like
my experience today Neutral my experience today
________________________________________________________________________
Today…
37. I am absorbed in my private thoughts
38. I am against exploring new activities
39. I am against making any changes to my attitude toward life
40. I am against trying new ways of doing things
41. I am alert to the world around me
42. I am building on opportunities for my own progress
43. I am in tune with my surroundings
44. I am sensitive to other people
45. I am trying not to cloud my mind with new ideas
46. I am trying to define new goals for myself
________________________________________________________________________
93
Appendix 14. Continued
________________________________________________________________________
1 2 3 4 5
Very much unlike Very much like
my experience today Neutral my experience today
________________________________________________________________________
47. I am turning my ideas into action
48. I feel as though I have original ideas
49. I feel detached from the world around me
50. I feel flexible in my thinking
51. I feel I am unaware of what others are doing
52. I feel like avoiding experiences that are unlike ones I've tried
53. I feel like I am closed off to new ways of thinking
54. I feel like rejecting others' ideas that aren’t like mine
55. I feel like seeking out new things to experience
56. I feel like taking mental “shortcuts”
57. I feel open to beliefs that challenge my own
58. I feel out of touch with my surroundings
59. I feel receptive to others' ideas
60. I want to experience life in novel ways
________________________________________________________________________
94
Appendix 15.
Positive Negative Affect Scale-Lower 11 (PANAS-L11)
________________________________________________________________________
This scale consists of a number of words and phrases that describe different feelings and
emotions. Read each item and then mark the appropriate answer in the space next to that
word. Indicate to what extent you have felt this way during the past few weeks.
Use the following scale to record your answers:
________________________________________________________________________
1 2 3 4 5
Very slightly or not at all Moderately Extremely
________________________________________________________________________
61. ___________ Fear
62. ___________ Sadness
63. ___________ Guilt
64. ___________ Hostility
65. ___________ Shyness
66. ___________ Fatigue
67. ___________ Joviality
68. ___________ Self-Assurance
69. ___________ Attentiveness
70. ___________ Serenity
71. ___________ Surprise
________________________________________________________________________
95
Appendix 16.
IPIP NEO-50 Personality Inventory (IPIP-NEO-50)
________________________________________________________________________
The following pages contain phrases describing people's behaviors. Please use the rating
scale below to describe how accurately each statement describes you. Describe yourself
as you generally are now, not as you wish to be in the future. Describe yourself as you
honestly see yourself, in relation to other people you know of the same sex as you are,
and roughly your same age. Please read each statement carefully, and then choose the
response that corresponds to the accuracy of the statement.
________________________________________________________________________
1 2 3 4 5
Very Inaccurate Neither Accurate Nor Inaccurate Very Accurate
________________________________________________________________________
72. I don't talk a lot.
73. I keep in the background.
74. I have little to say.
75. I don't like to draw attention to myself.
76. I am quiet around strangers.
77. I am the life of the party.
78. I feel comfortable around people.
79. I start conversations.
80. I talk to a lot of different people.
________________________________________________________________________
96
Appendix 16. Continued
________________________________________________________________________
1 2 3 4 5
Very Inaccurate Neither Accurate Nor Inaccurate Very Accurate
________________________________________________________________________
81. I don't mind being the center of attention.
82. I feel little concern for others.
83. I insult people.
84. I am not interested in others.
85. I am not really interested
86. I am interested in people.
87. I sympathize with others.
88. I have a soft heart.
89. I take time out for others.
90. I feel others' emotions.
91. I make people feel at ease.
92. I leave my belongings around.
93. I make a mess of things.
94. I often forget to put things away.
95. I shirk my duties.
96. I am always prepared.
________________________________________________________________________
97
Appendix 16. Continued
________________________________________________________________________
1 2 3 4 5
Very Inaccurate Neither Accurate Nor Inaccurate Very Accurate
________________________________________________________________________
97. I pay attention to details.
98. I get chores done right away.
99. I like order.
100. I follow a schedule.
101. I am exacting in my work.
102. I get stressed out easily.
103. I worry about things.
104. I am easily disturbed.
105. I get upset easily.
106. Change my mood a lot.
107. Have frequent mood swings
108. Get irritated easily.
109. I often feel blue.
110. I am relaxed most of the time.
111. I seldom feel blue.
112. I have difficulty understanding others.
113. I am not interested in abstract ideas.
_______________________________________________________________________
98
Appendix 16. Continued
________________________________________________________________________
1 2 3 4 5
Very Inaccurate Neither Accurate Nor Inaccurate Very Accurate
________________________________________________________________________
114. I do not have a good imagination.
115. I have a rich vocabulary.
116. I have a vivid imagination.
117. I have excellent ideas.
118. I am quick to understand the subtleties of a situation.
119. I use difficult words.
120. I spend time reflecting on my life.
121. I am full of ideas.
________________________________________________________________________
99
APPENDIX 17. Instruments for assessing external validity of the Current Experiences Inventory, CEI ______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Mindfulness Domain Instrument Correlated measure
______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Trait measures Langer (trait) Mindfulness scale (Langer, 2004) Mindfulness propensity
IPIP-NEO (Goldberg, 1999) C and N factors
Mindfulness Awareness Attention Scale (Brown & Ryan, 2001) Awareness/Attention
State measures Positive Affect Negative Affect Scale, LOWER 11 Affective state
(Watson & Clark, 1994)
100
APPENDIX 18.
Scale Abbreviation Key
__________________________________________________________________________
IPIP-NEO-C IPIP-NEO-60 – Conscientiousness Subscale………………….Trait
IPIP-NEO-N IPIP-NEO-60 – Neuroticism Subscale………………………..Trait
LMS Langer Mindfulness Scale……………………………………..Trait
MAAS Mindfulness Awareness Attention Scale………………………Trait
PANAS Positive Affect Negative Affect Scale, Lower 11……………..State
CEI Current Experiences Inventory………………………..……….State
_________________________________________________________________________
