Note: This document was prepared using versions 3.4.3 and 1.1.414 of R and RStudio, respectively.
Project Components
The study described in this document is part of a larger project looking at the effects of mindfulness in the legal profession. In addition to this script, the following project components are publicly available:
Abstract
This study investigated the effects of a mindfulness meditation intervention on the psychological well-being and self-perceived competency of a group of lawyers. Participants completed a series of self-report measures designed to assess perceived well-being, affect, and job competency (T1). Following the completion of these measures, participants completed an 8-week mindfulness program. At the end of this program, participants completed the self-report measures for a second time (T2). The completion of the mindfulness program was associated with significant decreases in perceived stress, negative affect, and symptoms associated with depression, anxiety, and stress, as well as increases in positive affect, resilience, and aspects of mindful cognition. Based on correlation and moderation analyses, improvements seem to be unrelated to the amount of program engagement (i.e. the amount of time spent meditating throughout the 8-week program) and length of previous meditation experience. It is, however, important to note that this study did not include a control group. Consequently, though the significant findings and general trends within the data are promising, these results should be interpreted with caution.
Introduction
This document outlines the analyses from the Mindful Lawyer Pilot. The purpose of this study was to investigate whether an 8-week mindfulness intervention would improve the well-being of a group of lawyers.
Participants were recruited from a virtual book club run by the National Association of Women Lawyers (NAWL). Book club members read Cho and Gifford’s The Anxious Lawyer (2016) and completed an accompanying 8-week mindfulness program created and directed by the authors. Members were also invited to participate in a research study. At the beginning of the study (i.e. T1), all participants were asked to complete a series of self-report measures:
The Perceived Stress Scale (PSS; Cohen et al., 1983), which provides a measure of perceived stress.
The Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS; Watson et al., 1988), which provides a measure of both current positive (POS) and current negative (NEG) mood.
The Brief Resilience Scale (BRS; Smith et al., 2008), which provides a measure of psychological resilience.
The Five Facet Mindfulness Questionnaire-Short Form (FFMQ; Baer et al., 2008; Bohlmeijer et al., 2011), which provides a measure of five aspects of mindful cognition: non-reactivity to inner experience (NR), observing (OB), acting with awareness (AA), describing (DS), and non-judging of inner experience (NJ).
The Depression, Anxiety, and Stress Scale-21 (DASS; Lovibond & Lovibond, 1995), which provides a non-clinical measure of the severity of symptoms associated with depression (D), anxiety (A), and stress (S).
A Job Effectiveness Questionnaire (JEQ), which provides a measure of perceived job competency.
After completing the above measures, participants completed the 8-week mindfulness program. Following the program, participants completed the above self-report measures for a second time.
If the intervention was effective in improving well-being and perceived job competency, analyses should reveal that, from T1 to T2, participants experienced an increase in scores on the JEQ, the BRS, the positive affect subscale of the PANAS, and all subscales of the FFMQ, as well as a decrease in scores on the PSS, the negative affect subscale of the PANAS, and all subscales of the DASS.
1. Changes Across Time for All Participants
Our first set of analyses will look at changes in self-report scores across time for all participants who responded to both the T1 and T2 surveys and who actively participated in the mindfulness program.
Demographic Information
Presented below is some basic demographic information for this subset of participants.
| Male | Female | Yes | No | Yes | No | Yes | No |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 8 | 36 | 27 | 17 | 7 | 37 | 2 | 40 |
| n | M | SD | SE | CI |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age | ||||
| 44 | 46.2500 | 11.0540 | 1.6665 | 3.3607 |
| Weekly Hours Worked | ||||
| 43 | 41.8605 | 11.2347 | 1.7133 | 3.4575 |
| Meditation During the Program (Min/Week) | ||||
| 44 | 47.2614 | 59.7168 | 9.0026 | 18.1556 |
Perceived Stress Scale
Note: Figures in this document depict score distributions that are estimated based on the means and variances of scores that were measured in our sample. For all figures, time of testing (i.e. T1 and T2) is displayed on the horizontal axis, scale scores are displayed on the vertical axis, and dots and whiskers represent the sample means and standard errors, respectively. T1 scores are depicted in yellow and T2 scores are depicted in pink.
T2 scores (MT2 = 38.23, SDT2 = 8.71) on the PSS were found to be significantly lower than T1 scores (MT1 = 45.39, SDT1 = 8.73); t(43) = 8.46, p < .001, d = 1.27.
Positive and Negative Affect Schedule
Positive Affect
T2 scores (MT2 = 33.86, SDT2 = 6.55) on the PANAS-Positive were found to be significantly higher than T1 scores (MT1 = 29.43, SDT1 = 7.94); t(43) = -4.61, p < .001, d = -0.7.
Negative Affect
T2 scores (MT2 = 23.5, SDT2 = 8.23) on the PANAS-Negative were found to be significantly lower than T1 scores (MT1 = 28.36, SDT1 = 8.37); t(43) = 4.71, p < .001, d = 0.71.
Brief Resilience Scale
T2 scores (MT2 = 3.35, SDT2 = 0.9) on the BRS were found to be significantly higher than T1 scores (MT1 = 3.05, SDT1 = 0.92); t(43) = -3.05, p = 0.004, d = -0.46.
Five Facet Mindfulness Questionnaire
Non-Reactivity
T2 scores (MT2 = 14.3, SDT2 = 3.74) on the FFMQ-Non-Reactivity were found to be significantly higher than T1 scores (MT1 = 11.2, SDT1 = 4.28); t(43) = -5.65, p < .001, d = -0.85.
Observing
T2 scores (MT2 = 13.64, SDT2 = 3.59) on the FFMQ-Observing were found to be significantly higher than T1 scores (MT1 = 12.66, SDT1 = 3.77); Z = -2.48, p = 0.01, r = 0.37.
Acting with Awareness
T2 scores (MT2 = 16.25, SDT2 = 3.45) on the FFMQ-Awareness were found to be significantly higher than T1 scores (MT1 = 13.34, SDT1 = 4.37); t(43) = -5.53, p < .001, d = -0.83.
Describing
T2 scores (MT2 = 18.75, SDT2 = 3.57) on the FFMQ-Describing were found to be significantly higher than T1 scores (MT1 = 17, SDT1 = 3.64); t(43) = -3.6, p = 0.001, d = -0.54.
Non-Judging
T2 scores (MT2 = 16.23, SDT2 = 4.36) on the FFMQ-Non-Judging were found to be significantly higher than T1 scores (MT1 = 12.98, SDT1 = 4.51); t(43) = -5.15, p < .001, d = -0.78.
Depression, Anxiety, and Stress Scale
Depression
T2 scores (MT2 = 8.59, SDT2 = 8.37) on the DASS-Depression were found to be significantly lower than T1 scores (MT1 = 11.95, SDT1 = 9.55); Z = 2.92, p = 0.003, r = 0.44.
Anxiety
T2 scores (MT2 = 6.36, SDT2 = 5.14) on the DASS-Anxiety were found to be significantly lower than T1 scores (MT1 = 9.09, SDT1 = 7.2); Z = 2.86, p = 0.004, r = 0.43.
Stress
T2 scores (MT2 = 13.09, SDT2 = 8.95) on the DASS-Stress were found to be significantly lower than T1 scores (MT1 = 19.5, SDT1 = 9.11); t(43) = 5.73, p < .001, d = 0.86.
Job Effectiveness Questionnaire
T2 scores (MT2 = 5.43, SDT2 = 0.8) on the JEQ were found to be significantly higher than T1 scores (MT1 = 5.11, SDT1 = 0.77); Z = -3.55, p < .001, r = 0.53.
Summary of Results
The following results were found to be statistically significant:
Perceived Stress Scale
- a decrease in perceived stress from T1 to T2 (p < .001)
Positive and Negative Affect Schedule
- an increase in positive affect from T1 to T2 (p < .001)
- a decrease in negative affect from T1 to T2 (p < .001)
- an increase in positive affect from T1 to T2 (p < .001)
Brief Resilience Scale
- an increase in psychological resilience from T1 to T2 (p = 0.004)
Five Facet Mindfulness Questionnaire
- an increase in non-reactivity, observing, awareness, describing, and non-judging from T1 to T2 (p < .001, p = 0.01, p < .001, p = 0.001, and p < .001, respectively)
Depression, Anxiety, and Stress Scale
- a decrease in symptoms associated with depression, anxiety, and stress from T1 to T2 (p = 0.003, p = 0.004, and p < .001, respectively)
Job Effectiveness Questionnaire
- an increase in perceived job competency from T1 to T2 (p < .001)
Conclusion
Initial analyses revealed significant changes in all of the variables considered. Additionally, all changes were found to occur in the predicted direction (e.g. a decrease in things like stress and depression and an increase in things like positive affect and mindful cognition). Consequently, the mindfulness intervention seems to have been effective in improving well-being. A potential issue with these results, however, is that some participants completed the surveys late (i.e. weeks into/after the intervention) meaning that, for some, T1 (T2) responses are not truly reflective of a baseline (the intervention). The next set of analyses will address this issue by replicating this first set of analyses with only those who completed both surveys within 2.5 weeks of the beginning of each response period.
2. Changes Across Time for “On-Time” Participants
Our second set of analyses will look at changes in self-report scores across time for participants who actively participated in the mindfulness program and completed both surveys within the 2.5 week response period.
Demographic Information
Presented below is some basic demographic information for this subset of participants.
| Male | Female | Yes | No | Yes | No | Yes | No |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 5 | 30 | 21 | 14 | 7 | 28 | 2 | 32 |
| n | M | SD | SE | CI |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age | ||||
| 35 | 44.3429 | 10.5606 | 1.7851 | 3.6277 |
| Weekly Hours Worked | ||||
| 34 | 41.7647 | 11.0702 | 1.8985 | 3.8626 |
| Meditation During the Program (Min/Week) | ||||
| 35 | 47.6643 | 64.6546 | 10.9286 | 22.2096 |
Perceived Stress Scale
T2 scores (MT2 = 38.63, SDT2 = 8.45) on the PSS were found to be significantly lower than T1 scores (MT1 = 45.89, SDT1 = 7.77); t(34) = 7.52, p < .001, d = 1.27.
Positive and Negative Affect Schedule
Positive Affect
T2 scores (MT2 = 33.71, SDT2 = 6.06) on the PANAS-Positive were found to be significantly higher than T1 scores (MT1 = 29.26, SDT1 = 7.58); t(34) = -3.89, p < .001, d = -0.66.
Negative Affect
T2 scores (MT2 = 24, SDT2 = 8.34) on the PANAS-Negative were found to be significantly higher than T1 scores (MT1 = 28.83, SDT1 = 7.75); t(34) = 4.35, p < .001, d = 0.74.
Brief Resilience Scale
T2 scores (MT2 = 3.28, SDT2 = 0.9) on the BRS were found to be significantly higher than T1 scores (MT1 = 3, SDT1 = 0.86); Z = -2.31, p = 0.02, r = 0.39.
Five Facet Mindfulness Questionnaire
Non-Reactivity
T2 scores (MT2 = 13.86, SDT2 = 3.6) on the FFMQ-Non-Reactivity were found to be significantly higher than T1 scores (MT1 = 10.46, SDT1 = 3.75); t(34) = -5.41, p < .001, d = -0.91.
Observing
T2 scores (MT2 = 13.54, SDT2 = 3.75) on the FFMQ-Observing were found to be significantly higher than T1 scores (MT1 = 12.46, SDT1 = 3.81); Z = -2.81, p = 0.004, r = 0.48.
Acting with Awareness
T2 scores (MT2 = 16.29, SDT2 = 3.61) on the FFMQ-Awareness were found to be significantly higher than T1 scores (MT1 = 13.31, SDT1 = 4.12); t(34) = -4.9, p < .001, d = -0.83.
Describing
T2 scores (MT2 = 18.57, SDT2 = 3.65) on the FFMQ-Describing were found to be significantly higher than T1 scores (MT1 = 16.71, SDT1 = 3.49); Z = -3.31, p = 0.001, r = 0.56.
Non-Judging
T2 scores (MT2 = 16.14, SDT2 = 4.46) on the FFMQ-Non-Judging were found to be significantly higher than T1 scores (MT1 = 12.91, SDT1 = 4.59); t(34) = -4.59, p < .001, d = -0.78.
Depression, Anxiety, and Stress Scale
Depression
T2 scores (MT2 = 8.29, SDT2 = 8.31) on the DASS-Depression were found to be significantly lower than T1 scores (MT1 = 11.77, SDT1 = 9.71); Z = 2.65, p = 0.01, r = 0.45.
Anxiety
T2 scores (MT2 = 6.57, SDT2 = 5.54) on the DASS-Anxiety were found to be significantly lower than T1 scores (MT1 = 9.43, SDT1 = 7.72); Z = 2.39, p = 0.02, r = 0.4.
Stress
T2 scores (MT2 = 14.17, SDT2 = 8.66) on the DASS-Stress were found to be significantly lower than T1 scores (MT1 = 19.71, SDT1 = 9.06); t(34) = 4.38, p < .001, d = 0.74.
Job Effectiveness Questionnaire
T2 scores (MT2 = 5.4, SDT2 = 0.78) on the JEQ were found to be significantly higher than T1 scores (MT1 = 5.4, SDT1 = 0.73); t(34) = -2.67, p = 0.01, d = -0.45.
Summary of Results
The following results were found to be statistically significant:
Perceived Stress Scale
- a decrease in perceived stress from T1 to T2 (p < .001)
Positive and Negative Affect Schedule
- an increase in positive affect from T1 to T2 (p < .001)
- a decrease in negative affect from T1 to T2 (p < .001)
Brief Resilience Scale
- an increase in psychological resilience from T1 to T2 (p = 0.02)
Five Facet Mindfulness Questionnaire
- an increase in non-reactivity, observing, awareness, describing, and non-judging from T1 to T2 (p < .001, p = 0.004, p < .001, p = 0.001, and p < .001, respectively)
Depression, Anxiety, and Stress Scale
- a decrease in symptoms associated with depression, anxiety, and stress from T1 to T2 (p = 0.01, p = 0.02, and p < .001, respectively)
Job Effectiveness Questionnaire
- an increase in perceived job competency from T1 to T2 (p = 0.01)
Conclusion
A second set of analyses, involving only participants who completed the measures in a timely manner, replicated the results from the first set of analyses: for each measure, a significant change in the predicted direction was observed. These findings support the conclusion that the mindfulness intervention was effective in improving well-being. In our next set of analyses, we will assess if any of the pre- to post-intervention changes are related to the length of previous meditation experience or the degree of intervention participation.
3. Relationship with Other Variables - All Participants
Our third set of analyses will assess the potential relationship between changes in the outcome scores and both level of participation and length of previous meditation experience. We will only include data from participants who actively participated in the meditation program and who completed the appropriate surveys (i.e. the participants from Analysis 1).
Correlation
Two-tailed Pearson correlations were used to test for basic relationships between pre- to post-intervention changes in self report scores and (1) years of previous experience and (2) number of minutes per week that participants reported meditating for.
| Measure | r | p | r | p |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Perceived Stress Scale | ||||
| 0.2249 | 1 | -0.0968 | 1 | |
| Positive and Negative Affect Schedule | ||||
| Positive Affect | -0.3258 | 0.402 | -0.1439 | 1 |
| Negative Affect | 0.1667 | 1 | -0.0635 | 1 |
| Brief Resilience Scale | ||||
| -0.1973 | 1 | 0.1613 | 1 | |
| Five Facet Mindfulness Questionnaire | ||||
| Non-Reactivity | -0.1386 | 1 | 0.0193 | 1 |
| Observing | -0.0763 | 1 | -0.0746 | 1 |
| Awareness | -0.2495 | 1 | -0.0708 | 1 |
| Describing | -0.1754 | 1 | 0.0885 | 1 |
| Non-Judging | -0.0525 | 1 | -0.1222 | 1 |
| Depression, Anxiety, and Stress Scale | ||||
| Depression | 0.1050 | 1 | -0.1140 | 1 |
| Anxiety | 0.0081 | 1 | -0.1748 | 1 |
| Stress | -0.2870 | 0.707 | -0.0397 | 1 |
| Job Effectiveness Questionnaire | ||||
| -0.1317 | 1 | 0.1895 | 1 | |
| Note: For all correlations, n = 44. Changes were calculated as post-test minus pre-test. For each set of comparisons (i.e. changes/previous experience and changes/program participation) a Holm-Bonferroni adjustment has been applied to correct the family-wise error rate. Values in bold are significant at the p < .05 level. | ||||
None of the pre to post-intervention changes were found to be significantly correlated with years of previous experience or with minutes per week spent meditating (all p’s > .05) .
Moderation
Moderation was tested via the method described in Case 2 of Judd et al. (2001). According to this method, moderation in a within-subject design can be estimated by performing a regression analysis with T1-T2 changes as the dependent variable and the suspected moderator as the independent variable. In this case, a significant independent variable coefficient indicates moderation.
Perceived Stress Scale
- Previous Experience
Previous experience was found to explain 5.06% of the change in PSS scores; R2 = 0.05, F(1, 42 ) = 2.24, p = 0.14. Length of previous experience is not a significant moderator of PSS change; \(\beta\) = 0.11, t = 1.5, p = 0.14.
- Program Participation
Program participation was found to explain 0.94% of the change in PSS scores; R2 = 0.01, F(1, 42 ) = 0.4, p = 0.53. Time spent meditating is not a significant moderator of PSS change; \(\beta\) = -0.01, t = -0.63, p = 0.53.
Positive and Negative Affect Schedule
Positive Affect
- Previous Experience
Previous experience was found to explain 10.61% of the change in PANAS-Positive scores; R2 = 0.11, F(1, 42 ) = 4.99, p = 0.03. Length of previous experience is a significant negative moderator of PANAS-Positive change, meaning that participants with more years of experience demonstrated less positive change over time; \(\beta\) = -0.18, t = -2.23, p = 0.03. This relationship is plotted below.
- Program Participation
Program participation was found to explain 2.07% of the change in PANAS-Positive scores; R2 = 0.02, F(1, 42 ) = 0.89, p = 0.35. Time spent meditating is not a significant moderator of PANAS-Positive change; \(\beta\) = -0.02, t = -0.94, p = 0.35.
Negative Affect
- Previous Experience
Previous experience was found to explain 2.78% of the change in PANAS-Negative scores; R2 = 0.03, F(1, 42 ) = 1.2, p = 0.28. Length of previous experience is not a significant moderator of PANAS-Negative change; \(\beta\) = 0.1, t = 1.1, p = 0.28.
- Program Participation
Program participation was found to explain 0.4% of the change in PANAS-Negative scores; R2 = 0, F(1, 42 ) = 0.17, p = 0.68. Time spent meditating is not a significant moderator of PANAS-Negative change; \(\beta\) = -0.01, t = -0.41, p = 0.68.
Brief Resilience Scale
- Previous Experience
Previous experience was found to explain 3.89% of the change in BRS scores; R2 = 0.04, F(1, 42 ) = 1.7, p = 0.2. Length of previous experience is not a significant moderator of BRS change; \(\beta\) = -0.01, t = -1.3, p = 0.2.
- Program Participation
Program participation was found to explain 2.6% of the change in BRS scores; R2 = 0.03, F(1, 42 ) = 1.12, p = 0.3. Time spent meditating is not a significant moderator of BRS change; \(\beta\) = 0, t = 1.06, p = 0.3.
Five Facet Mindfulness Questionnaire
Non-Reactivity
- Previous Experience
Previous experience was found to explain 1.92% of the change in FFMQ-Non-Reactivity scores; R2 = 0.02, F(1, 42 ) = 0.82, p = 0.37. Length of previous experience is not a significant moderator of FFMQ-Non-Reactivity change; \(\beta\) = -0.04, t = -0.91, p = 0.37.
- Program Participation
Program participation was found to explain 0.04% of the change in FFMQ-Non-Reactivity scores; R2 = 0, F(1, 42 ) = 0.02, p = 0.9. Time spent meditating is not a significant moderator of FFMQ-Non-Reactivity change; \(\beta\) = 0, t = 0.12, p = 0.9.
Observing
- Previous Experience
Previous experience was found to explain 0.58% of the change in FFMQ-Observing scores; R2 = 0.01, F(1, 42 ) = 0.25, p = 0.62. Length of previous experience is not a significant moderator of FFMQ-Observing change; \(\beta\) = -0.01, t = -0.5, p = 0.62.
- Program Participation
Program participation was found to explain 0.56% of the change in FFMQ-Observing scores; R2 = 0.01, F(1, 42 ) = 0.23, p = 0.63. Time spent meditating is not a significant moderator of FFMQ-Observing change; \(\beta\) = 0, t = -0.48, p = 0.63.
Acting with Awareness
- Previous Experience
Previous experience was found to explain 6.23% of the change in FFMQ-Awareness scores; R2 = 0.06, F(1, 42 ) = 2.79, p = 0.1. Length of previous experience is not a significant moderator of FFMQ-Awareness change; \(\beta\) = -0.07, t = -1.67, p = 0.1.
- Program Participation
Program participation was found to explain 0.5% of the change in FFMQ-Awareness scores; R2 = 0.01, F(1, 42 ) = 0.21, p = 0.65. Time spent meditating is not a significant moderator of FFMQ-Awareness change; \(\beta\) = 0, t = -0.46, p = 0.65.
Describing
- Previous Experience
Previous experience was found to explain 3.08% of the change in FFMQ-Describing scores; R2 = 0.03, F(1, 42 ) = 1.33, p = 0.25. Length of previous experience is not a significant moderator of FFMQ-Describing change; \(\beta\) = -0.05, t = -1.15, p = 0.25.
- Program Participation
Program participation was found to explain 0.78% of the change in FFMQ-Describing scores; R2 = 0.01, F(1, 42 ) = 0.33, p = 0.57. Time spent meditating is not a significant moderator of FFMQ-Describing change; \(\beta\) = 0, t = 0.58, p = 0.57.
Non-Judging
- Previous Experience
Previous experience was found to explain 0.28% of the change in FFMQ-Non-Judging scores; R2 = 0, F(1, 42 ) = 0.12, p = 0.73. Length of previous experience is not a significant moderator of FFMQ-Non-Judging change; \(\beta\) = -0.02, t = -0.34, p = 0.73.
- Program Participation
Program participation was found to explain 1.49% of the change in FFMQ-Non-Judging scores; R2 = 0.01, F(1, 42 ) = 0.64, p = 0.43. Time spent meditating is not a significant moderator of FFMQ-Non-Judging change; \(\beta\) = -0.01, t = -0.8, p = 0.43.
Depression, Anxiety, and Stress Scale
Depression
- Previous Experience
Previous experience was found to explain 1.1% of the change in DASS-Depression scores; R2 = 0.01, F(1, 42 ) = 0.47, p = 0.5. Length of previous experience is not a significant moderator of DASS-Depression change; \(\beta\) = 0.06, t = 0.68, p = 0.5.
- Program Participation
Program participation was found to explain 1.3% of the change in DASS-Depression scores; R2 = 0.01, F(1, 42 ) = 0.55, p = 0.46. Time spent meditating is not a significant moderator of DASS-Depression change; \(\beta\) = -0.01, t = -0.74, p = 0.46.
Anxiety
- Previous Experience
Previous experience was found to explain 0.01% of the change in DASS-Anxiety scores; R2 = 0, F(1, 42 ) = 0, p = 0.96. Length of previous experience is not a significant moderator of DASS-Anxiety change; \(\beta\) = 0, t = 0.05, p = 0.96.
- Program Participation
Program participation was found to explain 3.05% of the change in DASS-Anxiety scores; R2 = 0.03, F(1, 42 ) = 1.32, p = 0.26. Time spent meditating is not a significant moderator of DASS-Anxiety change; \(\beta\) = -0.02, t = -1.15, p = 0.26.
Stress
- Previous Experience
Previous experience was found to explain 8.24% of the change in DASS-Stress scores; R2 = 0.08, F(1, 42 ) = 3.77, p = 0.06. Length of previous experience is not a significant moderator of DASS-Stress change; \(\beta\) = -0.18, t = -1.94, p = 0.06.
- Program Participation
Program participation was found to explain 0.16% of the change in DASS-Stress scores; R2 = 0, F(1, 42 ) = 0.07, p = 0.8. Time spent meditating is not a significant moderator of DASS-Stress change; \(\beta\) = 0, t = -0.26, p = 0.8.
Job Effectiveness Questionnaire
- Previous Experience
Previous experience was found to explain 1.73% of the change in JEQ scores; R2 = 0.02, F(1, 42 ) = 0.74, p = 0.39. Length of previous experience is not a significant moderator of JEQ change \(\beta\) = -0.01, t = -0.86, p = 0.39.
- Program Participation
Program participation was found to explain 3.59% of the change in JEQ scores; R2 = 0.04, F(1, 42 ) = 1.56, p = 0.22. Time spent meditating is not a significant moderator of JEQ change; \(\beta\) = 0, t = 1.25, p = 0.22.
Summary of Results
The following results were found to be statistically significant:
Positive and Negative Affect Schedule
- positive affect changes were moderated by length of previous meditation experience (p = 0.03)
Conclusion
Correlation analyses suggest that intervention-related changes were unrelated to both the length of previous experience and the degree to which an individual participated in the program. This conclusion is largely supported by moderation analyses, though changes in positive affect were found to be moderated by the length of previous meditation experience, such that more experience led to less positive change across time. It’s important to note, however, that this relationship appears to be driven largely by six individuals who reported 20+ years of meditation experience. In the next set of analyses, therefore, we will repeat the previous analyses after removing outliers.
4. Relationship with Other Variables - Outliers Removed
Our fourth set of analyses will assess the potential relationship between changes in the outcome scores and both level of participation and length of previous meditation experience for those deemed to be non-outliers.
Outlier Identification
Before we begin, we will identify participants with extreme experience and participation values. These participants will be excluded from the analyses in this section.
- Previous Experience
The outlier values correspond to participants 8, 14, 27, 46, 60, and 73. These participants reported 40, 20, 50, 30, 31, and 26 years of previous meditation experience, respectively.
- Program Participation
The outlier values correspond to participants 6 and 60. These participants reported meditating for 262.5 and 280 minutes per week, respectively.
Correlation
As before, two-tailed Pearson correlations were used to test for basic relationships between pre- to post-intervention changes in self report scores and (1) years of previous experience and (2) number of minutes per week that participants reported meditating for.
| Measure | r | p | r | p |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Perceived Stress Scale | ||||
| -0.1163 | 1 | -0.2605 | 1 | |
| Positive and Negative Affect Schedule | ||||
| Positive Affect | -0.0845 | 1 | 0.0238 | 1 |
| Negative Affect | 0.0781 | 1 | -0.1336 | 1 |
| Brief Resilience Scale | ||||
| 0.0570 | 1 | 0.1159 | 1 | |
| Five Facet Mindfulness Questionnaire | ||||
| Non-Reactivity | 0.2353 | 1 | 0.1768 | 1 |
| Observing | -0.2076 | 1 | -0.0667 | 1 |
| Awareness | 0.0041 | 1 | -0.0381 | 1 |
| Describing | -0.0875 | 1 | 0.2344 | 1 |
| Non-Judging | -0.0496 | 1 | 0.1160 | 1 |
| Depression, Anxiety, and Stress Scale | ||||
| Depression | -0.1593 | 1 | -0.2666 | 1 |
| Anxiety | 0.1431 | 1 | -0.2062 | 1 |
| Stress | 0.0195 | 1 | -0.1702 | 1 |
| Job Effectiveness Questionnaire | ||||
| -0.0477 | 1 | 0.2303 | 1 | |
| Note: For previous experience correlations, n = 38. For program participation correlations, n = 42. Changes were calculated as post-test minus pre-test. For each set of comparisons (i.e. changes/previous experience and changes/program participation) a Holm-Bonferroni adjustment has been applied to correct the family-wise error rate. Values in bold are significant at the p < .05 level. | ||||
None of the pre to post-intervention changes were found to be significantly correlated with years of previous experience or with minutes per week spent meditating (all p’s > .05) .
Moderation
As before, moderation was tested by performing regression analyses with T1-T2 changes as the dependent variables and the suspected moderators as the independent variables.
Perceived Stress Scale
- Previous Experience
After removing outliers, previous experience was found to explain 1.35% of the change in PSS scores; R2 = 0.01, F(1, 36 ) = 0.49, p = 0.49. Length of previous experience, therefore, remains a non-significant moderator of PSS change; \(\beta\) = -0.83, t = -0.7, p = 0.49.
- Program Participation
After removing outliers, program participation was found to explain 6.79% of the change in PSS scores; R2 = 0.07, F(1, 40 ) = 2.91, p = 0.1. Time spent meditating, therefore, remains a non-significant moderator of PSS change; \(\beta\) = -0.01, t = -0.63, p = 0.53.
Positive and Negative Affect Schedule
Positive Affect
- Previous Experience
After removing outliers, previous experience was found to explain 0.71% of the change in PANAS-Positive scores; R2 = 0.01, F(1, 36 ) = 0.26, p = 0.61. Length of previous experience, therefore, is no longer a significant negative moderator of PANAS-Positive change; \(\beta\) = -0.66, t = -0.51, p = 0.61. This newly found lack of relationship is plotted below.
- Program Participation
After removing outliers, program participation was found to explain 0.06% of the change in PANAS-Positive scores; R2 = 0, F(1, 40 ) = 0.02, p = 0.88. Time spent meditating, therefore, remains a non-significant moderator of PANAS-Positive change; \(\beta\) = 0, t = 0.15, p = 0.88.
Negative Affect
- Previous Experience
After removing outliers, previous experience was found to explain 0.61% of the change in PANAS-Negative scores; R2 = 0.01, F(1, 36 ) = 0.22, p = 0.64. Length of previous experience, therefore, remains a non-significant moderator of PANAS-Negative change; \(\beta\) = 0.73, t = 0.47, p = 0.64.
- Program Participation
After removing outliers, program participation was found to explain 1.78% of the change in PANAS-Negative scores; R2 = 0.02, F(1, 40 ) = 0.73, p = 0.4. Time spent meditating, therefore, remains a non-significant moderator of PANAS-Negative change; \(\beta\) = -0.03, t = -0.85, p = 0.4.
Brief Resilience Scale
- Previous Experience
After removing outliers, previous experience was found to explain 0.32% of the change in BRS scores; R2 = 0, F(1, 36 ) = 0.12, p = 0.73. Length of previous experience, therefore, remains a non-significant moderator of BRS change; \(\beta\) = 0.05, t = 0.34, p = 0.73.
- Program Participation
After removing outliers, program participation was found to explain 1.34% of the change in BRS scores; R2 = 0.01, F(1, 40 ) = 0.54, p = 0.46. Time spent meditating, therefore, remains a non-significant moderator of BRS change; \(\beta\) = 0, t = 0.74, p = 0.46.
Five Facet Mindfulness Questionnaire
Non-Reactivity
- Previous Experience
After removing outliers, previous experience was found to explain 5.54% of the change in FFMQ-Non-Reactivity scores; R2 = 0.06, F(1, 36 ) = 2.11, p = 0.16. Length of previous experience, therefore, remains a non-significant moderator of FFMQ-Non-Reactivity change; \(\beta\) = 1.17, t = 1.45, p = 0.16.
- Program Participation
After removing outliers, program participation was found to explain 3.13% of the change in FFMQ-Non-Reactivity scores; R2 = 0.03, F(1, 40 ) = 1.29, p = 0.26. Time spent meditating, therefore, remains a non-significant moderator of FFMQ-Non-Reactivity change; \(\beta\) = 0.02, t = 1.14, p = 0.26.
Observing
- Previous Experience
After removing outliers, previous experience was found to explain 4.31% of the change in FFMQ-Observing scores; R2 = 0.04, F(1, 36 ) = 1.62, p = 0.21. Length of previous experience, therefore, remains a non-significant moderator of FFMQ-Observing change; \(\beta\) = -0.62, t = -1.27, p = 0.21.
- Program Participation
After removing outliers, program participation was found to explain 0.45% of the change in FFMQ-Observing scores; R2 = 0, F(1, 40 ) = 0.18, p = 0.67. Time spent meditating, therefore, remains a non-significant moderator of FFMQ-Observing change; \(\beta\) = 0, t = -0.42, p = 0.67.
Acting with Awareness
- Previous Experience
After removing outliers, previous experience was found to explain 0% of the change in FFMQ-Awareness scores; R2 = 0, F(1, 36 ) = 0, p = 0.98. Length of previous experience, therefore, remains a non-significant moderator of FFMQ-Awareness change; \(\beta\) = 0.02, t = 0.02, p = 0.98.
- Program Participation
After removing outliers, program participation was found to explain 0.15% of the change in FFMQ-Awareness scores; R2 = 0, F(1, 40 ) = 0.06, p = 0.81. Time spent meditating, therefore, remains a non-significant moderator of FFMQ-Awareness change; \(\beta\) = 0, t = -0.24, p = 0.81.
Describing
- Previous Experience
After removing outliers, previous experience was found to explain 0.77% of the change in FFMQ-Describing scores; R2 = 0.01, F(1, 36 ) = 0.28, p = 0.6. Length of previous experience, therefore, remains a non-significant moderator of FFMQ-Describing change; \(\beta\) = -0.38, t = -0.53, p = 0.6.
- Program Participation
After removing outliers, program participation was found to explain 5.49% of the change in FFMQ-Describing scores; R2 = 0.05, F(1, 40 ) = 2.33, p = 0.14. Time spent meditating, therefore, remains a non-significant moderator of FFMQ-Describing change; \(\beta\) = 0.02, t = 1.52, p = 0.14.
Non-Judging
- Previous Experience
After removing outliers, previous experience was found to explain 0.25% of the change in FFMQ-Non-Judging scores; R2 = 0, F(1, 36 ) = 0.09, p = 0.77. Length of previous experience, therefore, remains a non-significant moderator of FFMQ-Non-Judging change; \(\beta\) = -0.28, t = -0.3, p = 0.77.
- Program Participation
After removing outliers, program participation was found to explain 1.35% of the change in FFMQ-Non-Judging scores; R2 = 0.01, F(1, 40 ) = 0.55, p = 0.46. Time spent meditating, therefore, remains a non-significant moderator of FFMQ-Non-Judging change; \(\beta\) = 0.01, t = 0.74, p = 0.46.
Depression, Anxiety, and Stress Scale
Depression
- Previous Experience
After removing outliers, previous experience was found to explain 2.54% of the change in DASS-Depression scores; R2 = 0.03, F(1, 36 ) = 0.94, p = 0.34. Length of previous experience, therefore, remains a non-significant moderator of DASS-Depression change; \(\beta\) = -1.41, t = -0.97, p = 0.34.
- Program Participation
After removing outliers, program participation was found to explain 7.11% of the change in DASS-Depression scores; R2 = 0.07, F(1, 40 ) = 3.06, p = 0.09. Time spent meditating, therefore, remains a non-significant moderator of DASS-Depression change; \(\beta\) = -0.06, t = -1.75, p = 0.09.
Anxiety
- Previous Experience
After removing outliers, previous experience was found to explain 2.05% of the change in DASS-Anxiety scores; R2 = 0.02, F(1, 36 ) = 0.75, p = 0.39. Length of previous experience, therefore, remains a non-significant moderator of DASS-Anxiety change; \(\beta\) = 1.27, t = 0.87, p = 0.39.
- Program Participation
After removing outliers, program participation was found to explain 4.25% of the change in DASS-Anxiety scores; R2 = 0.04, F(1, 40 ) = 1.78, p = 0.19. Time spent meditating, therefore, remains a non-significant moderator of DASS-Anxiety change; \(\beta\) = -0.04, t = -1.33, p = 0.19.
Stress
- Previous Experience
After removing outliers, previous experience was found to explain 0.04% of the change in DASS-Stress scores; R2 = 0, F(1, 36 ) = 0.01, p = 0.91. Length of previous experience, therefore, remains a non-significant moderator of DASS-Stress change; \(\beta\) = 0.18, t = 0.12, p = 0.91.
- Program Participation
After removing outliers, program participation was found to explain 2.9% of the change in DASS-Stress scores; R2 = 0.03, F(1, 40 ) = 1.19, p = 0.28. Time spent meditating, therefore, remains a non-significant moderator of DASS-Stress change; \(\beta\) = -0.04, t = -1.09, p = 0.28.
Job Effectiveness Questionnaire
- Previous Experience
After removing outliers, previous experience was found to explain 0.23% of the change in JEQ scores; R2 = 0, F(1, 36 ) = 0.08, p = 0.78. Length of previous experience, therefore, remains a non-significant moderator of JEQ change \(\beta\) = -0.03, t = -0.29, p = 0.78.
- Program Participation
After removing outliers, program participation was found to explain 5.31% of the change in JEQ scores; R2 = 0.05, F(1, 40 ) = 2.24, p = 0.14. Time spent meditating, therefore, remains a non-significant moderator of JEQ change; \(\beta\) = 0, t = 1.5, p = 0.14.
Summary of Results
None of the results were found to be statistically significant.
Conclusion
As before, correlation analyses suggest that intervention-related changes were unrelated to both the length of previous experience and the degree to which an individual participated in the program. This conclusion is supported by moderation analyses, which suggest that neither length of previous meditation experience nor degree of program participation are significant moderators of the change that was observed throughout the program. Importantly, the previously significant relationship between experience and PANAS-Positive change was rendered non-significant by the removal of six participants who reported 20+ years of meditation experience. This suggests that: (1) there may be a difference between those with many years of meditation experience and those with relatively little experience; (2) with respect to positive affect, expertise may temper or limit the amount of positive change that can be achieved throughout the program; and (3) for those with little-to-no meditation experience, change occurs independent from experience length. Overall, therefore, what seems to matter is that one participated, not how much they participated or how much experience they had prior to participating. Our fifth and final set of analyses will assess the pre- to post-intervention changes that were observed within the context of the general population. In particular, we will compare participants’ self-report scores with norming data for each measure.
5. Comparison Between Participants and Norming Data
In this final set of analyses, we will compare participants’ pre- and post-intervention scores with norming data for each measure. We will only include data from participants who actively participated in the mindfulness program and who completed both surveys (i.e. the participants from Analysis 1).
Because the JEQ was designed specifically for this study, norming data is not available for this scale and it will be excluded from this analysis. With respect to the other scales, norming data was obtained from the following sources:
The Perceived Stress Scale
Psychological stress in a probability sample of the United States (Cohen & Williamson, 1988)
The norming sample, obtained via region-based stratification, is comprised of US residents aged 18 and older.
Note that the version of the PSS used in this study was the PSS-14.
The Positive and Negative Affect Schedule
Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect (Watson et al., 1988)
The norming sample is comprised of undergraduate students and employees from an American university. Watson et al., (1988) suggest that this sample can be reliably generalized to an adult population.
In our study, participants were asked to consider how they felt during the past month; therefore, we will use the norms associated with the “past few weeks” instructions.
The Brief Resilience Scale
The foundations of resilience: What are the critical resources for bouncing back from stress? (Smith et al., 2013)
Note that, as suggested by Smith et al. (2013, p. 177), we will use the combined sample mean and standard deviation. This combined sample is comprised of American college students, healthy adult women, women with fibromyalgia, cardiac patients, and firefighters.
The Five Facet Mindfulness Questionnaire
Psychometric properties of the five facet mindfulness questionnaire in depressed adults and development of a short form (Bohlmeijer et al., 2011)
The norming sample is comprised of Dutch individuals with clinical (but not severe) symptoms of depression and anxiety. The majority of the individuals in this sample were educated women.
We will compare our participants with the data collected during the pre-intervention phase of the norming study.
The Depression, Anxiety, and Stress Scale-21
Psychometric evaluation and normative data for the depression, anxiety, and stress scales-21 (DASS-21) in a nonclinical sample of U.S. adults (Sinclair et al., 2012)
The norming sample, obtained via stratification sampling, was constructed to be representative of the American population.
| Source | Measure | n | M | SD |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Perceived Stress Scale | ||||
| Cohen & Williamson, 1988 | 2387 | 19.62 | 7.49 | |
| Positive and Negative Affect Schedule | ||||
| Watson et al., 1988 | Positive Affect | 586 | 32.00 | 7.00 |
| Negative Affect | 586 | 19.50 | 7.00 | |
| Brief Resilience Scale | ||||
| Smith et al., 2013 | 844 | 3.70 | 0.68 | |
| Five Facet Mindfulness Questionnaire | ||||
| Bohlmeijer et al., 2011 | Non-Reactivity | 376 | 13.47 | 3.07 |
| Observing | 376 | 13.86 | 3.21 | |
| Awareness | 376 | 13.19 | 3.32 | |
| Describing | 376 | 16.28 | 3.91 | |
| Non-Judging | 376 | 14.09 | 3.63 | |
| Depression, Anxiety, and Stress Scale | ||||
| Sinclair et al., 2012 | Depression | 499 | 5.70 | 8.20 |
| Anxiety | 499 | 3.99 | 6.27 | |
| Stress | 499 | 8.12 | 7.62 | |
Each norming mean will be compared against two other means: the T1 mean and the T2 mean. For each set of two-way comparisons, therefore, a Holm-Bonferroni adjustment will be applied to correct the family-wise error rate.
| Measure | M | SD | t | df | p | d | M | SD | t | df | p | d |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Perceived Stress Scale | ||||||||||||
| 45.39 | 8.73 | -19.44 | 44.17 | 0 | -2.96 | 38.23 | 8.71 | -14.07 | 44.18 | 0 | -2.14 | |
| Positive and Negative Affect Schedule | ||||||||||||
| Positive Affect | 29.43 | 7.94 | 2.08 | 48.15 | 0.0848 | 0.33 | 33.86 | 6.55 | -1.81 | 50.65 | 0.0848 | -0.28 |
| Negative Affect | 28.36 | 8.37 | -6.85 | 47.63 | 0 | -1.07 | 23.50 | 8.23 | -3.14 | 47.79 | 0.0029 | -0.49 |
| Brief Resilience Scale | ||||||||||||
| 3.05 | 0.92 | 4.65 | 45.50 | 0.0001 | 0.72 | 3.35 | 0.90 | 2.55 | 45.60 | 0.0141 | 0.39 | |
| Five Facet Mindfulness Questionnaire | ||||||||||||
| Non-Reactivity | 11.20 | 4.28 | 3.41 | 48.30 | 0.0027 | 0.54 | 14.30 | 3.74 | -1.41 | 50.02 | 0.1648 | -0.22 |
| Observing | 12.66 | 3.77 | 2.03 | 50.55 | 0.0958 | 0.32 | 13.64 | 3.59 | 0.40 | 51.37 | 0.6944 | 0.06 |
| Awareness | 13.34 | 4.37 | -0.22 | 48.97 | 0.8255 | -0.04 | 16.25 | 3.45 | -5.59 | 52.74 | 0 | -0.89 |
| Describing | 17.00 | 3.64 | -1.23 | 55.27 | 0.2234 | -0.20 | 18.75 | 3.57 | -4.30 | 55.79 | 0.0001 | -0.68 |
| Non-Judging | 12.98 | 4.51 | 1.58 | 49.75 | 0.1206 | 0.25 | 16.23 | 4.36 | -3.13 | 50.24 | 0.0058 | -0.50 |
| Depression, Anxiety, and Stress Scale | ||||||||||||
| Depression | 11.95 | 9.55 | -4.21 | 48.75 | 0.0002 | -0.66 | 8.59 | 8.37 | -2.20 | 50.55 | 0.0324 | -0.35 |
| Anxiety | 9.09 | 7.20 | -4.55 | 48.93 | 0.0001 | -0.72 | 6.36 | 5.14 | -2.88 | 54.92 | 0.0057 | -0.45 |
| Stress | 19.50 | 9.11 | -8.04 | 48.45 | 0 | -1.26 | 13.09 | 8.95 | -3.57 | 48.66 | 0.0008 | -0.56 |
| Note: For all measures, n = 44. Values in bold are significant at the p < .05 level. | ||||||||||||
Compared to the norming populations considered, participants began the study with significantly higher scores on the PSS, PANAS-Negative, DASS-Depression, DASS-Anxiety, and DASS-Stress, as well as significantly lower scores on the BRS and FFMQ-Non-Reactivity. Following the completion of the mindfulness intervention, participants were no longer significantly different from the norming populations with respect to the FFMQ-Non-Reactivity, though they remained significantly lower on the BRS and significantly higher on the PSS, PANAS-Negative, and all subscales of the DASS. Compared to the norming population, participants also ended the study with significantly higher scores on the Awareness, Describing, and Non-Judging subscales of the FFMQ.
Conclusion
A comparison between norming data and self-report scores indicated that participants were initially experiencing higher levels of perceived stress and negative affect and significantly more symptoms associated with depression, anxiety, and stress than is present in the general population. Participants also began the study with lower than normal levels of resilience and, compared to a population with symptoms of depression and anxiety, lower levels of non-reactivity. Throughout the intervention, participants experienced significant increases in aspects related to mindful cognition that ultimately resulted in higher levels of almost all aspects of mindfulness compared to the symptomatic norming population: following the intervention, they were no longer lower on non-reactivity and they were, in fact, higher on awareness, describing, and non-judgmentalness. Participants also experienced significant increases in resilience and decreases in perceived stress, negative affect, and symptoms associated with depression, anxiety, and stress; these changes, however, did not raise participant BRS scores or lower PSS, PANAS-Negative, or DASS scores to the level of scores reported by the respective norming samples. This seems to suggest, therefore, that, though the intervention was successful in effecting change, there remains room for further improvements.
Overall Conclusions
Overall, the completion of the mindfulness intervention was associated with a decrease in stress, negative affect, and symptoms associated with depression, anxiety, and stress, as well as increases in positive affect, resilience, non-reactivity, observing, acting with awareness, describing, non-judging, and perceived job competence. Though these changes ultimately failed to fully assimilate participants to the norming populations considered, significant changes were observed, suggesting that the intervention was effective in enhancing participants’ mindfulness and improving their psychological well-being. Based on correlation and moderation analyses, improvements seem to be unrelated to the amount of program engagement (i.e. the amount of time spent meditating throughout the 8-week program) and length of previous meditation experience. It is, however, important to note that, due to the use of a convenience sampling technique, this study lacked a comparable control group. Consequently, though the significant findings and general trends within the data are promising, these results should be interpreted with caution. (A follow-up study designed to address this potential limitation has since been conducted. The results of this follow-up study are publicly available on RPubs: Main Study Analysis Summary, Main Study Full Analysis)