1 / 20

DEVELOPMENT OF A STATE MINDFULNESS SCALE

DEVELOPMENT OF A STATE MINDFULNESS SCALE. Mister Ibik Arizona State University. Mindfulness. The joys of data collection. Discussion of iterative factor analytic schemes employed. Conclusions highlighting similarities and differences of CEI and LMS subscales.

pules
Download Presentation

DEVELOPMENT OF A STATE MINDFULNESS SCALE

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. DEVELOPMENT OF A STATE MINDFULNESS SCALE Mister Ibik Arizona State University

  2. Mindfulness • The joys of data collection. • Discussion of iterative factor analytic schemes employed. • Conclusions highlighting similarities and differences of CEI and LMS subscales. • Recommendations for further research.

  3. The joys of data collection • Over the first six weeks of the spring 2005 semester, n = 226 completed the initial assessment. • 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. • Use of Scantrons for data collection

  4. Results

  5. Elimination Rules • Loading values were low (i.e. < .38) • Loadings were in the wrong direction with respect to the other items on the factors. • If the item substantively made little sense being grouped together with other items on factors. • Items loading on the wrong factors based on the a priori model were not deleted if they were interpretable within the present factor structure.

  6. F = Flexibility, E = Engagement, NS = Novelty seeking, NP = Novelty producing

  7. INFLEXIBILITY

  8. FLEXIBILITY

  9. ENGAGEMENT

  10. DISENGAGEMENT

  11. DE = Disengagement, E = Engagement, IF = Inflexibility, F = Flexibility

  12. c2(84)=123.75, p > .01, CFI = .95 RMSEA = .05 (.027 to .062)

  13. Conclusions • 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. • Four factors appear to fit the CEI data; however, each of the factors appears to be in a single direction only.

  14. Similarly, flexibility/inflexibility and engagement/disengagement may be more palpable functions of an individual’s daily experience. • It could be that novelty seeking and novelty producing may be longer-standing trait-like qualities of individuals. • Low external correlations: Might have been influenced by the wording of the CEI.

  15. Certain items were considered less understandable by respondents who were unfamiliar with “mindfulness.” • Ambiguity of items: “mental shortcuts” may have a positive connotation to some respondents and a negative connotation to others.

  16. Recommendations • Two alternative hypotheses could be generated about the nature of the state-like measure. 1. That the newly re-specified CEI model is the correct model (IF, F, DE, E). Generate new items to support this hypothesis. 2. A sample specific artifact: Items should be re-written to model the original four factors of the CEI (F, E, NS, NP).

  17. Thanks to Ellen Langer, Ph.D. Professor of Psychology Department of Psychology Harvard University 33 Kirkland Street Cambridge,MA 02138

More Related