Scale Evaluation Project (Research Report, Statistics) Essay Example

  • Category:
    Psychology
  • Document type:
    Assignment
  • Level:
    Undergraduate
  • Page:
    3
  • Words:
    1716

ABSTRACT

The purpose of the study was to develop and validate the Toronto Mindfulness Scale (TMS). There was good internal consistency with α = 0.816 and KMOs test the sampling adequacy value was 0.834. The eigenvalues >1 criteria resulted to 3 components and this was reduced to 2 components when a scree graph was used with component 1 representing curiosity and component 2 representing decentering. The overall conclusion made was that TMS is a promising measure of mindfulness state.

Internal consistency

The data was first subjected to screening where the outliers were identified and removed. During the process there were two multivariate outliers which were identified and removed thus reducing the sample to 193. Although variables assumed homoscedasticity, linearity and range in most of the variables there was deviation from normality.

The items revealed internal consistence with all the variables having item-total correlation of above 0.3 (the minimum for consistency). The least value recorded was 0.362 with most of the variables having values above 0.5 as can be seen from Appendix 3. The Cronbach’s Alpha was 0.816 which is above the minimum requirement of 0.7. The value is also fit for clinical application as it is above a value of 0.8.

Principal Components Analysis

The KMO value was 0.834 which acceptable as it is above the required value of 0.6. Using the eigenvalue of >1 criteria the number of components to be extracted is three as can be seen in TABLE 4. TABLE 4 gives the variables loading on the three components. As it can be seen most of the variables have high loading on components 1 with the loading on component 2 and component 3 being negatives. The rotated matrix (TABLE 5) gives loading figures in a way that is easier to interpret as compared to the component matrix. TABLE 6 give the eigenvalues for the components where component 1 has a value of 4.309 component 2 has a value of 1.860
while component 3 has a value 1.192. The percentage variances for the three components are 33.149, 14.310 and 9.172 respectively.

Because the result obtained using the eigen value is regarded to be approximate there is need to go further and establish the number of components using the scree plot. From figure 1 the value for the number of components to be used can be approximated to be 2 because there is ambiguity on the exact number. This is recommended as using 3 which is the other alternative will not be improving the results. With the number of components reduced to 2 the loading of the variables on the two components is as shown in TABLE 7. The loading is made clear in the rotated component matrix TABLE 8. Component 1 has eigenvalue of 4.309 and component 2 a value of 1.860 while percentage variance for the 2 components are 33.149 and 14.31 respectively as can be seen from TABLE 9.

The name given to factor 1 is curiosity due to the fact that the items loading on it have a reflection on awareness of the present moment experience with a quality of curiosity. Decentering is the label given to factor 2 owing to the fact that most of the items loading on the factor have emphasis on awareness on one’s experience with distance and disidentification rather than being carried away by thoughts and feelings and is similar to decentering as defined by Teasdale et al (2002)

Discussion and conclusion

Curiosity scores have an association with greater meditation experience among individuals who have trained in MBSR versus those that practiced Shambhala Buddhist meditation may provide further criterion related validity for the TMS. The finding is consistent with important differences in the instructional set associated with these two meditation practices. Non-secular mindfulness practice as taught in a clinical context encourages a person to “investigate your distractions” (Rosenberg, 1998, Govern, J. M., & Marsch, L. A., 2001). On the other hand in the Shambhala tradition a person practices, in part, in order gain greater degrees of concentration and attentional focus. When distractions arise, practitioners are discouraged from taking an active investigative interest in the nature of their feelings, thoughts or sensations, and instead are urged to return to the primary focus of attention (Dunn, Hartigan, & Mikulas, 1999; Goldstein, 2002).

The decentering concept has been studied and observed to be playing a central role underlying the efficacy of cognitive therapy (Beck, Rush, Shaw, & Emory, 1979; Ingram & Holllon, 1986). When there is a shift in one’s cognitive perspective which is known as decentering or disidentification it is thought that this lead to a change in one’s relationship to negative thoughts and feelings. This is such that an individual can see negative thoughts and feelings simply to be a passing event in the mind rather than reflections of reality (Grossman, P., Niemann, L., Schmidt, S., &Walach, H.2004). It can be observed that if decentering scores can be proved to precede changes that occur in criterion measures, the TMS can be a useful tool in investigations of the mediating role of mindfulness in observed outcomes and also help in understanding the psychological processes by which mindfulness brings about reduction in general stress and emotional distress levels (Kristeller, J. L., & Hallett B.,1999, Germer, C. K. 2005). With 13 items, the TMS is short enough (may require only 3 minutes to complete the scale itself) and can easily be incorporated into mindfulness-based treatments with no substantial intrusiveness or response burden.

Several limitations can be seen in this study and they need to be considered. One being that the initial 15-item TMS was reduced to 13 items by deleting two items in order to improve the fit in the validation sample. Although we felt justified when refitting this simpler model, there is need for evaluation with independent samples in order to further validate the 13-item TMS. The second is that, although the procedure used in assessment of the subjective experience of mindfulness retrospectively in reference to an immediately preceding mindfulness meditation session has the effect of increasing the reliability of the measure, the obtained results may not be fit for generalizing across mindfulness meditation sessions nor to mindfulness in everyday life. The TMS is an assessment of the level of mindfulness during a single point in time and thus may not be a true reflection of ones capacity to evoke a state of mindfulness. Conducting multiple tests periods is the way that can yield an indication of the ability to evoke a mindfulness state. In terms of using the TMS in evaluation research, the recommendation is multiple assessments of mindfulness at pre-, mid- and posttreatment in order to ensure reliable estimates of the ability of the respondents to cultivate a state of mindfulness. The reason for this being that participants undertaking meditation-based treatments may develop the capacity to evoke mindfulness generally, but there may be failure to do so effectively on a given testing session thus resulting in misleading TMS scores. There is need for further research in order to establish whether the ability to invoke a mindful state during meditation practice as measured by the TMS generalizes to the degree of mindfulness in everyday life.

In conclusion, the findings of this study show that the TMS is a reliable and valid measure of mindfulness. It depicts mindfulness as a state of curious, decentered awareness of an individual’s experience that is operationally and conceptually distinct from anxiously preoccupied and ruminative states of self-focused attention. Therefore, TMS can be seen to be a useful instrument in investigating the mediating role of mindful awareness in mindfulness-based interventions and observed patient outcomes.

References

Beck, A. T., Rush, A. J., Shaw, B. F., & Emery, G. (1979). Cognitive therapy of depression. NewYork: Guilford Press.

Dunn, B. R., Hartigan, J. A., & Mikulas, W. (1999). Concentration and mindfulness meditations:

Unique forms of consciousness? Applied Psychophysiology and Biofeedback, 24, 147–165.

Germer, C. K. (2005). Mindfulness: What is it: What does it matter? In C. K. Germer, R. D. Siegel,& P. R. Fulton (Eds.), Mindfulness and psychotherapy. New York: Guilford Press.

Goldstein, J. (2002) One dharma: The emerging western Buddhism. San Fransisco: Harper.

Govern, J. M., & Marsch, L. A. (2001). Development and validation of the situational selfawareness scale. Consciousness and Cognition, 10, 366–378.

Grossman, P., Niemann, L., Schmidt, S., &Walach, H. (2004). Mindfulness-based stress reduction and health benefits: A meta-analysis. Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 57, 35– 43.

Ingram, R. E., & Hollon, S. D. (1986). Cognitive therapy of depression from an information processing perspective. In R. E. Ingram (Ed.), Information processing approaches to clinical

psychology (pp. 259–281). San Diego: Academic Press.

Kristeller, J. L., & Hallett, B. (1999). Effects of a meditation-based intervention in the treatment of binge eating. Journal of Health Psychology, 4, 357–363.

Rosenberg, L. (1998). Breath by breath: The liberating practice of insight meditation. Boston:

Shambhala Publications, Inc.

Teasdale, J. D., Moore, R. G., Hayhurst, H., Pope, M., Williams, S., & Segal, Z. V. (2002). Metacognitive awareness and prevention of relapse in depression: Empirical evidence. Journal of

Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 70, 275–287.

APPENDIX 1

TABLE 1 Reliability Statistics

Cronbach’s Alpha

Cronbach’s Alpha Based on Standardized Items

N of Items

TABLE 2 KMO and Bartlett’s Test

Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy.

Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity

Approx. Chi-Square

APPENDIX 2

TABLE 3 Communalities

Extraction

Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.

APPENDIX 3

TABLE 4 Component Matrixa

Component

Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.

a. 3 components extracted.

APPENDIX 4

TABLE 5 Rotated Component Matrixa

Component

Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.

Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization.

a. Rotation converged in 5 iterations.

APPENDIX 5

TABLE 6 Total Variance Explained

Component

Initial Eigenvalues

Extraction Sums of Squared Loadings

Rotation Sums of Squared Loadings

% of Variance

Cumulative %

% of Variance

Cumulative %

% of Variance

Cumulative %

Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.

APPENDIX 6Scale Evaluation Project (Research Report, Statistics)

APPENDIX 7

TABLE 7 Component Matrixa

Component

Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.

a. 2 components extracted.

APPENDIX 8

TABLE 8 Rotated Component Matrixa

Component

Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.

Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization.

a. Rotation converged in 3 iterations.

APPENDIX 8

TABLE 9 Total Variance Explained

Component

Initial Eigenvalues

Extraction Sums of Squared Loadings

Rotation Sums of Squared Loadings

% of Variance

Cumulative %

% of Variance

Cumulative %

% of Variance

Cumulative %

Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.