Promoting Prosocial Behavior and Self-Regulatory Skills in Preschool Children through a Mindfulness-Based Kindness Curriculum [Kindness Curriculum vs. business as usual]
Flook, Lisa; Goldberg, Simon B.; Pinger, Laura; Davidson, Richard J. (2015). Developmental Psychology, v51 n1 p44-51. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1049597
-
examining68Students, gradePK
Practice Guide
Review Details
Reviewed: May 2022
- Practice Guide (findings for Kindness Curriculum)
- Randomized Controlled Trial
- Meets WWC standards without reservations because it is a cluster randomized controlled trial with low cluster-level attrition and individual-level non-response.
This review may not reflect the full body of research evidence for this intervention.
Evidence Tier rating based solely on this study. This intervention may achieve a higher tier when combined with the full body of evidence.
Findings
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Delay of Gratification |
Kindness Curriculum vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
1.58 |
1.50 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Flanker task |
Kindness Curriculum vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
6.16 |
6.29 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Dimensional change card sort task-All trials |
Kindness Curriculum vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
5.64 |
5.84 |
No |
-- | ||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Dimensional change card sort task - Postswitch only |
Kindness Curriculum vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
6.63 |
5.92 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Delay of Gratification: 1 now vs 5 later |
Kindness Curriculum vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
1.65 |
1.51 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Delay of Gratification: 1 now vs 3 later |
Kindness Curriculum vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
1.59 |
1.48 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Delay of Gratification: 1 now vs 2 later |
Kindness Curriculum vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
1.52 |
1.52 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Teacher Social Competence |
Kindness Curriculum vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
4.32 |
3.91 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Sharing Task |
Kindness Curriculum vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
6.68 |
6.20 |
No |
-- | ||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Teacher Social Competence Scale Emotion Regulation subscale |
Kindness Curriculum vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
4.18 |
3.91 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Teacher Social Competence Scale Prosocial Behavior subscale |
Kindness Curriculum vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
4.20 |
3.91 |
No |
-- | ||
Evidence Tier rating based solely on this study. This intervention may achieve a higher tier when combined with the full body of evidence.
Sample Characteristics
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
-
Female: 50%
Male: 49% -
Urban
-
- B
- A
- C
- D
- E
- F
- G
- I
- H
- J
- K
- L
- P
- M
- N
- O
- Q
- R
- S
- V
- U
- T
- W
- X
- Z
- Y
- a
- h
- i
- b
- d
- e
- f
- c
- g
- j
- k
- l
- m
- n
- o
- p
- q
- r
- s
- t
- u
- v
- x
- w
- y
Midwest
-
Race Asian 10% Black 6% Other or unknown 12% White 59% -
Ethnicity Hispanic 12%
Study Details
Setting
The study was conducted in public school district in a medium-sized Midwestern city. The authors recruited 7 preschool classrooms from 6 elementary schools.
Study sample
Students in the sample included 40 White (58.8%), 8 Hispanic (11.8%), 4 African American (5.9%), 7 Asian/Pacific Islander (10.3%), 8 “Other”/ mixed ethnicity children (11.8%), 34 girls (50.0%) and 33 boys (48.5%), with a mean age of 4.67 years (p. 45). The study authors reported parent’s education background, 49 (72.1%) were 4-year college graduates and 18 (26.5%) were not.
Intervention Group
The Kindness Curriculum intervention was designed to teach preschool children mindfulness. The mental training involves focusing attention and emotion regulation, with an emphasis on kindness. The training used children’s literature, music, and movement in instruction. The lessons were delivered by “experienced mindfulness instructors” as part of their standard classroom instruction during regular schools hours. Children received 2 lessons, 20–30 minutes each week over 12 weeks, for approximately 10 hours total of training. The training occurred during regular classroom instruction.
Comparison Group
While the authors note students were assigned to the “wait-list control” comparison condition, they do not provide any further description of what students did in the comparison classrooms.
Support for implementation
The authors note that the intervention was implemented by experienced mindfulness instructors.
An indicator of the effect of the intervention, the improvement index can be interpreted as the expected change in percentile rank for an average comparison group student if that student had received the intervention.
For more, please see the WWC Glossary entry for improvement index.
An outcome is the knowledge, skills, and attitudes that are attained as a result of an activity. An outcome measures is an instrument, device, or method that provides data on the outcome.
A finding that is included in the effectiveness rating. Excluded findings may include subgroups and subscales.
The sample on which the analysis was conducted.
The group to which the intervention group is compared, which may include a different intervention, business as usual, or no services.
The timing of the post-intervention outcome measure.
The number of students included in the analysis.
The mean score of students in the intervention group.
The mean score of students in the comparison group.
The WWC considers a finding to be statistically significant if the likelihood that the finding is due to chance alone, rather than a real difference, is less than five percent.
The WWC reviews studies for WWC products, Department of Education grant competitions, and IES performance measures.
The name and version of the document used to guide the review of the study.
The version of the WWC design standards used to guide the review of the study.
The result of the WWC assessment of the study. The rating is based on the strength of evidence of the effectiveness of the intervention. Studies are given a rating of Meets WWC Design Standards without Reservations, Meets WWC Design Standards with Reservations, or >Does Not Meet WWC Design Standards.
A related publication that was reviewed alongside the main study of interest.
Study findings for this report.
Based on the direction, magnitude, and statistical significance of the findings within a domain, the WWC characterizes the findings from a study as one of the following: statistically significant positive effects, substantively important positive effects, indeterminate effects, substantively important negative effects, and statistically significant negative effects. For more, please see the WWC Handbook.
The WWC may review studies for multiple purposes, including different reports and re-reviews using updated standards. Each WWC review of this study is listed in the dropdown. Details on any review may be accessed by making a selection from the drop down list.
Tier 1 Strong indicates strong evidence of effectiveness,
Tier 2 Moderate indicates moderate evidence of effectiveness, and
Tier 3 Promising indicates promising evidence of effectiveness,
as defined in the
non-regulatory guidance for ESSA
and the regulations for ED discretionary grants (EDGAR Part 77).