Zelazo, P. D., Forston, J. L., Masten, A. S., & Carlson, S. M. (2018). Frontiers in Psychology.
Reviewed: February 2022
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.
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Woodcock-Johnson III Tests of Achievement (WJ-III) Letter-Word Identification Subtest |
Mindfulness and reflection training vs. Business as usual |
2 Weeks |
Postintervention: Mindfulness + Reflection Training vs BAU;
|
13.32 |
13.32 |
No |
-- | ||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Woodcock-Johnson III Tests of Achievement (WJ-III) Letter-Word Identification Subtest |
Mindfulness and reflection training vs. Business as usual |
6 Weeks |
Follow-up: Mindfulness + Reflection Training vs BAU;
|
16.23 |
15.94 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Peg Tapping |
Mindfulness and reflection training vs. Business as usual |
2 Weeks |
Postintervention: Mindfulness + Reflection Training vs BAU;
|
13.52 |
12.31 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Child Behavior Rating Scale |
Mindfulness and reflection training vs. Business as usual |
2 Weeks |
Postintervention: Mindfulness + Reflection Training vs BAU;
|
36.72 |
36.76 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Minnesota executive function scale (MEFS) |
Mindfulness and reflection training vs. Business as usual |
2 Weeks |
Postintervention: Mindfulness + Reflection Training vs BAU;
|
45.20 |
45.52 |
No |
-- | ||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Peg Tapping |
Mindfulness and reflection training vs. Business as usual |
6 Weeks |
Follow-up: Mindfulness + Reflection Training vs BAU;
|
14.32 |
13.67 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Minnesota executive function scale (MEFS) |
Mindfulness and reflection training vs. Business as usual |
6 Weeks |
Follow-up: Mindfulness + Reflection Training vs BAU;
|
49.46 |
46.91 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Children’s Behavior Questionnaire Very Short Form Effortful Control sub scale |
Mindfulness and reflection training vs. Business as usual |
6 Weeks |
follow-up: Mindfulness + Reflection Training vs BAU;
|
5.03 |
4.98 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Child Behavior Rating Scale |
Mindfulness and reflection training vs. Business as usual |
6 Weeks |
Follow-up: Mindfulness + Reflection Training vs BAU;
|
36.82 |
36.73 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Theory of mind scale |
Mindfulness and reflection training vs. Business as usual |
2 Weeks |
Postintervention: Mindfulness + Reflection Training vs BAU;
|
2.89 |
3.18 |
No |
-- | ||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Children’s Behavior Questionnaire Very Short Form Negative Affect sub scale |
Mindfulness and reflection training vs. Business as usual |
6 Weeks |
follow-up: Mindfulness + Reflection Training vs BAU;
|
3.64 |
3.53 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Theory of mind scale |
Mindfulness and reflection training vs. Business as usual |
6 Weeks |
Follow-up: Mindfulness + Reflection Training vs BAU;
|
3.06 |
3.20 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Children’s Behavior Questionnaire Very Short Form Surgency sub scale |
Mindfulness and reflection training vs. Business as usual |
6 Weeks |
Follow-up: Mindfulness + Reflection Training vs BAU;
|
4.36 |
4.71 |
No |
-- | ||
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
The study took place in 2 preschools—1 each in the cities of Houston, Texas and Washington, DC—over a 6-week period. Intervention conditions were administered in small groups.
The 218 children who were randomly assigned ranged in age from 47-63 months with a mean age of 57 months (between the ages of 3 and 5 years old) and were 54 percent female. The authors do not provide any other demographic information for the randomized or analytic samples. Houston served children who were primarily Hispanic White, 55 percent White, 9 percent African American, 32 percent more than one race, 3 percent Native American, 97.4 percent Hispanic, and 68 percent Primary language English. Schools in Washington, DC served children who were 100 percent African American.
The Mindfulness + Reflection intervention was provided to children during 30 small-group (8-12 children) sessions. The sessions were 24 minutes daily for 6 weeks. Children participated in a variety of brief mindfulness and relaxation practices adapted for children. Children also played three games designed to challenge executive functioning: head/toes/knees/shoulders, Bear/Dragon/Simon Says, and Mother May I? The mindfulness exercises, typically involving small props, were repeated across sessions. The games each had different amounts of executive function challenge, which allowed instructors to moderately challenge children’s skills. Instructors were also given other teaching techniques for adjusting the challenge level. During the games, instructors encouraged children to notice and discuss their thoughts, emotions, and behavioral tendencies.
Children in the comparison condition received the usual instruction in their regular classrooms. In Houston, this involved regular classroom activities at the Houston school; in Washington, this involved the Second Step social-emotional learning intervention.
The teachers recruited to deliver the 2 study interventions received a full day of training at the University of Minnesota. Two teachers were trained to administer activities in the 14-lesson mindfulness curriculum and three executive function (EF) - challenging games presented with reflection protocols.
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).
Resources
Newsflash
Contact Us
Facebook
Twitter
YouTube