We completed in May 2017 a Time Out Pilot which introduced meditation into one classroom for 10 each at the beginning and ending of the school day. Click here or on the image to take a look. Below you will find our learnings and what we would do differently the next time.
- There is tremendous religious peer pressure against meditation in schools. As a result it is imperative prior to launching Time-Out at a school to have an intro meeting to parents, a follow up meeting and also the opportunity for them to learn and practice prior to you beginning with their kids. You need parents to be advocates for this project against any barriers you will encourager and there will be barriers.
- Same as above but for teachers and administrators at the school.
- Before training the students, decide with the school where Time Out will be practiced and at what times and who will be overseeing it. Build a schedule around it that is set in stone at the school and visit the location at the times set to observe activities and noise levels during those times.
- The Time Out trainer must have a local partner Time out trainer who overseas all and works with the school upon them leaving the country. Or better yet, having a local trainer teacher who is available will be helpful.
- When Time Out is taught to students, the trainer must be at the school every day for the first two week of practice and oversee for at least one week the teachers leading the sessions. After those first 2-3 weeks, they must spot check at least 2 days of the weeks to ensure all is in order.
- When the children are trained there must be bi-weekly meeting with parents and teachers for the first month to ensure everyone is on the same page and questions are being asked and answered.
- Parents and teachers who have taken to the practice really well should be utilized to lead sessions or be buddies to he children in smaller groups to ensure consistency especially when going into weekends and holiday periods
METRICS FOR YOUR USE
The link includes:
- Authentic Happiness Inventory – Measures Overall Happiness
- General Happiness Scale – Assesses Enduring Happiness
- PANAS Questionnaire – Measures Positive and Negative Affect
- CES-D Questionnaire – Measures Depression Symptoms
- Fordyce Emotions Questionnaire – Measures Current Happiness
- Optimism Test – Measures Optimism About the Future
- Transgression Motivations Questionnaire – Measures Forgiveness
- Gratitude Survey – Measures Appreciation about the Past
- Work-Life Questionnaire – Measures Work-Life Satisfaction
- PERMA – Measures Flourishing
Life Satisfaction Questionnaires
- Satisfaction with Life Scale – Measures Life Satisfaction
- Approaches to Happiness – Measures Overall Happiness
- Meaning In Life Questionnaire – Measures Meaningfulness
- Compassionate Love Scale – Measures your tendency to support, help, and understand other people
- Close Relationships Questionnaires – Measures Attachment Style
The State Mindfulness Scale (SMS; Tanay & Bernstein, 2013) is a 21-item measure of mindfulness that reflects the nature of this mental quality as it is formulated in contemporary psychological science and traditional Buddhist texts. Items were selected based on a proposed conceptual model of state mindfulness.
The Mindful Attention Awareness Scale (MAAS), which assesses individual differences in the frequency of mindful states over time. The MAAS is focused on the presence or absence of attention to and awareness of what is occurring in the present rather than on attributes such as acceptance, trust, empathy, gratitude, or the various others that have been associated with mindfulness (e.g., Shapiro & Schwartz, 1999).
The Freiburg Mindfulness Inventory (FMI) is a useful, valid and reliable questionnaire for measuring mindfulness. It is most suitable in generalized contexts, where knowledge of the Buddhist background of mindfulness cannot be expected. The 14 items cover all aspects of mindfulness. The Freiburg Mindfulness Inventory served as a manipulation check on participants’ability to engage in a ‘‘mindful” state, and was also used to measure changes in mindfulness that resulted from the training.
Current mood state
The Profile of Mood States (McNair, Loor, & Droppleman, 1971) is a 65-item inventory that measures current mood state by rating adjective like statements (e.g. I feel calm) on a Likert scale (0–4). It consists of six subscales: tension, depression, confusion, fatigue, anger, and vigor: and a total negative mood score is calculated by subtracting the vigor scale from the sum of the remaining subscales.
The Creativity Styles Questionnaire-Revised (CSQ-R; Kumar & Holman, 1989)measures beliefs about and strategies for going about being creative.
The Schutte Self Report Emotional Intelligence Test (SSEIT): the emotional intelligence scale (EIS) (Schutte et al., 1998). This 33-item selfreport scale, based on the original model by Salovey and Mayer (1990), has been widely used to assess a variety of characteristics of EI, including the appraisal and expression, regulation and utilization of emotion. Schutte et al.(1998) found the scale to have high reliability, with a Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of 0.9 for the 33-item scale, and high validity. Petrides and Furnham (2000a) identified four interpretable factors in the Schutte et al.measure, which were optimism and mood regulation, appraisal of emotions, social skills and the utilization of emotions. We measured each item on a fi ve-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). The higher scores were indicative of higher EI.
The General Health Questionnaire-28 (GHQ-28) scale (Goldberg & Hillier, 1979) is a 28-item self-report scale asks respondents about such recently experienced symptoms or behaviours as somatic symptoms, anxiety and insomnia, social dysfunction and severe depression. Each subscale contains seven items rated on a four-point Likert scale, with binary scoring (0–0–1–1) ranging from 0 (not at all) to 1 (much more than usual). The GHQ-28 is a commonly used instrument with plenty of evidence of reliability and validity. The higher scores indicate poorer mental health (Goldberg & Hillier, 1979).
The Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ) measures depressive, anxiety and somatic symptom scales that have been developed, studied and clinically applied over the past decade constitute valid and efficient instruments for detecting, differentiating and monitoring the SAD triad. The PHQSADS combines all three scales to provide a continuous severity measure of each of these three common and overlapping symptom domains.
The Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale (CES-D) includes 20 items comprising six scales reflecting major dimensions of depression: depressed mood, feelings of guilt and worthlessness, feelingsof helplessness and hopelessness, psychomotor retardation, loss of appetite, and sleep disturbance.
The State Anxiety Inventory is a 20-item scale designed to measure state anxiety (Spielberger, 1983). It has high internal consistency with Cronbach’s alpha of .73 (Spielberger, 1983). Statements like ‘‘I feel worried,” are rated on a four-point scale from 1 (not at all) to 4 (very much so). Scores range from 20 to 80 and higher scores indicate higher levels of anxiety.
The Perceived Stress Scale (PSS) is the most widely used psychological instrument for measuring the perception of stress. It is a measure of the degree to which situations in one’s life are appraised as stressful. Items were designed to tap how unpredictable, uncontrollable, and overloaded respondents find their lives. The scale also includes a number of direct queries about current levels of experienced stress. The PSS was designed for use in community samples with at least a junior high school education. The items are easy to understand, and the response alternatives are simple to grasp. Moreover, the questions are of a general nature and hence are relatively free of content specific to any subpopulation group. The questions in the PSS ask about feelings and thoughts during the last month. In each case, respondents are asked how often they felt a certain way.
Verbal Fluency: Controlled Oral Word Association Test (Benton, 1989) is a measure of verbal fluency in which subjects are asked to say as many words as they can think of beginning with the letters ‘‘F, A, and S”, or ‘‘C, F, and L” within one minute. The dependent measure is the total number of words produced.
Complex visual tracking and working memory: The Symbol Digit Modalities Test (Smith, 1982), written version, is a measure of complex visual tracking and working memory that requires decoding of a series of numbers listed on paper according to a corresponding template of visual symbols. With the use of a reference key, participants were given 90 s to accurately match numbers with corresponding geometric figures. The dependent measure is number of symbols coded minus errors
Memory span/recall: The forward/backward digit span (Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale-Revised (WAIS-R) (Wechsler, 1981) was used to measure immediate memory span. The dependent measures are total forward digit span and total backward digit span. In the forward digit span, subjects can correctly repeat back a span of up to16 digits. In the backward version, subjects can recite back a span of up to 14 digits backwards. Higher scores are indicative of higher memory recall.
Information processing speed, working memory and attention: The computer adaptive n-back task is an adaptive, accuracy selectable, 2-back task that consists of 54 trials and was developed in order to measure information processing speed, working memory and attention. It represents an advancement over previously used n-back tasks (as cited inStrauss, Sherman, & Spreen, 2006) because it corrects for the accuracy-speed confound by allowing the experimenter to set desired accuracy levels and by equating accuracy levels across groups. The program’s algorithms (V2ASQQQQ) variably adjust the presentation speed based on individual trial responses, response patterns and multiple accuracy windows to a value that supports the desired accuracy. Participants view a sequence of letters and indicate whether or not a probe letter is the ‘‘same” or ‘‘different” as the stimulus item presented two items back. The program computes two measures – speed of processing and ‘‘extended hit rate” (representing a run of correct responses). A measure of accuracy was also computed to make sure that there were functionally equivalent levels across groups.