Mindfulness-Based Interventions for Teachers: A Meta-Analysis of the Emerging Evidence-Base
David Klingbeil, Tyler Renshaw
PsyArXiv October 1, 2018 preprint DOI: 10.31234/osf.io/589jq (opens in new tab)
Study at a glance
AI-extracted from the abstract| Characteristics | Meta-analysis |
|---|---|
| Sample size | 1,493 |
| Population | Pre-K through grade 12 teachers |
| Intervention | Mindfulness-based interventions |
| Topics | Meditation |
| Key findings | Mindfulness-based interventions showed a medium overall effect on teacher outcomes (g = .601), though publication bias analyses suggested this may be an overestimate. Effects were small-to-medium for therapeutic processes and outcomes and smallest for classroom climate and instructional practices. No examined study-level moderator was statistically significant. |
Abstract
Teachers report high levels of occupational stress, which is associated with teacher turnover and potential negative consequences for students. Mindfulness-based interventions (MBIs) may improve the protective factors that buffer educators against occupational stress. Although previous meta-analytic reviews synthesized the effects of MBIs for healthy and clinical samples of adults, this study was the first to synthesize the effects of MBIs for teachers (grades pre-K through 12). A total of 347 effect sizes from 29 studies (N = 1,493) were synthesized using meta-regression with robust variance estimation. Overall, MBIs had a medium treatment effect on teacher outcomes (g = .601, SE = .089). Visual and statistical evidence of publication bias suggested this estimate may be positively biased. Three potential study-level moderators for overall effects were also examined, but none were statistically significant. MBIs were associated with small-to-medium positive effects on therapeutic processes and therapeutic outcomes. MBIs had the smallest effects on measures of classroom climate and instructional practices. Overall, findings were similar to other meta-analytic reviews of MBIs for non-clinical adult populations and working professionals. The literature on MBIs for teachers appears to have similar gaps as research on MBIs for adults (e.g., Davison & Kaszniak, 2015), including the primary use of self-report measures, the lack of active treatment comparisons, and rare reporting of treatment fidelity data. Directions for future research and implications are discussed. [*Note: Supplemental online materials cited in the paper are included in the preprint document following the main paper.]