Contemporary School Psychology (2023) 27:104–117

https://doi.org/10.1007/s40688-022-00433-5

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW

Mindfulness Measures for Children and Adolescents: a Systematic

Review
Stacy L. Bender1 · Tamara Lawson2 · Andrea Molina Palacios1

Accepted: 27 September 2022 / Published online: 13 October 2022

© The Author(s), under exclusive licence to California Association of School Psychologists 2022

Abstract
Mindfulness-based interventions (MBIs) are increasingly being implemented in school settings for children and adolescents.
Although positive outcomes have been documented for youth, less is known about the constructs of mindfulness (e.g., inten-
tion, attention, awareness, nonjudgement) that contribute to positive outcomes or how they are measured. Systematically
identifying measures will facilitate improved understanding of what constructs of mindfulness are captured. The current
study systematically reviewed literature to identify child and adolescent mindfulness measures from 2000 to 2021. Multiple
search engines including PsycTest, PsycInfo, Psycarticles, NCBI, US National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of
Health, APA PsychTest, and Google Scholar were used. Results of the current study describe a variety of measures to cap-
ture mindfulness and may be useful for researchers and practitioners implementing and/or evaluating mindfulness practices
in schools. Eleven youth self-report measures designed for youth 5 to 18 years old were identified. A little more than half
measured mindfulness multidimensionally (multiple constructs of mindfulness). Constructs commonly included on measures
were attention, awareness, and assessment of one’s own internal and external experiences. Descriptive information (e.g.,
target age range, description of mindfulness constructs) is provided for each measure. Future directions include continued
investigation of validity, particularly content validity for youth mindfulness measures, and examining how the use of multiple
methods and/or raters could contribute to an understanding of youth’s mindfulness experience. Additional implications for
the field of school psychology and limitations of the study are discussed.

Keywords Mindfulness · Measures · Children · Adolescents

Introduction it is described as “paying attention in a particular way: on

purpose, in the present moment, and nonjudgmentally” (p.
The use and promotion of secular mindfulness practices and 4). The interpretation of mindfulness as bare attention was
mindfulness-based interventions (MBIs) for youth have been quickly accepted by the Western world and many scholars
increasing in their use across a variety of settings in the started to operationalize it, while also detaching mindfulness
USA (e.g., Renshaw & Cook, 2017). Mindfulness has been from its Buddhist roots transforming it into secular mindful-
a Buddhist practice since ancient times, making its way to ness (See Lee, 2018; Marx, 2015; and Sun, 2014 for further
the Western world as a therapeutic tool only a few decades readings on the origin of mindfulness and its translation to
ago (Sun, 2014). The Western practice of mindfulness is the Western world).
based on the ambiguous, and perhaps flawed, translation Historically in the United States, MBIs were used in
of sati as conscience, which then was interpreted as “bare practice and in research with adults experiencing chronic
attention.” Introduced by Jon Kabat-Zinn (1994) to the USA, illness. This work has contributed to the foundational and
successful work of various MBI programs such as Mindful-
ness-Based Stress Reduction (MBSR; Stahl & Goldstein,
* Stacy L. Bender 2010), Mindfulness-Based Cognitive Therapy (MBCT;
[email protected] Segal et al., 2002), Mindfulness-Based Relapse Prevention
1 (MBPT; Bowen et al., 2021), Dialectical Behavioral Therapy
University of Massachusetts Boston, 100 Morrissey Blvd,
Boston, MA 02125, USA (DBT; Linehan et al., 1993), and Acceptance and Commit-
2 ment Therapy (ACT; Hayes et al., 1999). Given the success
University of Arizona, Tucson, USA

13
Contemporary School Psychology (2023) 27:104–117 105

of MBIs for adults, researchers and clinicians have adapted in schools, it is also imperative to explore mindfulness
its use for youth (Zenner et al., 2014) and there has been a constructs (i.e., cognitive reappraisal, present attention,
rise of mindfulness interventions, curricula, and program- awareness, nonjudgment, emotion regulation; Ma & Fang,
ming within educational contexts (e.g., Bender et al., 2018; 2019) or processes to understand what is activated during
Renshaw & Cook, 2017). Within schools, mindfulness has intervention. In one recent meta-analysis, Klingbeil et al.,
been incorporated into established mental health interventions (2017a, 2017b) found that only 19.7% of articles measured
(e.g., DBT; ACT), school-based social-emotional learning mindfulness constructs. In these studies, MBIs were associ-
(SEL) curriculum (e.g., Second Step; Committee for Children, ated with increased mindfulness skills (g = 0.510). At the
2014), and stand-alone mindfulness skill-building and inter- same time, student outcomes included reduced internalized
vention programs (e.g., MindUP; Maloney et al., 2016). It has problems (g = 0.39) and externalized problems (g = 0.29),
also been implemented in schools with educators. In addition and improved prosocial behavior and social competence
to positive outcomes found for youth, a recent systematic (g = 0.36). This review is one of the first meta-analyses to
review concluded that it is effective in reducing teachers’ link and examine MBIs, mindfulness constructs, and out-
stress levels (Emerson et al., 2017). comes of MBIs. Further work in the area of mindfulness
MBIs in schools have been viewed as techniques that can constructs is needed. Felver et al. (2016) has noted the lack
be used to activate mindfulness processes to improve a spe- of detail reported by researchers and the need to further
cific outcome. More specifically, Renshaw & Cook (2017) evaluate different aspects of mindfulness implementation
conceptualize mindfulness skills as “…specific practices to better understand mindfulness as a construct and process.
that activate mindfulness processes, such as deep breath- Erisman & Roemer (2012) define mindfulness process as
ing or body scan, for the purpose of achieving an immedi- “the ability to notice when one is not attending to the present
ate therapeutic effect” (p. 6) and “can refer more broadly to moment and repeatedly redirect attention back to open, curi-
one’s ability to orient attention toward immediate experience ous, nonjudgmental present awareness” (p. 694). Examining
and then relate to that experience in a purposeful and posi- the processes that may cause the outcome is important as
tive way, which is not bound by use of particular practices” this will aid in understanding the link between process (e.g.,
(p. 6). This conceptualization is important for research and awareness, nonjudgment) and outcomes (e.g., lower stress,
practice, particularly in schools, given that it is framed as a improved behavior) when implementing MBIs with youth.
teachable practice. As Christopher and colleagues (2015) note, the utilization
Outcomes of MBIs are commonly studied for students in of self-reported mindfulness measures is a way to measure
schools. For example, MBIs have been implemented with mindfulness processes, rather than behavior measures or
adolescents with Attention-Deficit/ Hyperactivity Disorder grades, as MBI outcomes are often measured for youth in
(ADHD) symptoms (Tercelli & Ferreira, 2019), minoritized schools. Therefore, one way to improve understanding of
children with depression symptoms (Dunning et al., 2019; mindfulness processes is to examine the measures that cap-
Liehr & Diaz, 2010), and children with learning and anxi- ture mindfulness constructs. However, a recent systematic
ety disorders (Beauchemin et al., 2008; Odgers et al., 2020) review of school based MBIs over the past 15 years indi-
to decrease symptomology and improve quality of life. A cated that only about 20% of studies that implement MBIs
recent study conducted by Lemberger-Truelove et al. (2021) actually measure mindfulness constructs before, during, or
found that students who received MBI and social-emotional after intervention (Molina Palacios et al., in press), which is
interventions demonstrated improvements in their tolerance consistent with the work of Klingbeil et al., (2017a, 2017b).
to stress, social curiosity, executive functioning skills, and To adequately and accurately capture what and if mindful-
academic achievement (i.e., mathematics, science, Eng- ness processes change in intervention, measurement of these
lish, and social studies). Furthermore, Felver et al. (2016) constructs (e.g., intention, attention, awareness, nonjudge-
reviewed 28 studies of MBIs and found decreased internal- ment) and not just outcomes that are intended as a result
ized problems (n = 15), decreased externalized problems of intervention implementation (e.g., depression, anxiety,
(n = 6), and improved executive functioning (n = 4) for behavior, academic achievement) are imperative.
students. Furthermore, increased prosocial behavior and Research has demonstrated that mindfulness is predomi-
positive affect were also reported in several studies. Taken nantly measured via self-report for adults (e.g., Sauer et al.,
together, youth outcomes for MBIs are generally positive 2013), however, less is known about youth-focused mind-
and beneficial across multiple skills and domains including fulness measures. In a review conducted by Eklund and
behavior, social-emotional functioning, cognitive skills, and colleagues (2017), it was concluded that mindfulness in
school performance. children and adolescents is often measured directly via self-
While outcomes (e.g., improved behavior, improved report given the introspective nature of mindfulness (Eklund
social-emotional functioning) of MBIs are important to et al., 2017); however, this poses challenges for developmen-
evaluate and have been the primary focus of MBI research tally younger students (Lemberger-Truelove et al., 2021).

13
Vol.:(0123456789)
106 Contemporary School Psychology (2023) 27:104–117

Less frequently, mindfulness is evaluated indirectly (rated (i.e., MSQ) and trait (i.e., CHIME-A, MAAS-C, MTASA,
by adults) by examining youth’s skills related to mindful- MSPTA) mindfulness and it is important to consider these
ness (e.g., self-regulation; Zhang et al., 2022) or by observ- tools when implementing MBI for youth.
ing behavior (e.g., time on task in the classroom; Eklund Given the proliferation of MBIs in research and the ben-
et al., 2017). In their review, the researchers identified three efits found for youth, practitioners and researchers continue
youth self-report measures including the Child and Adoles- to implement MBIs and evaluate outcomes. For research-
cent Mindfulness Measure (CAMM; Greco et al., 2011), the ers to fill the gaps in the literature that exist and attempt to
Mindful Attention Awareness Scale – Adolescents (MAAS- examine the effectiveness of mindfulness, it is imperative to
A; Brown et al., 2011), and the Mindful Thinking and Action understand what measures are available to evaluate mindful-
Scale for adolescents (MTASA; West et al., 2007). ness. Previous research has identified youth measures and
In another systematic review, Goodman and colleagues provided descriptions of tools (e.g., Eklund et al., 2017),
(2017) identified seven self-report measures for youth. Of the however, an updated systematic review of mindfulness
self-report measures, only four of the scales were published self-report measures for children and adolescents is nec-
and validated (i.e., CAMM, MAAS-A, MAAS-C, Compre- essary given the increased number of measures that have
hensive Inventory of Mindfulness Experiences-Adolescent been widely used and developed, as well as explore what
[CHIME-A]), while the other scales were doctoral disserta- measures assess state or trait mindfulness. To enhance the
tions, conference presentations (i.e., Mindful Thinking and quality of research conducted in this area, it is important to
Action Scale for Adolescents [MTASA], Mindfulness Scale be aware of and select the measurement tools available to
for Pre-Teens, Teens, and Adults [MSPTA]), or described adequately capture mindfulness for children and adolescents.
as an experimental measure that has not been psychometri- The research questions in the current systematic review were
cally evaluated (i.e., Mindfulness Inventory for Children and as follows:
Adolescents [MICA]). Some of the measures listed above 1. What instruments are available for measuring mindful-
measure the mindfulness as a unidimensional construct (no ness with youth?
subscales) (CAMM, MAAS-A, MAAS-C), while others 2. What mindfulness constructs are evaluated by each
measure between four to eight constructs (MTASA, MSPTA, measure?
MICA, CHIME-A). Goodman et al. (2017) reported that
many of the MBI measures mentioned above did not show
strong correlations between scales, which may lead to “items
being interpreted differently, or different facets of mindful- Method
ness may be assessed by each measure” (Goodman et al.,
2017, p. 1416). Additionally, it was reported that although Procedure
these scales were validated, many of them have limitations in
how they measure mindfulness in children and adolescents. Multiple search engines were used to conduct the systematic
Goodman and colleagues (2017) highlighted the importance review. These included PsycTest, PsycINFO, PsycArticles,
of continued investigation of measures that evaluate mind- NCBI, US National Library of Medicine, National Institutes
fulness for youth. This is important given that reliable and Health, and Google Scholar. Child and adolescent mind-
valid measures help to improve the breadth, depth, and rigor fulness measures were identified through keyword searches
of MBI research. including the following: “mindfulness scale(s),” “adolescent
Mindfulness measures can be classified between those mindfulness scale(s),” “child mindfulness scale(s),” “mind-
measuring trait or state mindfulness constructs. Trait mind- fulness measures,” “adolescent mindfulness measure(s),”
fulness measures assess one’s predisposition to be mindful, “child mindfulness measure(s),” “mindfulness adoles-
which is a stable characteristic or enduring behavioral pat- cents,” “mindfulness children,” “mindfulness-based scales,”
tern (Kiken et al, 2015). On the other hand, state mindfulness “mindfulness-based scales adolescents,” “mindfulness-based
evaluates the degree to which someone engages in mindful- scales children,” “mindfulness meditation for adolescents,”
ness at a particular time, which reflects an individual’s expe- “mindfulness meditation for children.” The test and meas-
rience during a certain time or situation (Medvedev et al., ure function through EBSCO host tools and APAPsychTest
2017). State mindfulness is fluid and context dependent, were used to verify and confirm measures found using the
such as during an MBI, whereas trait mindfulness captures search terms listed above. When an article’s focus was on a
long-term effects of MBIs (Truong et al., 2020). Medve- measure or an article included a mindfulness measure used
dev and colleagues (2017) noted that with the increase of in their study, the measures were searched individually by
MBIs, measuring trait and state mindfulness is imperative to title. Accessing reference lists of relevant and key articles
explore which is enhanced through MBIs (Carsley & Heath, and searching for articles were also employed. The initial
2019; Greco et al., 2011). There are tools that measure state search produced 161,334 articles from PsycTest, PsycINFO,

13
Contemporary School Psychology (2023) 27:104–117 107

and PsycArticles and 17,500 from Google Scholar, for a total Response options range from 0 = Never true to 4 = Always
of 178,834 articles and 15 measures. true. A higher score on the CAMM represents higher levels
The authors applied inclusion and exclusion criteria to all of trait mindfulness within an individual. Total scale internal
potential articles and measures found in the initial search. consistency varied for a sample of 319 children and adoles-
Inclusion criteria required that the measure: (1) included the cents but is reported to be acceptable for both (α = 0.71 for
term mindful or mindfulness in the title of the measure or in children, α = 0.80 for adolescents) and factor analysis of the
the name of one or more constructs; (2) reported to assess CAMM confirms a one-dimensional factor structure (Kuby
one or more constructs of mindfulness; (3) was designed et al., 2015). Scores are positively correlated with quality of
for children or adolescents; (4) published in English; and life, academic competence, and social skills, and negatively
(5) was self-report. Measures that have been published in correlated with internalizing symptoms and externalizing
peer-reviewed journals and those that were not published behavioral problems. In addition to English, the CAMM is
in peer-reviewed journals were included. Measures with a available in Spanish (García-Rubio et al., 2019; Viñas et al.,
range of psychometric data were included. Measures were 2015), Dutch (de Bruin et al., 2014), Greek (Theofanous
excluded if they failed to meet the above criteria. In addi- et al., 2020), and French (Roux et al., 2019). This measure
tion, measures that evaluated physiological or biological has been commonly used in schools (Mezo et al., 2020) and
outcomes, targeted a specific diagnosis (e.g., substance is available for public use.
abuse, trauma), created for use in a specific context (e.g.,
workplace), or evaluated the implementation of specific Child and Adolescent Mindfulness Measure‑Revised
intervention components were excluded. For example, the (CAMM‑R; Mezo et al., 2020)
Mindfulness Organizing Scale (MOS; Magnano et al., 2017)
was excluded because it examined employees’ mindfulness The CAMM-R is an adapted version of the CAMM (Greco
from a workplace perspective and focused on adults. The et al., 2011). This revised version improved accessibility for
other excluded measures were: Mindful Eating Question- children by modifying language and creating a visual analog
naire for Children (MEQ-C; Hart et al., 2018) and the Sexual scale (VAS) format, which potentially increases comprehen-
Mindfulness Measure (SMM; Leavitt et al., 2020) given that sion for children (McGrath et al., 1996, cited in Mezo et al.,
their focus was a specific biological function (eating and sex- 2020). The original 10 items from the CAMM were retained,
uality), and Relaxation-Mindfulness Scale for Adolescents and 7 of the items were revised, improving the readability
(EREMIND-A; López-González et al., 2018) which was score. Similar to the original CAMM, items are negatively
published in Spanish. A total of 11 measures were included worded (or using a negative descriptor), and reverse scored.
in the study after excluding four measures. An example item reads as “I get mad for having weird
feelings.” Response options range from 0 = Never true to
4 = Always true using a VAS with descriptive categories on
Results both ends to enhance and clarify children’s understanding
of the response options. Items are summed for a total one-
A total of 11 mindfulness measures for youth were identi- dimensional mindfulness score, with higher scores repre-
fied in the current study. All measures were self-report and senting higher levels of mindfulness. The CAMM-R was
ranged from use with kindergarten to high school-age stu- validated with 53 African American, low socio-economic
dents. Measures frequently included attention and aware- status children from kindergarten through fourth grade to
ness constructs and assessed one’s awareness of internal measure trait mindfulness (Mezo et al., 2020). Total scale
and external experiences. The following provides detailed internal consistency for the CAMM-R was found to be
information about each of the mindfulness measures and are α = 0.79. Although factor analysis of the CAMM confirms
listed in alphabetical order (Table 1). a one-dimensional factor structure, factor analysis has not
been conducted with the CAMM-R. The measure is avail-
Child and Adolescent Mindfulness Measure (CAMM; able in English and can be requested from the authors of
Greco et al., 2011) the measure.

The CAMM has been validated for youth ages 10–17 years Comprehensive Inventory of Mindfulness
who are presenting with clinical or non-clinical challenges. Experiences‑Adolescents (CHIME‑A; Johnson et al.,
The CAMM is composed of 10 Likert-style self-report state- 2017)
ments. All items are negatively worded (or using a negative
descriptor), and reverse scored, with the score indicating The CHIME-A is a self-report trait mindfulness question-
one’s overall Mindfulness level. For example, one item reads naire validated with 498 youth ages 12 to 14 years (Johnson
as, “I stop myself from having feelings that I don’t like.” et al., 2017) and adapted from the Comprehensive Inventory

13
 108

13
Table 1  Mindfulness measures for youth
Measure Number Age/grade range Constructs Psychometrics available Availability
of items

Child and Adolescent Mindfulness Measure 10 10–17 years Observing, acting with awareness, and accept- Total scale internal consistency acceptable Free for public use
(CAMM; Greco et al., 2011) ing without judgment (α = .71 for children, α = .80 for adolescents)
Child and Adolescent Mindfulness Measure- 10 5–10 years Observing, acting with awareness, and accept- Total scale internal consistency acceptable Contact developer
Revised (CAMM-R; Mezo et al., 2020) ing without judgment (α = .79)
Comprehensive Inventory of Mindfulness 25 14–18 Awareness of internal and external experi- Subscale internal consistencies accept- Contact developer
Experiences- Adolescents (CHIME-A; ences, acting in awareness, openness, able (α = 0.65–0.77). Poor overall internal
Johnson, et al., 2017) decentering/non-reactivity, accepting and consistency exists (Johnson et al., 2017),
nonjudgement, relativity of thoughts, and suggesting a total CHIME-A score should
insightful understanding not be used
Five Facet Mindfulness Questionnaire- Ado- 25 14–18 Acting awareness, describe, nonjudgment, and Subscale internal consistencies acceptable Free for public use
lescent- Short form (FFMQ- A-Short Form nonreactivity (α = .61–.88)
(Cortazar et al., 2020)
Mindful Attention Awareness Scale- Adoles- 14 14–18 Mindfulness Total scale internal consistency acceptable Free for public use
cents (MAAS-A; Brown et al., 2011) (α = .82–.86)
Mindful Attention Awareness Scale- Children 15 9–13 Mindfulness Total scale internal consistency acceptable Available in Law-
(MAAS-C; Benn unpublished data; Lawlor (α = .84) lor et al., 2014
et al., 2014) article
Mindful Student Questionnaire (MSQ; Ren- 15 10–14 Mindful attention, mindful acceptance, and Subscale internal consistencies acceptable Contact developer
shaw, 2017) approach and persistence behavior (α =  > .70)
Mindful Thinking and Action Scale for Ado- 32 13–17 Active attention, awareness and observation, Total scale internal consistency acceptable Contact developers
lescents (MTASA; West, et al., 2007) self-regulation, and accepting experience (α = .85)
Mindfulness Inventory for Children and Ado- 25 8–18 Self-acceptance, present-centered awareness, The MICA has not yet been psychometrically Contact developer
lescents (MICA; Briere, 2011) equanimity, metacognitive awareness, and evaluated or validated (Goodman et al.,
acceptance of internal experience 2017)
Mindfulness Scale for Pre-Teens, Teens, and 19 9–25 Attention and awareness, being non-reactivity, Total scale and subscale internal consistencies Contact developer
Adults (MSPTA; Droutman, 2015) being non-judgement, and being non-self- acceptable (α = .71–.84)
critical
Self-Compassion Scale for Youth (SCS-Y; 17 11–15 Self-kindness, self-judgement, common Total scale internal consistency acceptable Free for public use
Neff et al., 2021) humanity, isolation, mindfulness, overidenti- (α = .82–.85)
fication, and self-compassion
Contemporary School Psychology (2023) 27:104–117
Contemporary School Psychology (2023) 27:104–117 109

of Mindfulness Experiences for Adults (CHIME; Bergomi with awareness, observe, describe, nonjudging of inner
et al., 2013). The CHIME-A is composed of 25 Likert-style experience, and nonreactivity to inner experience. The total
self-report statements. Items are negatively worded (writ- scale and subscales demonstrated evidence of discriminant
ten using a negative descriptor), and reverse scored. For (perspective taking, r =  − 0.14 to 0.28; prosocial behavior,
example, one item reads, “I don’t like it when I am angry r =  − 11 to 0.11; prosocial behavior, r =  − 0.07 to 0.18),
or scared and try to get rid of these emotions.” Response convergent (self-compassion, r = 0.25 to 0.68) validity. The
options range from 0 = Never true to 4 = Always true. The FFMQ total score also demonstrated incremental predic-
CHIME-A contains eight constructs: awareness of internal tive validity for life satisfaction, perceived stress, positive
experiences, awareness of external experiences, acting with affect, negative affect, and rumination, using a sample size
awareness, openness to experience, decentering and no reac- of 599 high school students (Abujaradeh et al., 2020). The
tivity, accepting and nonjudgmental orientation, relativity of FFMQ-A-SF demonstrated adequate internal consistency
thoughts, and insightful understanding. Convergent validity (α = 0.82 to 0.85) across multiple assessment times with
between the CHIME-A and well-being, as measured by the subscales ranging from α = 0.61 to 0.88 and strong correla-
Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Health Wellbeing Scale (WEM- tions between the FFMQ-A-SF and FFMQ-A (α = 0.93 to
WBAS) resulted in item-total correlations ranging from 0.96) subscales. Confirmatory factor analysis conducted by
0.52 to 0.85 and divergent validity between the CHIME-A the authors of the measure indicated support for the five-
and negative affect (item correlations ranged from 0.24 to factor structure (Cortazar et al., 2020), whereas a separate
0.78), depression (r = 0.52–0.79) and anxiety (r = 0.26–0.68) confirmatory factor analysis of the measure suggested a four-
as measured on the Depression Anxiety Stress Scale-Short factor structure (removal of Observe construct and one item
Form (DASS-21) have been reported to be acceptable (John- from the Describe construct) (Abujaradeh et al., 2020). The
son et al., 2017). Test–retest reliability has been conducted FFMQ-A -SF is available in English and can be requested
on the CHIME-A and was found to be consistent with other from the developers.
studies of adolescent measures of mindfulness and social-
emotional functioning ranging from 0.63 to 0.79. Factor
analysis indicated an 8-factor model and good internal con- Mindful Attention Awareness Scale for Adolescents
sistency was held across all 8 subscales (α = 0.65–0.77). (MAAS‑A; Brown et al., 2011)
According to the authors, because more than 10 items con-
tained a negative item-total correlation within hierarchical The MAAS-A measures trait mindfulness and is validated
models, this illustrates unacceptable internal consistency for use with youth ages 14–18 years who are presenting with
(r =  − 0.06 to 0.63 in model 1 and r =  − 0.04 to 0.59 in mod- clinical or non-clinical challenges. This is an adaptation of
els 2 and 3) (Johnson et al., 2017), and do not suggest using the Mindful Attention Awareness Scale (MAAS) for adults.
a total CHIME-A score. The CHIME-A is available in Eng- The MAAS-A is composed of 14 Likert-style self-report
lish. This measure has been used in school-based settings items and are negatively worded (written using a negative
for research (e.g., Johnson & Wade, 2021). According to the descriptor) such as “I tend not to notice feelings of physical
authors of the measure, the measure is available by request. tension or discomfort until they really grab my attention.”
Responses range from 1 = Almost always to 6 = Almost
Five Facet Mindfulness Questionnaire never. It contains the same items as the MAAS, except for
Adolescent‑Short Form (FFMQ‑A‑SF; Cortazar et al., one item (i.e., “I drive places on ‘automatic pilot’ and then
2020 wonder why I went there”) to improve appropriateness for
the target age group. High scores on the MAAS-A suggest
The FFMQ-A-SF is a trait mindfulness measure validated higher levels of mindfulness and low scores suggest lower
for ages 10–18 years. It is a shortened version of the FFMQ- levels of mindfulness. The MAAS-A total scale demon-
A and was adapted from the adult short-form FFMQ (Tran strates good internal reliability (study 1, α = 0.82 to 0.84;
et al., 2013). The FFMQ-A-SF contains 25-items that are study 2, α = 0.86) (Brown et al., 2011) with a sample of 595
positively (written using a positive descriptor and without a adolescent youth. Factor analysis conducted by the meas-
negated word) and negatively worded (written using a nega- ure’s author indicated a one-dimensional structure. (Brown
tive descriptor). Example items include “I can easily put my et al., 2011). MAAS-A scores have been found to be posi-
beliefs, opinions, and expectations into words” (positively tively correlated with self-regulation, quality of life, and
worded) and “I don’t pay attention to what I’m doing because wellness and negatively correlated with stress, rumination,
I’m daydreaming, worrying, or otherwise distracted” (nega- and catastrophizing. The measure is available in English and
tively worded). Response format follows a Likert-style from Dutch (de Bruin et al., 2011). The MAAS-A have been used
1 (Never or Very Rarely True) to 5 (Very Often or Always in school settings (Patton et al., 2019) and is available for
True). This measure assesses five constructs including acting public use.

13
110 Contemporary School Psychology (2023) 27:104–117

Mindful Attention Awareness Scale for Children mindful thinking and action in children and adolescents. The
(MAAS‑C; Benn, Unpublished Data) MTASA is a 32-item self-report Likert style measure with
items both positively (written using a positive descriptor
The MAAS-C examines trait mindfulness for youth ages 9 to and without a negated word) and negatively worded (writ-
13 years and is an adaptation of the MAAS. The MAAS-C is ten using a negative descriptor). Response options range
comprised of 15 items. Items are negatively worded (written from 1 = Never to 5 = Almost always. The four constructs
using a negative descriptor), and reverse scored. An example include active attention, awareness and observation, healthy
of a question on the measure is “I snack without being aware self-regulation (HSR), and accepting experience (West,
that I am eating.” Responses range from 1 = Almost never to 2008). Exploratory factor analysis supported the four-factor
6 = Almost always and higher scores represent higher levels model and has good overall total scale internal consistency
of mindfulness. The MAAS-C total scale shows good internal (α = 0.85) with a sample of 600 non-clinical youth (West,
reliability (α = 0.84) with a sample of 386 children in grade 2008). The HSR construct of the MTASA has shown posi-
4–7 (Lawlor et al., 2014) and exploratory factor analysis tive correlations with the CAMM and MAAS-A (de Bruin
indicated a one-dimensional structure and high internal con- et al., 2014). MTASA is available in English and available
sistency (α = 0.84). Scores on the MAAS-C have been posi- upon request from the developers.
tively correlated with optimism, positive affect, and academic
achievement and negatively correlated with depression, anxi- Mindfulness Inventory for Children and Adolescents
ety, and rumination. The measure is available in English. It can (MICA; Briere, 2011)
be accessed in Lawlor and colleagues’ (2014) article.
The MICA is intended for youth ages 8 to 18 years to meas-
Mindful Student Questionnaire (MSQ; Renshaw, ure trait mindfulness. The MICA items and constructs were
2017) created by a subject-matter expert who integrated Buddhist
concepts of mindfulness and a psychological understanding
The MSQ is a state mindfulness measure validated for use of child cognitive development (Briere, 2011). The MICA
with 6th–8th grade students and specifically to be used in is comprised of 25-items and are worded positively (written
school settings. The MSQ contains 15 items that are posi- using a positive descriptor and without a negated word) and
tively worded (written using a positive descriptor and with- negatively (written using a negative descriptor). Responses
out a negated word) and are phrased to directly represent the on the measure range from 1 = Disagree a lot to 5 = Agree
constructs of interest. Ranges of responses are 1 = Almost a lot. The MICA measures five constructs of mindfulness
never to 4 = Almost always. Items of the MSQ focus on three including: self-acceptance, present-centered awareness,
constructs: mindfulness attention, mindfulness acceptance, equanimity, metacognitive awareness, and acceptance of
and approach and persistence. The MSQ was validated using internal experience (Goodman et al., 2017). The MICA has
278 adolescents and demonstrated structural and convergent not yet been psychometrically evaluated or validated there-
validity between MSQ subscales and subscales on the Stu- fore reliability, validity, and factor analysis data cannot be
dent Subjective Wellbeing Questionnaire (SSWQ; Renshaw reported. This measure has only been developed in the Eng-
et al., 2015) and the SSRA which was adapted from the Cali- lish language (Goodman et al., 2017) and is available from
fornia Healthy Kids Survey (WestEd, 2014) (ranged from the author of the MICA.
α = 0.19 to 0.55). Higher correlations were found between
the MSQ subscales and expected subscales such as mindful Mindfulness Scale for Pre‑Teens, Teens, and Adults
acceptance and mindful attention and lower between MSQ (MSPTA; Droutman, 2015)
subscales and school connectedness and academic achieve-
ment. Adequate internal consistency for the three subscales The MSPTA has been created to measure trait mindfulness
(α =  > 0.70), and factor analysis confirming a three-factor with youth ages 9–19 years and with young adults ages
model (Renshaw, 2017) have also been found. The MSQ is 17–25 years (Droutman, 2015). The MSPTA is comprised
available in English and has been used in educational set- of 19–items that are both positively (written using a positive
tings for research (e.g., Kielty et al., 2017). For access to the descriptor and without a negated word) and negatively (writ-
MSQ, contact the measure developer. ten using a negative descriptor) worded. Response options
range from 1 = Never true to 5 = Always true. The four
Mindful Thinking and Action Scale for Adolescents mindfulness constructs evaluated on the measure include:
(MTASA; West et al., 2007) attention and awareness, being non-reactive, being non-judg-
mental, and being non-self-critical. MSPTA was validated
The MTASA measures trait mindfulness for adolescents with children, adolescents, and adults, and demonstrated
ages 13 to 17 years. This scale was designed to assess good overall total scale internal reliability (α = 0.84) and

13
Contemporary School Psychology (2023) 27:104–117 111

acceptable internal reliability across constructs (α = 0.71 to and understanding of mindfulness measures to support their
0.77). Factor analysis confirmed the four-factor model of the work with youth.
measure (Goodman et al., 2017). The MSPTA is the only A total of 11 child and adolescent measures were identi-
scale available that is validated on pre-adolescents to adults fied and examined. Three (CAMM, MASS-A, FFMQ) of the
(Droutman, 2015). MSPTA is available in English and upon 11 measures were available in languages other than English
request from the developers. including Dutch, Italian, Spanish, French, and Greek. Five
(CAMM, MAAS-A, MAAS-C, FFMQ and SCS-Y) of the 11
Self‑Compassion Scale ‑Youth Version (SCS‑Youth; measures are publicly available online with the remaining
Neff et al., 2021) accessible through their respective authors.
Of the measures found, four assessed a unidimensional
The SCS-Y measures self-compassion (a component of construct of mindfulness, whereas six measures evaluated
mindfulness) and can be used with adolescents ages 11–15. multiple facets of mindfulness, as evidenced by multiple
The SCS-Y was adapted from the SCS. This measure con- constructs being included on the measure. One measure
tains 17 items that are written positively (written using a included the option of evaluating mindfulness multidimen-
positive descriptor and without a negated word) and nega- sionally on six constructs as well as provided instructions on
tively (written using a negative descriptor) worded items. how to combine them to yield a total unidimensional mind-
An example of a positively worded item is “I try to be kind fulness construct. Almost all measures (n = 9) had either
and supportive to myself when I’m having a hard time” exploratory or confirmatory factor analyses conducted to
and an example of a negatively worded item is “I get mad confirm the factor structure. This finding is not surprising,
at myself for not being better at some things.” Response as it is reflective of research indicating that mindfulness is
options range from 1 = Almost never to 5 = Almost always. not a unidimensional concept (Goodman et al., 2017; Van
The six constructs on the SCS-Y are self-kindness, self- Dam et al., 2018) and rather more adequately captured using
judgement, common humanity, isolation, mindfulness, and constructs such as awareness, nonjudgmental acceptance,
overidentification. The option of a total score can also be and present-moment attention (Blanke & Brose, 2017), a
calculated by taking the total mean of the six constructs model that is aligned with Kabat-Zinn's definition of mind-
means. The SCS-Y demonstrated good internal consistency fulness in the USA. Measures often included attention and
(α = 0.82 and 0.85) in two different studies (both studies awareness constructs and assessed one’s awareness of inter-
within Neff et al., 2021) and factor analysis confirmed the nal and external experiences. All measures reviewed were
use of six constructs and one general total construct for the self-report measures ranging from 7 to 65 items per scale.
measure using a sample of 279 youth ranging between the The youngest self-report measure of mindfulness could be
ages of 11–15 years old. Test–retest reliability ( r = 0.51 to used with children aged 9 years (MSPTA; Droutman, 2015),
0.83) results suggested that the SCS-Y is a stable measure with some indication that measurements may be appropriate
of self-compassion over time. Results have also supported for participants as young as 7 years old (MAAS-C; Lawlor
the construct validity of the measure (Neff et al., 2021). The et al., 2014) and kindergarten students (CAMM-R; Mezo
measure is available in English and available for public use. et al., 2020).
The trend of adapting adult measures to youth popula-
tions was found, but less frequently than expected. Five
Discussion (MAAS-A, MAAS-C, CHIME-A, FFMQ, and SCS) of the
11 measures were adapted from adult measures with many
The implementation and research of MBIs have been of the items remaining identical. As a focus on mindfulness
increasing in schools, given the beneficial outcomes found in schools has increased (Zenner et al., 2014), measures have
for youth (e.g., Bender et al., 2018). For researchers to fill been adapted with the intent to measure mindfulness spe-
the gaps in the literature that exist and attempt to continue cifically in a school setting (MSQ and MTASA) to address
understanding the effectiveness of MBIs, identifying meas- the realities adolescents face in schools. Furthermore, meas-
ures available to examine mindfulness is necessary (Van ures have been adapted to ensure developmentally appropri-
Dam et al., 2018). An important way to improve the under- ate language such as the CAMM-R (Mezo et al., 2020). A
standing of mindfulness processes is to examine the meas- major adaptation between the CAMM and CAMM-R was
ures that capture mindfulness constructs (Christopher et al., improving youth comprehension of the measure by modify-
2015). The aim of this paper was to identify and review cur- ing language on the items and creating a visual analog scale
rent measures of mindfulness for children and adolescents. (VAS) for youth to respond to. Along these lines, Cortazar
The intent was to provide an overview of the current state and colleagues (2020) examined the FFMQ-A and found that
and availability of measures for practitioners and researchers younger participants may have a poorer understanding of
allied with the field of mindfulness to have better access to the intended meaning of items that were negatively worded

13
112 Contemporary School Psychology (2023) 27:104–117

(versus positively worded) on the measure. They found that observing changes at the trait level may be beyond the scope
they tended to respond higher to items that were positively and intent of interventions in schools. In other words, a state
worded. Considering positive and negative wording of items mindfulness measure examines the degree to which one
(Van Dam et al., 2012) as well as ensuring readability and engages in mindfulness at a particular time and/or is the
comprehension for youth completing the measures is an capacity to cultivate a particular state of mind during medi-
important consideration when selecting measures to use with tative practice (Goodman et al., 2017), which may be more
youth in schools. Item content from measures, if not reported appropriate to assess during and after MBIs since it is fluid
by authors, could be subjected to readability analyses such and context dependent, yet there is only one state available
as the Readability Analyzer (https://d​ atayz​ e.c​ om/r​ eadab​ ility-​ for use with youth. Further research is needed to differenti-
analyz​ er.p​ hp) to provide an estimate of how youth at varying ate between state versus trait mindfulness and which type
grade levels may comprehend content and provide guidance of measure to use for youth, especially within the context of
on appropriate selection of measures. schools. This will help to improve the quality of the meas-
In our review, we found 11 mindfulness measures for ures, identifying potential constructs that contribute to the
children and adolescents. This is about half the number mindfulness process, and how it impacts outcomes.
of mindfulness measures that have been found for adults Although MBIs, programs, and curricula have been
(e.g., Bender et al., in progress). We believe this reflects the increasing in implementation, there are few measures avail-
historical roots of mindfulness and original development of able to measure mindfulness constructs for children and
mindfulness-based stress reduction (MBSR; Kabat-Zinn, adolescents. It has been documented that there has been
1990). MBSR and other mindfulness interventions (e.g., significantly more research conducted on MBI evaluation
mindfulness-based cognitive therapy) were originally cre- and much less assessing the construct of mindfulness, par-
ated for adults, therefore it makes sense that there are more ticularly for youth (Eklund et al., 2017). Some mindfulness
measures of self-reported mindfulness available. Similar to programs are used with very young children, such as pre-
the measurement of other constructs in psychology (e.g., school and kindergarten age students (e.g., Calm Classroom,
depression, anxiety), measures are often developed for adults Kindness Curriculum), yet only one measure was found that
and then later adapted for youth. Several of the self-report could be used to work with children as young as kindergar-
measures identified in the current study for youth have been ten (CAMM-R, Mezo et al., 2020). It raises the question of
developed in the last few years (2017–2020), mirroring the how mindfulness processes can be measured for this age
trend toward increased mindfulness interventions aimed at group, while taking children’s development into consid-
adolescents (Klingbeil et al., 2017a), especially in schools, eration. Although mindfulness is often assessed for older
and it is likely that measures for children and adolescents children, adolescents, and adults using self-report, Eklund
will continue in their growth. Researchers and practitioners and colleagues (2017) posed the question of whether a
should be aware of this trend given that some of the adult self-report mindfulness questionnaire for children is devel-
measures have not been adapted with child and adolescent opmentally appropriate. This is an important point raised,
metacognitive or developmental level in mind (Goodman given that many other self-report measures of behavior and
et al., 2017). For instance, in a study using the FFMQ (Van emotions (e.g., BASC, CBCL, etc.) are recommended to be
Dam et al., 2012), adult meditators and nonmeditators were used for children 7 and older. Along these lines, it is impor-
influenced by negatively worded items compared to posi- tant to consider how items are phrased and how measures are
tively worded items on the measure. If this is the case for administered for children this young to capture mindfulness
adults, it could also be the case for youth. for this age and developmental group.
In terms of state vs. trait mindfulness, the majority of
measures in our review examined trait mindfulness (CAMM, Limitations and Future Directions
CAMM-R, CHIME-A, MAAS-A, MAAS-C, MICA,
MSPTA, MTASA, FFMQ), whereas only one measure was It is important to acknowledge the limitations in the cur-
a state mindfulness measure (MSQ) and one focused on rent study. The researchers included mindfulness measures
self-compassion (SCS-Y) which has been proposed as part that were available in the English language. If measures
of the mindfulness construct (Rosenzweig, 2013). It has were included in English and another language, it was
been noted that increases in state mindfulness (the degree included in our study, however if it was only available in
to which someone engages in mindfulness at a particular another language, they were excluded in the review. While
time; Medvedev et al., 2017) may lead to greater levels of we noted if measures were available in languages other
trait mindfulness, which is considered stable, a dispositional than English, and included studies that were conducted
quality, and linked to positive changes in health (Kiken et al., outside the USA, if a version of a measure was not avail-
2015). While measurement of trait mindfulness is important able in English, we did not include it in our review. This
to understand the possible long-term effects of mindfulness, may overly emphasize a US-centric view of mindfulness

13
Contemporary School Psychology (2023) 27:104–117 113

(how it is conceptualized and measured) which is limiting Given that the purpose of the study was to identify and
given that mindfulness originated in different languages in describe current mindfulness measures available to research-
Eastern countries. For example, while mindfulness in the ers and practitioners, information pertaining to the citation
USA is often conceptualized as nonjudgmental, person- count or in-depth psychometrics was not included. However,
centered awareness, Feng and colleagues (2018) found that further analysis and independent evaluations of psychomet-
“Buddhist mindfulness contains elements of attentional rics, such as content validity for youth measures is an essen-
flexibility, skillfulness, purposefulness, wisdom, and eth- tial future direction to understand effective measurement of
ics. Buddhist mindfulness not only involves awareness targeted constructs. Some measures reviewed begun prelimi-
of the present but also the past and future. It not only nary work in examining correlations between mindfulness
focuses on self but also on others” (p. 441). Research has constructs with other youth measures. For example, the HSR
suggested that the adult mindfulness measures Kentucky construct on the MTASA was found to be correlated with
Inventory of Mindfulness Skills (KIMS) and Five Factor the CAMM and MAAS-A (de Bruin et al., 2014). How-
Mindfulness Questionnaire (FFMQ) were more congruent ever, given that our study found that varying definitions of
with Buddhist principles of mindfulness compared to the mindfulness continue to be used and result in measures that
Mindfulness Attention and Awareness Scale (MAAS) and assess different constructs of mindfulness (e.g., varying con-
Freiburg Mindfulness Inventory-30 (FMI-30) (Feng et al., structs on measures, unidimensional vs. multidimensional
2018). Future research evaluating youth measures in this mindfulness), continued work investigating the intercorre-
manner would be important. lations between measures and what constructs on measures
In examining the various constructs of the measures in demonstrate convergent and divergent validity is necessary.
this systematic review, we found that more than half of the This has also been identified as an area of future research
measures captured mindfulness multidimensionally, rather by others supporting the need for psychometric work in this
than unidimensionally, which is consistent with research on area (Mezo et al., 2020).
mindfulness theory (e.g., Goodman et al., 2017; Van Dam Furthermore, given the increase of MBI implementa-
et al., 2018). Constructs such as awareness, nonjudgmental tion in schools settings, it would also be important to better
acceptance, and present-moment attention (Blanke & Brose, understand what measures are most appropriate to capture
2017) are aligned with Kabat-Zinn’s definition of mindful- mindfulness in schools. The MSQ was specifically designed
ness, which is widely used and cited in the USA. While to examine students’ experience of mindfulness in educa-
Kabat-Zinn’s work was and continues to be seminal to US tional contexts, with language use and examples provided
mindfulness work, it is important that the history, origins, on items to be relevant for this context. In addition, current
theoretical and practical underpinnings of mindfulness are measures should continue to be validated and psychometric
not lost. While transnational work is adapted to meet the properties of measures carefully examined when selecting
culture and context of various populations across the world, measures to use with target populations (Krägeloh et al.,
those conducting mindfulness work in the USA would ben- 2018). As reported by previous researchers, mindfulness
efit from continued learning, reflecting, and acknowledging constructs assessed via self-report measure are rarely used
the roots of the tradition and practice from Eastern cultures. when school based MBIs are implemented. When measures
For a more in-depth discussion of historical practices and assessing mindfulness constructs are used, they are often
comparison of Eastern and Western conceptualizations of implemented immediately after the intervention. This is
mindfulness as well as how these practices are reflected in promising, as it suggests that the measures that have been
self-reported measures for adults, see Feng et al. (2018). used in intervention studies (e.g., CAMM, MAAS-A) are
Another limitation to note is that additional measures sensitive to changes for youth but they are rarely assessed
that are mindfulness adjacent (such as measuring aspects long-term therefore little is known about the sustained ben-
of mindfulness) may not have been captured in our search efits of mindfulness (Eklund et al., 2017).
due to the eligibility criteria used. One of the study’s criteria Along the same lines, considering the method of how
was that the measure had to include the term “mindful” or mindfulness is captured for youth is an important future
“mindfulness” in the title of the measure or for one or more direction. It is common to assess mindfulness via self-report,
constructs measured. However, some measures such as the given that it is an internal, mental process, which is consist-
Avoidance and Fusion Questionnaire for Youth (AFQ-Y; ent with the adult mindfulness measure literature (e.g., Baer,
Greco et al., 2008) were developed based on mindfulness 2011). However, researchers have recommended considering
theory as adapted by acceptance and commitment therapy additional ways to measure mindfulness, such as observation
(ACT), but the instrument does not use “mindful” in the of particular behaviors related to mindfulness (self-regula-
scale or construct names. Yet a measure such as this might tion) or asking people open-ended questions or vignettes to
be used by school psychologists to evaluate mindfulness describe their thoughts and feelings (i.e., Measure of Aware-
adjacent constructs with youth. ness and Coping in Autobiographical Memory [MACAM];

13
114 Contemporary School Psychology (2023) 27:104–117

Moore et al., 1996). Further, Goodman et al. (2017) high- Baer, R. A. (2011). Measuring mindfulness. Contemporary Buddhism,
lighted the benefits of adequately selecting state versus trait 12(1), 241–261. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1080/​14639​947.​2011.​564842
Baer, R. A., Smith, G. T., Hopkins, J., Krietemeyer, J., & Toney, L.
measures when working with youth. Depending on the set- (2006). Using self-report assessment methods to explore facets of
ting, state mindfulness measures might be used more fre- mindfulness. Assessment, 13(1), 27–45. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1177/​
quently to measure the reduction of symptoms following 10731​91105​283504
MBIs (Carsley & Heath, 2019) whereas trait mindfulness Beauchemin, J., Hutchins, T. L., & Patterson, F. (2008). Mindfulness
meditation may lessen anxiety, promote social skills, and improve
measures may be better suited to track dispositional mind- academic performance among adolescents with learning dis-
fulness or long-term effects of MBIs for youth. Although abilities. Complementary Health Practice Review, 13(1), 34–45.
few state measures of mindfulness currently exist for youth, https://​doi.​org/​10.​1177/​15332​10107​311624
there are some available for adults, such as State-MAAS Bender, S. L., Molina Palacios, A., & Lawson, T. Measures to assess
mindfulness in adults: A systematic review [Manuscript in pro-
(Brown & Ryan, 2003), Toronto Mindfulness Scale (TMS; gress]. Department of Counseling and School Psychology, Uni-
Lau et al., 2006) and the State Mindfulness Scale (SMS; versity of Massachusetts Boston.
Tanay & Bernstein, 2013). Considering the adaptation of Benn, R. (2004). [Modified Mindful Attention Awareness Scale].
these for youth in schools, similar to how other mindfulness Unpublished raw data.
Bergomi, C., Tschacher, W., & Kupper, Z. (2013). The assessment
measures for youth have been constructed, may be useful of mindfulness with self-report measures: Existing scales and
in achieving this goal. Thus, future investigation of alter- open issues. Mindfulness, 4(3), 191–202. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​
nate ways to capture mindfulness and understand how the s12671-​012-​0110-9
use of multiple methods and/or raters could contribute to a Blanke, E. S., & Brose, A. (2017). Mindfulness in daily life: A multidi-
mensional approach. Mindfulness, 8(3), 737–750. https://​doi.​org/​
more accurate assessment of youth’s mindfulness experience 10.​1007/​s12671-​016-​0651-4
would be beneficial. Bowen, S., Chawla, N., Grow, J. & Marlatt, G. A. (2021). Mindfulness-
based relapse prevention for addictive behaviors: A clinician’s
guide (2nd ed.). The Guilford Press.
Authors Contribution Stacy L. Bender contributed to the conception Briere, J. (2011). Mindfulness inventory for children and adoles-
and design. Material preparation, data collection, and analysis were cents. Unpublished assessment inventory. University of Southern
performed by Stacy L. Bender, Tamara Lawson, and Andrea Molina California.
Palacios. The first draft of the manuscript was written by Stacy L. Brown, K. W., & Ryan, R. M. (2003). The benefits of being present:
Bender and Tamara Lawson, and all authors commented on previous Mindfulness and its role in psychological well-being. Journal of
versions of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final Personality and Social Psychology, 84(4), 822–848. https://​doi.​
manuscript. org/​10.​1037/​0022-​3514
Brown, K. W., West, A. M., Loverich, T. M., & Biegel, G. M. (2011).
Declarations Assessing adolescent mindfulness: Validation of an Adapted
Mindful Attention Awareness Scale in adolescent normative and
Ethics Approval This study was a systematic review of measures psychiatric populations. Psychological Assessment, 23(4), 1023.
assessing mindfulness and therefore was exempt from IRB approval. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1037/​a0021​338
Carpenter, J. K., Conroy, K., Gomez, A. F., Curren, L. C., & Hof-
Consent to Participate This study was a systematic review of measures mann, S. G. (2019). The relationship between trait mindfulness
assessing mindfulness therefore no participants or consent to partici- and affective symptoms: A meta-analysis of the Five Facet Mind-
pate was sought. fulness Questionnaire (FFMQ). Clinical Psychology Review, 74,
101785. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​cpr.​2019.​101785
Consent to Publish This study was a systematic review of measures Carsley, D., & Heath, N. L. (2019). Evaluating the effectiveness of
assessing mindfulness therefore no participants or consent to publish a mindfulness coloring activity for test anxiety in children. The
was sought. Journal of Educational Research, 112(2), 143–151. https://​doi.​
org/​10.​1080/​00220​671.​2018.​14487​49
Chan, K. K. S., & Lam, C. B. (2017). Trait mindfulness attenuates
Conflict of Interest The authors declare no competing interests. the adverse psychological impact of stigma on parents of chil-
dren with autism spectrum disorder. Mindfulness, 8(4), 984–994.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s12671-​016-​0675-9
Christopher, M. S., Rogers, B., Hunsinger, M., Colgan, D., Reiss, A.
References L., & Farwood, H. B. (2015). Distinguishing mindful process from
outcome in the prediction of global health and perceived stress in
Abujaradeh, H., Colaianne, B. A., Roeser, R. W., Tsukayama, E., & a mindfulness-based stress reduction program. Mindfulness, 6(4),
Galla, B. M. (2020). Evaluating a short-form Five Facet Mind- 693–699. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s12671-​014-​0305-3
fulness Questionnaire in adolescents: Evidence for a four-factor Committee for Children. (2014). Second step social emotional learning
structure and invariance by time, age, and gender. International program. Committee for Children.
Journal of Behavioral Development, 44(1), 20–30. https://d​ oi.o​ rg/​ Cortazar, N., Calvete, E., Fernández-González, L., & Orue, I. (2020).
10.​1177/​01650​25419​873039 Development of a short form of the Five Facet Mindfulness
Andreu, C. I., Araya-Véliz, C., & García-Rubio, C. (2021). Benefits of Questionnaire-Adolescents for children and adolescents. Journal
a mindfulness-based intervention at school from the perspective of Personality Assessment, 102(5), 641–652. https://​doi.​org/​10.​
of at-risk children. Mindfulness, 12(5), 1–13. https://​doi.​org/​10.​ 1080/​00223​891.​2019.​16162​06
1007/​s12671-​021-​01624-6 de Bruin, E. I., Zijlstra, B. J., van de Weijer-Bergsma, E., & Bögels, S.
M. (2011). The mindful attention awareness scale for adolescents

13
Contemporary School Psychology (2023) 27:104–117 115

(MAAS-A): Psychometric properties in a Dutch sample. Mindful- Greco, L. A., Baer, R. A., & Smith, G. T. (2011). Assessing mind-
ness, 2(3), 201–211. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s12671-​011-​0061-6 fulness in children and adolescents: Development and validation
de Bruin, E. I., Zijlstra, B. J., & Bögels, S. M. (2014). The meaning of the child and adolescent mindfulness measure (CAMM). Psy-
of mindfulness in children and adolescents: Further validation of chological Assessment, 23(3), 606–614. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1037/​
the Child and Adolescent Mindfulness Measure (CAMM) in two a0022​819
independent samples from the Netherlands. Mindfulness, 5(4), Hart, S. R., Pierson, S., Goto, K., & Giampaoli, J. (2018). Develop-
422–430. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s12671-​013-​0196-8 ment and initial validation evidence for a mindful eating ques-
Molina Palacios, A., Bender, S. L., & Berry, D. (in press). Character- tionnaire for children. Appetite, 129, 178–185. https://​doi.​org/​
istics of mindfulness-based interventions in schools: A systematic 10.​1016/j.​appet.​2018.​07.​010
review. Contemporary School Psychology. Maloney, J. E., Lawlor, M. S., Schonert-Reichl, K. A., & Whitehead,
Bender, S. L., Roth, R. Zielenski, A., Longo, Z., & Chermak, A. J. (2016). A mindfulness-based social and emotional learning
(2018). Prevalence of mindfulness literature in school psychol- curriculum for school-aged children: The MindUP program. In
ogy journals from 2006-2016. Psychology in the Schools, 55(6), K. A. Schonert-Reichl & R. W. Roeser (Eds.), Mindfulness in
680–692. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1002/​pits.​22132 education: Integrating theory and research into practice (pp. 313
Diamond, A., & Lee, K. (2011). Interventions shown to aid execu- – 334). Springer.
tive function development in children 4 to 12 years old. Science, Hayes, S. C., Strosahl, K., & Wilson, K. G. (1999). Acceptance and
333(6045), 959–964. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1126/​scien​ce.​12045​29 commitment therapy: An experiential approach to behavior
Droutman, V., Golub, I., Oganesyan, A., & Read, S. (2018). Develop- change. The Guilford Press.
ment and initial validation of the Adolescent and Adult Mindful- Johnson, C., & Wade, T. (2021). Acceptability and effectiveness of an
ness Scale (AAMS). Personality and Individual Differences, 123 8-week mindfulness program in early- and mid-adolescent school
(1), 34–43. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​paid.​2017.​10.​037 students: A randomised controlled trial. Mindfulness, 12(10),
Droutman, (2015). Mindfulness scale for pre-teens, teens, and adults. 2473–2486. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s12671-​021-​01716-3
In R. J. Semple (Chair), Clinical Applications of Mindfulness. Johnson, C., Burke, C., Brinkman, S., & Wade, T. (2017). Development
Research symposium conducted at the Bridging the Hearts and and validation of a multifactor mindfulness scale in youth: The
Minds of Youth: Mindfulness and Compassion in Clinical Prac- Comprehensive Inventory of Mindfulness Experiences-Adoles-
tice, Education, and Research conference in San Diego, CA. cents (CHIME-A). Psychological Assessment, 29(3), 264. https://​
Dunning, D. L., Griffiths, K., Kuyken, W., Crane, C., Foulkes, L., doi.​org/​10.​1037/​pas00​00342
Parker, J., & Dalgleish, T. (2019). Research Review: The effects of Kabat-Zinn, J. (1990). Full catastrophe living: Using the wisdom of
mindfulness-based interventions on cognition and mental health your body and mind to face stress, pain, and illness. Delacorte
in children and adolescents–a meta-analysis of randomized con- Press.
trolled trials. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 60(3), Kabat-Zinn, J. (1994). Wherever you go, there you are: Mindfulness
244–258. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1111/​jcpp.​12980 meditation in everyday life. Hyperion.
Eklund, K., O’Malley, M., & Meyer, L. (2017). Gauging mindfulness Kielty, M., Gilligan, T., Staton, R., & Curtis, N. (2017). Cultivating
in children and youth: School-based applications. Psychology in mindfulness with third grade students via classroom-based inter-
the Schools, 54(1), 101–114. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1002/​pits.​21983 ventions. Contemporary School Psychology, 21(4), 317–322.
Emerson, L.-M., Leyland, A., Hudson, K., Rowse, G., Hanley, P., & https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s40688-​017-​0149-7
Hugh-Jones, S. (2017). Teaching mindfulness to teachers: A sys- Kiken, L. G., Garland, E. L., Bluth, K., Palsson, O. S., & Gaylord, S.
tematic review and narrative synthesis. Mindfulness, 8(5), 1136– A. (2015). From a state to a trait: Trajectories of state mindfulness
1149. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s12671-​017-​0691-4 in meditation during intervention predict changes in trait mindful-
Erisman, S. M., & Roemer, L. (2012). A preliminary investigation of ness. Personality and Individual Differences, 81, 41–46. https://​
the process of mindfulness. Mindfulness, 3(1), 30–43. https://​doi.​ doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​paid.​2014.​12.​044
org/​10.​1007/​s12671-​011-​0078-x Klingbeil, D. A., Fischer, A. J., Renshaw, T. L., Bloomfield, B. S., Pola-
Felver, J. C., Celis-de Hoyos, C. E., Tezanos, K., & Singh, N. N. koff, B., Willenbrink, J. B., Copek, R. A., & Chan, K. T. (2017).
(2016). A systematic review of mindfulness-based interventions Effects of mindfulness-based intervention on disruptive behavior:
for youth in school settings. Mindfulness, 7(1), 34–45. https://​doi.​ A meta-analysis of single-case design research. Psychology in the
org/​10.​1007/​s12671-​015-​0389-4 Schools, 54(1), 70–87. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1002/​pits.​21982
Feng, X. J., Krägeloh, C. U., Billington, D. R., & Siegert, R. J. (2018). Klingbeil, D. A., Renshaw, T. L., Willenbrink, J. B., Copek, R. A.,
To what extent is mindfulness presented in commonly used mind- Chan, K. T., Haddock, A., & Clifton, J. (2017). Mindfulness-
fulness questionnaires different from how it is conceptualized by based interventions with youth: A comprehensive meta-analysis of
senior ordained Buddhists? Mindfulness, 9(2), 441–460. https://​ group-design studies. Journal of School Psychology, 63, 77–103.
doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s12671-​017-​0788-9 https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​jsp.​2017.​03.​006
García-Rubio, C., Rodríguez-Carvajal, R., Langer, A. I., Paniagua, D., Krägeloh, C. U., Bergomi, C., Siegert, R. J., & Medvedev, O. N.
Steinebach, P., Andreu, C. I., Vara, M. D., & Cebolla, A. (2019). (2018). Response shift after a mindfulness-based intervention:
Validation of the Spanish Version of the Child and Adolescent Measurement invariance testing of the comprehensive inventory
Mindfulness Measure (CAMM) with samples of Spanish and of mindfulness experiences. Mindfulness, 9(1), 212–220. https://​
Chilean children and adolescents. Mindfulness, 10(8), 1502–1517. doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s12671-​017-​0764-4
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s12671-​019-​01108-8 Kuby, A. K., McLean, N., & Allen, K. (2015). Validation of the Child
Goodman, M. S., Madni, L. A., & Semple, R. J. (2017). Measuring and Adolescent Mindfulness Measure (CAMM) with non-clinical
mindfulness in youth: Review of current assessments, challenges, adolescents. Mindfulness, 6(6), 1448–1455. https://​doi.​org/​10.​
and future directions. Mindfulness, 8(6), 1409–1420. https://​doi.​ 1007/​s12671-​015-​0418-3
org/​10.​1007/​s12671-​017-​0719-9 Lau, M. A., Bishop, S. R., Segal, Z. V., Buis, T., Anderson, N. D.,
Greco, L. A., Lambert, W., & Baer, R. A. (2008). Psychological inflex- Carlson, L., Shapiro, S., Carmody, J., Abbey, S., & Devins, G.
ibility in childhood and adolescence: Development and evaluation (2006). The Toronto mindfulness scale: Development and valida-
of the Avoidance and Fusion Questionnaire for Youth. Psycho- tion. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 62(12), 1445–1467. https://​
logical Assessment, 20(2), 93–102. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1037/​1040-​ doi.​org/​10.​1002/​jclp.​20326
3590.​20.2.​93

13
116 Contemporary School Psychology (2023) 27:104–117

Lawlor, M. S., Schonert-Reichl, K. A., Gadermann, A. M., & Zumbo, for administering and coding [Unpublished manuscript]. Uni-
B. D. (2014). A validation study of the mindful attention aware- versity of Cambridge.
ness scale adapted for children. Mindfulness, 5(6), 730–741. Neff, K. D., Bluth, K., Tóth-Király, I., Davidson, O., Knox, M. C.,
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s12671-​013-​0228-4 Williamson, Z., & Costigan, A. (2021). Development and vali-
Leavitt, C. E., Allsop, D. B., Busby, D. M., Driggs, S. M., Johnson, dation of the Self-Compassion Scale for Youth. Journal of Per-
H. M., & Saxey, M. T. (2020). Associations of mindfulness sonality Assessment, 103(1), 92–105. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1080/​
with adolescent outcomes and sexuality. Journal of Adoles- 00223​891.​2020.​17297​74
cence,81(1), 73–86. https://​d oi.​o rg/​1 0.​1 016/j.​a dole​s cence.​ Odgers, K., Dargue, N., Creswell, C., Jones, M. P., & Hudson, J. L.
2020.​04.​008 (2020). The limited effect of mindfulness-based interventions on
Lee, K. C. G. (2018). Demystifying Buddhist mindfulness: Founda- anxiety in children and adolescents: A meta-analysis. Clinical
tional Buddhist knowledge for mindfulness-based interventions. Child and Family Psychology Review, 23(3), 407–426. https://​
Spirituality in Clinical Practice, 5(3), 218–224. https://​doi.​org/​ doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s10567-​020-​00319-z
10.​1037/​scp00​00133 Pallozzi, R., Wetheim, E., Paxton, S., & Ong, B. (2017). Trait
Lemberger-Truelove, M. E., Ceballos, P. L., Molina, C. E., & Car- mindfulness measures for use with adolescents: A systematic
bonneau, K. J. (2021). Growth in middle school students’ curi- review. Mindfulness, 8(1), 110–125. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​
osity, executive functioning, and academic achievement: Results s12671-​016-​0567-z
from a theory informed SEL and MBI school counseling inter- Patton, K. A., Connor, J. P., Sheffield, J., Wood, A., & Gullo, M. J.
vention. Professional School Counseling, 24(1b), 1–8. https://​ (2019). Additive effectiveness of mindfulness meditation to a
doi.​org/​10.​1177/​21567​59X21​10076​54 school-based brief cognitive-behavioral alcohol intervention for
Liehr, P., & Diaz, N. (2010). A pilot study examining the effect of adolescents. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology,
mindfulness on depression and anxiety for minority children. 87(5), 407–421. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1037/​ccp00​00382
Archives of Psychiatric Nursing, 24(1), 69–71. https://​doi.​org/​ Renshaw, T. L. (2017). Preliminary development and validation of
10.​1016/j.​apnu.​2009.​10.​001 the Mindful Student Questionnaire. Assessment for Effective
Linehan, M. M., Heard, H. L., & Armstrong, H. E. (1993). Natural- Intervention, 42(3), 168–175. https://​d oi.​o rg/​1 0.​1 177/​1 5340​
istic follow-up of a behavioral treatment for chronically par- 84166​78971
asuicidal borderline patients. Archives of General Psychiatry, Renshaw, T. L., Long, A. C. J., & Cook, C. R. (2015). Assessing ado-
50(12), 971–974. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1001/​archp​syc.​1993.​01820​ lescents’ positive psychological functioning at school: Develop-
24005​5007 ment and validation of the Student Subjective Wellbeing Ques-
López-González, L., Amutio, A., & Oriol, X. (2018). Development tionnaire. School Psychology Quarterly, 30(4), 534–552. https://​
and validation of the Relaxation-Mindfulness Scale for Adoles- doi.​org/​10.​1037/​spq00​00088
cents (EREMIND-A). Psicothema, 30(2), 224–231. https://​doi.​ Renshaw, T. L., & Cook, C. R. (2017). Mindfulness in the schools:
org/​10.​7334/​psico​thema​2017.​225 Historical roots, current status, and future directions. Psychol-
Ma, Y., & Fang, S. (2019). Adolescents’ mindfulness and psycho- ogy in the Schools, 54(1), 5–12. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1002/​pits.​
logical distress: The mediating role of emotion regulation. 21978
Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 1–10. https://​d oi.​o rg/​1 0.​3 389/​ Rosenzweig, D. (2013). The Sisters of Mindfulness. Journal of Clini-
fpsyg.​2019.​01358 cal Psychology, 69(8), 793–804. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1002/​jclp.​
Magnano, P., Platania, S., Ramaci, T., Santisi, G., & Di Nuovo, S. 22015
(2017). Validation of the Italian version of the Mindfulness Roux, B., Franckx, A.-C., Lahaye, M., Deplus, S., & Philippot, P.
Organizing Scale (MOS) in organizational contexts. TPM: Test- (2019). A French validation of the Child and Adolescent Mind-
ing, Psychometrics, Methodology in Applied Psychology, 24(1), fulness Measure (CAMM). European Review of Applied Psy-
45–64. https://​doi.​org/​10.​4473/​TPM24.1.3 chology, 69(3), 83–89. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​erap.​2019.​06.​
Marx, R. (2015). Accessibility Versus Integrity in Secular Mindful- 001
ness: A Buddhist Commentary. Mindfulness, 6(5), 1153–1160. Sauer, S., Walach, H., Schmidt, S., Hinterberger, T., Lynch, S.,
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s12671-​014-​0366-3 Bussing, A., & Kohls, N. (2013). Assessment of mindfulness:
McGrath, P. A., Seifert, C. E., Speechley, K. N., Booth, J. C., Stitt, Review on state of the art. Mindfulness, 4(1), 3–17. https://​doi.​
L., & Gibson, M. C. (1996). A new analogue scale for assess- org/​10.​1007/​s12671-​012-​0122-5
ing children’s pain: An initial validation study. Pain, 64(3), Saxey, M. T. (2020). Associations of mindfulness with adolescent
435–443. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/​0304-​3959(95)​00171-9 outcomes and sexuality. Journal of Adolescence, 81(1), 73–86.
Medvedev, O. N., Krägeloh, C. U., Narayanan, A., & Siegert, R. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​adole​scence.​2020.​04.​008
J. (2017). Measuring mindfulness: Applying generalizability Segal, Z. V., Williams, M. G., & Teasdale, J. D. (2013). Mindfulness-
theory to distinguish between state and trait. Mindfulness, 8(4), based cognitive behavior therapy for depression (2nd ed.). The
1036–1046. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s12671-​017-​0679-0 Guilford Press.
Meiklejohn, J., Phillips, C., Freedman, M. L., Griffin, M. L., Biegel, Stahl, B., Goldstein, E., Santorelli, S., & Kabat-Zinn, J. (2019). A
G., Roach, A., Frank, J., Burke, C., Pinger, L., Soloway, G., mindfulness-based stress reduction workbook (2nd ed.). New
Isberg, R., Sibinga, E., Grossman, L., & Saltzman, A. (2012). Harbinger Publications, Inc.
Integrating mindfulness training into K-12 education: Foster- Sun, J. (2014). Mindfulness in context: A historical discourse analy-
ing the resilience of teachers and students. Mindfulness, 3(4), sis. Contemporary Buddhism, 15(2), 394–415. https://​doi.​org/​
291–307. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s12671-​012-​0094-5 10.​1080/​14639​947.​2014.​978088
Mezo, P. G., Herc, H. C., Pritchard, K. J., & Bullock, W. A. (2020). Tanay, G., & Bernstein, A. (2013). State Mindfulness Scale (SMS):
Evaluation and a proposed revision of the CAMM among under- Development and initial validation. Psychological Assessment,
represented elementary school children. Assessment for Effec- 25(4), 1286–1299. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1037/​a0034​044
tive Intervention, 45(3), 235–239. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1177/​15345​ Tercelli, I., & Ferreira, N. (2019). A systematic review of mind-
08419​845465 fulness-based interventions for children and young people
Moore, R. G., Hayhurst, H., & Teasdale, J. D. (1996). Measure of with ADHD and their parents. Global Psychiatry, 2(1), 79–95.
awareness and coping in autobiographical memory: Instruction https://​doi.​org/​10.​2478/​gp-​2019-​0007

13
Contemporary School Psychology (2023) 27:104–117 117

Theofanous, A., Ioannou, M., Zacharia, M., Georgiou, S. N., & meta-analysis. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 1–20. https://​doi.​org/​
Karekla, M. (2020). Gender, age, and time invariance of the 10.​3389/​fpsyg.​2014.​00603
Child and Adolescent Mindfulness Measure (CAMM) and Zhang, Y., Razza, R., Wang, Q., Bergen-Cico, D., & Liu, Q. (2022).
psychometric properties in three Greek-speaking youth sam- Mechanisms of change underlying mindfulness-based practice
ples. Mindfulness, 11(5), 1298–1307. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​ among adolescents. Mindfulness, 13(6), 1445–1457. https://​doi.​
s12671-​020-​01350-5 org/​10.​1007/​s12671-​022-​01881-z
Tran, U. S., Glück, T. M., & Nader, I. W. (2013). Investigating the
Five Facet Mindfulness Questionnaire (FFMQ): Construction Publisher's Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to
of a short form and evidence of a two-factor higher order struc- jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
ture of mindfulness. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 69(9),
951–965. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1002/​jclp.​21996 Springer Nature or its licensor holds exclusive rights to this article under
Truong, Q. C., Krägeloh, C. U., Siegert, R. J., Landon, J., & Medvedev, a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s);
O. N. (2020). Applying generalizability theory to differentiate author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article
between trait and state in the Five Facet Mindfulness Question- is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and
naire (FFMQ). Mindfulness, 11(4), 953–963. https://​doi.​org/​10.​ applicable law.
1007/​s12671-​020-​01324-7
Van Dam, N. T., Hobkirk, A. L., Danoff-Burg, S., & Earleywine, Stacy L. Bender Ph.D., NCSP, LP (she/her/hers) is an Associate Pro-
M. (2012). Mind your words: Positive and negative items cre- fessor in the Department of Counseling and School Psychology at the
ate method effects on the Five Facet Mindfulness Questionnaire. University of Massachusetts Boston. Her work focuses on supporting
Assessment, 19(2), 198–204. https://d​ oi.o​ rg/1​ 0.1​ 177/1​ 07319​ 1112​ social-emotional/behavioral needs of students through behavior screen-
438743 ing and intervention, enhancing diverse family-school engagement prac-
Van Dam, N. T., van Vugt, M. L., Vago, D. R., Schmalzl, L., Saron, C. tices, and implementing mindfulness-based interventions for families
D., Olendzki, A., Meissner, T., Lazar, S. W., Kerr, C. E., Gorchov, and students in schools.
J., Fox, K. C. R., Field, B. A., Britton, W. B., Brefczynski-Lewis,
J. A., & Myer, D. E. (2018). Mind the hype: A critical evaluation Tamara Lawson Ph.D. (she/her/hers) is an Assistant Professor in the
and prescriptive agenda for research on mindfulness and medita- Department of Disability and Psychoeducational Studies at the Uni-
tion. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 13(1), 36–61. https://​ versity of Arizona. Her research focuses on three primary areas: 1)
doi.​org/​10.​1177/​17456​91617​709589 culturally responsive teaching (i.e., teaching behaviors, instructional
Viñas, F., Malo, S., González, M., Navarro, D., & Casas, F. (2015). practices, and fostering positive teacher-student relationships); 2)
Assessing mindfulness on a sample of Catalan-speaking Spanish social, emotional, and behavioral supports for minoritized youth,
adolescents: Validation of the Catalan version of the child and including the role of school psychologists in the implementation of
adolescent mindfulness measure. The Spanish Journal of Psychol- school-wide behavioral supports; and 3) Black youth’s sense of belong-
ogy, 18(46), 1–8. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1017/​sjp.​2015.​48 ingness, which contribute to their academic success and racial identity
West, A. M., Penix-Sbraga, T., & Poole, D. A. (2007). Measuring development.
mindfulness in youth: Development of the Mindful Thinking and
Action Scale for Adolescents [Unpublished manuscript]. Central Andrea Molina Palacios M.Ed. (She/Her/Hers) is a doctoral student at
Michigan University. the Department of Counseling and School Psychology at the Univer-
West, A. M. (2008). Mindfulness and well-being in adolescence: An sity of Massachusetts Boston. Her research interests are focused on
exploration of four mindfulness measures with an adolescent mindfulness-based interventions in schools, especially in the areas of
sample [Central Michigan University]. ProQuest Information & mindfulness scales and implementation fidelity.
Learning.
Zenner, C., Herrnleben-Kurz, S., & Walach, H. (2014). Mindful-
ness-based interventions in schools: A systematic review and

13