Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Evaluating the reliability and validity of the Self-Compassion Scale adapted for children Sutton, Esther 2014

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
24-ubc_2014_september_sutton_esther.pdf [ 820.67kB ]
Metadata
JSON: 24-1.0167501.json
JSON-LD: 24-1.0167501-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 24-1.0167501-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 24-1.0167501-rdf.json
Turtle: 24-1.0167501-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 24-1.0167501-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 24-1.0167501-source.json
Full Text
24-1.0167501-fulltext.txt
Citation
24-1.0167501.ris

Full Text

EVALUATING THE RELIABILITY AND VALIDITY OF THE SELF-COMPASSION SCALE ADAPTED FOR CHILDRENbyEsther SuttonB.A., McGill University, 2011A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTSinTHE FACULTY OF GRADUATE AND POSTDOCTORAL STUDIES(Human Development, Learning, and Culture)THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA(Vancouver)June 2014© Esther Sutton, 2014 AbstractThis study introduces the Self-Compassion Scale adapted for Children (SCS-C) and presents psychometric findings regarding its reliability and validity. A sample of 382 students in 4th to 7th grade provided data on the SCS-C and measures of mindfulness, self-concept, indicators of well-being, empathic-related responding, and prosocial goals. Teachers provided data on students’ social and emotional competence and empathy/sympathy. Results indicated a two-factor structure for the SCS-C with negatively-worded items and positively-worded items forming two discrete subscales each with high internal consistency. As predicted, students’ scores on the SCS-C were significantly related to multiple indicators of social and emotional well-being, demonstrating preliminary evidence of convergent validity. In addition, scores on the SCS-C were found to differ across grade level, with students in 5th grade reporting higher scores on the SCS-C than students in 4th grade and students in 6th grade. This study provides insight into the factor structure of the SCS-C, as well as the relations of self-compassion to other indicators of social and emotional well-being in childhood and pre-adolescence. Limitations and future directions are discussed with regard to the relevance of the SCS-C for research and applications.iiPrefaceChapter 2 and 3 are based on work conducted in the Vancouver School Board (VSB) by Dr. Kimberly A. Schonert-Reichl and research assistants. I was responsible for analyzing the data used in this thesis. UBC Research Ethics Board approval was obtained for this research. The Certificante Number of the Ethics Certificate obtained is H11-00391. iiiTable of ContentsAbstract...........................................................................................................................................iiPreface............................................................................................................................................iiiTable of Contents...........................................................................................................................ivList of Tables..................................................................................................................................viAcknowledgments........................................................................................................................vii................................................................................................................Chapter 1: Introduction 1.............................................................Late-Middle Childhood, Pre-Adolescence, and the Self 2...............................................................The Definition and Measurement of Self-Compassion 6..................................................................................................Correlates of Self-Compassion 11.....................................................................................................................The Current Study 18.......................................................................................................................Chapter 2: Method 21................................................................................................................................Participants 21...................................................................................................................................Procedure 22....................................................................................................................................Measures 22........................................................................................................................Chapter 3: Results 31..........................................................................Factor Structure and Reliability of the SCS-C 31............................................................Validity Evidence for the SCS-C: Convergent Validity  39..................................................................................................Gender and Grade Differences 42..................................................................................................................Chapter 4: Discussion 44......................................................................................................Strengths and Contributions 48.............................................................................................Limitations and Future Directions 49.....................................................................................................................................References 52....................................................................................................................................Appendices 67iv.........................................................................................Appendix A: Teacher Consent Form 67............................................................................................Appendix B: Parent Consent Form 72...............................................................................................Appendix C: Child Assent Form 77..............................................................................Appendix D: Student Self-report Measures 80.Sub-Appendix D.1. Student Self-report Demographic and Background Questionnaire 81Sub-Appendix D.2. Self-Compassion Scale for Children (Neff, 2003b; modified by ...................................................................................................................Lawlor, 2011) 83Sub-Appendix D.3. Mindful Attention Awareness Scale (Lawlor, Schonert-Reichl, ..........................................................................................Gadermann, & Zumbo, 2013) 84Sub-Appendix D.4. General Self-concept and School Self-concept subscales (Self .......................................................................Description Questionnaire; Marsh, 1993) 86.................Sub-Appendix D.5. Optimism subscale (Resiliency Inventory; Song, 2003) 87Sub-Appendix D.6. Satisfaction With Life Scale for Children (Gadermann, Schonert-..................................................................................................Reichl, & Zumbo, 2010) 88Sub-Appendix D.7. Positive and Negative Affect subscales (Positive and Negative ........................................................Affect Schedule for Children; Laurent et al., 1999) 89Sub-Appendix D.8. Anxious Symptoms and Depressive Symptoms subscales (Seattle ..............Personality Questionnaire for Children; Kusche, Greenberg, & Beilke, 1988) 90Sub-Appendix D.9. Empathy and Perspective-taking subscales (Interpersonal Reactivity  .........................................................................................................Index; Davis, 1983) 91Sub-Appendix D.10. Prosocial Goals subscale (Social Goals Questionnaire; Wentzel, ................................................................................................................................1993) 92......................................................................................Appendix E: Teacher-report Measures 93Sub-Appendix E.1. Teacher Rating of Social Competence subscale (Teachers’ Ratings .................................................Scale of Social Competence; Kam & Greenberg, 1998) 94Sub-Appendix E.2. Teacher Rating of Children’s and Adolescents’ Behavior (AR4; .....................................................................................................Eisenberg et. al, 2003) 95Appendix F: A correlations table with the relations between SCS-C and measures used in the .......................present study and the original SCS with measures used in studies with adults. 96vList of TablesTable 1: Item Responses Percentages, Skewness, and Kurtosis of the SCS-C...........................34Table 2: Results for the 2-factor Model with Pratt’s Measures Matrix......................................35Table 3: Intercorrelations Among Items on the SCS-C..............................................................36Table 4: Corrected Item Total Correlations on the SCS-C.........................................................38Table 5: Correlations of SCS-C Total and Subscales with Student Self-report and Teacher-report Measures..........................................................................................................................41Table 6: Comparison of SCS-C Total Scores and Subscale Scores by Gender and Grade Level...........................................................................................................................................43Table F1: Correlations of the SCS-C with measures used in the present study and correlations of the original SCS with measures used in studies with adults..................................................96viAcknowledgementsI would first like to thank my supervisor, Dr. Kimberly Schonert-Reichl, for providing me with continual support and encouragement throughout this process. I am grateful to have had the opportunity to work with such an exceptional and influential mentor. Thank you to my committee members, Dr. Amery Wu, for your advice and guidance, and Dr. Shelley Hymel, for your support and contributions to this project. Thank you to the teachers and students involved in this project, as well as the research assistants in the Social-Emotional Learning Lab, for making this research study possible. Finally, thank you to my parents for supporting me in many ways throughout my studies and for encouraging me to pursue my goals. viiChapter 1: Introduction In recent years, there has been a paradigm shift in the field of educational and developmental psychology represented by a decreased focus on ill-being and abnormal development toward a focus aimed at understanding the competencies and contexts that foster positive development and well-being in children and adolescents (Greenberg et al., 2003; Seligman & Csikszentimihalyi, 2000). At the forefront of this field has been the study of social and emotional learning (SEL) and the development of preventative programs that aim to increase competencies including self and social awareness, self-regulation, perspective-taking, compassion, and empathy (Durlak, Weissberg, Dymnicki, Taylor, & Schellinger, 2011). Studies have shown positive correlations between measures of children’s social and emotional skills and indicators of later psychological health and well-being, academic success, and positive social relationships (Greenberg, Domitrovich, & Bumbarger, 2001; Zins, Weissberg, Wang, & Walberg, 2004). A relatively new construct within this area of research is self-compassion, which is described as an alternative model for thinking about and relating to oneself. Originating from Buddhist philosophy, self-compassion involves being “touched by and open to one’s own suffering, not avoiding or disconnecting from it, generating the desire to alleviate one’s suffering and to heal oneself in kindness” (Neff, 2003a, p. 87). Research with adults and adolescents indicates that self-compassion is associated with dimensions of psychological well-being, such as higher optimism and happiness and lower anxiety and depression (Neff, 2003a; Neff & McGhee, 2010). Due to its emphasis on self-kindness, as opposed to self-judgement and social comparison, self-compassion has been proposed as a healthier alternative to the promotion of 1self-esteem (Neff, 2011). Nonetheless, the potential benefits of self-compassion in childhood has not yet been investigated to date. In order for self-compassion to be studied in childhood, a measure of self-compassion must be constructed and validated with a sample of children. This gap is addressed in the present study, the primary goal of which was to examine a new self-report measure assessing self-compassion in late-middle childhood and pre-adolescence (ages 8-12).  The overall purpose of this study was to assess the reliability and validity of the Self-Compassion Scale, adapted for children (SCS-C).  The following chapter will be divided into three main sections. The first section will review the developmental period of late-middle childhood and pre-adolescence (ages 8-12) as well as the development of the self and different self-constructs throughout these years. Specifically, self-esteem and self-concept will be explored in more detail. In the second part of this chapter, self-compassion will be further introduced and defined, followed by a review of the research in this field with adults and adolescents. The third section will introduce the purpose of the current study and the specific research questions that will be examined. Late-Middle Childhood, Pre-Adolescence, and the Self  The late-middle childhood and pre-adolescent years is a period in development characterized by significant biological, social, cognitive, and environmental changes (Eccles,  1999; Oberle, Schonert-Reichl, & Thomson, 2009). Between the ages of 8 and 12, there is a marked increase in self-awareness, self-reflection, and perspective-taking abilities that  contribute to the development of a sense of identity and self-concept (Butler, 1998; Cole et al., 2001). During these years, children’s social worlds expand beyond the family and start to include 2peers as well as other adults in schools and communities (Steinberg 2005; Wigfield, Byrnes, & Eccles, 2006). Along with these new social contexts and opportunities to learn and grow, some adverse developmental trends may occur during the shift to early adolescence. It is during these years that behavioral and psychological problems may begin to emerge (Dahl & Gunnar, 2009; Steinberg, Albert, Cauffman, Banich, Graham, & Woolard, 2008). Specifically, in the context of school, students at this age become prone to test anxiety, learned helplessness, and self-consciousness that make it difficult to concentrate on learning tasks (Eccles, 1999; Eccles & Roeser, 2009).  The development of the self. During the middle to late childhood years (ages 8-10), self-representations become more complex. No longer do children define themselves just in terms of their physical features, likes, dislikes, and family members, but they begin to see themselves in terms of certain traits, competencies, and values (Harter, 2007). Children at this age evaluate themselves in comparison to their perception of others (Burgess & Rubin, 2000). They also begin to develop a sense of self based upon how they believe others perceive them, also known as the “looking-glass self’ (Cooley, 1902). Compared to toddlers and young children, it is considered normative at this age for self-perceptions to become more negative, which may be a result of children becoming more aware of what they are capable of due to advancements in cognition and social comparison as well as increased external feedback from adults and peers (Robins & Trzesniewski, 2005). In the transition to pre-adolescence, the self becomes increasingly differentiated and multiple selves begin to exist (Harter, 1999). Children around the age of 10-12 report different conceptions of the self across different contexts, such as with peers, at school, and with their family (Cole et al., 2001).3 Self-esteem and self-concept. William James (1890) defined self-esteem as the degree to which the self is judged to be competent in life domains deemed important. Charles Horton Cooley (1902) wrote that self-esteem comes not only from self-evaluations but also from the perceived evaluation of others. Although several definitions of self-esteem exist, within the developmental literature it has commonly been defined as the degree to which we evaluate ourselves positively, as well as how much we like or value ourselves, often related to comparisons with others (Harter, 2007).  Another self-evaluative construct is self-concept, which refers to one’s global sense of self-worth as well as perceptions of the self within specific domains (Damon & Hart, 1982; Marsh, Smith, & Barnes, 1983). Using domain-specific approaches to self-assessment has become the norm in research with pre- and early adolescents (Hymel, LeMare, Ditner, & Woody, 1999; Marsh 1994). As mentioned above, as children develop into adolescents self-views become more differentiated. For example, during this period in development, how one views themselves academically may be quite different from how they evaluate themselves socially or physically (Harter, 2007).  Both self-esteem and self-concept have generally been linked to many aspects of well-being (Lucas, Diener, & Suh, 1996; Lyubomirsky, Tkach, & DiMatteo, 2006) and have been negatively associated with indicators of psychological distress, such as poor adjustment, depression, anxiety, and suicide ideation (Harter, 1999; Molloy & Gest, 2011). As a result of positive findings associated with high self-esteem and self-concept, there has been an emphasis, throughout the past few decades, on raising children and adolescents’ self-esteem. This has 4included the promotion of large school-based programs aimed at enhancing self-esteem in students (Neff, 2003a).  Nevertheless, many issues with the promotion of self-esteem have been proposed and researched. Due to its emphasis on judging the self in comparison to others, achieving high self-esteem could depend on making downward social comparisons in order to inflate one’s self worth (Fein & Spencer, 1997). Maintaining a high sense of self-esteem may also result in cognitive distortions, such as believing that one’s own failure is the result of someone else or some other circumstance (Crocker & Park, 2004). High self-esteem has also been shown to correlate with narcissism, prejudice, aggression, and bullying (Aberson, Healy & Romero, 2000; Baumeister, Smart, & Boden, 1996; Morf & Rhodewalt, 2001; Salmivalli, Kaukiainen, Kaistaniemi, & Lagerspetz, 1999). In addition, self-esteem has been shown to fluctuate in response to performance outcomes (Kernis, Paradise, Whitaker, Wheatman, & Goldman, 2000).  In response to this line of research, Harter (2007) argues that for some individuals, high-self-esteem may be associated with narcissism, but for others it is associated with positive outcomes and well-being. She also proposes that self-esteem is neither a trait nor state and for some individuals it is stable and for others it fluctuates. Therefore, the issue with self-esteem may not have to do with how high or low it is, but rather, the way in which people protect or enhance their sense of self (Ryan & Brown, 2003). Deci and Ryan (1995), have also responded to the potential issues with self-esteem enhancement by making a distinction between true self-esteem and contingent self-esteem. They describe true self-esteem as stemming from autonomous, self-determined actions that reflect one’s authentic self, and contingent self-esteem as based on external standards and comparisons with others. 5 The next section of this chapter focuses on the concept of self-compassion—a self construct that is not focused on evaluating the self, but instead, refers to how one is aware of, relates to, and takes care of the self. Self-compassion, and its three main components, will be further defined followed by an overview of the development of the Self-Compassion Scale (SCS; Neff, 2003b)—a self-report questionnaire used to measure self-compassion in adulthood and adolescence. The Definition and Measurement of Self-Compassion Self-compassion defined. Compassion has commonly been defined as the awareness and sensitivity to the experience of suffering coupled with the desire to alleviate that suffering (Goetz, Keltner, & Simon-Thomas, 2010). Related to compassion is self-compassion, a concept derived from Buddhist philosophy, which is essentially compassion turned inwards. Self-compassion has been described as a more adaptive way of relating to the self (Neff 2003a, 2003b, 2010).  Neff (2003a) conceptualizes self-compassion as consisting of three elements: self-kindness, as opposed to self-criticism; a sense of common humanity, as opposed to feelings of individuality and isolation; and mindfulness, the ability to be aware of and open to experiencing one’s emotions and thoughts without over-identifying with them or persistently dwelling on them. Although these three components of self-compassion are conceptually separate, in reality they are interdependent and reinforce each other. For example, having kind and non-judgmental feelings towards the self should provide the emotional safety required to become aware, mindful, and accepting of one’s experiences in the present moment. In addition, being aware that mistakes, failures, and other forms of suffering, are part of the common human experience and shared 6among others, may also provide emotional safety and make it easier to relate to the self in a kind, caring, and compassionate way.  Self-compassion has been compared to self-themes from humanistic psychology, such as unconditional positive regard (Rogers, 1961) and unconditional self-acceptance (Ellis, 1973). Although these concepts have similarities with self-compassion, they are not as comprehensive, specifically in terms of connecting the self to others. The sense of common humanity is a key component in the self-compassion framework that distinguishes it from other self-themes because it expands the construct beyond the self and emphasizes the role of the individual as part of a larger inter-connected whole (Barnard & Curry, 2011). It is also the combination of these three elements that differentiates self-compassion from self-absorption, self-pity, and passivity towards the self (Neff, 2003a). Theoretically, self-compassion should not lead to self-absorption or self-centeredness due to its incorporation of the common humanity component. This is also why self-compassion is different from self-pity, which focuses on the separation of the self from others. Finally, instead of creating passivity towards the self, self-compassion includes being mindfully aware of one’s emotions, feelings, and experiences so that they can relate to them in a kind and compassionate way, rather than ignore or be passive towards them.  Self-compassion has been theorized as originating from the behavioral systems involved in attachment and affiliation with others (Gilbert, 2009). It is this caregiving system that gives individuals a sense of secure attachment, safety, self-worth, a sense of belonging, and increased happiness and reduced anxiety and depression. Research has shown that individuals who have access to warm and supportive schemas of the self can generate positive emotions more easily 7which allows them to “bounce back” from a failure or stressful event (Tugade & Fredrickson, 2004). A study by Gilbert, Baldwin, Irons, Baccus, and Palmer (2006) showed that individuals high in trait reassurance, compared to trait self-criticism, could generate compassionate imagery with little difficulty. The authors theorized that these traits are learned from interactions with others throughout development and eventually become internalized as self-schemas. Studies have also shown links between self-compassion and early childhood interactions, family conflict, and attachment among adolescents and young adults (Neff & McGeehee, 2010; Wei, Liao, Ku, & Shaffer, 2011).  The measurement of self-compassion. Research on self-compassion has been primarily instigated because Neff (2003b) developed a way to measure self-compassion via her construction of the Self-Compassion Scale (SCS). Items in the SCS were developed in a two-phase pilot study with undergraduate students at a large southwestern university (Neff, 2003b). In the first phase, 68 participants (44% male; M age = 21.7 years; SD = 2.32) met in focus groups consisting of three to five persons. Participants answered open-ended questions on the topic of self-compassion with the goal of identifying how individuals naturally spoke about the construct. Next, participants completed a questionnaire consisting of potential scale items that were previously generated by the researcher. Participants gave feedback on the comprehensibility of items. This phase took place over a series of eight weeks. Each week, items were modified and expanded based on feedback from the previous week.  In the second phase of the pilot study, 71 participants (66% female; M age = 21.3 years; SD = 2.03) completed a large pool of potential items generated from the previous phase. Participants were told that they were completing a survey on self-attitudes and were asked to 8indicate any items that seemed confusing or unclear. Items that were indicated as being unclear by two or more participants were subsequently deleted from the scale. In addition, participants were asked to complete items corresponding to values and beliefs that were believed to be associated with self-compassion (e.g., “I believe it is important for me to be as kind and caring towards myself as I am to other people”). Participants’ self-compassion scores were significantly correlated with responses on these corresponding items.  In the next study, the 71 items, which were generated from the pilot study, were administered to a sample of 391 undergraduate students (42% male; M age = 20.91 years; SD = 2.27) from a large southwestern university (Neff, 2003b). The ethnic breakdown of the sample was 58% White, 21% Asian, 11% Hispanic, 4% Black, and 6% Other. Participants responded to the items on a 5-point Likert-type scale, ranging from 1 (Almost never) to 5 (Almost always). Approximately one third of the items were intended to tap into each of the three sub-components of the self-compassion construct (self-kindness, common humanity, and mindfulness). The scale consisted of a roughly equal amount of positively and negatively worded items. Participants were also asked to complete scales and items measuring constructs predicted to be related to self-compassion, such as, self-criticism, connectedness, perfectionism, anxiety, depression, and life satisfaction. Each of the three sub-components were analyzed first using exploratory factor analysis (EFA). Items with factor loadings lower than .40 were omitted from the final version of the scale and not examined in the subsequent analyses. Next, items from each sub-component were analyzed using confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) to investigate the fit of a one-factor model. For each sub-component, a one-factor model did not fit the data well and it was hypothesized that  9the positively-worded items and negatively-worded items were forming two separate factors. The resulting two-factor model, investigated via CFA, fit the data well, resulting in six subscale factors: self-kindness, self-judgement, common humanity, isolation, mindfulness, and over-identification.   Next, a CFA, assessing the fit of the six intercorrelated factors, revealed that a single higher-order self-compassion factor fit the data well (NNFI = .88; CFI = .90). This final 26-item scale was supported by an internal consistency of .92, with the individual subscales ranging from .75-.81. The measure revealed good test-retest reliability over a 3-week period with correlations ranging from .85-.93. Responses on the SCS also were significantly correlated with the predicted related constructs in the expected direction. Females had significantly lower overall self-compassion scores than males.  In a second study, Neff (2003b) compared scores on the SCS between undergraduate students (using the same sample as the previous study), and 43 practicing Buddhists (63% female; M age = 47 years; SD = 9.71). The ethnic breakdown of the sample was 91% White, 5% Asian, and 2% Other. The number of years that participants reported practicing Buddhist meditation ranged from 1 to 40 years (M = 7.72 years; SD = 7.64). Results indicated that, as hypothesized, Buddhists had significantly higher scores than undergraduates on all three “positive” self-compassion subscales (self-kindness, common humanity, and mindfulness) and significantly lower scores on all three “negative” self-compassion subscales (self-judgement, isolation, and over-identification). There was also a significant correlation between self-compassion scores and the number of years of practice in the Buddhist sample. Finally, in the Buddhist sample, there was no significant differences in self-compassion between genders. 10 An alternative shortened version of the self-compassion scale has also been constructed and validated with three different samples (Raes, Pommier, Neff, & Van Gucht, 2011). The first sample consisted of 271 Dutch-speaking psychology students at a university in Belgium (21% male; M age = 18.14 years; SD = 1.25). The second sample consisted of 185 Dutch-speaking participants (71% female; M age = 33.04; SD = 10.60) who were recruited via email. The third sample consisted of 415 English-speaking students (34% male; M age = 20.62 years; SD = 1.74) at a large southwestern university. The ethnic breakdown of this final sample was reported as being 53.5% Caucasian, 20.5% Hispanic, 7.0% African American, 7.0% Asian American, 5.3% Mixed Ethnicity, 1.7% Foreign, 0.7% American Indian, and 4.3% Other. The shortened scale was created by taking two items from each of the six self-compassion subscales that showed high correlations with the original SCS as well as their intended SCS subscale. This 12-item scale revealed adequate internal consistency, with Cronbach’s alpha ≥ .86 in all samples and strong correlations with the longer version of the scale (r ≥ .97). CFA supported the same six-factor model as well as a single higher-order factor of self-compassion. In the following section, an overview of the research on self-compassion in adulthood and adolescence will be presented, including studies using the self-report measure developed by Neff (2003b). Results from these studies and implications for future research on self-compassion, specifically the study of self-compassion in childhood, will be put forth. Correlates of Self-Compassion Self-compassion and indicators of well-being. Over the past decade, research on self-compassion has consistently identified positive associations with multiple aspects of well-being (for a review see Neff, 2011). In both adult and adolescent samples, self-compassion has been 11found to be positively related to life satisfaction, happiness, optimism, social-connectedness, and negatively associated with depression, anxiety, and stress (Neff, 2003a; Neff, Rude, & Kirkpatrick, 2007; Shapira & Mongrain, 2010). In adults, self-compassion has also been shown to correlate with indicators of physical well-being and health promoting behaviors, such as sticking to one’s diet, exercising, and seeking medical attention when needed (Allen, Goldwasser, & Leary, 2012; Hall, Row, Wuensch, & Godley, 2013; Leary & Adams, 2007; Magnus, Kowalski, & McHugh, 2010; Terry & Leary, 2011). Self-compassion and self-esteem. Self-compassion has also been presented as a more promising alternative to the promotion of self-esteem (Neff, 2003a). As mentioned above, although high self-esteem has been continually linked to several positive psychological assets, it is not completely clear that raising self-esteem is beneficial for all individuals (Ryan & Brown, 2003).  An issue with comparing self-compassion, self-esteem, and other self-related constructs is the likely overlap among them. Although self-esteem and self-compassion are described as different constructs, both adolescents and adults high in self-compassion also report high levels of self-esteem (Neff, 2003a; Neff & Vonk, 2009). These findings are not surprising considering that, theoretically, those who are self-compassionate should have more positive feelings towards the self, resulting in high self-esteem.  In order to differentiate self-compassion and global self-esteem, Neff et al. (2009) conducted a study examining the relation of self-compassion to indicators of well-being in adults, while statistically controlling for the influence of self-esteem, via a hierarchical regression. The researchers found that self-compassion was negatively associated with self-worth contingency, social comparison, public self-consciousness, self rumination, anger, and need for cognitive  12closure after controlling for the influence of self-esteem. In addition, compared to self-esteem, self-compassion predicted more stable feelings of self-worth over an eight month period. In a study with young adults, self-compassion was also related to reduced anxiety after completing a job interview task that involved thinking about one’s greatest weakness, whereas self-esteem alone did not provide the same buffer (Neff et al., 2007). Additionally, in a sample of adults, self-compassion was negatively associated with the use of self-esteem protecting strategies (Petersen, 2014). These results indicate that self-compassion may be associated with more adaptive competencies beyond self-esteem. High levels of self-compassion may allow individuals to reflect on negative events, failures, and mistakes without avoiding the feelings associated with them or becoming subsumed with negative emotions. Self-compassion may also be associated with individuals’ ability to accept negative circumstances for what they are, learn from these experiences, and strive to do better in the future. However, the relation between self-compassion, self-esteem, and self-concept in childhood and pre-adolescence, specifically, has not yet been studied empirically.  Self-compassion and compassion towards others. Research has also been conducted to investigate the links between self-compassion and empathy, compassion towards others, and interpersonal relationships in general. Self-compassion has been shown to be associated with increased perspective-taking and forgiveness among undergraduates, community adults, and practicing Buddhists (Neff & Pommier, 2013). Specifically, in adult romantic relationships, self-compassion was associated with emotional connectivity, acceptance, and autonomy supportiveness according to self-reports as well as partner-reports (Neff & Beretvas, 2012). 13 Longitudinal and experimental studies, with late adolescents and young adults, have also shown that self-compassion may positively influence relationships with others, and vice-versa. A study by Crocker and Canevello (2008), found that compassionate goals towards the self were related to more social support and interpersonal trust among college roommates after the first semester. In an experimental study, Breines and Chen (2013) had undergraduate participants either think about or experience some kind of negative event, such as performing poorly on a test. The experimenters found that offering support to either a friend or stranger after thinking about or experiencing a negative event, resulted in an increase in self-compassion. These findings highlight the relation between compassion towards the self and compassion towards others.  Self-compassion and mindfulness. As one of the three main components in Neff’s definition of self-compassion, it is important to understand and define the concept of mindfulness in more detail. Mindfulness has been commonly defined as being aware in the present moment experience in a clear and balanced way (Brown & Ryan, 2003). It is also described as a self-regulation of attention that allows for one to experience whatever thoughts, emotions, and sensations that arise with a curious and accepting attitude (Neff, 2003a). Martin (1997) wrote that mindfulness is “a situation in which the sense of self or self-esteem maintenance softens or disappears” (p. 292), which allows for a mind state which is nonjudgmental, receptive, and open to observing experiences and emotions for what they simply are, and not how they impact one’s self-concept.  The mindfulness component within the larger self-compassion framework is narrower than mindfulness in general because it does not refer to all kinds of awareness, but specifically the awareness of one’s own suffering (Neff, 2003a). Self-compassion can be seen as an outcome 14of mindfulness as well as a antecedent for mindful awareness in future moments, allowing individuals to continue to become aware of their experiences in an open and non-judgmental way. Therefore, it is theorized that mindfulness and self-compassion are related and mutually enhance each other (Bluth & Blanton, 2013). Research investigating the relations between self-compassion and mindfulness, with adolescents and adults, has supported these theories. Researchers have found significant correlations between self-compassion and mindfulness using both the Mindfulness Attention and Awareness Scale (MAAS) and the Five Factor Mindfulness Questionnaire (FFMQ) (Birnie, Speca, & Carlson, 2010; Neff 2003b). However, results of studies comparing the influence of self-compassion and mindfulness on well-being have been mixed. Cross-sectional observations have shown that self-compassion explains significantly more variance in well-being, compared to mindfulness alone, but only when using a single-factor measure of mindfulness (Baer, Lykins, & Peters, 2012; Van Dam, Sheppard, Forsyth, & Earlywine, 2011). When a multifaceted measure of mindfulness was used, mindfulness explained more variance in well-being than self-compassion (Woodruff, Glass, Arnkoff, Crowley, Hindman, & Hirschhorn, 2013). In a study, specifically with adolescents, Bluth et al. (2013) found that both self-compassion and mindfulness acted as predictors and mediators in their relation to positive and negative affect, life satisfaction, and perceived stress. The authors concluded that there is likely a reciprocal relation between self-compassion and mindfulness in predicted well-being. Finally, in a longitudinal study with young adults, comparing a meditation treatment and control group across three time points, Bergen-Cico and Cheon (2013) found that changes in mindfulness preceded changes in self-compassion which resulted in a reduction in trait anxiety. 15 These results indicate that the relation between mindfulness and self-compassion is complex and may depend on the measures being used, the design of the study, and the populations being investigated. It is not completely clear whether the development of mindfulness comes before self-compassion, or vice-versa. More research is needed in order to determine how mindfulness and self-compassion interact and influence positive outcomes. In addition, there is a lack of research looking specifically at the relations between mindfulness and self-compassion in children and pre-adolescence.  Relations of self-compassion to internalizing disorders and coping. A large amount of research has been done studying self-compassion in relation to mental health and coping in late adolescence and adulthood. A recent meta-analysis identified a large effect size (r = -.54) when summarizing the links between self-compassion and psychopathology (depression, anxiety, and stress) across 20 studies (MacBeth & Gumley, 2012). All of the studies included in this meta-analysis used Neff’s Self-Compassion Scale. Self-compassion was also found to be negatively related to eating disorder symptomology in adolescent and adult females (Ferreira, Pino-Gouveia, & Duarte, 2013) and psychological distress associated with chronic pain in adults (Costa & Pinto-Gouveia, 2013). Among adolescents and emerging adults, self-compassion has been shown to act as a buffer against homesickness, depression, and dissatisfaction with the transition to college during the first semester (Terry, Leary, & Mehta, 2013).  Recently, interventions and treatments that focus on teaching self-compassion have been developed and are currently being researched. Examples of these are Compassionate Mind Training (CMT), Mindful Self-Compassion (MSC), and Self-Compassion Imagery. Results thus far have been promising, showing increases in mindfulness, self-compassion, and decreases in 16psychopathological symptoms among adult clinical samples as well as highly critical individuals (Germer & Neff, 2012; Gilbert & Irons, 2004; Gilbert & Procter, 2006). These findings provide initial support in the ability to increase levels of self-compassion in certain individuals. However, randomized control trials, with both passive and active control groups, are required to draw conclusions on the overall benefits of these programs.  Summary. Overall, these studies demonstrate that self-compassion is an important self construct related to psychological and physical well-being, positive relationships with others, mindful attention and awareness, and coping with stressful or difficult experiences. Self-compassion, which is focused on how one relates to the self, rather than how one perceives or evaluates the self, may be more predictive of well-being than self-esteem alone. Promoting self-kindness, mindfulness, and an understanding of the shared human experience, may provide individuals with skills to cope with and overcome difficult life experiences while also contributing to positive social and emotional well-being.  Missing from this field of research is the study of self-compassion in childhood. Neff (2003a) theorizes that self-compassion is present throughout development and is derived from interactions with caregivers and attachment style at an early age. However, no study to date has investigated self-compassion in individuals under the age of 12. It is important to understand how self-compassion develops in relation to experiences in childhood and whether or not it is associated with the same positive social and emotional competencies as it is in adolescence and adulthood. Investigating self-compassion in late-middle childhood and pre-adolescence is especially important given the critical biological, social, cognitive, and environmental changes 17that occur over these years. It is also a period in development where there is increased social comparison and evaluation of the self against others and certain performance standards.  This gap in the field of self-compassion research is likely due to the lack of measures of self-compassion specifically for children. Neff’s Self-Compassion Scale, which has commonly been used in self-compassion research, was developed and validated with adults. Although studies have been done using the scale with adolescents, the phrasing of some of the items may be confusing or interpreted differently by children (i.e., “When I feel inadequate in some way, I try to remind myself that feelings of inadequacy are shared by most people.”). Therefore, in order to investigate the role of self-compassion with children, an age-appropriate measure of self-compassion must be statistically validated. The Current Study In light of the limited empirical research on the construct of self-compassion among child populations, the primary purpose of this study was to assess the reliability and construct validity of a modified version of the Self-Compassion Scale (SCS; Neff, 2003b), the SCS-C that was adapted by Lawlor (2011). According to Messick (1995, p. 743), “construct validity comprises the evidence and rationales supporting the trustworthiness of score interpretation in terms of explanatory concepts that account for both test performance and score relationships with other variables.” In the present study, several aspects of construct validity of the SCS-C were investigated. Scores on the SCS-C, along with a battery of additional measures, were analyzed to answer the following three questions: 1) Is the SCS-C a reliable and psychometrically sound measure when used with a population of children? 2) Does the SCS-C relate to other constructs (namely, mindfulness, self-concept, indicators of well-being, empathy, and prosocial goals and 18behaviour) as predicted by previous research with adolescents and adults? 3) Do scores on the SCS-C differ across gender and grade?  In this study, we used Cohen’s (1988) conventions for interpreting effect size, where a correlation coefficient of .10 represents a small or weak correlation; a correlation coefficient of .30 describes a moderate correlation; and a correlation coefficient of .50 or larger is considered a large or strong correlation. In terms of convergent evidence, we hypothesized that scores on the SCS-C would be correlated to self-reported mindfulness, self-concept, indicators of well-being, empathic-related responding, and prosocial goals, and teacher-reported social and emotional competence and empathy/sympathy. Because mindfulness is one of the three main components of the self-compassion framework, as well as previous research indicating a significant relationship between self-compassion and indicators of mindfulness in adolescence and adulthood (see Bluth et al., 2013), we predicted that scores on the SCS-C would exhibit a moderate to large positive correlation with scores on a measure of mindfulness. Due to research indicating significant positive relations between self-compassion and self-esteem in adolescence and adulthood (see Neff et al., 2008), we also predicted that scores on the SCS-C would exhibit a moderate to large correlation with both general and school self-concept. In addition, following previous research indicating relationships of self-compassion to indicators of well-being in adolescence and adulthood (see Neff, 2011 for a review), we predicted that scores on the SCS-C would be moderate to largely correlated with optimism, satisfaction with life, and positive affect, and significantly and negatively correlated with negative affect, depression, and anxiety. In contrast, we hypothesized that correlations between scores on the SCS-C and measures of empathic-related responding, prosocial goals, and teacher-rated social and emotional competence and 19empathy/sympathy would be significant but exhibit a small to moderate correlation. This prediction was due to the less extensive body of research on self-compassion and compassion towards others, as well as the mixed findings in previous research on self-compassion and empathy. For example, Neff et al. (2013) found self-compassion to be associated with empathy in a sample of community adults, but not with sample of undergraduate students. In addition, the majority of items on the SCS-C refer specifically to how one relates to the self (e.g.,“When I’m going through a very hard time, I’m really nice to myself”), and few items mention feelings towards others (e.g.,“When I fail at something, I try to remember that everybody fails sometimes too”). For these reasons, it was predicted that correlations between self-compassion and indicators of compassion towards others would be small to moderate in size. 20Chapter 2: Method A secondary data set was used for this study. The data were collected as part of a Randomized Controlled Trial (RCT) evaluating the effectiveness of a universal social and emotional learning (SEL) program. Data were collected at three times across the school year. For the purposes of this study, only pre-test data (collected in October 2011) were analyzed.Participants Participants included a multicultural sample of 406 (51% female) 4th to 7th grade students drawn from 17 elementary school classrooms in a large urban public school district located in Western Canadian city representing a diverse range of socioeconomic statuses. After excluding participants from the analysis who reported reading English as “hard” or “very hard,” the final sample included 382 students (50% female; M =11.3 years; SD = .90; Range, 8.80 to 12.94 years). With regard to first language learned, 71% of students reported English as their first language, 13% reported Cantonese, 2% Filipino, 11% reported one of several other languages (e.g., Hindi, Japanese, Korean), and 3% reported Other (e.g., Arabic, German). The range of languages in this sample is reflective of the cultural and ethnic diversity of the Western Canadian city in which the research study took place. With regard to family composition, 83% reported living with two parents (e.g., mother & father, mother, & stepfather), 8% reported living with a single parent (e.g., mother, father), and 9% reported other combinations (e.g., grandparents, mother, and mother’s boyfriend, mother, father, and aunt). Of the students recruited for participation, 92% received parental consent and gave their own assent. 21 Procedure Ethics approval to conduct the present study was obtained from the University of British Columbia’s Behavioural Research Ethics Board (BREB; for certificate number, see Preface). After receiving ethics approval, permission to conduct research in the school district was obtained from the school board ethics committee. Next, schools were contacted to request their participation in the study. Following teacher recruitment, the Principal Investigator or research assistants visited each school and explained the study to students using child-friendly language, answered any questions the students had, and provided parental/guardian consent forms.  Teacher consent (see Appendix A), parent/guardian consent (see Appendix B), and student assent (see Appendix C) were obtained from all participants. The consent forms explained that the purpose of the study was to investigate the effectiveness of two intervention programs designed to enhance teacher and student social and emotional competencies. It also explained that participating in the study would involve completing a questionnaire at three time points throughout the school year and that all identities and responses would be kept confidential. Classrooms that participated were provided a pizza party at the end of the year, and teachers were given a $25 gift card and provided with a half-day teacher-on-call (TOC) to teach their classes while they completed their surveys. Pre-test data were obtained in October, mid-point data in February, and post-test in May/June. For the purpose of this study, only data collected at pre-test (October) were analyzed. Measures Measures for this study were comprised of student and teacher reports. Student self-reports measures were used to assess self-compassion, mindfulness, self-concept, well-being, 22empathic-related responding, and pro-social goals. Teacher ratings of each student were used to assess students’ social and emotional competence and empathy/sympathy1. The measures are discussed in the following sections, in this order.  Student self-reports. Students completed a battery of self-report measures in the larger study. For the purposes of this present study, only a subsample of the measures were included (See Appendix D). Each of these measures are discussed below. Student demographics were obtained by asking questions about their age, gender, family composition, and first language learned (see Sub-Appendix D.1). Due to the large population of children in the school district who do not speak English as their first language, we also asked children to rate their ability to read English on a 4-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (Very hard) to 4 (Very Easy). To examine students’ self-compassion, mindfulness, self-concept, well-being, empathic-related responding, and prosocial goals students completed self-reported questionnaires on a number of measures, each of which are discussed in turn. Students’ well-being was operationalized in the present study via measures assessing both positive emotions and indicators of well-being (i.e., optimism, satisfaction with life, and positive affect), and psychological adjustment (i.e., anxious symptoms, depressive symptoms, and negative affect). To account for missing data, participants had to have responded to at least 80% of the items on a scale, and then the average was taken. The measurement of children’s self-compassion: Self-Compassion Scale for Children construction.  Twelve self-report items were pilot-tested, to assess children’s self-compassion (see Appendix D.2). The items were adapted from the Shortened Self-Compassion Scale (SSCS; 231 One participating teacher did not complete student ratings at pre-test resulting in a smaller sample size for these measures. Raes et al., 2011) for adults. Lawlor (2011) modified the SSCS to use with younger populations by altering the language to be age-appropriate. The SCS-C assesses each of the six components of Neff’s definition of self-compassion: Self-kindness (e.g.,“ I try to be kind towards those things about myself I don’t like.”), Self-judgment (e.g., “I am hard on myself about my own flaws/weaknesses.”), Common humanity (e.g., “When I fail at something, I try to remember that everybody fails sometimes too.”), Isolation (e.g., “When I fail at something that’s important to me, I feel like I’m all alone.”), Mindfulness (e.g., “When something upsets me I try to stay calm.”), and Over-identification (e.g., “When I’m feeling sad, I can’t stop thinking about everything that’s wrong.”).  Students were asked to respond on a five-point Likert-type scale, which ranged from 1 (Never) to 5 (Always). The items assessing self-judgment, isolation, and over-identification (1, 4, 8, 9, 11, 12) were reversed-scored. A total score was calculated by averaging scores across the 12 items, including the six reverse-scored items. The 12 items of this scale are considered to have face validity (i.e., “the test bears a common sense relationship to the measurement objective,” p. 204, Moiser, 1947). This will be the first study to investigate the factor structure and internal reliability of these items together as a scale with a sample of children. Students self-reports of mindfulness. Student’s mindfulness was assessed using the Mindful Attention and Awareness Scale for Children (MAAS-C; Lawlor, Schonert-Reichl, Gadernann, & Zumbo, 2013, see Appendix D.3), an adapted version of the Mindful Attention and Awareness Scale (Brown & Ryan, 2003). The MAAS-C consists of 15 items that assesses the frequency of mindful states over time. Benn (2004) modified the MAAS to use with younger populations by altering the language to be age appropriate and changing the 6-point Likert-type 24scale to read in a more child friendly format, ranging from 1 (Almost never) to 6 (Almost always). Brown and Ryan proposed that “statements reflecting mindlessness are likely more accessible to most individuals, given that mindless states are much more common than mindful states” (p. 826), thus, items on the MAAS-C reflect mindless states (e.g., “I could be feeling a certain way an not realize it until later.”). Total scores were created by reverse scoring all of the items and averaging ratings from each item, with higher scores representing more mindful states. Evidence for reliability and construct validity has been demonstrated (Lawlor et al., 2013; Oberle, Schonert-Reichl, Lawlor, & Thompson, 2012). For the present study, Cronbach’s alpha for the MAAS-C was .86.  Students self-reports of self-concept. Students’ self-concept was assessed using two subscales from the Self Description Questionnaire (SDQ; Marsh, 1988, see Appendix D.4). The 16-item scale used in this study consisted of two subscales (8 items each): General Self-concept (e.g., “In general, I like being the way I am.”), and School Self-concept (e.g., “I am good at school subjects.”). Students’ rated items on a five-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (Never) to 5 (Always). A total score was created for each subscale by averaging ratings for each item with higher scores representing higher self-concepts. Evidence for the reliability and validity of this scale has been provided by Marsh (1988, 1990, 1994) and Gilman, Laughlin, and Huebner (1999). For the present study, Cronbach’s alpha for the General Self-concept subscale was .84, and .87 for School Self-concept subscale.  Students self-reports of well-being: Optimism. To examine optimism, students completed the Optimism subscale of the Resiliency Inventory (RI; Song, 2003, see Appendix D.5). The RI was designed to assess six dimensions of resilience: Optimism, Self-efficacy, Relationships with 25Adults, Relationships with Peers, Interpersonal Sensitivity, and Emotional Control. For the purposes of this study, only the Optimism subscale was used. The Optimism subscale measures a person’s positive perspective on the world and future (e.g., “More good things than bad things will happen to me.”) and consists of nine items, of which five are reverse scored. Students responded to the items with a five-point Likert-type scale, ranging from 1 (Not at all like me) to 5 (Always like me). Ratings were averaged with higher scores representing higher levels of optimism. Evidence for internal consistency, test-retest reliability, and construct validity of this inventory have been described (Song, 2003), and evidence supporting the reliability of the Optimism subscale has been identified in studies of childhood and early adolescence (e.g., Lawlor et al., 2013; Oberle et al., 2010). For the present study, Cronbach’s alpha for the Optimism subscale was .77.  Students self-reports of well-being: Life satisfaction. Students’ life satisfaction was assessed using the Satisfaction With Life Scale for Children (SWLS-C; Gadermann, Schonert-Reichl, & Zumbo, 2010, see Appendix D.6), an adapted version of the Satisfaction With Life Scale (SWLS; Diener, Emmons, Larsen, & Griffin, 1985). The SWLS-C consists of five items that assess global life satisfaction (e.g., “If I could live my life over, I would have it the same way.”). Students rated the items on a five-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (Disagree a lot) to 5 (Agree a lot). Ratings were averaged to produce a total score with higher scores indicating higher levels of life satisfaction. Evidence supporting the validity and reliability of the SWLS-C has been documented with samples of children and early adolescents (Gadermann et al., 2010; Gadermann, Guhn, & Zumbo, 2011). In the present study, Cronbach’s alpha for the SWLS-C was .83. 26 Students self-reports of well-being: Positive and negative affect. To assess positive and negative affect, students completed the Positive and Negative Affect Schedule for Children (PANAS-C; Laurent et al., 1999, see Appendix D.7). This measure is similar to the original PANAS (Watson, Clark, & Tellgen, 1988), but has been modified for children. The PANAS consists of 20 emotion words (e.g., “Interested,” “Excited,” “Miserable,” “Afraid; 10 positive; 10 negative) that are rated according to how much the respondent has felt that emotion over the last week, from 1 (Very slightly or not at all) to 5 (A lot). Scores were averaged to create two total scores, one for positive affect and one for negative affect, with higher scores indicating higher levels of each. Evidence supporting the validity and reliability of the PANAS-C has been documented with samples of children (Laurent et al., 1999). In the present study, Cronbach’s alpha for the PANAS-C was .87 (positive affect) and .84 (negative affect).  Students self-reports of well-being: Psychological adjustment. Students’ psychological adjustment was examined using the Anxious Symptoms and Depressive Symptoms subscales from the Seattle Personality Questionnaire for Young School-Aged Children (Kusche, Greenberg, & Beilke, 1988, see Appendix D.8). The Anxious Symptoms subscale consists of seven items (e.g., “Do you worry what other people think of you?”), and the Depressive Symptoms subscale consists of 11 items (e.g., “Do you feel unhappy a lot of the time?”). Students responded to each statement on a four-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (Not at all) to 4 (Always). Ratings were averaged for each subscale with higher scores representing higher levels of anxious and depressive symptoms. Evidence for the reliability and construct validity of this instrument has been demonstrated (Rains, 2003; Greenberg & Lengua, 1995). For the present study, Cronbach’s 27alpha for the Anxious Symptoms subscale was .83 and .78 for the Depressive Symptoms subscale. Student self-reports of empathy: Empathic-related responding. To assess students’ empathic-related responding two subscales modified for children from the Interpersonal Reactivity Index (IRI: Davis, 1983; Oberle et al., 2010, see Appendix D.9) were included: Empathic Concern and Perspective-taking. The original IRI is a self-report measure comprised of four subscales (Empathic Concern, Perspective-taking, Fantasy, and Personal Distress), each of which address a separate dimension of empathy (Oberle et al., 2010). The Empathic Concern subscale consists of seven items that assess the tendency to feel concern for others (e.g., “I often feel sorry for people who don’t have the things I have.”). The Perspective-taking subscale consists of seven items that assess the tendency to consider things from others’ viewpoints (e.g., “Sometimes I try to understand my friends better by imagining how they think about things.”). Participants responded to items on a five-point Likert-type scale, ranging from 1 (Not at all like me) to 5 (Always like me). Total scores for each of the subscales were calculated by averaging the ratings, with higher scores representing higher levels of each dimension. Evidence in support of the construct validity of these subscales has been documented in studies of children and early adolescents (Schonert-Reichl, Smith, Zaidman-Zait, & Hertzman, 2012; Wentzel, Filisetti, & Looney, 2007). For the present study, internal consistency, assessed via Cronbach’s alpha, was satisfactory for the Empathic Concern subscale (α =.84) and for the Perspective-taking subscale (α =.77). Students self-reports of pro-sociality: Prosocial goals. Students’ self-reported prosocial goals were examined using the Prosocial Goals subscale from the Social Goals Questionnaire 28(Wentzel, 1993, see Appendix D.10). The 7-item subscale consists of questions that tap into prosocial goals and behaviour (e.g., “How often do you try to cheer someone up when something has gone wrong?”). Students responded to each question on a five-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (Never) to 5 (Always). Ratings were averaged with higher scores indicating higher levels of prosocial goals. Evidence for the reliability and construct validity of this scale with early adolescents has been demonstrated (Wentzel, 1993; Wentzel et al., 2007). For the present study, Cronbach’s alpha for the measure was .84.  Teacher-report of students: Social and emotional competence. Teachers completed a measure of each student’s social and emotional competence via the Social and Emotional Competence subscale of the Teachers’ Rating Scale of Social Competence (TRSC; Kam & Greenberg, 1998, see Appendix E.1) questionnaire. The TRSC is a 31-item scale consisting of four subscales: Aggressive Behaviour, Oppositional Behaviour/Dysregulation, Attention and Concentration, and Social and Emotional Competence. For the purposes of this study, only the Social and Emotional Competence subscale was used. The subscale is comprised of seven items that assess aspects of prosocial behaviours, such as cooperation and helping (e.g., “Provides help, shares materials, and acts cooperatively with other”). Teachers rated each item on a six-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (Almost never) to 6 (Almost always), for each student as follows: “Compared to other boys/girls at this grade level, how often does/is [Child’s Name] (e.g., listens carefully to other?)”. Total scores were calculated by averaging ratings for each item with higher scores indicating higher levels of students’ social and emotional competence. Evidence for the construct validity of the Social and Emotional Competence subscale has been 29demonstrated in previous research (Schonert-Reichl & Lawlor, 2010). For the present study, Cronbach’s alpha for the measure was .94.   Teacher-report of students: Empathy/Sympathy. Teachers completed a measure of each student’s empathy/sympathy via the Empathy/Sympathy subscale from the Teachers’ Ratings of Children’s and Adolescents’ Behavior (AR4; Eisenberg et al., 2003, see Appendix E.2). The AR4 is a nine item scale consisting of two subscales: Empathy/Sympathy and Peer Acceptance. For the purposes of this study only the Empathy/Sympathy subscale was used. The subscale consists of six items that assess aspects of students empathic and sympathetic responding towards others (e.g., “This child usually comforts others who are upset or hurt.”). Teachers rated each item on a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (Never) to 5 (Always), for each student. Total scores were calculated by averaging ratings for each item with higher scores indicating higher levels of students’ empathy/sympathy. Internal consistency for the Empathy/Sympathy subscale for the present study was .89. 30Chapter 3: Results Results are organized into three main sections. The first section reports results from an exploratory factor analysis (EFA) for the SCS-C along with item distributions, intercorrelations among items, and internal consistency of the SCS-C. The second section reports correlational analyses addressing the convergent validity of the SCS-C. More specifically, results regarding the relation of the SCS-C to students’ self-reported mindfulness, self-concept, well-being, empathic-related responding, and prosocial goals, and teacher-reported social and emotional competence and empathy/sympathy are presented. The third section reports analyses examining gender and grade differences on the SCS-C.Factor Structure and Reliability of the SCS-C Exploratory factor analysis. One primary goal of the present study was to examine the factor structure of the twelve items from the SCS-C – a scale that was modified for children from the Shortened Self-Compassion Scale (SSCS; Raes et al., 2011). The SCS-C includes items that tap into the six sub-components found within the original version of the SCS (Neff, 2003b): self-kindness, self-judgment, common humanity, isolation, mindfulness, and over-identification. To examine the factor structure of the SCS-C, Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) was used rather than Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) because the factor structure of this modified version of the SCS has not previously been examined with children (Hayton, Allen, & Scarpello, 2004). Although items were measured on an ordinal scale of 1 (Never) to 5 (Always), they were treated as numerical data. In addition, the Pearson correlation matrix (rather than the polychoric correlations) was analyzed because the distributions were fairly normal and exhibited small amounts of skewness and kurtosis (see Table 1).  Using SPSS (Version 22), common factors were 31first extracted using the principal axis factoring method. Oblique rotation was conducted using the promax method. Two factors were suggested using the eigenvalue ≥ 1 rule. The first eigenvalue was 3.67 and accounted for 31% of the variance, and the second eigenvalue was 2.79 and accounted for 23% of the variance. A parallel analysis (Hayton et al., 2004; Patil, Singh, Mishra, & Donavan, 2007) also identified two factors (a third random factor had an eigenvalue of 1.20, which is larger than the third eigenvalue of .94 in the dataset). The rationale underlying parallel analysis is that actual eigenvalues from real data that are less than or equal to the parallel average random eigenvalues are considered due to sampling error, therefore, only those factors corresponding to eigenvalues greater than those derived from parallel analysis should be retained (Hayton et al., 2004). Pratt’s measures were used to examine the relative importance of the factors to each of the items (see Table 2). Although they are generally used in multiple regression analyses, Pratt’s measures have been shown to be a useful and simple technique for EFA, especially when theorized constructs are multidimensional and are expected to be inter-correlated (Wu, Zumbo, & Marshall, 2014). In Table 2, the pattern matrix consists of the standardized partial regression coefficients for each factor on each of the items. The structure matrix consists of the simple correlations between each factor and each of the items. The communalities are the sum of the squared loadings of each factor on each item. Pratt’s matrix was calculated by multiplying the values from the pattern and structure matrices and divided them by the communality, for each item. As a result, the two columns under Pratt’s Matrix exhibit the relative importance of each factor to the communality of each item by comparing the factors’ proportions within an item. For example, for item 1, Factor 1 accounted for 98% of the communality and Factor 2 accounted for .3203% of the communality. Therefore, Factor 1 can be assumed as being more important in explaining the variation in item 1 compared to Factor 2. The more important factor is identified in bold for each item in Table 1.These findings suggest that Factor 1 is more important in explaining the communality in items 1, 4, 8, 9, 11, and 12 (negatively-worded items) and Factor 2 is more important in explaining the communality in items 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, and 10 (positively-worded items). The estimated correlation between the two factors was .16.  In addition, the intercorrelation among items on the SCS-S were examined. As shown in Table 3, the magnitude of the correlations among items 1, 4, 8, 9, 11, and 12 (negatively-worded items) ranged from .35 to .53 and the magnitude of the correlations among items 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, and 10 (positively-worded items) ranged from .28 to .63. These correlation coefficients are identified in bold. In contrast, the magnitude of correlations between the negatively-worded items and the positively-worded items were relatively small, ranging from -.06 to .20. These patterns of correlations provide further evidence for the two-factor model of the SCS-C. Based on the items in the adapted scale, as well as the original subscales developed by Neff (2003a), we named the subscale representing the first factor as “Self-judgment and Isolation” and the subscale representing the second factor as “Self-kindness and Acceptance.” 33Table 1Item Responses Percentages, Skewness, and Kurtosis of the SCS-CItem M SDNever (%)AlmostNever (%)Sometimes (%)Almost Always (%)Always(%) SkewnessaKurtosisb1 3.10 1.03 6.8 17.8 44.0 21.2 9.9 -.02 -.262 3.04 0.86 4.2 17.5 52.1 20.7 4.7 -.03 .323 3.11 0.92 2.9 12.3 46.6 27.2 11 -.04 -.044 3.08 1.12 9.2 20.9 33.5 25.7 10.7 -.09 -.695 3.22 1.03 5.5 15.7 42.4 24.1 12.3 -.08 -.326 3.03 1.06 7.9 22 38.7 21.7 9.4 .02 -.497 3.34 0.98 4.5 11.3 41.9 29.1 12.3 -.22 -.108 2.60 1.12 17.5 33.8 27.7 13.4 6.3 .43 -.509 2.88 1.18 12.3 27.2 31.4 17.3 11.5 .20 -.7710 3.04 1.05 7.6 19.6 43.5 18.8 9.9 .05 -.3111 2.73 1.11 14.1 29.1 32.2 17.8 6.5 .20 -.6412 2.75 1.15 12.3 27.2 31.4 17.3 11.5 .26 -.62aStandard error of Skewness = .13. bStandard error of Kurtosis = .25.34Table 2Results for the 2-factor Model with Pratt’s Measures Matrix.Pattern Matrix Structure Matrix Communality Pratt’s MatrixItem F1 F2 F1 F2 F1 F21 .65 .08 .66 .19 .44 .98 .032 -.07 .57 .02 .55 .31 .00 1.013 .03 .68 .14 .68 .47 .01 .984 .72 -.13 .70 -.01 .50 1.01 .005 .02 0.80 .13 .70 .50 .01 1.126 .02 .70 .13 .70 .49 .01 1.007 .07 .60 .16 .57 .33 .03 1.048 .75 -.03 .74 .09 .55 1.01 .009 .63 -.02 .62 .08 .39 1.00 .0010 -.05 .74 .07 .73 .53 -.01 1.0211 0.60 .03 .60 .12 .35 1.03 .0112 .69 .08 .71 .19 .51 .96 .03Note. F = factor. 35Table 3Intercorrelations Among Items on the SCS-CItem1Item4Item8Item9Item11Item 12Item2Item3Item5Item6Item7Item10Item 1 -Item 4 .40 -Item 8 .53 .52 -Item 9 .35 .48 .48 -Item 11 .41 .35 .40 .37 -Item 12 .44 .51 .45 .44 .50 -Item 2 -.06 -.04 .02 -.02 .04 .07 -Item 3 .09 .08 .07 .17 .11 .17 .46 -Item 5 .20 -.06 .09 .10 .14 .11 .30 .42 -Item 6 .16 .01 .06 .04 .13 .15 .34 .50 .44 -Item 7 .13 .09 .12 .11 .05 .19 .28 .41 .40 .43 -Item 10 .15 -.04 .00 .01 .04 .11 .34 .40 .63 .44 .37 -Note. Items were grouped based on findings from Pratt’s measures (Table 2). 36 Reliability. Internal consistency of the SCS-C was first examined via Cronbach’s alpha. The total SCS-C had an alpha of .79. Analyses of internal consistency of each subscale indicated that the self-judgment and isolation subscale had an alpha of .83 and the self-kindness and acceptance subscale had an alpha of .81. In addition, we calculated the corrected item-total correlations for each item and its corresponding subscale (see Table 4). For the self-judgment and isolation subscale, the corrected item-total correlations ranged between .54 and .64. For the self-kindness and acceptance subscale, the corrected item-total correlations ranged from .47 to .61. This indicates that in the present sample all items related highly to their corresponding corrected total scale. Taken together, these findings indicated satisfactory internal consistency for both subscales of the SCS-C. 37Table 4Corrected Item Total Correlations on the SCS-CSubscale Item Corrected item-total correlationSelf-Judgment and Isolation1 .584 .618 .649 .5611 .5412 .63Self-Kindness and Acceptance2 .473 .615 .617 .618 .5110 .61  Summary of factor and reliability analyses. Results of the factor analysis indicated a two-factor model, where based on Pratt’s measures, one factor was more important in explaining the variability in the negatively-worded items, and another factor was more important in explaining the variability of the positively-worded items. The issue of dimensionality related to positively and negatively-worded items on Likert-type scales will be discussed in more detail in the next chapter. For the purposes of this study, based on the results of the EFA, we decided to 38separate the items into two subscales and conduct the remaining analyses based on these  subscales. Results from the reliability analyses indicated satisfactory internal consistency for both subscales. These results offer preliminary evidence for the psychometric soundness of the two subscales of the SCS-C when used with a population of children and pre-adolescents (grades 4 to 7). Validity Evidence for the SCS-C: Convergent Validity  A series of validity analyses were conducted (Hubley & Zumbo, 2011) to examine the relations of total SCS-C scores, as well as each SCS-C subscale, to self-reported mindfulness, self-concept, indicators of well-being, empathy, perspective-taking, and prosocial goals, and teacher-rated social and emotional competence and empathy/sympathy. Table 5 summarizes the correlations found among variables. As predicted, total SCS-C scores were significantly related to all student self-reported measures in the expected directions.2 Based on Cohen’s (1988) criteria for interpreting effect size, moderate to large correlations were found between SCS-C total scores and mindfulness, general self-concept, school self-concept, indicators of well-being, perspective-taking and prosocial goals. A small correlation was found between total SCS-C scores and empathic concern. Total SCS-C scores were not significantly correlated to teacher-reported social and emotional competence and empathy/sympathy.   Analyses of the two subscales of the SCS-C to the variables in this study also revealed several significant correlations. The self-judgment and isolation subscale showed the highest correlations with mindfulness, negative affect, depression, and anxiety and the lowest correlations with positive affect and empathic concern. This subscale was not found to be related 392 See Appendix F for a comparison of correlational analyses between the SCS-C and measures used in the present study and the original SCS and measures used in studies with adults.to perspective-taking, prosocial goals, or teacher-reported social and emotional competence and empathy/sympathy.  Correlational analyses indicated that the self-kindness and acceptance subscale was significantly related to all self-reported measures with the exception of negative affect. This subscale showed the highest correlations with general self-concept, optimism, perspective-taking, and prosocial goals and the lowest correlations with mindfulness and anxiety. This subscale was not significantly related to teacher-reported social and emotional competence and empathy/sympathy.40Table 5Correlations of SCS-C Total and Subscales with Student Self-report and Teacher-report MeasuresMeasure SCS-C TotalSelf-Judgment and IsolationSelf-Kindness and AcceptanceMindfulness .42** -.41** .16**General Self-Concept .46** -.10 .50**School Self-Concept .33** -.05 .39**Indicators of Well-BeingOptimism .63** -.39** .45**Satisfaction with Life .50** -.25** .40**Positive Affect .42** -.16** .42**Negative Affect -.42** .46** -.09               Depression -.50** .43** -.22**Anxiety -.47** .51** -.13**Empathic Concern .16** .21** .42**Perspective Taking .35** .08 .54**Prosocial Goals .40** .09 .60**Teachers’ ratings of:Social and Emotional Competence.07 -.04 .10Empathy/Sympathy .02 .03 .06Note. Sample sizes range from 379 to 382 for self-report measures and from 350 to 351 for teacher-report measures.**p < .01.41 Summary of validity evidence. The pattern of results described in this section gives preliminary support for the convergent validity of the SCS-C. In addition, the different pattern of correlations found between both subscales and the other self-report measures further supports the two-factor model of this scale. The specific findings for each subscale, and their implications, will be discussed in more detail in the following chapter.Gender and Grade Differences? To examine gender and grade differences on the SCS-C total scores, as well as its two subscales, three separate 2 (gender) x 4 (grade) analyses of variance (ANOVA) (one for the total score and two for the two subscale scores) were conducted. First, gender and grade differences were examined for the total SCS-C score. Analyses revealed a significant main effect for grade, F (3, 374) = 3.79, p = .011 , η2 = .029, no significant main effect for gender, F (1, 374) = .68, p = .41, and no significant interaction effect for gender by grade, F (3, 374) = .35, p = .79. With regard to grade differences, post-hoc (Tukey) analyses indicated that grade five students reported significantly higher scores on the SCS-C than grade four students and grade six students.  Following, gender and grade differences for each of the two SCS-C subscales were examined. Analyses for the self-judgment and isolation subscale revealed no significant main effect for gender, F (1, 374) = .21, p = .65, no significant main effect for grade, F (3, 374) = 1.95, p = .12, and no significant interaction effect for gender by grade, F (3, 374) = 2.46, p = .06. Similarly, analyses for the self-kindness and acceptance subscale revealed no significant main effect for gender, F (1, 374) = .66, p = .42, no significant main effect for grade, F (3, 374) = 1.82, p = .14, and no significant interaction effect for gender by grade, F (3, 374) = 1.04, p = .37. The sample sizes, means, and standard deviations for each gender and grade level are shown in Table 426 along with the results of post hoc pairwise comparisons of means (Tukey) for SCS-C total scores across grade level. Taken together, these results show significant differences in total SCS-C scores between grade 4 students and grade 5 students, and between grade 5 students and grade 6 students. Cohen (1988) suggests that small, medium, and large effect sizes are those with η2 = .0099, .0588, and .1279, respectively. Therefore, the effect size in this study indicated small effects for differences across grade level for total SCS-C scores. Additionally, no significant differences were found across gender and grade level for both SCS-C subscales. Table 6Comparison of SCS-C Total Scores and Subscale Scores by Gender and Grade LevelTotal SCS-C Self-judgment and IsolationSelf-kindness and AcceptanceGender n M SD M SD M SDFemales 192 3.20 .68 2.92 .68 3.26 .70Males 190 3.11 .52 2.88 .72 3.07 .70Grade n M SD M SD M SD4 22 2.95a.42 3.14 .80 3.07 .555 72 3.34ab.62 2.77 .88 3.33 .866 181 3.13b.58 2.90 .64 3.10 .717 107 3.12 .55 2.97 .62 3.17 .60Note. Means with common subscripts differ from one another at p < .05.43Chapter 4: Discussion With growing research and interest in the area of self-compassion (see Neff, 2011 for a review), there is a need to create valid measures that can be used to reliably assess this construct across different periods of development. In the present study, we evaluated a measure of self-compassion adapted for children - the SCS-C. The pattern of results obtained in this study offers preliminary evidence for the reliability and validity of the SCS-C when used with a population of children and pre-adolescents in 4th to 7th grade. In the following sections, the results are discussed in light of recent research on self-compassion in adolescents and adults, as well as issues pertaining to the measurement of social and emotional constructs across development. This will be followed by a discussion of the strengths and limitations of this research and suggested future directions. First, results from an EFA supported a two-factor model for the SCS-C. Pratt’s measures indicated that the first factor explained most of the variance in the negatively-worded items (e.g., “When I fail at something important to me, I feel like I’m not good enough.”) and the second factor explained most of the variance in the positively-worded items (e.g., “I try to be kind towards those things about myself I don’t like.”). In our sample, we found the distribution across items to be relatively normal with small amounts of skewness and kurtosis, as well as moderate to large correlations among items within each proposed subscale. Reliability analyses, via Cronbach’s alpha, indicated that the internal consistency of each proposed subscale was higher than the internal consistency for the total SCS-C. Taken together, these findings support the two-factor structure of the SCS-C. 44 These results are not surprising given the findings by Neff (2003b) in her study examining the factor structure of the original SCS. The author found that within each sub-component of self-compassion (self-kindness, common humanity, and mindfulness), the positive and negatively-worded items formed two separate factors, resulting in six subscales. A similar factor structure was also found with the shortened version of the SCS (Raes, et al., 2011). The authors concluded that the positive self-compassion components (self-kindness, common humanity, and mindfulness) may represent different latent constructs than the negative self-compassion components (self-judgment, isolation, and over-identification). For example, one could experience high amounts of self-kindness while also feeling judgmental towards the self or isolated from others (Neff, 2003b; Neff, 2011). In addition, the pattern of results from the EFA are not unique to the SCS and SCS-C. Many self-report, Likert-type, scales have shown that positively-worded items and negatively-worded items can be explained by different factors (Ye & Wallace, 2013). Although negatively-worded items are often included in self-report scales to reduce acquiescence biases, response sets, and mindless responding (Barnette, 2000), studies have shown that negatively-worded items may not function the same as their positively-worded counterpart (Spector, Van Katwyk, Brannick, & Chen, 1997). Specifically, research has supported the notion that individuals respond differently to negatively-worded items, compared to positively-worded ones (Sliter & Zickar, 2014). For example, a study with middle school children found that students were more likely to agree with a positively-worded item than they were to disagree with a negatively-worded item, even when doing so would indicate the same level of the construct (Benson & Hocevar, 1985). Studies have also shown that including negatively-worded items on a scale may 45not add any additional information, and sometimes even excluding these items results in improved model fit (Sliter & Zickar, 2014). Therefore, additional research, using methods such as item response theory (IRT) or confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), is needed to determine if the self-judgment and isolation subscale, which consists of only negatively-worded items, does in fact reflect a separate underlying latent variable worth examining, or if it a measurement artifact due to the wording of the items.  As mentioned above, this study provided preliminary evidence for the convergent validity of the SCS-C. A critical consideration when it comes to validation, as stated by Hubley and Zumbo (2011) is that “validity is about the degree to which our inferences are appropriate, meaningful, and useful given the individual or sample we are dealing with and the context in which we are working” (p. 288). To examine the validity of the inferences of the SCS-C, a series of correlational analyses were conducted.  Relations of total SCS-C scores, as well as SCS-C subscale scores, to student self-report and teacher-report measures were examined. Although our findings from the EFA and reliability analyses provided support for a two-factor model of the SCS-C, we decided it was critical to investigate the links between total SCS-C scores and the battery of comparison variables to see if they reflected the same findings from previous research with adult samples (Bergen-Cico et al., 2013; Neff, 2003b; Neff et al., 2007; Neff et al., 2013; see Appendix F). We found that the SCS-C did show significant relations to all student-report measures, in the predicted directions. Total SCS-C scores were moderately to strongly related to mindfulness, general self-concept, indicators of well-being, and prosocial goals. Small to moderate relations were found between total SCS-C scores and school self-concept, empathic concern, and perspective-taking.46 The self-judgment and isolation subscale exhibited moderate to large correlations to negative affect, depression, and anxiety in the positive direction, and a moderate to large correlation to mindfulness, in the negative direction. The self-kindness and acceptance subscale was found to be correlated with all self-report measures in the expected directions (Neff, 2003b; Neff et al., 2007; Neff et al., 2013) with the exception of negative affect. One of the main differences found with this subscale, compared to the self-judgment and isolation subscale, was its moderate to large correlations to empathic concern, perspective-taking, and prosocial goals. These findings indicate that kindness and acceptance towards the self may be strongly related to how children feel towards others. Future research should examine the links between compassion towards the self and compassion towards others as well as their causal relation over time.     Our analyses did not reveal any significant relations between students’ total SCS-C scores, or subscale scores, and teacher-reported social and emotional competence and empathy/sympathy. These results are surprising given that previous research has identified significant relations between students’ empathy and perspective-taking, and teacher ratings of students’ behaviour in the classroom (Spinrad & Eisenberg, 2009). For example, Zhou et al. (2002) found that elementary school students’ facial and self-reported empathic reactions were negatively related to teachers ratings of students’ externalizing behaviours. The main difference between the SCS-C and self-reports of empathy is that items on the SCS-C pertain primarily to how one relates to the self rather than feelings towards others. Therefore, students who report high levels of self-compassion may not show observable differences in their actual social behaviour. It may also be that the relation between self-reported self-compassion and teacher-reported social and emotional competence and empathy/sympathy is non-linear. Future research in the area of self-47compassion should investigate further the links between self-compassion and compassion-related behaviour in children and pre-adolescence. Our analyses of self-compassion across gender and grade indicated significant differences in total SCS-C scores across grade level. Specifically, we found that students in grade 5 reported significantly higher levels of self-compassion than students in grade 4 and students in grade 6. This downward trend in self-compassion from grade 5 to grade 6 is evident among other indicators of well-being in the transition from childhood to pre- and early adolescence. For example, research has shown that beginning around age 10, children’s sense of optimism and self-concept declines (Eccles, 1999; Schonert-Reichl, 2007). Increases in cognitive abilities, as well as the widening of social contexts that occur during these years, may result in increased social comparison and feelings of judgment and criticism towards the self (Eccles & Roeser, 2009; Robins & Trzesniewski, 2005). However, no significant differences were found across grade level for either self-compassion subscale. Further research is needed to ascertain the developmental trajectory of self-compassion in the childhood and pre-adolescent years.  Strengths and Contributions The first strength of this study is the large and diverse sample of 382 students, which includes a diversity of languages, family compositions, and a balanced representation of gender. The second strength is the high participation rate (92%) of the recruited students which ensures a reduction of biases and increases the generalizability of the findings. A third strength of the present study was that the battery of measures used to assess relevant constructs had been validated in other research studies with children and demonstrated adequate internal consistency in our sample. We were also able to match the majority of constructs, such as indicators of well-48being, empathy, and perspective-taking, that Neff (2003b) used her validation of the original SCS.  To our knowledge, this is the first study investigating self-compassion in late-middle childhood and pre-adolescence. Therefore, this study provides significant contributions to our understanding of this construct and its relations to multiple indicators of social and emotional well-being during this period of development. In addition, this study provided psychometric evidence for a two-factor model of the SCS-C.Limitations and Future Directions The cross-sectional and correlational design of this study limits the interpretations that can be made regarding our findings. Although the results suggest significant relationships between self-compassion and multiple indicators of social and emotional well-being, they can not  be interpreted causally. Longitudinal, experimental, and intervention studies are required to support any causal relationship between self-compassion in childhood and the battery of outcomes presented in this study.  In addition, our findings are primarily based on self-reports measures that may be influenced by under-reporting or over-reporting in our sample. For example, self-perceptions, consistency seeking, self-enhancements, and social desirability may lead participants to respond based on how they think they should respond, or how they want others to perceive them (Montag et al., 2007; Paulhus & Vazire, 2007). There is also the issue of common method variance in cross-sectional designs (Lindell & Whitney, 2001). With a growing interest in research on self-compassion, additional methods of measuring self-compassion should be developed and validated. 49 Although some generalizability of our findings is possible due to the relatively large and diverse sample, these results may not be generalizable to other contexts. For example, 71% of students reported English as their first language learned, which is representative for Western Canada, but possibly not for other countries. It is also important to note that the development of the original Self-Compassion Scale, that our scale was adapted from, was conducted with a convenience sample of 58% White, undergraduate students. In our study, we did not collect information on other markers of diversity such as ethnicity, school size, and SES. The concept of self-compassion may be understood and interpreted differently, depending on culture, race, ethnicity, and socio-economic status. Therefore, it would be important to replicate these findings, as well as the findings from Neff’s original study of the SCS, with additional populations.  Despite the limitations of this study, these findings add support to the contention that future research should further investigate the factor structure of the SCS-C as well as the relations between self-compassion and different indicators of social and emotional well-being in childhood and pre-adolescence. Because validation is an ongoing process (Hubley & Zumbo, 2011), further validation research on the SCS-C is needed. The current study provides some implications for future research in the area of self-compassion in childhood and pre-adolescence, as well as the field of social and emotional learning and development in general. Overall, the SCS-C fills a substantial gap in the toolbox of social and emotional assessments currently available for children and pre-adolescents. Providing that future validation research supports our psychometric findings, the SCS-C can be used to compliment other measures assessing overall well-being. It can then be utilized in research to expand our knowledge of the predictors of self-50compassion as well as factors that mediate or moderate these outcomes. It can also be used for applied purposes, such as the evaluation of social and emotional program interventions.51ReferencesAberson, C. L., Healy, M. R., & Romero, V. L. (2000). Ingroup bias and self-esteem: A meta-analysis. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 4, 157-173. doi: 10.1207/s15327957pspr0402_04.Allen, A. B., Goldwasser, E. R., & Leary, M. R. (2012). Self-compassion and well-being among older adults. Self and Identity, 11, 428–453. doi:10.1080/15298868.2011.595082.Baer, R. A., Lykins, E. L. B., & Peters, J. R. (2012). Mindfulness and self-compassion as predictors of psychological wellbeing in long-term meditators and matched non-meditators. Journal of Positive Psychology, 7, 230–238. doi:10.1080/17439760.2012.674548.Barnard, L. K., & Curry, J. F. (2011). Self-compassion: Conceptualizations, correlates, & interventions. Review of General Psychology, 15, 289–303. doi:10.1037/a0025754.Baumeister, R. F., Smart, L., & Boden, J. M. (1996). Relation of threatened egotism to violence and aggression: The dark side of high self-esteem. Psychological Review, 103, 5-33. doi:  10.1037/0033-295X.103.1.5.Bergen-Cico, D., & Cheon, S. (2013). The mediating effects of mindfulness and self-compassion on trait anxiety. Mindfulness, 4, 1-15, doi:10.1007/s12671-013-0205-y.Birnie, K., Speca, M., & Carlson, L. E. (2010). Exploring self-compassion and empathy in the context of mindfulness-based stress reduction (MBSR). Stress and Health, 26, 359–371. doi:10.1002/smi.1305.Bluth, K., & Blanton, P. W. (2013). Mindfulness and self-compassion: Exploring pathways to adolescent emotional well-being. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 22, 1-12, doi:10.1007/s10826-013-9830-2.52Breines, J. G., & Chen, S. (2013). Activating the inner caregiver: The role of support-giving schemas in increasing state self-compassion. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 49, 58–64. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2012.07.015.Brown, K. W., & Ryan, R. M. (2003). The benefits of being present: Mindfulness and its role in psychological well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 822–848. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.84.4.822.Burgess, K. B., & Rubin, K. H. (2000). Middle childhood: Social and emotional development. In A. E. Kazdin (Ed.), Encyclopedia of psychology, Vol. 5 (pp. 234-239). Washington, DC New York, NY USUS: American Psychological Association. doi:10.1037/10520-105.Butler, R. (1998). Age trends in the use of social and temporal comparison for self-evaluation: Examination of a novel developmental hypothesis. Child Development, 69, 1054–1073.Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). New York: Academic Press.Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 155–159. doi:10.1037/0033- 2909.112.1.155.Cole, D. A., Maxwell, S. E., Martin, J. M., Peeke, L. G., Seroczynski, A. D., Tram, J. M., . . . Maschman, T. (2001). The development of multiple domains of child and adolescent self-concept: A cohort sequential longitudinal design. Child Development, 72, 1723–1746.Cooley, C. H. (1902). Human nature and the social order. New York: Charles Scribner & Sons.Costa, J., & Pinto-Gouveia, J. (2013). Experiential avoidance and self-compassion in chronic pain. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 43, 1578–1591. doi:10.1111/jasp.12107.53Crocker, J., & Canevello, A. (2008). Creating and undermining social support in communal relationships: The role of compassionate and self-image goals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95, 555–575. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.95.3.555.Crocker, J., Luhtanen, R. K., Cooper, M. L., & Bouvrette, S. (2003). Contingencies of self-worth in college students: Theory and measurement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 894–908. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.85.5.894. Crocker, J., & Park, L. E. (2004). The costly pursuit of self-esteem. Psychological Bulletin, 130, 392–414. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.130.3.392Dahl, R. E., & Gunnar, M. R. (2009). Heightened stress responsiveness and emotional reactivity during pubertal maturation: Implications for psychopathology. Development and Psychopathology, 21, 1-6, doi:10.1017/S0954579409000017.Damon, W., & Hart, D. (1982). The development of self-understanding from infancy through adolescence. Child Development, 53, 841-864. Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1995). Human autonomy: The basis for true self- esteem. In M. H. Kernis (Ed.), Efficacy, agency, and self-esteem (pp. 31–49). New York: Plenum Press.Diener, E. D., Emmons, R. A., Larsen, R. J., & Griffin, S. (1985). The satisfaction with life scale. Journal of Personality Assessment, 49, 71–75. doi: 10.1207/s15327752jpa4901_13.Durlak, J. A., Weissberg, R. P., Dymnicki, A. B., Taylor, R. D., & Schellinger, K. B. (2011). The impact of enhancing students’ social and emotional learning: A meta-analysis of school-based universal interventions. Child Development, 82, 405–432. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2010.01564.x.54Eccles, J. S. (1999). The development of children ages 6 to 14. The Future of Children, 9, 30–44. doi: 10.2307/1602703.Eccles, J. S., & Roeser, R. W. (2009). Schools, academic motivation, and stage-environment fit. In R. M. Lerner & L. Steinberg (Eds.), Handbook of adolescent psychology (3rd ed., pp. 404-434). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.Eccles, J. S., Wigfield, A., Flanagan, C. A., Miller, C., Reuman, D. A., & Yee, D. (1989). Self-concepts, domain values, and self-esteem: Relations and changes at early adolescence. Journal of Personality, 57, 283–310.Eisenberg, N., Valiente, C., Morris, A. S., Fabes, R., Cumberland, A., Reiser, M., et al. (2003). Longitudinal relations among parental emotional expressivity, children's regulation, and quality of socioemotional functioning. Developmental Psychology, 39, 3–19. doi: 10.1037/0012-1649.39.1.3.Ellis, A. (1973). Humanistic psychotherapy: The rational-emotive approach. New York, NY: Julian Press.Fein, S., & Spencer, S. J. (1997). Prejudice as self-image maintenance: Affirming the self through derogating others. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 31–44. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.73.1.31.Ferreira, C., Pinto-Gouveia, J., & Duarte, C. (2013). Self-compassion in the face of shame and body image dissatisfaction: Implications for eating disorders. Eating Behaviors, 14, 207–210. doi:10.1016/j.eatbeh.2013.01.005.Gadermann, A. M., Guhn, M., & Zumbo, B. D. (2010). Investigating the substantive aspect of  construct validity for the satisfaction with life scale adapted for children: A focus on 55 cognitive processes. Social Indicators Research, 100, 37–60. doi:10.1007/s11205-010-9603-x.Gadermann, A. M., Schonert-Reichl, K. A., & Zumbo, B. D. (2009). Investigating validity  evidence of the satisfaction with life scale adapted for children. Social Indicators  Research, 96, 229–247. doi:10.1007/s11205-009-9474-1.Gilbert, P., Baldwin, M. W., Irons, C., Baccus, J. R., & Palmer, M. (2006). Self-criticism and self-warmth: An imagery study exploring their relation to depression. Journal of Cognitive Psychotherapy, 20, 183–200. doi:10.1891/jcop.20.2.183.Gilbert, P. (2009). An introduction to compassion focused therapy. Advances in Psychiatric Treatment, 15, 199-208. doi: 10.1192/apt.bp.107.00526.Gilbert, P., & Irons, C. (2004). A pilot exploration of the use of compassionate images in a group of self-critical people. Memory, 12, 507–516. doi 10.1080/09658210444000115.Gilbert, P., & Procter, S. (2006). Compassionate mind training for people with high shame and self-criticism: Overview and pilot study of a group therapy approach. Clinical Psychology & Psychotherapy, 13, 353–379. doi:10.1002/cpp.507.Gilman, R., Laughlin, J. E., & Huebner, E. S. (1999). Validation of the Self-Description  Questionnaire-II with an American sample. School Psychology International, 20, 300– 307. doi:10.1177/0143034399203005Goetz, J. L., Keltner, D., & Simon-Thomas, E. (2010). Compassion: An evolutionary analysis  and empirical review. Psychological Bulletin, 136, 351-374. doi: 10.1037/a0018807.Greenberg, M., & Lengua, L. (1995). Scale construction for the Seattle Personality Inventory. (Fast Track Project Technical Report). Seattle, Washington: University of Washington.56Greenberg, M. T., Domitrovich, C., & Bumbarger, B. (2001). The prevention of mental disorders in school-aged children: current state of the field. Prevention & Treatment, 4, 1–62. doi:  10.1037/1522-3736.4.1.41a.Greenberg, M. T., Weissberg, R. P., O'Brien, M. U., Zins, J. E., Fredericks, L., Resnik, H., & Elias, M. J. (2003). Enhancing school-based prevention and youth development through coordinated social, emotional, and academic learning. American Psychologist, 58, 466–474. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.58.6-7.466.Hall, C. W., Row, K. A., Wuensch, K. L., & Godley, K. R. (2013). The role of self-compassion in physical and psychological well-being. The Journal of Psychology, 147, 311–323. doi:10.1080/00223980.2012.693138.Harter, S. (1999). The construction of the self. New York: Guilford Press.Harter, S. (2006). The Self. In Eisenberg, N. (Ed.), Handbook of child psychology, social, emotional, and personality development (pp. 505-570). Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons.Hayton, J. C., Allen, D. G., & Scarpello, V. (2004). Factor retention decisions in exploratory factor analysis: A tutorial on parallel analysis. Organizational Research Methods, 7, 191–205. doi: 10.1177/1094428104263675.Hubley, A. M., & Zumbo, B. D. (2011). Validity and the consequences of test interpretation and use. Social Indicators Research, 103, 219–230. doi:10.1007/s11205-011-9843-4.Hymel, S., LeMare, L., Ditner, E., & Woody, E. Z. (1999). Assessing self-concept in children: Variations across self-concept domains. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly (45), 602–623.James, W. (1890). Principles of psychology. Chicago: Encyclopedia Britannica.James, W. (1892). Psychology: The briefer course. New York: Henry Holt.57Kam, C., & Greenberg, M. T. (1998). Technical measurement report on the teacher social competence rating scale. Unpublished technical report, Prevention Research Center for  the Promotion of Human Development, The Pennsylvania State University.Kernis, M. H. (2005). Measuring self-esteem in context: The importance of stability of self-esteem in psychological functioning. Journal of Personality, 73, 1569-1605. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-6494.2005.00359.x.Kernis, M. H., Paradise, A. W., Whitaker, D. J., Wheatman, S. R., & Goldman, B. N. (2000). Master of one's psychological domain? Not likely if one's self-esteem is unstable. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26, 1297-1305. doi: 10.1177/0146167200262010.Kusche, C. A., Greenberg, M. T., & Beilke, R. (1988). Seattle Personality Questionnaire for  young school-aged children. Unpublished personality questionnaire, University of  Washington, Department of Psychology, Seattle.Lawlor, M. S., Schonert-Reichl, K. A., Gadermann, A. M., & Zumbo, B. D. (2013). A validation  study of the Mindful Attention Awareness Scale adapted for children. Mindfulness.  doi:10.1007/s12671-013-0228-4.Laurent, J., Catanzaro, S. J., Joiner, T. E., Jr, Rudolph, K. D., Potter, K. I., Lambert, S. (1999). A  measure of positive and negative affect for children: scale development and preliminary  validation. Psychological Assessment, 11, 326.Lindell, M. K., & Whitney, D. J. (2001). Accounting for common method variance in cross- sectional research designs. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 114-121. doi: 10.1037//0021-9010.86.1.114.58Lucas, R. E., Diener, E., & Suh, E. (1996). Discriminant validity of well-being measures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 616–628. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.71.3.616.Lyubomirsky, S., Tkach, C., & DiMatteo, M. R. (2006). What are the differences between happiness and self-esteem? Social Indicators Research, 78, 363–404. doi: 10.1007/s 11205-005-0213-y. MacBeth, A., & Gumley, A. (2012). Exploring compassion: A meta-analysis of the association between self-compassion and psychopathology. Clinical Psychology Review, 32, 545–552. doi:10.1016/j.cpr.2012.06.003.Magnus, C. M. R., Kowalski, K. C., & McHugh, T.-L. F. (2010). The role of self-compassion in women's self-determined motives to exercise and exercise-related outcomes. Self and Identity, 9, 363–382. doi:10.1080/15298860903135073.Marsh, H. W. (1988). The Self-Description Questionnaire (SDQ): A theoretical and empirical  basis for the measurement of multiple dimensions of preadolescent self-concept: A test  manual and a research monograph. San Antonio, TX: The Psychological Corporation.Marsh, H. W. (1990). Self-Description Questionnaire II Manual. University of Western Sydney.Marsh, H. W. (1994). Using the National Longitudinal Study of 1988 to evaluate theoretical  models of self-concept: The Self-Description Questionnaire. Journal of Educational  Psychology, 86, 439.Marsh, H. W., Smith, I. E., & Barnes, J. (1983). Multitrait, multimethod analysis of the Self-Description Questionnaire: Student-teacher agreement on multidimensional ratings of student self-concept. American Educational Research Journal, 20, 333-357.Martin, J. R. (1997). Mindfulness: A proposed common factor. Journal of Psychotherapy59 Integration, 7, 291–312. doi: 10.1023/B:JOPI.0000010885.18025.bc. Messick, S. (1995). Validity of psychological assessment: Validation of inferences from person’s responses and performances as scientific inquiry into score meaning. The American Psychologist, 50, 741–749. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.50.9.741.Montag, C., Heinz, A., Kunz, D., & Gallinat, J. (2007). Self-reported empathic abilities in schizophrenia. Schizophrenia Research, 92, 85-89. doi:10.1016/j.schres.2007.01.024.Mosier, C. I. (1947). A critical examination of the concepts of face validity. Educational and  Psychological Measurement, 7, 191-205. doi: 10.1177/001316444700700201.Morf, C. C., & Rhodewalt, F. (2001). Unraveling the paradoxes of narcissism: A dynamic self-regulatory processing model. Psychological Inquiry, 12, 177–196.Molloy, L. E., Ram, N., & Gest, S. D. (2011). The storm and stress (or calm) of early adolescent self-concepts: Within- and between-subjects variability. Developmental Psychology, 47, 1589–1607. doi:10.1037/a0025413.Neely, M. E., Schallert, D. L., Mohammed, S. S., Roberts, R. M., & Chen, Y.-J. (2009). Self-kindness when facing stress: The role of self-compassion, goal regulation, and support in college students’ well-being. Motivation and Emotion, 33, 88–97. doi:10.1007/s11031-008-9119-8.Neff, K. D. (2003a). Self-Compassion: An alternative conceptualization of a healthy attitude toward oneself. Psychology Press, 2, 85-101. doi:10.1080/15298860390129863.Neff, K. D. (2003b). The development and validation of a scale to measure self-compassion. Self and Identity, 2, 223–250. doi:10.1080/15298860390209035.60Neff, K. D. (2011). Self-Compassion, self-esteem, and well-being. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 5, 1–12. doi:10.1111/j.1751-9004.2010.00330.xNeff, K. D., & Beretvas, S. N. (2013). The role of self-compassion in romantic relationships. Self and Identity, 12, 78–98. doi:10.1080/15298868.2011.639548.Neff, K. D., & Germer, C. K. (2012). A pilot study and randomized controlled trial of the mindful self-compassion program. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 69, 28–44. doi:10.1002/jclp.21923.Neff, K. D., & McGehee, P. (2010). Self-compassion and psychological resilience among adolescents and young adults. Self and Identity, 9, 225–240. doi:10.1080/15298860902979307.Neff, K. D., & Pommier, E. (2013). The relationship between self-compassion and other-focused concern among college undergraduates, community adults, and practicing meditators. Self and Identity, 12, 160–176. doi:10.1080/15298868.2011.649546.Neff, K. D., & Vonk, R. (2009). Self-compassion versus global self-esteem: Two different ways of relating to oneself. Journal of Personality, 77, 23–50. doi:10.1111/j 1467-6494.2008.00537.x.Neff, K. D., Rude, S.S., & Kirkpatrick, K. L. (2007). Self-compassion and adaptive psychological functioning. Journal of Research in Personality, 41, 139–154. doi:10.1016/j.jrp.2006.03.004.Oberle, E., Schonert-Reichl, K. A., & Thomson, K. C. (2010). Understanding the link between social and emotional well-being and peer relations in early adolescence: Gender-specific 61predictors of peer acceptance. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 39, 1330–1342. doi:10.1007/s10964-009-9486-9.Oberle, E., Schonert-Reichl, K. A., Lawlor, M. S., & Thomson, K. C. (2012). Mindfulness and  inhibitory control in early adolescence. Journal of Early Adolescence, 32, 565– 588. doi:10.1177/027243161140374.Patil, V. H., Singh, S. N., Mishra, S., & Donavan, T. (2007). Parallel analysis engine to aid  determining number of factors to retain [Computer software]. Retrieved from  http://smishra.faculty.ku.edu/parallelengine.htm.Pauley, G., & McPherson, S. (2010). The experience and meaning of compassion and self-compassion for individuals with depression or anxiety. Psychology and Psychotherapy: Theory, Research and Practice, 83, 129–143. doi:10.1348/147608309X471000.Petersen, L.E. (2014). Self-compassion and self-protection strategies: The impact of self-compassion on the use of self-handicapping and sandbagging. Personality and Individual Differences, 56, 113-138. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2013.08.036.Raes, F., Pommier, E., Neff, K. D., & Van Gucht, D. (2010). Construction and factorial validation of a short form of the Self-Compassion Scale. Clinical Psychology & Psychotherapy, 18, 250–255. doi:10.1002/cpp.702.Rains, C. (2003). Seattle personality questionnaire-original. (Fast track project technical report).  Retrieved September 9, 2007, from http://www.fasttrackproject.org/.Robins, R. W., & Trzesniewski, K. H. (2005). Self-esteem development across the lifespan. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 14, 158–162.Rogers, C. R. (1961). On becoming a person. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.62Ryan, R. M., & Brown, K. W. (2003). Why we don't need self-esteem: On fundamental needs, contingent love, and mindfulness. Psychological Inquiry, 14, 71–76. Salmivalli, C., Kaukiainen, A., Kaistaniemi, L., & Lagerspetz, K. M. J. (1999). Self-evaluated self-esteem, peer-evaluated self-esteem, and defensive egotism as predictors of adolescents' participation in bullying situations. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25, 1268–1278. doi:10.1177/0146167299258008.Schonert-Reichl, K. A. (2007). Middle childhood inside and out: the psychological and social  world of children 9–12. Burnaby, BC: United Way of the Lower Mainland.Schonert-Reichl, K. A., & Lawlor, M. S. (2010). The effects of a mindfulness-based education  program on pre- and early adolescents’ well-being and social and emotional  competence. Mindfulness, 1, 137–151. doi:10.1007/s12671-010-0011-8.Schonert-Reichl, K. A., Smith, V., Zaidman-Zait, A., & Hertzman, C. (2011). Promoting  children’s prosocial behaviors in school: Impact of the “Roots of Empathy” program on  the social and emotional competence of school-aged children. School Mental Health,  4, 1–21. doi:10.1007/s12310-011-9064-7.Seligman, M. E. P., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2000). Positive psychology: An introduction. American Psychologist, 55, 5–14. doi:10.1037//0003-066X.55.1.5.Shapira, L. B., & Mongrain, M. (2010). The benefits of self-compassion and optimism exercises for individuals vulnerable to depression. Journal of Positive Psychology, 5, 377–389. doi:10.1080/17439760.2010.516763.63Song, M. (2003). Two studies on the resilience inventory (RI): Toward the goal of creating a  culturally sensitive measure of adolescent resilience. Dissertation Abstracts International,  64 (8B). (UMI No. 3100166) Harvard: ProQuest Information and Learning.Spector, P. E., Van Katwyk, P. T., Brannick, M. T., & Chen, P. Y. (1997). When two factors don’t reflect two constructs: How item characteristics can produce artifactual factors. Journal of Management, 23, 659-677. doi: 10.1177/014920639702300503.Spinrad, T. L., & Eisenberg, N. (2009). Empathy, prosocial behavior, and positive development in schools. In Gilman, R., Huebner, S. E., & Furlong, M. J. (Eds.), Handbook of positive psychology (pp. 119-129). New York: Routledge.Steinberg, L. (2005). Cognitive and affective development in adolescence. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 9, 69–74. doi:10.1016/j.tics.2004.12.005.Steinberg, L., Albert, D., Cauffman, E., Banich, M., Graham, S., & Woolard, J. (2008). Age differences in sensation seeking and impulsivity as indexed by behavior and self-report: Evidence for a dual systems model. Developmental Psychology, 44, 1764–1778. doi:10.1037/a0012955.Terry, M. L., & Leary, M. R. (2011). Self-compassion, self-regulation, and health. Self and Identity, 10, 352–362. doi:10.1080/15298868.2011.558404.Terry, M. L., Leary, M. R., & Mehta, S. (2013).Self-compassion as a buffer against homesickness, depression, and dissatisfaction in the transition to college. Self and Identity, 12, 278–290. doi:10.1080/15298868.2012.667913.64Tugade, M. N., 8c Fredrickson, B. L. (2004). Resilient individuals use positive emotions  to  bounce back from negative emotional experiences. Journal of Personality and Social  Psychology, 86, 320-3. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.86.2.320.Van Dam, N. T., Sheppard, S. C., Forsyth, J. P., & Earleywine, M. (2011). Self-compassion is a better predictor than mindfulness of symptom severity and quality of life in mixed anxiety and depression. Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 25, 123–130. doi:10.1016/j.janxdis.2010.08.011.Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and validation of brief measures  of positive and negative affect: the PANAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social  Psychology, 54, 1063.Wei, M., Liao, K. Y.-H., Ku, T.-Y., & Shaffer, P. A. (2011). Attachment, self-compassion, empathy, and subjective well-being among college students and community adults. Journal of Personality, 79, 191–221. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6494.2010.00677.x.Wentzel, K. R. (1993). Motivation and achievement in early adolescence: The role of multiple  classroom goals. Journal of Early Adolescence, 13, 4–20. doi: 10.1177/0272431693013001001.Wentzel, K. R., Filisetti, L., & Looney, L. (2007). Adolescent prosocial behavior: The role of  self-processes and contextual cues. Child Development, 78, 895–910.Wigfield, A., Byrnes, J. P., & Eccles, J. S. (2006). Development during early and middle  adolescence. In P. A. Alexander & P. H. Winne (Eds.), Handbook of educational  psychology (pp. 87–113). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.65Woodruff, S. C., Glass, C. R., Arnkoff, D. B., Crowley, K. J., Hindman, R. K., & Hirschhorn, E. W. (2013). Comparing self-compassion, mindfulness, and psychological inflexibility as predictors of psychological health. Mindfulness. Volume number and page numbers doi:10.1007/s12671-013-0195-9.Wong, C. C. Y., & Mak, W. W. S. (2013). Differentiating the role of three self-compassion components in buffering cognitive-personality vulnerability to depression among Chinese in Hong Kong. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 60, 162–169. doi:10.1037/a0030451.Wu, A. D., Zumbo, B. D., & Marshall, S. K. (2014). A method to aid in the interpretation of EFA results: An application of Pratt's measures. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 38, 98–110. doi:10.1177/0165025413506143.Ye, F., & Wallace, T. L. (2013). Psychological sense of school membership scale: Method effects associated with negatively worded items. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 3, 202-215. doi:10.1177/0734282913504816.Zins, J., Weissberg, R., Wang, M., & Walberg, H. J. (2004) Building academic success on social  and emotional learning; What does the research say? Teachers College Press: New  York. Zhou, Q., Eisenberg, N., Losoya, S. H., Fabes, R. A., Reiser, M., Guthrie, I. K., et al. (2002). The relations of parental warmth and positive expressiveness to children's empathy-related responding and social functioning: A longitudinal study. Child Development, 73, 893–915.66AppendicesAppendix A: Teacher Consent FormUniversity of British ColumbiaDepartment of Pediatrics British Columbia Children's and Women’s Health CenterUBC Faculty of Education 2125 Main MallVancouver, BC, Canada V6T 1Z4 Tel: 604.822.3131  Fax: 604.822.2684Tel: 604-822-0000  Fax: 604-822-0000                                                                       educ.ubc.ca Teacher Consent Form"Effectiveness of Mindfulness Education Programs on Children's Social-Emotional  Competence, Psychological Well-Being Cognitive Control, and Stress Reactivity”Principal Investigator: Dr. Kimberly Schonert-Reichl, Associate Professor, Department of Education,  UBC Co-Investigators: Dr. Tim Oberlander, Developmental Paediatrician, Department of Paediatrics, UBCDr. Adele Diamond, Professor, Developmental Cognitive Neuroscience, UBCMs. Eva Oberle, Ph.D. candidate, Department of Education, UBC This study is being organized by educators at the Coquitlam School Board and Dr. Kimberly A. Schonert-Reichl (Faculty of Education, University of British Columbia), Dr. Tim Oberlander (Department of Pediatrics, Children’s and Women’s Health Centre), Dr. Adele Diamond (Developmental Cognitive Neuroscience, UBC), and Ms. Eva Oberle (Faculty of Education, University of British Columbia). It  is hoped that  the results of this study will help parents and educators better understand children’s emotional and social development and therefore be better equipped to improve education for all.  Listed below are several aspects of this project that you need to know.Purpose: The purpose of this study is to evaluate the effectiveness of the “MindUp” program – an educational program for children, designed to promote children’s psychological social responsibility, well-being, and academic success, and the SMART (Stress Management and Relaxation Techniques) program – an intervention program for teachers, designed to improve teachers’ ability to deal with stress and enhance their well-being and satisfaction as a teacher. The MindUp program consists of teaching a series of simple techniques designed to enhance self awareness, focused attention, problem solving abilities, stress reduction, conflict  resolution, and prosocial behaviours in children (such as, sharing, helping, and cooperating). MindUp is being taught  in several schools throughout the Vancouver School District as part  of the District’s goal to promote students’ social and emotional learning and social responsibility. Some of the children who participate in the research study will receive the MindUp program in their classroom while other children in the study will not 67receive the program (comparison group). Teachers who do not receive training in the MindUp program initially, and whose classroom is thus part of the comparison group will receive all MindUp materials after the study has been completed and may implement the program then if they wish.  The SMART-program is a program for teachers, and it consists of a series of afternoon and weekend workshops. You may or may not (comparison group) participate in SMART throughout  the duration of this research project. Those teachers who are part  of the comparison group and do not  take part in SMART  throughout  the research study will be given a CD with guided mindfulness practices by John Kabat-Zinn after the study has been completed. After the study has been completed, teacher will also receive a gift certificate as a small honorarium for participating in the study, and we will organize a pizza party in your classroom, providing pizza for all children (including those who do not  receive consent  for participation). Note that if you are assigned to a condition involving SMART  and/or MindUp, we will carry any cost for you for participating in those programs and the material involved.Please not that this study is conducted as a randomized control trial, which means that  teachers will be randomly assigned to either receiving MindUp only, SMART  and MindUp, SMART  only, or no intervention for the duration of this research project. Assigning teachers randomly to one of those conditions, and not letting them chose which condition they would like to be part of is important to obtain valid data from this study that allows us to answer our research questions.   Procedure:  If you agree to participate, we will work closely with you to schedule study sessions during your class’s regular school day. We would first  schedule a time with you to come in and hand out  parental permission slips to students in your class. We would then visit your classroom for nine separate  sessions: three sessions will take place  in October 2011 on three consecutive days in a week, three  sessions will take place  in January 2012, and three sessions will  take  place in the  end of the school year. At all three times (October, January, end of the school year) the three classroom visits will involve the same data collection done by graduate research assistants as described in the following section:1. On the first visit (ca. 50-60 minutes) we will ask participating students to fill out  some questionnaires that ask about  their background, feelings about themselves, their peers, and school (these are described in more detail below).  Participating students will complete one set  of questionnaires in the next couple of weeks and another set of questionnaires at near the end of the school year. Research assistants will be there to explain the directions and make sure students understand the instructions; each question will be read out loud by a researcher assistant and a second research assistant  will be in the class to help with any specific question a student  may have during the questionnaire.  The first  questionnaire asks about background, such as age, gender, family composition, and language spoken at home. Another set of questionnaires asks about students’ feelings about themselves, their classroom, and their positive social behaviours. The third set of questionnaires asks students to provide ratings of their classmates’ positive classroom behaviours, and the last questionnaire asks for information on their feelings about  school.  Both prior to and upon completion of the questionnaire portion of the study, it  is explained to participants that  their answers are only their own and should be kept private from others.  Further, the purpose of the peer nomination task is explained:  the peer nomination task gives the researchers the students' opinion of the class composition to help us learn more about classroom dynamics. Children who do not participate in this research will be given an activity to do that is related to their regular classroom instruction.  Please note:  Students who are not participating in the research study will have their names removed from the peer nomination task in the questionnaire.2. On day 2, we want to learn about the daily pattern of substances found in children’s saliva. To learn about  this, we will ask participating children to give us a saliva (spit) samples  3 times during one day (this takes ca. 5 minutes each time): when students first  come to school, before lunch, and right before dismissal Note: All saliva samples will be destroyed after we have done our testing.683. On day 3, we want to learn about  the development of children’s self-control, rule learning, and memory and see how these “cognitive control” behaviours: 1) might change as a result of participation in the ME program, and 2) are associated with children’s psychological well-being and academic success. To learn about this, we will be giving children games to play and problems to solve on the computer (ca. 15 minutes per child). Specifically, students will be asked to respond to pictures using various rules that we will explain to them. During the course of the game, the rules might  change. Before each game we will explain the rules and go over them, giving students an opportunity to practice.  In games where the rules change, we will explain that and explain what  they will change to. We will do our very best to make sure that  students understand how to play a game before we start. We never rush or criticize anyone, and try to keep each student  engaged so that he or she performs well. Most children enjoy the individual attention. The computer session will be done individually with each participating student and takes about 15 minutes to complete.In addition, we will ask teachers to complete two to three different  measures as part of this study (depending on the condition you will be assigned to in this study):a) If you are implementing the MindUp program, we ask you to complete a weekly implementation diary in which you note what  activities you completed in a given week, and to what extend you implemented the activities in the curriculum. Completing the diary will take no longer than 2-5 minutes per week.b) In addition, ALL teachers will be asked to complete a brief questionnaire at  the pretest (fall 2011), mid-point (January 2012), and posttest  (June 2012). This survey includes questions about teachers’ demographic background, mindful attention, and beliefs about social and emotional learning. Completing this survey will take approximately 20 minutes at each time point.c) Furthermore, ALL teachers will be asked to complete a brief survey for each child, rating children’s behaviors in the classroom and student-teacher relationship. This survey will take approximately 10 minutes per child. What will teachers be asked to do by this study?·Collect permission slips from the children·Provide class lists to Ms. Jenna Whitehead·Co-ordinate with Ms. Jenna Whitehead times that are convenient to distribute the permission slips·Co-ordinate with Ms. Jenna Whitehead times for study session appointments·Complete a brief survey assessing various dimensions of each child’s social behaviours in the classroom. You will be asked to complete this checklist twice – once during the next month and again in May. Each checklist will take approximately 5-10 minutes to complete per child.·Indicate if/when would be appropriate to have a pizza lunch·Complete the MindUp implementation diary (weekly ca. 2 minutes) if you are implementing MindUp·Complete a survey about experiences during SMART if you are participating in the SMART program·Written consent to participate in this study will be requested from participating teachers.Risks: For the questionnaire portion of this study, it is important  for you to know that it  is not a test  and there are no right or wrong answers – we are not  in any sense “testing” the children. We are only interested in finding out children’s opinions and feelings.  It  is hoped that  the results of this study will help teachers and parents better understand the way that students think and improve education for all. For the portion of this research in which we collect  students’ saliva (spit), you should know that helping with this project will not hurt  your students or make them sick.  The dental rolls used to collect saliva will taste like paper.  There are no known risks or side effects of the cortisol collection to children’s development. There are no known risks for completing the teacher surveys. Teachers’ participation in this project is voluntary. At any given time, teachers can decide to withdraw from participating in the study. Confidentiality: Any information resulting from this research study will be kept  strictly confidential. All documents will be identified only by code number and kept in a secured information system and locked 69filing cabinet. The identity of the participants in this study (both teachers and students) will be entirely confidential.  No information that discloses your or your students’ identities will be released or published without  specific consent to the disclosure. Neither you nor your students will be identified by name in any reports of the completed study. Copies of the relevant data, which identify the participants only by code number, may be published in scientific journals, but no participant will be identified by name. However, research records identifying participants may be inspected in the presence of the Investigator or his or her designate by representatives of the UBC Research Ethics Board for the purpose of monitoring the research. Who can I talk to if I have any questions?If you have any questions at  any time during this project, you may contact  Dr. Kimberly Schonert-Reichl: Kimberly.schonert-reichl@ubc.ca, (604) 822-2215 or Ms. Jenna Whitehead, (604) 604-3296. Furthermore, you may contact the Research Subject  Information Line in the UBC Office of Research Services.We would appreciate it if you could indicate on the slip provided on the attached page whether or not you would like to participate. Would you kindly sign and date the attached slip where indicated? Thank you very much for considering this request.Sincerely,Kimberly Schonert-Reichl     Principal Investigator       Associate Professor      Department of Educational and Counselling Psychology,  and Special Education, UBC Email: Kimberly.schonert-reichl@ubc.caPhone: 604 822 3420    Co-InvestigatorsDr. Tim Oberlander, Professor, Department of Paediatrics, UBCDr. Adele Diamond, Professor, Developmental Cognitive Neuroscience, UBCMs. Eva Oberle, Ph.D. student, Department of Educational and Counselling and Special Education, UBC TEACHER CONSENT FORMStudy Title: "Effectiveness of Mindfulness Education Programs on Children's Social-Emotional Competence, Psychological Well-Being, Cognitive Control, and Stress Reactivity” Principal Investigator: Dr. Kimberly Schonert-Reichl, Associate Professor, Department of Educational and Counselling Psychology and Special Education, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C.KEEP THIS PORTION FOR YOUR RECORDSI understand that my participation in the above study is entirely voluntary, and that I or students in my class may refuse to participate, or I or my students are free to withdraw from the study at  any time without any consequences.  I have received a copy of this consent form for my own records.  I consent  to my participation in this study and in signing this document. I have read and understand the attached letter regarding the study entitled "Effectiveness  of Mindfulness Education Programs on Children's Social-Emotional Competence, Psychological  Well-Being, Cognitive Control, and Stress Reactivity” I have also kept  copies of both the letter describing the study and this permission slip.70_______  Yes, I agree to participating in this project. _______  No, I do not agree to participate. Teacher’s Signature    Printed Name    Date      School NameDETACH AND RETURN TO PROJECT COORDINATORI understand that my participation in the above study is entirely voluntary, and that I or students in my class may refuse to participate, or I or my students are free to withdraw from the study at  any time without any consequences.  I have received a copy of this consent form for my own records.  I consent  to my participation in this study and in signing this document. I have read and understand the attached letter regarding the study "Effectiveness of Mindfulness Education Programs on Children's Social-Emotional Competence, Psychological  Well-Being, Cognitive Control, and Stress Reactivity” I have also kept  copies of both the letter describing the study and this permission slip._______  Yes, I agree to participating in this project. _______  No, I do not agree to participate. Teacher’s Signature    Printed Name    Date      School Name71Appendix B: Parent Consent FormUniversity of British ColumbiaDepartment of Pediatrics British Columbia Children's and Women’s Health CenterUBC Faculty of Education 2125 Main MallVancouver, BC, Canada V6T 1Z4 Tel: 604.822.3131  Fax: 604.822.2684Tel: 604-822-0000  Fax: 604-822-0000                                                                        vveduc.ubc.ca October, 2011 Dear Parent/Guardian: We are writing to request permission for your son/daughter to participate in a research project that we are conducting at your child’s elementary school entitled "Effectiveness of Mindfulness Education Programs on Children's Social-Emotional Competence, Psychological Well-Being, Cognitive Control, and Stress Reactivity.” This study is being organized by educators at the Vancouver School Board and Dr. Kimberly A. Schonert-Reichl and Ms. Eva Oberle (Faculty of Education, University of British Columbia), Dr. Adele Diamond (Developmental Cognitive Neuroscience, University of British Columbia), and Dr. Tim Oberlander (Department of Pediatrics, Children’s and Women’s Health Centre). Listed below are several aspects of this project that you need to know. Purpose: The purpose of this study is to evaluate the effectiveness of the “MindUp” program – an educational program for children, designed to promote children’s psychological social responsibility, well-being, and academic success, as well as the SMART (Stress Management and Relaxation Techniques) in Education program – a training program for teachers, designed to improve teachers ability to deal with stress and enhance their well-being and job satisfaction. The MindUp program consists of teaching a series of simple techniques designed to enhance self awareness, focused attention, problem solving abilities, stress reduction, conflict resolution, and prosocial behaviours in children (such as, sharing, helping, and cooperating). MindUp is being taught in many schools throughout the Vancouver School District as part of the District’s goal to promote students’ social and emotional learning and social responsibility. Some of the children who participate in the research study will receive the MindUp program in their classroom while other children in the study will not receive the program (comparison group). These children in the comparison group will get the program at a later time.The SMART-in-Education program is a program for teachers, and it consists of a series of afternoon and weekend workshops. Your child’s teacher may or may not participate in SMART throughout the duration of this research project depending on whether or not they are in the comparison group.72Our research project is concerned with developing an understanding of whether or not the MindUp program for children and the SMART-in-Education program for teachers have an effect on children’s development of a positive self-regard, healthy adjustment, self control, and success in school. We are also interested in learning more about the relationship between the physical body and the psychological mind; to do so, we will be looking at a stress hormone, cortisol, which is secreted into the body, and examine its relation to social emotional measures. We are also interested in understanding the development of children’s self control, rule learning, and memory and examining whether or not these dimensions can be enhanced as a result of participation in the MindUp program.  Procedure:  If you and your child agree to participate, we will work closely with your child’s classroom teacher to schedule the research sessions during the school day. We will visit your child’s classroom for 3 separate sessions in the next few weeks, 3 sessions in January 2012, and 3 sessions near the end of the school year. 1. In the first of these sessions we will ask participating students to fill out some questionnaires that  ask about their background, feelings about themselves, their peers, and school (described in more detail below). Participating students will complete one set of questionnaires in the next couple of weeks and another set of questionnaires at near the end of the school year. For each session, it will take about 50 minutes to complete the questionnaires. We will be there to explain the directions and make sure your child understands the instructions – as well, all of the survey questions will be read out loud to students. The first questionnaire asks about background, such as age, gender, family composition, and language spoken at home. Another set of questionnaires asks about students’ feelings about themselves, their classroom, and their positive social behaviours. The third set of questionnaires asks students to provide ratings of their classmates’ positive classroom behaviours, and the last questionnaire asks for information on their feelings about school. In addition to obtaining information directly from participating students, your child’s teacher is being asked to complete a checklist that tells us about your child’s social behaviours in the classroom. Children who do not participate in this research will be given an activity to do that is related to their regular classroom instruction. 2. In the second of the three sessions (one in the next couple of weeks and the other at the end of the year), we want to learn about the daily pattern of substances found in children’s saliva – the stress hormone cortisol. To learn about  this, we will ask your child to give us a saliva (spit) sample  3 times over the duration of one typical school day: when he/she first  comes to school, at lunch time, and before dismissal (approximately 5 minutes for each collection). Saliva will be collected with a neutral tasting cotton swab; there are no harms to the saliva collection. Your child’s saliva samples will be destroyed after we have done our testing. 3. In the final session (one in the next couple of weeks and the other near the end of the school year), we want to learn about the development of children’s self-control, rule learning, and memory and see how these “cognitive control” behaviours: 1) might change as a result of participation in the ME program, and 2) are associated with children’s psychological well-being and academic success. To learn about this, we will be giving children games to play and problems to solve on the computer. Specifically, your child will be asked to respond to pictures using various rules that we will explain to them.  During the course of the game, the rules might change. Before each game we will explain the rules and go over them with your child, giving your child practice.  In games where the rules change, we will explain that and explain what they will change to. We will do our very best to make sure that your child understands how to play a game before we start. We never rush or criticize anyone, and try to keep each child engaged so that he or she performs well. Most children enjoy the individual attention. The computer session will be done individually with each participating student and takes about 15 minutes to complete.If you chose not to have your child participate, the researchers will collaborate with your child’s classroom teacher to arrange an alternative activity for students who do not participate in the study. Activities can range from working on current assignments, or completing a fun sheet (word search, crossword puzzle) that the researchers provide. Please note that agreeing/ declining for your child to 73participate in this study applies only to the research portion of this project. This means that if you decline your child’s participation, she or he will not participate in any of the research activities involved in this study (i.e., the questionnaire, the saliva collection, and the computer tasks). However, your child’s classroom teacher may still implement the MindUP program, and the classroom teacher may still be receiving the SMART-in-Education program. MindUP is a classroom-based social and emotional promotion program, and teachers who decide that this program be implemented in their classroom do not exclude individual children. Similarly, SMART-in-Education is a program for teachers, and your child’s teacher’s participation in SMART-in-Education is not affected by parental consent. Risks: For the questionnaire portion of this study, it is important for you to know that it is not a test and there are no right or wrong answers – we are not in any sense “testing” the children. We are only interested in finding out children’s opinions and feelings. It is hoped that the results of this study will help teachers and parents better understand the way that students think and improve education for all. For the portion of this research in which we collect your child’s saliva (spit), you should know that helping with this project will not hurt your child or make him/her sick. The dental rolls used to collect saliva will taste like paper. There are no known risks or side effects in collecting saliva or administering the computer tasks to the child’s development. Confidentiality: Any information resulting from this research study will be kept strictly confidential. All documents will be identified only by code number and kept in a secured information system and locked filing cabinet. The identity of the participants in this study (both teachers and students) will be entirely confidential. No information that discloses your child’s identity will be released or published without specific consent to the disclosure. Your child’s identity will not be identified by name in any reports of the completed study. Copies of the relevant data, which identify the participants only by code number, may be published in scientific journals, but no participant will be identified by name. However, research records identifying participants may be inspected in the presence of the Investigator or his or her designate by representatives of the UBC Research Ethics Board for the purpose of monitoring the research.  Contacts: If you would like more information and have any questions and/or concerns at any time regarding this study, please call Dr. Kimberly A. Schonert-Reichl at 604-822-3420. If you have any concerns now or later about your child’s treatment or rights as a research subject, you may contact the Research Subject’s Information Line in the UBC Office of Research Services.We would appreciate it  if you could indicate on the slip provided on the attached page whether or not your son/daughter has your permission to participate.  Would you kindly sign and date the attached slip where indicated. We would appreciate it  if your son/daughter could return the bottom portion of the slip to school tomorrow.Thank you very much for considering this request.Sincerely,Kimberly Schonert-Reichl     Principal Investigator       Associate Professor      Department of Educational and Counselling Psychology,  and Special Education, UBC     Co-InvestigatorsDr. Tim Oberlander, Professor, Department of Pediatrics, UBC74Dr. Adele Diamond, Professor, Developmental Cognitive Neuroscience, UBCMs. Eva Oberle, Ph.D. student, Department of Educational and Counselling and Special Education, UBC 75PARENT CONSENT FORMStudy Title:  "Effectiveness of Mindfulness Education Programs on Children's Social-Emotional Competence, Psychological Well-Being, Cognitive Control, and Stress Reactivity” Principal Investigator:  Dr. Kimberly Schonert-Reichl, Associate Professor, Department of Educational and  Counselling Psychology and Special Education  University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C.KEEP THIS PORTION FOR YOUR RECORDSI understand that my child’s participation in the above study is entirely voluntary, and that I or my child may refuse to participate, or I or my child is free to withdraw from the study at  any time without any consequences.  I have received a copy of this consent form for my own records. I consent  to my child’s participation in this study and in signing this document I am, in no way, waiving the legal rights of myself or my child.I have read and understand the attached letter regarding the study entitled "Effectiveness of Mindfulness Education Programs on Children's Social-Emotional Competence, Psychological Well-Being, Cognitive Control, and Stress Reactivity”I have also kept copies of both the letter describing the study and this permission slip.PLEASE CHECK ONE_______  YES, I agree to my son/daughter participating in this project. _______  NO, my son/daughter does not have my permission to participate. Parent’s Signature    Printed Name    Date     Son or Daughter’s NameDETACH HERE AND RETURN TO SCHOOLI understand that my child’s participation in the above study is entirely voluntary, and that I or my child may refuse to participate, or I or my child is free to withdraw from the study at  any time without any consequences.  I have received a copy of this consent form for my own records. I consent  to my child’s participation in this study and in signing this document I am, in no way, waiving the legal rights of myself or my child.I have read and understand the attached letter regarding the study entitled "Effectiveness of Mindfulness Education Programs on Children's Social-Emotional Competence, Psychological Well-Being, Cognitive Control, and Stress Reactivity.” I have also kept copies of both the letter describing the study and this permission slip.PLEASE CHECK ONE_______  YES, I agree to my son/daughter participating in this project. _______  NO, my son/daughter does not have my permission to participate. Parent’s Signature    Printed Name    Date      Son or Daughter’s Name76Appendix C: Child Assent FormUniversity of British ColumbiaDepartment of Pediatrics British Columbia Children's and Women’s Health CenterUBC Faculty of Education 2125 Main MallVancouver, BC, Canada V6T 1Z4 Tel: 604.822.3131  Fax: 604.822.2684Tel: 604-822-0000  Fax: 604-822-0000                                                                                 educ.ubc.caFebruary 28th, 2011CHILD ASSENT FORM"Effectiveness of Mindfulness Education Programs on Children's Social-Emotional Competence, Psychological Well-Being, Cognitive Control, and Stress Reactivity”You are invited to participate in a research project that we are conducting at your elementary school entitled "Effectiveness of Mindfulness Education Programs on Children's Social-Emotional Competence,  Psychological Well-Being, Cognitive Control, and Stress Reactivity.” This study is being organized by educators in the Vancouver School District and Dr. Kimberly A. Schonert-Reichl (Faculty of Education, University of British Columbia), Dr. Adele Diamond (Developmental Cognitive Neuroscience, University of British Columbia), Dr. Tim Oberlander (Department of Pediatrics, Children’s and Women’s Health Centre) and Ms. Eva Oberle (Faculty of Education, University of British Columbia). Listed below are several aspects of this project that you need to know.Why are we doing this project?The purpose of this study is to evaluate the effectiveness of the “MindUp” program – an educational program for children designed to promote children’s psychological well-being and academic success, and the SMART (Stress Management and Relaxation Techniques) program – a training program for teachers designed to reduce stress and increase well-being. The MindUp program consists of teaching a series of simple techniques designed to enhance self awareness, focused attention, problem solving abilities, goal setting, stress reduction, conflict resolution and prosocial behaviors in children. It is being taught in several schools throughout the Vancouver School District as part of the District’s goal to promote students’  social responsibility. Some of the children who participate in the research study will receive the MindUp program in their classroom while other children in the study will not receive such a program (comparison classrooms).  The SMART-program is a program for teachers,  and it consists of a series of afternoon and weekend workshops. Your teacher may or may not (comparison group) participate in SMART throughout the duration of this research project.Our project is concerned with developing an understanding of whether or not the MindUp program for children and the SMART  program for teachers effect children’s development of a positive self-regard, healthy adjustment,  and success in school.  Also, we are interested in learning more about the relationship between the physical body and the psychological mind; to do so, we will be looking at a stress hormone, cortisol, which is secreted into the body, as well as psychosocial and cognitive test measures.  We are inviting all of the children in your class to participate in our project.What will happen during this project?If you decide to participate in this project, we will visit your classroom for 3 separate sessions during the next week, 3 sessions in January, and 3 sessions at the end of the school year in June 2012. 1. In the first session we will ask you to fill out some questionnaires that ask you about your background, your feeling about yourself, your peers, and school. You will complete one set of questionnaires in the next couple of weeks, one set in January 2012, and another set of questionnaires at near the end of the school year. For each session, it will take you about 50-60 minutes to complete the questionnaires.  We will be there 77to explain the directions and make sure you understand the instructions. The first questionnaire asks about your background, such as age, gender, family composition, and language spoken at home.  Another set of questionnaires asks you about your feelings about yourself, your classroom, and your positive social behaviours. The third set of questionnaires asks you to provide ratings of your classmates’  positive classroom behaviours, and the last questionnaire asks for information on your feelings about school. In addition to obtaining information directly from you, your teacher is being asked to complete a checklist that tells us about your social behaviors in the classroom. 2. In the second of the three sessions, we want to learn about the daily pattern of substances found in your saliva – the stress hormone cortisol. To learn about this, we will ask you to give us a saliva (spit) sample 3 times over the duration of one typical school day: when you first come to school,  at lunch time, and before dismissal (approximately 5 minutes for each collection). Your saliva samples will be destroyed after we have done our testing. 3. In the third session,  we would like to learn about your cognitive control abilities (e.g.,  how well you can remember things). We will invite you to participate in two short (in total ca. 15 minutes) computer games where you are asked to remember the game’s rules and to play the game. We will be assisting you during the computer game, explain the rules to you and help you practice the game first. We never rush or criticize anyone, and try to help you so that you do well.If you or your parents chose not to have you participate in the study, the researchers will collaborate with your teacher to arrange an alternative activity for students who do not participate in the study.  Activities can range from working on current assignments, or completing a fun sheet (word search, crossword puzzle) that the researchers provide.Can anything bad happen to me?For the questionnaire portion of this study, it is important for you to know that it is not a test and there are no right or wrong answers – just your answers. We are only interested in finding out your opinions and feelings. We think that if we are to learn more about children your age we have to come to the children and ask them in person. So, you can help teach us how children think and feel. It is hoped that the results of this study will help teachers and parents better understand the way that students think and improve education for all. For the portion of this research in which we collect your saliva (spit), you should know that helping with this project will not hurt you or make you sick. The dental rolls used to collect saliva will taste like paper.  Who will know that I am taking part?  We will not show your name to anyone. We will use a secret code on all the information (including the questionnaires) that you give to us. When we write a report of this project, we will not use your name or initials.Who can I talk to if I have any questions?If you have any questions at any time during this project, you may ask the researcher who will be with you.  Your mother or father can also contact us with your question.If you have any questions about this project or about the way you are feeling after the project, you should phone Dr. Kimberly Schonert-Reichl at (604) 822-2215 or Ms. Eva Oberle at (604) 822-3420.  If you are worried about how you were treated during the project, you should contact the Research Subject’s Information Line at the UBC Office of Research Services.My Assent to: "Effectiveness of Mindfulness Education Programs on Children's Social-Emotional Competence, Psychological Well-Being, Cognitive Control, and Stress Reactivity.” I am taking part in this project because I want to.If I want to stop being in this project, it is okay and no one will get angry.  I just  need to tell my teacher or the research person that I do not want to do it anymore.I have had enough time to read this form, to ask questions about this project and to talk to my parents/guardians.  All my questions have been answered and I have received a copy of this form to keep.78Your Printed Name   Your Signature    Date79Appendix D: Student Self-report MeasuresMeasures included in this Appendix: D.1. Student Demographic and Background QuestionnaireD.2. Self-Compassion Scale for Children D.3. Mindful Attention Awareness ScaleD.4. General Self-Concept and School Self-Concept subscales D.5. Optimism subscaleD.6. Satisfaction with Life Scale for Children D.7. Positive and Negative Affect subscalesD.8. Anxious Symptoms and Depressive Symptoms subscalesD.9. Empathy and Perspective-taking subscales D.10. Prosocial Goals and Social Responsibility subscales80Sub-Appendix D.1. Student Self-report Demographic and Background Questionnaire Please tell us a little bit about yourself1. Are you a boy or a girl?  (Circle One)   Boy  Girl2. What grade are you in this year? (Circle One)    4 5 6 73.    What is your birth date?      _____________    ________    ___________                        Month               Day               Year4. Which of these adults do you live with most of the time? (Check all adults you live with.)□  Mother      □  Grandmother      □  Part time with each parent      □  Father □  Grandfather □  Foster parent(s) or caregiver(s)□  Stepfather □   Second mother □  Stepmother □  Second father□  Other adults (write in the space below, for example, aunt, uncle, mom’s boyfriend or girlfriend, dad’s boyfriend or girlfriend): _____________________________________5. How many brothers or sisters do you have? ________6. What is the first language you learned at home? (You can check more than one if you need to.)□  English     □  Hindi     □  Punjabi     □  Cantonese □  Japanese □  Spanish□  Filipino/Tagalog □  Korean □  Vietnamese□  French □  Mandarin □  Other ___________________7. Which language(s) do you speak at home? (You can check more than one if you need to.)81□  English     □  Hindi     □  Punjabi     □  Cantonese □  Japanese □  Spanish□  Filipino/Tagalog □  Korean □  Vietnamese□  French □  Mandarin □  Other ___________________8. Which language do you prefer to speak? ______________________ 9. How difficult is it for you to read in English?□ Very hard   □ Hard  □ Easy  □ Very easy10. Have you ever had a mindfulness program or activity?□ Yes   □ No   □ Don’t know  If Yes, please write in the grade you had it ________82Sub-Appendix D.2. Self-Compassion Scale for Children (Neff, 2003b; modified by Lawlor, 2011)How often do you do the following?Never AlmostNeverSometimes Almost AlwaysAlways1.   When I fail at something important to me, I feel like I’m not good enough. (reverse scored)1 2 3 4 52.   I try to be kind towards those things about myself I don’t like.1 2 3 4 53.   When something bad happens, I try not to focus only on the bad, but think about the good things as well.1 2 3 4 54.   When I’m feeling sad, I feel like most other kids are happier than I am. (reverse scored)1 2 3 4 55.   When I fail at something, I try to remember that everybody fails sometimes too.1 2 3 4 56.   When I’m going through a very hard time, I’m really nice to myself1 2 3 4 57.   When something upsets me I try to stay calm.1 2 3 4 58.   When I fail at something that’s important to me, I feel like I’m all alone. (reverse scored)1 2 3 4 59.   When I’m feeling sad, I can’t stop thinking about everything that’s wrong. (reverse scored)1 2 3 4 510. When I feel like I’m not good enough at something, I try to remind myself that everyone feels that way sometimes.1 2 3 4 511. I am hard on myself about my own flaws/weaknesses. (reverse scored)1 2 3 4 512. I get frustrated or upset about the things about myself I don’t like. (reverse scored)1 2 3 4 583Sub-Appendix D.3. Mindful Attention Awareness Scale (Lawlor, Schonert-Reichl, Gadermann, & Zumbo, 2013)How true is each statement for you? Almost NeverNot Very Often at AllNot Very OftenSomewhat OftenVery OftenAlmost Always1.   I could be feeling a certain way and not realize it until later.1 2 3 4 5 62.   I break or spill things because of carelessness, not paying attention, or thinking of something else.1 2 3 4 5 63.   I find it hard to stay focused on what’s happening in the present moment.1 2 3 4 5 64.   Usually, I walk quickly to get where I’m going without paying attention to what I experience along the way.1 2 3 4 5 65.   Usually, I do not notice if my body feels tense or uncomfortable until it gets really bad1 2 3 4 5 66.   I forget a person’s name almost as soon as I’ve been told it for the first time.1 2 3 4 5 67.   It seems that I am doing things automatically without really being aware of what I am doing1 2 3 4 5 68.   I rush through activities without being really attentive to them.1 2 3 4 5 69.   I focus so much on a future goal I want to achieve that I don’t pay attention to what I am doing right now to reach it.1 2 3 4 5 610. I do jobs, chores, or schoolwork automatically without being aware of what I’m doing.1 2 3 4 5 611. I find myself listening to someone with one ear, doing something else at the same time.1 2 3 4 5 612. I walk into a room, and then wonder why I went there.1 2 3 4 5 68413. I can’t stop thinking about the past or the future.1 2 3 4 5 614. I find myself doing things without paying attention.1 2 3 4 5 615. I snack without being aware that I’m eating.1 2 3 4 5 685Sub-Appendix D.4. General Self-concept and School Self-concept subscales (Self Description Questionnaire; Marsh, 1993)How true is each statement for you? NeverHardly EverSometimes OftenAlways1.   I am good at school subjects. 1 2 3 4 52.   I enjoy doing work in all school subjects. 1 2 3 4 53.   I do lots of important things. 1 2 3 4 54.   In general, I like being the way I am. 1 2 3 4 55.   I get good marks in all school subjects. 1 2 3 4 56.   Overall, I have a lot to be proud of. 1 2 3 4 57.   I learn things quickly in all school subjects. 1 2 3 4 58.   I can do things as well as most other people. 1 2 3 4 59.   I am interested in all school subjects. 1 2 3 4 510. Other people think that I am a good person. 1 2 3 4 511. I look forward to all school subjects. 1 2 3 4 512. A lot of things about me are good. 1 2 3 4 513. Work in all school subjects is easy for me. 1 2 3 4 514. I’m as good as most other people. 1 2 3 4 515. I like all school subjects. 1 2 3 4 516. When I do something, I do it well. 1 2 3 4 586Sub-Appendix D.5. Optimism subscale (Resiliency Inventory; Song, 2003)How true is each statement for you?Not at all  like meA little bit like meKind of   like meA lot    like meAlways   like me1.  I have more bad times than good. (reverse scored)1 2 3 4 52.   More good things than bad things will happen to me.1 2 3 4 53.   I start most days thinking I’ll have a bad day. (reverse scored)1 2 3 4 54.   Even if there are bad things, I’m able to see the good things about me and my life.1 2 3 4 55.   I’m bored by most things in life. (reversed scored)1 2 3 4 56.   I think things will get worse in the future. 1 2 3 4 57.   I am optimistic about school life. 1 2 3 4 58.   I think that I am a lucky one. 1 2 3 4 59.   When something bad happens to me, I think that it will last long. (reverse scored)1 2 3 4 587Sub-Appendix D.6. Satisfaction With Life Scale for Children (Gadermann, Schonert-Reichl, & Zumbo, 2010)How true is each statement for you? Disagree a LotDisagreea LittleDon’t Agree or DisagreeAgreea LittleAgreea Lot1.   In most ways my life is close to the way I would want it to be.1 2 3 4 52.   The things in my life are excellent. 1 2 3 4 53.   I am happy with life. 1 2 3 4 54.   So far I have gotten the important things I want in life.1 2 3 4 55.   If I could live my life over, I would have it the same way.1 2 3 4 588Sub-Appendix D.7. Positive and Negative Affect subscales (Positive and Negative Affect Schedule for Children; Laurent et al., 1999)How much you have felt this way DURING THE PAST FEW WEEKS? Very slightlyor not at allA littlebitSomewhatQuite a bitA lot1.   Sad 1 2 3 4 52.   Excited 1 2 3 4 53.   Upset 1 2 3 4 54.   Happy 1 2 3 4 55.   Strong 1 2 3 4 56. Nervous 1 2 3 4 57. Guilty 1 2 3 4 58. Energetic 1 2 3 4 59. Scared 1 2 3 4 510. Miserable 1 2 3 4 511. Cheerful 1 2 3 4 512. Active 1 2 3 4 513. Proud 1 2 3 4 514. Afraid 1 2 3 4 515. Joyful 1 2 3 4 516. Lonely 1 2 3 4 517. Mad 1 2 3 4 518. Delighted 1 2 3 4 519. Gloomy 1 2 3 4 520. Lively 1 2 3 4 589Sub-Appendix D.8. Anxious Symptoms and Depressive Symptoms subscales (Seattle Personality Questionnaire for Children; Kusche, Greenberg, & Beilke, 1988)How true is each statement for you? Not at all A littlebitSomewhat Always1.  Do you feel afraid a lot of the time? 1 2 3 42.   Do you worry about what other kids might be saying about you?1 2 3 43.  Are you afraid to try new things? 1 2 3 44.  Do you worry a lot that other people might not like you?1 2 3 45.   Would it be hard for you to ask kids you didn’t know to join them in a game?1 2 3 46.   Do you worry about what other people think of you?1 2 3 47.   Do you worry about being teased? 1 2 3 48.   Do you feel unhappy a lot of the time? 1 2 3 49.   Do you feel like crying a lot of the time? 1 2 3 410. Do you feel upset about things? 1 2 3 411. Do you have trouble paying attention in class? 1 2 3 412. Do you feel that you do things wrong a lot? 1 2 3 413. Do you feel that most things are not much fun? 1 2 3 414. Do you feel sorry for yourself? 1 2 3 415. Do you have trouble falling or staying asleep? 1 2 3 416. Do you feel tired a lot of the time? 1 2 3 417. Do you often feel like not eating even though it is mealtime?1 2 3 418. Do you want to be by yourself a lot? 1 2 3 490Sub-Appendix D.9. Empathy and Perspective-taking subscales (Interpersonal Reactivity Index; Davis, 1983)How true is each statement for you? Not at all like meA little bit like meKind of like meA lot   like meAlways like me1.   I often feel sorry for people who don’t have the things I have.1 2 3 4 52.   It’s easy for me to understand why other people do the things they do.1 2 3 4 53.   Sometimes I feel very sorry for other people when they are having   problems.1 2 3 4 54.   When I see someone being picked on, I feel kind of sorry for them.1 2 3 4 55.   Sometimes I try to understand my friends better by imagining how they think about things.1 2 3 4 56.   Even when I’m mad at someone, I try to understand how they feel.1 2 3 4 57.   I often feel sorry for other children who are sad or in trouble.1 2 3 4 58.   I try to understand how other kids feel before I decide what to say to them.1 2 3 4 59.   When I see someone being treated mean, it bothers me.1 2 3 4 510. Even when I know I’m right I listen to what other people think.1 2 3 4 511. I often have strong feelings about things that happen around me.1 2 3 4 512. Before I say anything bad about anyone, I try to imagine how I would feel if I were that person.1 2 3 4 513. I am a person who cares about the feelings of others.1 2 3 4 514. There are different ways to think about a problem and I try to look at all of them.1 2 3 4 591Sub-Appendix D.10. Prosocial Goals subscale (Social Goals Questionnaire; Wentzel, 1993)How true is each statement for you? Never Seldom Sometimes Often Always1.   How often do you try to cheer someone up when something has gone wrong?1 2 3 4 52.   How often do you to try to share what you’ve learned with your classmates?1 2 3 4 53.   How often do you try to be nice to kids when something bad has happened to them?1 2 3 4 54.   How often do you try to help other kids when they have a problem?1 2 3 4 55.   How often do you try to help your classmates learn new things?1 2 3 4 56.   How often do you think about how your behaviour will affect other kids?1 2 3 4 57. How often do you try to help your classmates solve a problem once you’ve figured it out?1 2 3 4 592Appendix E: Teacher-report MeasuresMeasures included in this Appendix: E.1. Teacher Rating of Social Competence E.2. Teacher Rating of Children’s and Adolescents’ Behavior93Sub-Appendix E.1. Teacher Rating of Social Competence subscale (Teachers’ Ratings Scale of Social Competence; Kam & Greenberg, 1998)Instructions: Compared to other (boys/girls) at this grade level, how often does/is this student . . .Almost NeverRarelySome-timesOftenVery OftenAlmost Always1. Feel at ease to talk to you 1 2 3 4 5 62. Shows empathy and compassion for other’s feelings 1 2 3 4 5 63. Provides help, shares materials, and acts cooperatively with others. 1 2 3 4 5 64. Takes turns, plays fair, and follows the rules of the game. 1 2 3 4 5 65. Listens carefully to others. 1 2 3 4 5 66. Initiate interactions and joins in with others in a positive manner. 1 2 3 4 5 67. Recognizes and label his/her feelings and those of others appropriately. 1 2 3 4 5 694Sub-Appendix E.2. Teacher Rating of Children’s and Adolescents’ Behavior (AR4; Eisenberg et. al, 2003)Never Hardly EverSometimes Often Always1. This child usually comforts others who are upset or hurt.1 2 3 4 52. This child often feels sorry for others who are less fortunate.1 2 3 4 53. This child does not often become sad when reading or listening to a sad story.1 2 3 4 54. This child feels sympathy for others. 1 2 3 4 55. This child usually feels sorry for other children who are being teased.1 2 3 4 56. This child rarely feels sympathy for other children who are upset or sad.1 2 3 4 595Appendix F: A correlations table with the relations between SCS-C and measures used in the present study and the original SCS with measures used in studies with adults. Table F1Correlations of the SCS-C with measures used in the present study and correlations of the original SCS with measures used in studies with adults.SCS-C (Present Study)SCS (Neff, 2003b; Neff et al., 2007; Neff et al. 2013; Bergen-Cico et al., 2013) Scale Correlation Scale CorrelationMindful Attention and Awareness Scale- Children.42 **Kentucky Inventory of Mindfulness Skills.49b***Self Description QuestionnaireGeneral self-concept .46 ** Rosenberg’s Self-Esteem Scale .59a**School self-concept .33 **Resiliency InventoryOptimism subscale .63** Life Orientation Test-Revised .62a*Satisfaction with Life Scale- Children.50** Satisfaction with Life Scale .45a**Positive and Negative Affect Schedule- ChildrenPositive and Negative Affect SchedulePositive Affect .42** Positive Affect .34a*Negative Affect -.42** Negative Affect -.36a*Seattle Personality Questionnaire for ChildrenDepressive Symptoms -.50** Beck Depression Inventory -.57a**Anxious Symptoms -.47**Speilberger Trait Anxiety Inventory-.65a**Interpersonal Reactivity IndexInterpersonal Reactivity IndexEmpathic Concern .16** Empathic Concern .01a, .15b*96SCS-C (Present Study)SCS (Neff, 2003b; Neff et al., 2007; Neff et al. 2013; Bergen-Cico et al., 2013) Scale Correlation Scale CorrelationPerspective Taking .35** Perspective Taking .30a*, .31b*Social Goals Questionnaire Rushton Altruism Scale .03a, .24b*Prosocial Goals .40**aSample consisted of undergraduate students. bSample consisted of community adults.*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .00197

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
https://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.24.1-0167501/manifest

Comment

Related Items