Measuring Mindful Responding in Daily Life: Validation of the Daily Mindful Responding Scale (DMRS)

Abstract

An important presumed mechanism of change in mindfulness-based interventions (MBIs) is the extent to which participants learn to respond mindfully (i.e., return attention to a nonjudgmental present-oriented awareness) in daily life. Because existing measures that assess mindful responding are not sensitive to contextual fluctuations that occur in peo- ple’s daily lives, little is still known about how people’s ability to respond mindfully to daily events changes with mindful- ness training and what role this change plays in explaining the benefits of MBIs. The purpose of the current study was to develop a brief measure that can be administered on a daily basis throughout an MBI to assess the extent to which people respond mindfully in their daily lives. We report initial psy- chometric properties for this measure, named the Daily Mindful Responding Scale (DMRS). One hundred seventeen participants who took part in a Mindfulness-Based Stress Reduction (MBSR) program completed daily diaries that in- cluded the DMRS and measures of psychological distress and wellbeing. They also completed measures of psychological distress and wellbeing pre- and post-MBSR. Using multilevel analyses, we examined various indices of reliability and va- lidity of the DMRS. The findings support the reliability and validity of the DMRS at both between- and within-person levels of analysis. Importantly, DMRS scores steadily in- creased throughout the MBSR program and this increase pre- dicted a reduction in psychological distress and an increase in psychological wellbeing. Limitations and future directions are discussed.

Full text

ORIGINAL PAPER
Measuring Mindful Responding in Daily Life: Validation
of the Daily Mindful Responding Scale (DMRS)
Julien Lacaille
1
&Gentiana Sadikaj
1
&Midori Nishioka
1
&
Joseph Flanders
1
&Bärbel Knäuper
1
#Springer Science+Business Media New York 2015
Abstract An important presumed mechanism of change in
mindfulness-based interventions (MBIs) is the extent to which
participants learn to respond mindfully (i.e., return attention to
a nonjudgmental present-oriented awareness) in daily life.
Because existing measures that assess mindful responding
are not sensitive to contextual fluctuations that occur in peo-
ple’s daily lives, little is still known about how people’s ability
to respond mindfully to daily events changes with mindful-
ness training and what role this change plays in explaining the
benefits of MBIs. The purpose of the current study was to
develop a brief measure that can be administered on a daily
basis throughout an MBI to assess the extent to which people
respond mindfully in their daily lives. We report initial psy-
chometric properties for this measure, named the Daily
Mindful Responding Scale (DMRS). One hundred seventeen
participants who took part in a Mindfulness-Based Stress
Reduction (MBSR) program completed daily diaries that in-
cluded the DMRS and measures of psychological distress and
wellbeing. They also completed measures of psychological
distress and wellbeing pre- and post-MBSR. Using multilevel
analyses, we examined various indices of reliability and va-
lidity of the DMRS. The findings support the reliability and
validity of the DMRS at both between- and within-person
levels of analysis. Importantly, DMRS scores steadily in-
creased throughout the MBSR program and this increase pre-
dicted a reduction in psychological distress and an increase in
psychological wellbeing. Limitations and future directions are
discussed.
Keywords Mindfulness .Mindful responding .Mechanism .
Daily diary .Mindfulness-based intervention
Introduction
Studies investigating the therapeutic effects of mindfulness
training continue to provide empirical support for the effec-
tiveness of mindfulness-based interventions (MBIs) at reduc-
ing psychological distress and improving wellbeing (Keng
et al. 2011;Khouryetal.2013). As research is now shifting
from investigating whether MBIs work to how they work, it is
important to develop measures that can assess the mechanisms
that lead to the positive outcomes of MBIs (Baer 2010).
Investigating mechanisms underlying the effectiveness of
MBIs advances the theoretical understanding of the function-
ing of these interventions. This allows researchers and clini-
cians to emphasize key mechanisms to maximize the effec-
tiveness of these interventions and leave out the teaching of
non-active mechanisms.
A mechanism that is generally assumed to play an impor-
tant role in the effectiveness of mindfulness training is the
extent to which people apply the mindfulness skills they learn
during the training in everyday life (Baer 2010;Kabat-Zinn
1990; Goldstein and Kornfield 1987;Segaletal.2002). A
fundamental skill taught in MBIs involves the ability to detect
when attention is not anchored in the present moment and to
engage in a corrective process whereby attention is intention-
ally redirected to the flow of one’s ongoing experiences, non-
judgmentally, and with equal openness to all experiences.
That is, when learning to cultivate mindfulness, people are
taught to become more aware of instances in which they are
not being mindful and are thus driven to react automatically.
They are taught to replace such mindless reactions with
mindfulness-consistent responses, such as redirecting a
*Julien Lacaille
julien.lacaille@mail.mcgill.ca
1
Department of Psychology, McGill University, 1205 Dr. Penfield
Avenue, Montreal, QC, Canada H3A 1B1
Mindfulness
DOI 10.1007/s12671-015-0416-5

distracted attention back to the present moment, recognizing
thoughts as merely fleeting mental events rather than engaging
in their contents, and becoming unconditionally open to and
accepting of experiences that arise from moment to moment,
particularly when having unpleasant experiences (Kabat-Zinn
1990; Segal et al. 2002). The skill of applying mindful re-
sponses when one notices not being mindful is repeatedly
practiced and refined during meditations. For example, during
a meditation on the breath, one would repeatedly attempt to
return one’s attention to the ever-changing sensations of
breathing when one notices being absorbed into the content
of one’s thoughts. The development of this mindful
responding skill during meditations is thought to facilitate
the use of mindful responding in everyday life. For example,
accumulating expertise in redirecting attention to the sensa-
tions of one’s breathing when one is lost in thought during a
meditation should allow that person, when not meditating, to
direct attention in the same way when the mind is engaged in
ruminative thinking during the day. The ability to respond
with mindfulness Boff the meditation cushion^and being fully
present for the unfolding of one’s daily life is arguably the
ultimate aim of mindfulness training in the context of MBIs
(Kabat-Zinn 1990) and should, to a large extent, explain the
beneficial effects of these interventions.
In order to test whether the skill of mindful responding
learned during MBIs generalize to people’s experiences out-
side training, and whether this explains the benefits of such
training, it is necessary to be able to measure the extent to
which individuals use mindful responses in daily life.
Recently, the Mindfulness Process Questionnaire (MPQ;
Erisman and Roemer 2012) was developed to measure the
act of redirecting attention back to present moment awareness
in a nonjudgmental way after noticing it being elsewhere. The
authors distinguish their questionnaire as a measure of mind-
fulness as a process (i.e., attempts to engage in mindfulness)
from the majority of existing mindfulness questionnaires that
measure mindfulness as an outcome (i.e., the resulting state of
Bsuccessfully^being mindful). They argue that the process of
bringing attention back to a nonjudgmental present-moment
awareness constitutes a crucial skill targeted by mindfulness
trainings. Erisman and Roemer provided preliminary support
for the reliability and validity of the MPQ as a measure of the
process of mindfulness rather than the resulting mindful state,
by showing that it uniquely predicts various indices of
wellbeing in the general population as well as with those par-
ticipating in mindfulness training. While the process-oriented
mindfulness construct measured by the MPQ closely resem-
bles the act of mindfully responding to daily events, the MPQ
has been developed and validated as a trait measure, and is
thus likely not suitable to be used as a measure of within-
person variation in mindful responding on a day-to-day basis.
In other words, investigating whether people who undergo
mindfulness training apply the mindful responding skill they
learn to their daily life requires a measure that can assess
changes that occur overtime in how much people respond
mindfully during their day.
To test the hypothesis that responding to daily events in a
mindful way explains the benefits of mindfulness training, it is
necessary to measure changes that occur in how much people,
who undergo such training, respond mindfully in their daily
lives. Intensive repeated measurement in naturalistic settings
methodologies (Moskowitz et al. 2009), which include daily
diary methods, have historically been used to study people’s
thoughts, feelings, and behaviors in daily life (Bolger et al.
2003). Using these methods, individuals are asked to report
some aspect of their experience as they go about their daily
lives. Using daily diaries to study daily mindful responding
can be advantageous for several reasons. First, as we can as-
sess mindful responses in daily life and close in time to its
occurrence, findings obtained with daily diaries can be gener-
alized to real-world, real-life experiences, a key requirement
for the findings to possess external validity (Moskowitz et al.
2009). Additionally, daily diaries can enhance the internal
validity of the findings. Daily diaries are within-person de-
signs; by reporting their mindful responses repeatedly
throughout the intervention, participants serve as their own
control. Any person characteristic would uniformly influence
the person’s measures of mindful responding across all the
reported days. Therefore, within-person changes are not con-
founded with between-persons differences such as social de-
sirability or personality traits. Another advantage of using dai-
ly diaries is that by obtaining multiple measures of mindful
responding for each person, researchers can examine within-
person processes, which cannot be inferred by investigating
patterns of relations among variables measured on one occa-
sion and at the between-person level (Borsboom et al. 2003).
For example, establishing that people who generally respond
more mindfully also report experiencing greater overall psy-
chological wellbeing does not necessarily imply that, as the
person increases his or her mindful responding from one day
to the other, the person’s psychological wellbeing also
increases.
Our aim was to develop a measure that assesses the use of
mindful responding in daily life, and that is well suited for
intensive repeated administration in the context of daily life.
To that end, we reformulated MPQ items to create a measure
that is sensitive to changes in mindful responding across con-
texts and over time that are expected to occur with mindful-
ness training. In addition, we reduced our scale to four items to
minimize the burden on participants (who have to respond to
them daily) and worded all items positively to ensure that they
would not load on different factors because of their valence
(i.e., positively vs. negatively worded). Additionally, to fur-
ther ensure that the items would load onto the same factor and
because mindful responding involves carrying out a mindful
act in response to not being mindful, we consistently
Mindfulness

formatted the items with a cue-response syntactical format,
that is, in the presence of a potential obstacle to mindfulness
(e.g., being lost in thought), a mindful response is attempted
(e.g., redirecting attention to the immediate environment). In
contrast, the MPQ includes both cue-response and responses-
only items. Finally, to adapt the items for use with daily dia-
ries, we formulated the items in the past tense and added
BTod a y^at the beginning of each item.
To shorten the questionnaire, we first integrated two items
from the MPQ that relate to the process of bringing a wander-
ing mind back to the present moment (MPQ1: BWhen I feel
myself getting caught up in my thoughts or feelings, I am able
to bring my mind back to what’s happening right now^,and
MPQ5: BWhen I notice that I'm not engaged in the present
moment I can gently bring myself back^), to form the single
item: BToday, when my mind was caught up in thoughts, I let
go of them and brought my awareness back to the present
moment^. The second item was constructed by integrating
three MPQ items that relate to the process of being receptive
and accepting to all experiences (MPQ2 [reverse-coded]: BI
don’t consciously try to be accepting of whatever thoughts
and feelings I have^,MPQ3:BI try to be open to whatever
happens, as it’s happening, instead of having my mind wander
to other things^,andMPQ4:BI intentionally try to be
accepting of my thoughts and feelings as they occur^), into
asingleitem:BToday, when I had unpleasant feelings, I ob-
served them as they were, without trying to avoid or change
them^. We specifically targeted unpleasant feelings because it
is arguably when one experiences something unpleasant that it
becomes especially difficult to remain unconditionally recep-
tive. For the third item, we integrated two MPQ items that
relate to the process of being nonjudgmental and kind
(MPQ6: BIf I notice that I’m being hard on myself for the
thoughts and feelings I’m experiencing, I try to be kind to
myself instead^, and MPQ7: BIf I notice that I'm being critical
of my thoughts or feelings, I try to be more accepting of them
instead^), into a single item: BToday, when I was being critical
of myself or others, I let go of judgments to become more
accepting instead^.
Based on a review of the published writings on what is
commonly taught in MBIs (e.g., Kabat-Zinn 1990;Segal
et al. 2002), and on the opinion of MBSR instructors who
reviewed the MPQ items, we argue that an important aspect
of mindful responding learned in MBIs was missing from the
MPQ, namely that of decentering from thoughts. Decentering
(Fresco et al. 2007) consists of observing one’
sthoughtswhile
focusing on their form (i.e., as fleeting mental events) rather
than their content and thus their veracity. In many MBIs, par-
ticipants are taught to become aware of when they are
absorbed in the content of thoughts, and then to respond by
shifting their attention to the process of thinking instead. This
type of mindful response is taught in such meditations as the
BSitting with Thoughts and Feelings^meditation (Kabat-Zinn
1990), which instructs participants to use the process of think-
ing as an object of attention to anchor one’s attention in the
present moment. We added a fourth item to our measure to
reflect this important mindful response by synthesizing items
from two questionnaires that include decentering items; an
item from the Five Facet Mindfulness Questionnaire (Baer
et al. 2006): BWhen I have distressing thoughts or images, I
‘step back’and am aware of the thought or image without
getting taken over by it^, and the Experiences Questionnaire
(Fresco et al. 2007): BI can observe unpleasant feelings with-
out being drawn into them^. Both items were integrated into a
single item: BToday, when I was absorbed in thoughts or emo-
tions, I ‘stepped back’from them so that I could see them
more clearly, without being drawn into them^.
In this article, we report the psychometric properties of this
new measure, named the Daily Mindful Responding Scale
(DMRS), designed to assess mindful responding in the daily
lives of people undergoing mindfulness training, such as
MBIs. We examined the psychometric properties of DMRS
at both the person level (i.e., how participants differ among
each other in average mindful responding throughout the in-
tervention) and the daily level (i.e., participants’daily fluctu-
ations from their general ability to respond mindfully to daily
events). In addition, we explored the DMRS’ability to mea-
sure systematic changes in mindful responding that should
occur while individuals undergo an MBI. Finally, we exam-
ined whether systematic changes in daily mindful responding
throughout an MBI were related to and predicted changes in
psychological distress and wellbeing outcomes.
Method
Participants
One hundred forty-two adults were recruited from 18
Mindfulness-Based Stress Reduction (MBSR) groups offered
at a private psychology clinic in Montreal, Quebec, that took
place between March of 2013 and December of 2014. Each
group was led by one of five instructors (two PhD-level clinical
psychologists, two clinical psychology PhD candidates, and
one certified integrative life coach) trained to administer the
MBSR program, each with substantial meditation experience.
The MBSR program in this clinic targets a wide range of adults
who seek therapeutic help for various sub-clinical stress-related
problems. Four of the 18 groups were led in French, and par-
ticipants were only recruited from these groups if they were
sufficiently fluent in English to understand the study instruc-
tions and questionnaire items. Participants who provided a total
of less than 1 week of daily diaries were judged as noncompli-
ant and were not included in the analyses. This resulted in the
exclusion of 25 participants, for a total sample size of 117.
Dropouts and excluded participants were not different from
Mindfulness

participants who completed the study with respect to all demo-
graphic characteristics and pre-program measures (all p’s
>0.05). The final sample consisted mostly of females (80 %),
adults (64 % between 30 and 49 years of age), predominantly
Caucasian (86 %), Anglophone (65 %), university-educated
(82 %), and employed (76 %). Twenty-seven percent of the
sample reported having a meditation practice (<5 years for
88 % of them) before participating in the study.
Procedure
All participants underwent the standard MBSR program based
on the original intervention (Kabat-Zinn 1990). The MBSR pro-
gram is among the most well-established mindfulness teaching
interventions (Salmon et al. 2011) and has been shown to effec-
tively reduce psychological distress and increase wellbeing
(Fjorback et al. 2011;Kengetal.2011). The MBSR program
consists of eight consecutive 2-h weekly group sessions that
contain psycho-education about mindfulness and stress, a variety
of mindfulness experiential exercises and formal meditations,
and group discussions. Additionally, every week, home practice
is assigned, which includes formal meditations (e.g., body scan,
sitting and walking meditation, hatha yoga, loving-kindness
meditation) and informal exercises (e.g., doing everyday activi-
ties mindfully, increasing awareness of one’s daily habits and
automatic reactions, applying what they learn in meditation to
daily life events). A full-day silence retreat is also included be-
tween the sixth and the seventh week, in which participants
engage in intensive meditation practice. Participants are encour-
aged to practice the formal meditations that they learn on a daily
basis and are provided with audio guides and relevant reading
materials that serve as a support for their practice.
Participants registered in the MBSR program who expressed
interest in participating in the study were sent an online ques-
tionnaire to be filled out before the first MBSR session. This
online questionnaire included a consent form, a demographic
questionnaire, and pre-program measures. Before the first ses-
sion, participants attended a research orientation meeting in
which they were explained the procedure for filling out the
daily diaries. During this meeting, instructions for completing
the daily measures were given. Along with how to access the
diary and various other logistics, participants were informed
that the DMRS items were structured in a cue-response format.
For each item, participants were told to think of the time during
the day when they encountered a cue specified in the items
(e.g., being caught up in the content of thoughts, experiencing
unpleasant feelings, being judgmental) and then to rate how
often they responded mindfully in the way specified in the item.
The specific instructions given to participants are presented in
the Appendix. Any confusion about how to answer the items
was addressed. The day after the first session, for every subse-
quent day in the program (i.e., 49 days), participants received a
link on their smartphones to access their online daily diaries.
Participants chose at what time they would receive the signal at
night (between 7:30 and 11PM). Participants were also given a
chance to report on their day the morning after, if they were not
able to report the night of. The links to the online surveys were
deactivated 8 h after receiving the signal to ensure the quality of
the reported data. In the diaries, they reported on the extent to
which they responded mindfully that day and on their daily
levels of stress and affect. At the end of the program, partici-
pants completed the same measures as those assessed pre-pro-
gram, and they were subsequently debriefed about the purpose
of the study and compensated based on the number of complet-
ed reports, with a maximum compensation of $50.
Measures
Demographic Characteristics
Participants reported their gender, age, ethnicity, education
level, employment status, and previousmeditation experience.
Pre- and Post-MBSR Measures
Before and after participating in the MBSR program, study
participants completed a measure of trait mindful responding,
as well as measures of psychological distress and wellbeing.
Means, standard deviations, Cronbach’s alphas, and pre- and
post-MBSR correlations of these measures are reported in
Tab le 1.
Trait Mindful Responding The Mindfulness Process
Questionnaire (MPQ; Erisman and Roemer 2012) was used
to measure people’s general disposition to respond mindfully
(e.g., BWhen I notice that I’m not engaged in the present
moment, I can gently bring myself back^). Items are rated
on a scale that ranges from 1 (not at all characteristic of me)
to 5 (entirely characteristic of me). All items were averaged to
compute MPQ scores, with higher scores indicating a higher
disposition to respond mindfully. In the current study, the
MPQ demonstrated good internal consistency at pre-MBSR
(α=0.83) and post-MBSR (α= 0.78), and MPQ scores in-
creased significantly from pre- to post-MBSR, mean (M)dif-
ference=0.79, SE= 0.06, p<0.001.
Psychological Distress and Wellbeing Measures of per-
ceived stress and negative affect were used as indices of psy-
chological distress, while measures of positive affect and
eudaimonic wellbeing were used as indices of psychological
wellbeing. Perceived stress was measured using the 10-item
version of Perceived Stress Scale (PSS; Cohen et al. 1983).
Participants rated the degree to which situations in their life
were appraised as stressful in the last week, using a Likert
scale ranging from 1 (never)to5(very often). Higher scores
indicate a greater level of perceived stress. In this study, the
Mindfulness

PSS demonstrated good internal consistency both at pre-
MBSR and post-MBSR (α=0.88 and α=0.89, respectively),
and PSS scores decreased significantly from pre- to post-
MBSR, Mdifference = −0.51, SE=0.06, p<0.001.
Negative affect (NA) was measured using the negative af-
fect scale of the International Positive and Negative Affect
Schedule Short Form (I-PANAS-SF; Thompson 2007), an
internationally reliable and valid measure of positive and neg-
ative affect. Participants rated the extent to which they expe-
rienced negative affect (upset,hostile,ashamed,nervous,
afraid) in the last week using a Likert-type scale ranging from
1(never)to5(always), with higher scores indicating greater
negative affect. In the current study, the negative affect scale
of the I-PANAS-SF demonstrated good internal consistency at
pre-MBSR (α=0.70) and post-MBSR (α= 0.76), and NA
scores decreased significantly from pre- to post-MBSR, M
difference = −0.49, SE=0.07, p<0.001.
Positive affect (PA) was measured using the positive affect
scale of the I-PANAS-SF. Participants rated the extent to
which they experienced positive affect (alert,inspired,
determined,attentive,active) in the last week using a Likert-
type scale ranging from 1 (never)to5(always), with higher
scores indicating greater positive affect. In the current study,
the positive affect scale of the I-PANAS-SF demonstrated
good internal consistency at pre-MBSR (α=0.77) and post-
MBSR (α=0.78), and PA scores increased significantly from
pre- to post-MBSR, Mdifference= 0.40, SE=0.06, p<0.001.
Eudaimonic wellbeing was measured using the Questionnaire
for Eudaimonic Wellbeing (QEWB; Waterman et al. 2010). The
QEWB is a validated 21-item questionnaire that measures
wellbeing in accordance to the eudaimonist philosophy, which
includes self-discovery (e.g., BI believe I have discovered who I
really am^), perceived development of one’s best potential (e.g.,
BI believe I know what my best potential are and I try to develop
them whenever possible^), a sense of purpose and meaning in
one’s life (e.g., BI can say that I have found my purpose in life^),
investment of significant effort in pursuit of excellence (e.g., BI
feel best when I am doing something worth investing a great deal
of effort in^), intense involvement in activities (e.g., BIfindIget
intensely involved in many of the things I do each day^), and
enjoyment of activities as personally expressive (e.g., BIt is more
important that I really enjoy what I do than that others are
impressedbyit^). Participants rated the extent to which they
agree with such statements using a Likert-type scale ranging
from 1 (strongly disagree)to5(strongly agree). Higher score
indicate greater eudaimonic wellbeing. In the current study, the
QEWB demonstrated good internal consistency at pre-MBSR
(α=0.86) and post-MBSR (α= 0.86), and QEWB scores in-
creased significantly from pre- to post-MBSR, Mdifference=
0.20, SE=0.03, p<0.001.
Daily Measures
On a daily basis, participants completed daily diaries that in-
cluded a daily measure of mindful responding in addition to
daily measures of psychological distress and wellbeing.
Daily Mindful Responding The 4-item DMRS (described in
the BIntroduction^section) instructed participants to rate the
extent to which they engaged in mindfulness-consistent re-
sponses (i.e., returning attention to a nonjudgmental present-
oriented awareness) when encountering potential obstacles to
being mindful during the day using a Likert-type scale ranging
from 1 (rarely)to10(often). The DMRS items are presented
in the Appendix and the DMRS item means and intercorrela-
tions are presented in Table 2. All items were averaged to
compute individual daily mindful responding scores. Higher
scores indicate greater daily mindful responding.
Daily Psychological Distress and Wellbeing Daily mea-
sures of perceived stress and negative affect were used as
indices of daily psychological distress, while a daily measure
of positive affect was used as indices of daily psychological
wellbeing. Daily perceived stress was measured with a 4-item
version of the Perceived Stress Scale (PSS; Cohen et al. 1983).
Participants rated the extent to which they experienced stress
Tabl e 1 Means,
standard deviations,
mean difference, and
correlation of change for
all pre- and post-MBSR
variables
Pre-MBSR Post-MBSR Pre–post-MBSR
difference (SE)
Pre–post-MBSR
correlation (SE)
M(SD) Cronbach’sαM(SD) Cronbach’sα
MPQ 2.47 (0.67) 0.83 3.27 (0.57) 0.78 0.79 (0.06)*** 0.48 (0.08)***
PSS 2.94 (0.64) 0.88 2.44 (0.60) 0.89 −0.51 (0.06)*** 0.47 (0.08)***
NA 2.55 (0.72) 0.70 2.06 (0.58) 0.76 −0.49 (0.07)*** 0.44 (0.08)***
PA 3.20 (0.65) 0.77 3.59 (0.54) 0.78 0.40 (0.06)*** 0.54 (0.08)***
QEWB 3.53 (0.53) 0.86 3.73 (0.50) 0.86 0.20 (0.03)*** 0.81 (0.04)***
Pre-MBSR N=117, post-MBSR N=107. Pre–post-MBSR difference mean difference between pre-MBSR and post-
MBSR scores, MPQ Mindfulness Process Questionnaire, PSS Perceived Stress Scale, NA negative affect, PA positive
affect, QEWB Questionnaire for Eudaimonic Wellbeing
*p<0.05, **p< 0.01, ***p<0.001
Mindfulness

during the day using a scale ranging from 1 (very little)to10
(very much). Item scores were averaged to compute daily per-
ceived stress scores with higher scores indicating greater per-
ceived stress.
Daily positive affect (PA) and negative affect (NA) were
measured using the 10-item International Positive and
Negative Affect Schedule Short Form (I-PANAS-SF;
Thompson 2007), as described above. However, participants
rated the extent to which they experienced positive affect and
negative affect during the day using a scale ranging from 1
(very little)to10(very much). Item scores were averaged to
compute individual daily positive and negative affect scores.
Higher scores indicate greater positive and negative affect.
Data Analyses
We first examined the reliability of the DMRS in detecting
between-persons differences as well as systematic daily fluc-
tuations in mindful responding. We expected that the DMRS
would reliably measure mindful responding at both levels.
Second, using multilevel confirmatory factor analysis, we ex-
amined the factor structure of the DMRS. We expected that
one factor would provide a good solution to account for the
inter-item covariation at each level, respectively.
Third, we examined the construct validity of the DMRS by
investigating correlations between DMRS scores and scores
from daily measures of distress and wellbeing at the person
level and the daily levels. Whereas the person-level correla-
tions inform us about how between-persons differences in
mindful responding relate to between-persons differences in
psychological distress and wellbeing, daily-level correlations
indicate how fluctuations in daily mindful responding covary
with fluctuations in daily psychological distress or wellbeing
within a particular individual. Based on theoretical models of
mindfulness (Brown et al. 2007) as well as empirical findings
(Erisman and Roemer 2012), we expected a negative relation-
ship between mindful responding and psychological distress
and a positive relationship between mindful responding and
psychological wellbeing at both levels. Additionally, we
examined the correlations between participants’aggregated
(mean) daily DMRS scores over the entire duration of the
study and the Mindfulness Process Questionnaire (MPQ)
scores measured before and at the end of the MBSR program.
We expected that the DMRS would moderately correlate with
the MPQ, given the differences in item contents between the
two measures, the methodologies used to assess the construct,
and possible change in daily mindful responding throughout
the MBSR program.
Fourth, using latent growth curve modeling, we examined
whether DMRS scores were sensitive to measuring change in
daily mindful responding that is expected to occur when par-
ticipating in an intervention that teaches mindful responding
(i.e., MBSR). We hypothesized that daily mindful responding
scores would increase over time as training progresses.
Fifth, we constructed a four-parallel-growth-processes mod-
el to examine whether systematic time changes in daily mindful
responding correlated with systematic time changes in daily
outcome variables. Specifically, change in DMRS was modeled
concurrently with the changes in daily perceived stress, nega-
tive affect, and positive affect, where changes in these outcome
variables were similarly modeled using latent growth curves.
The correlations among the growth curve parameters (i.e., in-
tercepts and slopes) were then estimated. Significant correla-
tions between the slope indexing change in the DMRS and the
slopes of the other three growth processes would provide evi-
dence for the construct validity of the change in the DMRS
scores. We anticipated that increases in DMRS over the dura-
tion of the MBSR program would be associated with decreases
in daily psychological distress and increases in daily psycho-
logical wellbeing over the same time period.
Finally, we tested whether changes in daily mindful
responding reported throughout the MBSR program predicted
changes in psychological distress and wellbeing from the be-
ginning to the end of the MBSR program. We expanded the
latent growth curve model for the DMRS to include the pre-
and post-MBSR outcome measures (PSS, NA, PA, QEWB)
and added the following regression paths. We regressed the
post-MBSR outcome measures on the DMRS intercept and
Tabl e 2 DMRS item means,
standard deviations, and
intercorrelations at the person
level and the daily level
M(SD)1234
1. DMRS item 1 5.75 (1.10) –0.88 (0.05)*** 0.85 (0.04)*** 0.95 (0.01)***
2. DMRS item 2 5.72 (1.13) 0.49 (0.02)*** –0.88 (0.03)*** 0.89 (0.05)***
3. DMRS item 3 5.79 (1.13) 0.43 (0.02)*** 0.51 (0.03)*** –0.87 (0.04)***
4. DMRS item 4 5.58 (1.17) 0.51 (0.02)*** 0.55 (0.02)*** 0.54 (0.03)*** –
3915 daily reports from 117 participants. Person-level correlations (presented above the diagonal) indicate the
extent of the covariation among the means of each DMRS item aggregated over the daily diary period. Daily-
level correlations (presented below the diagonal) indicate the extent of the covariation among daily deviations in
each DMRS item from its respective mean
DMRS Daily Mindful Responding Scale
*p<0.05, **p< 0.01, ***p<0.001
Mindfulness

slope as well as on the same outcome measures’pre-MBSR
scores. We also regressed the DMRS intercept and slope on
the pre-MBSR outcome measures’scores. By entering the
pre-MBSR measures as independent variables in this model,
the relations between the DMRS intercept and slope and the
post-MBSR measures reveal the extent to which the initial
levels of DMRS and the change in the DMRS over the study
period accounted for any change in the psychological distress
and wellbeing measures from the beginning to the end of the
MRSB program. We expected that participants who showed
greater increase in daily mindful responding as indicated by
higher slope values would demonstrate greater reduction in
psychological distress and greater improvement in psycholog-
ical wellbeing after completing the program.
Results
Descriptive Statistics
Participants completed on average 33.34 (SD=10.28, range=7–
48) daily reports (out of 49). Of the total of 5733 possible daily
reports (117 participants× 49 days), 3901 (68 %) were complet-
ed. Means and standard deviations for all daily variables are
presented in Table 3. We computed the intraclass correlation
(ICC) to determine the proportion of the variance in each of
the items that is due to between-persons differences versus
within-person differences (and error) with larger values (closer
to 1) indicating an important contribution of between-persons
differences in the daily item scores’variances. In our sample,
the ICCs for the DMRS item scores ranged from 0.36 to 0.39,
suggesting substantial consistency (i.e., due to between-persons
differences) of the DMRS item scores across time.
Reliability using Generalizability Theory Analyses
We examined the reliability of the DMRS using the
Generalizability Theory framework (GT; Brennan 2001;
Cronbach et al. 1972; Shavelson and Webb 1991).
Establishing the reliability of measures administered daily en-
tails different considerations from measures administered on a
single occasion. Because measures administered repeatedly
are designed to assess phenomena that vary over time, such
measures need to reliably measure responses on a single oc-
casion, across occasions, and changes from one occasion to
another.
Using a GTapproach, it is possible to partition the variance
of item scores into variances due to multiple effects, corre-
sponding to multiple influences on scores. More specifically,
it is possible to estimate variance components that are due to
person, items, days, and their interactions. Using these vari-
ance components, we estimated generalizability coefficients
to examine whether the scores from the four items of the
DMRS generalize over persons, across days, and change from
one day to the other, thereby providing reliable measures of
between-persons differences as well as within-person changes
during the MBSR program. To obtain the variance decompo-
sition of the DMRS scores, we used the PROC VARCOMP
procedure (SAS Institute, 2013), which permitted us to esti-
mate the contribution of each of the effects to the variance of
the DMRS scores. Following the same steps, we estimated the
generalizability coefficients for the daily PSS, NA, and PA
scores. The results of the variance partitioning analysis of
the daily measures’scores are presented in Table 4.
Using the decomposed variance components and applying
the formulas provided in Cranford and colleagues (2006), we
first estimated the generalizability coefficient corresponding
to reliability of between-persons differences in mindful
responding when scores are aggregated over the entire dura-
tion of the MBSR program. We found a generalizability coef-
ficient of 0.99, which suggests that, when averaged over
33 days (the mean number of completed daily reports), the
DMRS scores are highly reliable. Equally high person-level
generalizability coefficients were found for PSS (0.99), NA
(0.99), and PA (1).
We then estimated the generalizability coefficient corre-
sponding to the reliability of between-persons differences in
mindful responding on an arbitrarily chosen but fixed day of
Tabl e 3 Person-level
and daily-level
correlations of DMRS
with daily outcomes
measures
M(SD) 1 (SE) 2 (SE) 3 (SE) 4 (SE)
1. DMRS 5.71 (1.08) –−0.62 (0.07)*** −0.34 (0.08)*** 0.73 (0.05)***
2. PSS 4.20 (1.11) −0.48 (0.02)*** –0.62 (0.05)*** −0.66 (0.05)***
3. NA 2.89 (0.95) −0.44 (0.03)*** 0.65 (0.02)*** –−0.34 (0.07)***
4. PA 5.97 (1.11) 0.45 (0.02)*** −0.49 (0.02)*** −0.36 (0.03)*** –
3901 daily reports from 117 participants. Person-level correlations (presented above the diagonal) indicate the extent of
the covariation among means in DMRS, PSS, NA, and PA aggregated over the daily diary period. Daily-level correlations
(presented below the diagonal) indicate the extent of the covariation among daily deviations in DMRS, PSS, NA, and PA
from their respective means
DMRS Daily Mindful Responding Scale, PSS Perceived Stress Scale, NA negative affect, PA positive affect
*p<0.05, **p< 0.01, ***p<0.001
Mindfulness

the MBSR program. This coefficient is conceptually similar to
the Cronbach’s alpha reliability coefficient computed on
scores obtained on only one occasion and can be thought of
as representing an average of all possible alphas that would
have been calculated on each day of the daily diary study
period. Variability due to the day of the study does not influ-
ence this reliability coefficient. For the DMRS measure, this
reliability coefficient was 0.83, suggesting that the four items
of the DMRS can reliably measure individual differences on
an arbitrarily chosen but fixed day of the MBSR program.
Moderate to high generalizability coefficients were also ob-
tained for PSS (0.81), NA (0.74), and PA (0.86).
Next, we estimated the generalizability coefficient corre-
sponding to the reliability of between-persons differences in
mindful responding on a randomly chosen day of the MBSR
program (e.g., weekday or weekend). The coefficient for the
DMRS was low, 0.50, suggesting that individual differences
represented in the DMRS item scores obtained on a randomly
selected day during the MBSR program will not generalize as
well to individual differences in DMRS scores obtained in
other randomly selected days. Similarly low generalizability
coefficients were obtained for PSS (0.50), NA (0.38), and PA
(0.55). It is important to note that this generalizability coeffi-
cient is typically expected to be low in daily measures because
it takes into account fluctuations in the scores that are due to
daily influences and persons’reaction to these daily influences
(Cranford et al. 2006).
Finally, we estimated the generalizability coefficient corre-
sponding to reliability of within-person day-to-day change.
This is the most important reliability coefficient when exam-
ining research questions regarding the within-person change
in daily mindful responding throughout an MBI. This coeffi-
cient was 0.77 for the DMRS, which suggests that the DMRS
can assess with adequate reliability the within-person change
in the context of an MBI. PSS, NA, and PA were also shown to
be reliable measures of within-person change, with generaliz-
ability coefficients of 0.76, 0.78, and 0.80, respectively.
Multilevel Conf irmatory Factor Analysis
To test the factor structure of the DMRS item scores simulta-
neously at both the daily level and person level, we conducted
a multilevel confirmatory factor analysis (MCFA), with one
latent factor specified at each level. We used Mplus 7.1
(Muthén and Muthén 2013), which permits the use of a max-
imum likelihood procedure that is robust to nonnormality of
data, nonindependence of observations, and unbalanced na-
ture of the data (i.e., MLR). In addition, Mplus performs an
implicit decomposition of the observed scores into two latent
parts, a daily score and a person’s mean score, which then are
used to estimate the model at each level simultaneously. The
latent daily score represents the deviation of a person’sreport-
ed daily score from the person’s latent mean score aggregated
across all days. This latent daily score represents the variation
due to daily influences in the person’spropensitytoengagein
mindful responding; the mean score represents this propensity
to engage in mindful responding over the study period. To
determine model fit for the MCFA (and latent growth curve
models below), we examined primarily the following indices:
(a) the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA), (b)
the standardized root mean square residual (SRMR), (c) the
comparative fit index (CFI), and the Tucker-Lewis index
(TLI). RMSEA and SRMR values of 0.08 or less (Hu and
Bentler 1999)andCFIandTLIvaluesover0.90(Hoyleand
Panter 1995) indicate good model fit. Finally, we also exam-
ined the chi-square test for the fitted model with nonsignifi-
cant values indicating a good model fit.
The standardized factor loadings for the daily-level and
person-level models are presented in Table 5.Thefitindices
were good (RMSEA=0.02, SRMR [daily level]=0.01,
SRMR [person level]=0.02, CFI=0.99, TLI=0.99, χ
2
=
24.81, df=13, p=0.03). Loadings were all above 0.65 and
all were significant (p’s <0.001), suggesting that they were
good indicators of the latent factor at both levels. This factor
accounted for 88 % of the item variance at the person level and
Tabl e 4 Variance partitioning of
daily measures Source of variance DMRS PSS NA PA
σ
2
%σ
2
%σ
2
%σ
2
%
Person 1.25 35.41 1.30 28.00 0.75 17.87 1.26 34.43
Day 0.14 3.98 0.05 1.01 0.08 1.89 0.02 0.67
Item 0.01 0.20 0.52 11.17 0.25 5.88 0.05 1.34
Person by day 0.91 25.72 1.04 22.40 1.03 24.76 0.86 23.33
Day by item 0.01 0.05 0.02 0.33 0.02 0.41 0.01 0.18
Person by item 0.16 4.47 0.39 8.41 0.57 13.69 0.37 10.21
Error 1.07 30.18 1.33 28.68 1.48 35.50 1.09 29.85
Total 3.54 100.00 4.65 100.00 4.18 100.00 3.67 100.00
3901 daily reports from 117 participants
DMRS Daily Mindful Responding Scale, PSS Perceived Stress Scale, NA negative affect, PA positive affect
Mindfulness

51 % of the item variance at the daily level. In light of these
findings, we computed the mean of the within-day DMRS
item scores as a measure of DMRS on a given day.
Person-Level and Daily-Level Correlations
Using Mplus, we estimated the correlations of DMRS with the
daily outcome variables (PSS, NA, PA) concurrently at both the
daily level and person level. The scores of all daily measures
(DMRS, PSS, NA, PA) were decomposed into latent daily
scores and latent mean scores in Mplus. The latent daily scores
represent the deviations of a person’s reported daily DMRS,
PSS, NA, and PA scores from the person’s latent mean score in
each of these variables, respectively. Table 3shows the daily-
level (below the diagonal) and person-level (above the diago-
nal) correlations between the DMRS and the daily outcome
measures. As expected, at both levels, the DMRS was signifi-
cantly negatively correlated with PSS and NA, and positively
correlated with PA (all p’s <0.001). Furthermore, as expected,
the DMRS was moderately correlated with MPQ pre-MBSR
(0.37) and MPQ post-MBSR (0.44). These correlation coeffi-
cients were not statistically different from one another as indi-
cated by the rescaled −2 log likelihood difference test between
nested models (see Satorra and Bentler 2010).
Latent Growth Curve Modeling
To determine whether the DMRS produces scores that are
sensitive to change over time in daily mindful responding, a
latent growth curve (LGC) model was fitted to DMRS scores
averaged over weekly time units. Based on the structure of the
MBSR program, we expected the week to best represent the
unit of time over which the change in daily mindful
responding occurs. The growth curve was defined by the in-
tercept (i.e., the score at the first week), slope (i.e., rate of
growth per unit of time), the intercept and slope variances
and covariance, and the residual variances. Significant inter-
cept and slope variances indicate between-persons differences
in these parameters, whereas significant intercept and slope
covariance suggest between-persons differences in the covari-
ation of the intercept and slope. We first examined a linear
growth model (i.e., the slope representing the average change
over a week was linear) and then investigated a non-linear
change model by adding a quadratic term for the slope.
The estimate for the quadratic term was not significant and
the model with a quadratic term did not improve model fit.
Therefore, we subsequently present only the findings for the
linear growth model (see Table 6). Overall fit indices for this
linear growth model were in the acceptable range (RMSEA=
0.09, SRMR=0.11, CFI= 0.94, TLI = 0.96, χ
2
=53.72, df=29,
p=0.004). The intercept was 5.25, indicating that participants,
on average, started at about the middle of the scale of DMRS.
As expected, the linear slope was positive and significant indi-
cating that as the MBSR program progressed over time, partic-
ipants reported a steady increase in their ability to mindfully
respond in their daily lives (slope= 0.17, SE= 0.02, p<0.001).
Significant intercept and slope variances suggest that partici-
pants differed among each other in their initial levels of mindful
responding and their change in the ability to respond mindfully.
The covariance between intercept and slope was not signifi-
cantly different from zero, suggesting no between-persons dif-
ferences in the rate of linear change in mindful responding as a
function of participants’initial mindful responding.
Parallel Process Latent Growth Curve Modeling
We then constructed a four-parallel-growth-processes model
to test whether the linear change in mindful responding was
correlated with linear change in daily outcome measures. To
ensure acceptable model fit and model identification, we made
a few modifications to the model. First, we permitted the re-
sidual weekly score variances across growth processes to co-
vary. Secondly, we constrained to zero the covariances among
growth parameter estimates (e.g., intercepts and slopes) that
were not significantly different from zero. To examine change
in model fit due to setting these covariances to zero, we com-
pared the fit of the model with unconstrained covariances with
the fit of a model in which these covariances were restricted to
be zero using the rescaled −2 log likelihood difference test
Tabl e 5 DMRS items factor loadings
Person-level loading (SE) Daily-level loading (SE)
DMRS item 1 0.94 (0.02)*** 0.65 (0.02)***
DMRS item 2 0.94 (0.02)*** 0.72 (0.02)***
DMRS item 3 0.94 (0.02)*** 0.70 (0.02)***
DMRS item 4 0.94 (0.02)*** 0.77 (0.02)***
3901 daily reports from 117 participants. Coefficients represent standard-
ized values. DMRS Daily Mindful Responding Scale. Note the person-
level item loadings are the same across items. We examined the equiva-
lency of item loadings using the rescaled −2 log likelihood difference test
(see Satorra and Bentler 2010)
*p<0.05, **p< 0.01, ***p<0.001
Tabl e 6 Latent growth curve model of DMRS
Estimate (SE)
DMRS intercept 5.25 (0.11)***
DMRS slope 0.17 (0.02)***
DMRS intercept variance 1.16 (0.21)***
DMRS slope variance 0.02 (0.01)***
DMRS intercept and slope covariance −0.03 (0.03)
N=117 participants. Estimates represent unstandardized values
DMRS Daily Mindful Responding Scale
*p<0.05, **p< 0.01, ***p<0.001
Mindfulness

(Satorra and Bentler 2010). A nonsignificant chi-square test
value at α=0.05 indicated no worsening of the model fit due
to setting these covariances to zero.
The estimates of the intercepts (i.e., first week of MBSR
program) and slopes (i.e., average week-to-week changes
throughout the MBSR program), as well as the intercorrela-
tions between these estimates, are presented in Table 7.
Overall, fit indices for this model were acceptable
(RMSEA=0.06, SRMR = 0.09, CFI=0.95, TLI = 0.95, χ
2
=
529.76, df= 360, p<0.001). As reported above, participants
reported an increase in daily mindful responding over the
course of the MBSR program (slope for DMRS curve= 0.17,
SE=0.02, p< 0.001). On average, participants also reported a
decline in perceived stress (slope for perceived stress curve=
−0.09, SE=0.02, p<0.001) and negative affect (slope for neg-
ative affect curve = −0.11, SE=0.02, p<0.001), and an in-
crease in positive affect (slope for positive affect curve=
0.08, SE= 0.02, p< 0.001) during the same period.
Subsequently, we focus only on the results involving the
DMRS slope. As expected, the DMRS slope was negatively
correlated with the slope for perceived stress and negative
affect: −0.02, SE=0.01, p<0.001 and −0.01, SE = 0.01,
p<0.05, respectively, and positively correlated with the slope
for positive affect: 0.02, SE=0.01, p<0.001. These findings
suggest that participants who reported a greater increase in
daily mindful responding also reported a greater decrease in
perceived stress and negative affect, and a greater increase in
positive affect, during the training period.
Change in DMRS as a Predictor of the Change
in Outcomes from Pre-MBSR to Post-MBSR
Finally, we tested whether the DMRS intercept and slope pre-
dicted scores in post-MBSR outcome measures, controlling
for scores of the same pre-MBSR outcome measures. We
subsequently present the findings involving the DMRS slope;
the findings involving the other variables in the model are
presented in Table 8. Overall, fit indices for this model were
good (RMSEA= 0.07, SRMR = 0.06, CFI= 0.96, TLI=0.94,
χ
2
=109.55, df =69, p< 0.01). As expected, the DMRS slope
predicted significant decreases in perceived stress: −0.36,
SE=0.13, p<0.001, and negative affect: −0.42, SE =0.11,
p<0.001, and significant increases in positive affect: 0.45,
SE=0.14, p<0.001 and eudaimonic wellbeing: 0.22, SE=
0.08, p<0.01. These findings suggest that participants, who
had greater linear increases in mindful responding during the
training program, as indicated by higher slope values, experi-
enced a significant decrease in perceived stress and negative
affect and a significant increase in positive affect and
eudaimonic wellbeing at the end of the MBSR program, con-
trolling for the baseline levels of these variables.
Discussion
The purpose of this study was to assess the initial psychomet-
ric properties of the DMRS, a brief measure that we designed
to assess the degree to which individuals respond mindfully in
daily life. Overall, the findings from this study were in accor-
dance with our expectations, suggesting that the DMRS is a
reliable and valid measure of daily mindful responding. We
first examined the extent to which the DMRS can reliably
measure responses on specific days, across days, and changes
in responses from day to day. Using a Generalizability Theory
framework (Brennan 2001;Cronbachetal.1972;Shavelson
and Webb 1991), we computed four different generalizability
(i.e., reliability) coefficients corresponding to four different
uses of the scores. We found that when aggregated over the
Tabl e 7 Parallel process growth model: intercepts, slopes, and correlations among intercepts and slopes
Parameter Estimate (SE) 1 (SE) 2 (SE) 3 (SE) 4 (SE) 5 (SE) 6 (SE)
1. DMRS intercept 5.24 (0.11)*** –
2. DMRS slope 0.17 (0.02)*** ––
3. PSS intercept 4.46 (0.11)*** −0.66 (0.14)*** ––
4. PSS slope −0.09 (0.02)*** –−0.02 (0.01)*** ––
5. NA intercept 3.20 (0.10)*** −0.22 (0.10)* –0.58 (0.11)*** ––
6. NA slope −0.11 (0.02)*** –−0.01 (0.01)* –0.01 (0.01)** ––
7. PA intercept 5.76 (0.11)*** 0.83 (0.14)*** –−0.80 (0.15)*** –−0.29 (0.09)*** –
8. PA slope 0.08 (0.02)*** –0.02 (0.01)*** –−0.02 (0.01)*** –−0.01(0.01)**
N=117 participants. Intercept and slope estimates represent unstandardized values. The estimate for each measure’s intercept represent participants’
average rating during the first week of the MBSR program, whereas the estimate for each measure’s slope represent participants’average week-to-week
change throughout the entire MBSR program
DMRS Daily Mindful Responding Scale, PSS Perceived Stress Scale, NA negative affect, PA positive affect
*p<0.05, **p< 0.01, ***p<0.001
Mindfulness

entire MBI duration, the DMRS scores are reliable indicators
of individual differences in daily mindful responding that oc-
cur during this period. The second coefficient, similar to
Cronbach’s alpha for one-occasion measures, suggested that
the DMRS could reliably measure individual differences in
mindful responding on a single fixed day in the MBSR pro-
gram. The third coefficient indicated that the generalizability
of the DMRS scores from a randomly selected day to another
randomly selected day would be relatively low. However, this
form of reliability is expected to be low for measures designed
to be sensitive to daily changes (Cranford et al. 2006), given
the variability of daily events and individuals’responses to
these events. Finally, the fourth coefficient demonstrated that
the DMRS produces scores that preserve individual differ-
ences in the consistency of day-to-day changes in mindful
responding. Results from the multilevel confirmatory factor
analysis suggested that the four items represented a unitary
construct (i.e., mindful responding) at the person level and
daily level of analysis. This suggests that despite the seeming-
ly heterogeneous ways of responding that are taught in MBIs,
represented by the DMRS items (e.g., opening up to unpleas-
ant feelings, letting go of judgments, becoming meta-aware of
thoughts), these responses are all representative of an over-
arching Bmindful^way of responding.
We then assessed the criterion validity of the DMRS by
examining the pattern of person-level and daily-level correla-
tions with outcome variables. Overall, DMRS scores were
strongly associated with greater wellbeing. At the person level,
we found that those who generally reported responding mind-
fully during the day were also the ones who generally reported
less perceived stress and negative affect, and who reported
more positive affect. At the daily level, we found that on days
when participants reported responding more mindfully than
usual, they also reported less perceived stress and negative
affect, as well as greater positive affect than usual. These pat-
terns of correlations have previously been shown at both levels
of analysis when measuring mindfulness as an outcome
(Brown and Ryan 2003) and at the person level when
measuring mindfulness as a process (Erisman and Roemer
2012). This study extends these findings by showing that en-
gaging in the process of responding mindfully is related to
experiencing greater psychological wellbeing at the daily level.
Because the DMRS was based on the MPQ, it was important to
show that both measures correlate as evidence for construct
validity. We found that, when aggregated over the entire MBI
duration, the DMRS scores were moderately correlated with
scores from the MPQ measured before and after the MBSR
program. The only moderate correlation is likely due to differ-
ences in item content and method of administration. It is also
possible that the daily measure of mindful responding taps into
the person’s ongoing and contemporaneous experience of
mindful responding and attitudes toward mindful responding.
The retrospective trait measure of mindful responding (i.e.,
MPQ) taps into the person’s reconstructed memory of his or
her mindful responding; this memory may be influenced by
various cognitive and motivational processes, which can affect
the encoding, retrieval, and assessment of the memory (Reis,
2012).
In order to validate a measure of daily mindful responding, it
is necessary to demonstrate that it produces scores that are sen-
sitive to changes in the construct it purports to measure. As
participants are taught to respond mindfully in their daily lives,
their mindful responding is presumed to increase over the course
of the training program. The results from the latent growth curve
model provided evidence for this aspect of DMRS validity. As
expected, the DMRS scores linearly increased over the training
period. Importantly, this increase in DMRS scores was found to
be significantly correlated with decreases in perceived stress and
negative affect, and with increases in positive affect. Specifically,
the findings from the parallel growth curve analysis suggested
that participants who reported greater increases in mindful
responding throughout the MBSR program were also found to
report larger decreases in perceived stress and negative affect,
and higher increases in positive affect. A deeper exploration of
the nature of these covariations revealed that change in mindful
responding predicted change in psychological distress and
Tabl e 8 DMRS
intercept and slope as
predictors of the
outcomes at post-MBSR
controlling for pre-
MBSR scores
PSS post-MBSR
(SE)
NA post-MBSR
(SE)
PA post-MBSR
(SE)
QEWB post-MBSR
(SE)
DMRS intercept −0.37 (0.11)*** −0.24 (0.10)* 0.33 (0.11)** 0.17 (0.06)*
DMRS slope −0.36 (0.13)** −0.42 (0.11)*** 0.45 (0.14)*** 0.22 (0.08)**
PSS pre-MBSR 0.18 (0.13) −0.15 (0.14) 0.04 (0.12) −0.09 (0.09)
NA pre-MBSR 0.19 (0.11) 0.52 (0.11)*** −0.06 (0.10) 0.11 (0.08)
PA pre - M B S R −0.08 (0.09) −0.01 (0.11) 0.48 (0.09)*** 0.06 (0.06)
QEWB pre-MBSR 0.06 (0.10) 0.13 (0.11) −0.10 (0.11) 0.69 (0.06)***
N=117 participants
DMRS Daily Mindful Responding Scale, PSS Perceived Stress Scale, NA negative affect, PA positive affect, QEWB
Questionnaire for Eudaimonic Wellbeing
*p<0.05, **p< 0.01, ***p<0.001
Mindfulness

wellbeing that occurred between the beginning and the end of the
MBSR training. Namely, week-to-week increases in daily mind-
ful responding predicted decreases in psychological distress and
increases in wellbeing from the beginning to the end of the
MBSR program. This suggests that learning to respond mindful-
ly in daily life likely plays an important role in explaining the
benefits of mindfulness training interventions and that the DMRS
can measure this important mechanism of change in the context
of MBIs. Together, this set of findings provide support for the
construct validity of the DMRS.
Together, these findings provide initial evidence for the re-
liability and validity of the DMRS. However, it will be impor-
tant for future investigations to establish more evidence for the
validity and reliability of the DMRS. For instance, more infor-
mation about the DMRS’s relationship with similar constructs
(e.g., mindfulness as an outcome) and dissimilar constructs
(e.g., impulsivity) is needed. Also, future studies could estab-
lish the extent to which the DMRS is related to other indices of
wellbeing (e.g., clinical symptoms, physiological measures).
The absence of a randomized active control group consti-
tutes a limitation of the study in that we cannot ascertain with
certainty whether increases in DMRS scores were due to
mindfulness-specific factors or to other nonspecific factors,
such as participating in a group activity with supportive peers.
Based on recent findings from studies using active control
groups, which have reported that participation in an MBI leads
to increases in mindfulness as an outcome (e.g., Garland et al.
2014;Milleretal.2014), there is good reason to think that
mindfulness training would be responsible for the increases in
daily mindful responding observed in the current study.
However, future studies could clarify this issue by comparing
the increase of DMRS scores of MBI participants to the
DMRS scores of participants randomly assigned to an inter-
vention that includes similar nonspecific factors (e.g., support-
ive group environment, expert instruction, expectation about
change).
Furthermore, it is possible that participants who report on a
behavior that they know is desirable and that they are moti-
vated to learn may have led them to (perhaps unknowingly)
overestimate the frequencywithwhichtheyreported
responding mindfully during the day. However, given that
participants were asked to report on a daily basis for 49 days
and did not have access to their previously completed reports,
it is unlikely that participants would be capable of altering
their daily responses in such a way to closely match the ex-
pectations of gradual improvement throughout the program.
Therefore, the systematic increase in daily mindful responding
observed in this study likely reflects a genuine learning pro-
cess rather than being due to demand characteristics.
The limited demographic range in our sample also repre-
sents a limitation of the current study. Our sample consisted
mainly of university-educated and currently employed
Caucasian adult females. While the demographic
characteristics of participants in this study are consistent with
those of other MBSR studies (e.g., Carmody et al. 2009), we
should be cautious when generalizing the findings from this
study to MBSR participants with different demographic
characteristics.
Although the current study supports the reliability and
validity of the DMRS as a measure of mindful responding in
the context of an intervention that teaches this skill, it does not
speak to its appropriateness in naturalistic studies in which
people are not receiving training in mindful responding.
Previous work on the assessment of mindfulness has
demonstrated that mindfulness training can alter the
interpretation of certain mindfulness questionnaire items. For
example, Baer et al. (2008) found that the observing subscale
of the Five Facet Mindfulness Questionnaire was only positively
correlated with psychological adjustment among meditators but
not among non-meditators, suggesting that meditators under-
stand the meaning of the items of this subscale differently than
non-meditators. Although this may also be the case for some
items of the DMRS, this possibility is minimized by the fact that
general instructions of the scale provide detailed descriptions of
each DMRS item, which should reduce confusion about the
meaning of the items independent of previous mindfulness
knowledge. Future investigations examining the correlations be-
tween DMRS and outcome measures in samples of people with
and without mindfulness training could address this issue.
As another cautionary note, the findings reported in this
study do not address the causal nature of the associations
found between mindfulness responding and wellbeing out-
comes. While it may be the case that responding mindfully
in daily life leads to increases in wellbeing, the association
between the DMRS and the outcome measures may also in-
dicate that an increase in wellbeing facilitates responding
mindfully, or that they mutually reinforce each other.
However, evidence from experimental studies and random-
ized clinical trials (Keng et al. 2011) suggests that mindfulness
plays a causal role on wellbeing. Nevertheless, future studies
should attempt to manipulate mindful responding in the con-
text of daily life and examine its effects on various outcome
variables.
The aim of the current study was to develop a brief measure
that can be administered repeatedly as people undergo MBIs
and assess the extent to which they respond mindfully in their
daily lives, a crucial skill targeted in these interventions.
Findings reported in this paper provide preliminary support
for the reliability and validity of the DMRS. These findings
suggest that MBIs are effective in increasing daily mindful
responding and that doing so has psychological benefits. It
is our hope that the DMRS will allow researchers to further
investigate the extent to which the skill of returning attention
to a nonjudgmental awareness of the present moment transfers
to daily life with training and the role this plays as a mecha-
nism of change in MBIs.
Mindfulness

Acknowledgments This research was funded by a doctoral fellowship
from the Fonds québécois de la recherche sur la société et la culture
(FQRSC) to the first author and a grant from the Social Sciences and
Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRC 410-2009-2226) to
the last author. The authors would like to thank Kimberly Carrière for
her assistance with data collection.
Appendix
General Instructions
Before filling out your daily diary, you will be asked to
take a moment and actively remember your day. It is
not important that you go in too much detail, but just to
get a good idea of the main highlights of the day. You
will need to refer to this information for all of the diary
questions, so it is crucial that you do not overlook this
step.
You will respond to the same questions in your diary every
day for the duration of the MBSR program. It is therefore
important that you have a good understanding of what the
questions in the diary mean. Below is an explanation of the
items on the first page of the diary. The four items on the first
page of the diary are structured similarly to each other, with
the first part referring to when you encountered certain expe-
riences, and the second part, referring to how you responded
to such experiences.
ITEM 1: Today, when my mind was caught up in
thoughts, I let go of them and brought my awareness back
to the present moment. We often get caught up in certain
thoughts, stories, or plans that we think about. This is very
common. What the item asks, is when that happened, what did
youdoafterwards? While sometimes we get lost in our
thoughts, at other times, we notice that we are lost in thought.
So we purposefully let go of them and reconnect with the
present moment. We are actively becoming aware of what is
happening either in our body or in our environment. This
question refers to becoming aware in this way. To answer this
item, you must(1) think of the times in the day when you were
caught up in thoughts and (2) remember, out of those times,
how often did you actively disengage from mental activityand
instead redirect your awareness to your body or your
environment.
ITEM 2: Today, when I had unpleasant feelings, I ob-
served them as they were, without trying to avoid or
change them. During the day, we often experience un-
pleasant feelings such as sadness, anxiety, stress, pain,
jealousy, impatience, anger, discomfort, and boredom,
among others. To deal with those feelings, sometimes,
we do things to avoid or change them, such as taking
painkillers to alleviate pain, eating to comfort ourselves,
watching a funny movie not to feel so sad, and so on.
Other times, we don’t try to get rid of such unpleasant
feelings or try to change them, but just let them be
there, and in some way, acknowledge them as we go
about our day. This item refers to this kind of Bopening
up to^unpleasant experiences as they are. To answer
this item, you must (1) think about what unpleasant
feelings you had during the day and (2) remember
how you reacted to these unpleasant feelings. How of-
ten were you open to these unpleasant feelings, and let
them be there without attempting to get rid of them or
change them in any way?
ITEM 3: Today, when I was being critical of myself or
others, I let go of judgments to become more accepting
instead. We are all inherently judgmental towards our-
selves and others. This is normal, as we have little control
over our initial judgments. What this item asks is once
you had initially been critical towards yourself or others,
what did you do afterwards? Sometimes we continue to
be judgmental and criticize ourselves or others. Other
times, we notice that we were being judgmental and in-
stead actively interrupt being critical to become more
accepting of ourselves or others. This is much like forgiv-
ing ourselves or others for doing things we don’t approve.
Note that this item does not imply that you became
accepting, only that you intended to, by letting go of
judgments. So this item refers to actively letting go of
judgments after being critical. To answer this item, you
must (1) think back at the times you were critical of your-
self and/or others during the day and (2) remember how
often you then let go of these judgments.
ITEM 4: Today, when I was absorbed in thoughts or
emotions, I Bstepped back^from them so that I could see
them more clearly, without being drawn into them.
Thoughts associated with strong emotions, such as when
we are worrying, ruminating, or going through difficult
scenarios, have a certain quality that makes it easy for
us to become absorbed in. When we do, we forget that
they are thoughts (i.e., representations), and we mistake
them for being real. For example, worrying about losing
your job is not the same thing as actually losing your job;
it is in fact simply a thought with an associated emotion.
Sometimes, when we get absorbed in these strong
thoughts, we can simply become aware of them as
thoughts going by in our heads and not get caught up in
what they mean. This is like Bzooming out^of our
thoughts and seeing them from a greater distance, so that,
in a way, they lose their power. So this question asks how
often you attempted to zoom out of those Bstories^so that
you could see your thoughts as Bjust thoughts^.Toanswer
this item, you must (1) think about times in the day when
you were absorbed in thoughts associated with strong
emotions and (2) remember how often you then actively
distanced yourself from these thoughts and were able to
just see them as mental activity going on in your mind.
Mindfulness

Daily Mindful Responding Scale (DMRS)
Take a few moments to recall your day and then fill out today’s
diary.
1 2345678910
rarely often
1. Today, when my mind was caught up in thoughts, I let go
of them and brought my awareness back to the present
moment.
2. Today, when I had unpleasant feelings, I observed them as
they were, without trying to avoid or change them.
3. Today, when I was being critical of myself or others, I let
go of judgments to become more accepting instead.
4. Today, when I was absorbed in thoughts or emotions, I
"stepped back" from them so that I could see them more
clearly, without being drawn into them.
References
Baer, R. (Ed.). (2010). Assessing mindfulness and acceptance processes
in clients: illuminating the theory and practice of change.Oakland:
Context Press/New Harbinger.
Baer, R., Smith, G., Hopkins, J., Krietemeyer, J., & Toney, L. (2006).
Using self-report assessment methods to explore facets of mindful-
ness. Assessment, 13(1), 27–45.
Baer, R., Smith, G., Lykins, E., Button, D., Krietemeyer, J., Sauer, S.,
et al. (2008). Construct validity of the five facet mindfulness ques-
tionnaire in meditating and nonmeditating samples. Assessment,
15(3), 329–342.
Bolger, N., Davis, A., & Rafaeli, E. (2003). Diary methods: capturing life
as it is lived. Annual Review of Psychology, 54(1), 579–616. doi:10.
1146/annurev.psych.54.101601.145030.
Borsboom, D., Mellenbergh, G. J., & van Heerden, J. (2003). The theo-
retical status of latent variables. Psychological Review, 110(2), 203–
219. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.110.2.203.
Brennan, R. L. (2001). An essay on the history and future of reliability
from the perspective of replications. Journal of Educational
Measurement, 38(4), 295–317.
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(4), 822–848. doi:10.1037/
0022-3514.84.4.822.
Brown, K. W., Ryan, R. M., & Creswell, J. D. (2007). Mindfulness:
theoretical foundations and evidence for its salutary effects.
Psychological Inquiry, 18(4), 211–237. doi:10.1080/
10478400701598298.
Carmody, J., Baer, R. A., Lykins, E. L. B., & Olendzki, N. (2009). An
empirical study of the mechanisms of mindfulness in a mindfulness-
based stress reduction program. Journal of Clinical Psychology,
65(6), 613–626. doi:10.1002/jclp.20579.
Cohen, S., Kamarck, T., & Mermelstein, R. (1983). A global measure of
perceived stress. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 24,385–
396.
Cranford, J. A., Shrout, P. E., Iida, M., Rafaeli, E., Yip, T., & Bolger, N.
(2006). A procedure for evaluating sensitivity to within-person
change: can mood measures in diary studies detect change reliably?
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32(7), 917–929.
Cronbach, L. J., Gleser, G. C., Nanda, H., & Rajaratman, N. (1972). The
dependability of behavioral measurements: theory of generalizabil-
ity for scores and profiles. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Erisman, S. M., & Roemer, L. (2012). A preliminary investigation of the
process of mindfulness. Mindfulness, 3(1), 30–43.
Fjorback, L. O., Arendt, M., Ørnbøl, E., Fink, P., & Walach, H. (2011).
Mindfulness-based stress reduction and mindfulness-based cogni-
tive therapy: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials.
Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica, 124(2), 102–119. doi:10.1111/j.
1600-0447.2011.01704.x.
Fresco, D., Moore, M., van Dulmen, M., Segal, Z., Ma, S., Teasdale, J., &
Williams, M. (2007). Initial psychometric properties of the
Experiences Questionnaire: validation of a self-report measure of
decentering. Behavior Therapy, 38,234–246.
Garland, E. L., Manusov, E. G., Froeliger, B., Kelly, A., Williams, J. M.,
& Howard, M. O. (2014). Mindfulness-oriented recovery enhance-
ment for chronic pain and prescription opioid misuse: results from
an early-stage randomized controlled trial. Journal of Consulting
and Clinical Psychology, 82(3), 448–459. doi:10.1037/a0035798.
Goldstein, J., & Kornfield, J. (1987). Seeking the heart of wisdom.
Boston: Shambhala.
Hoyle, R. H., & Panter, A. T. (1995). Writing about structural equation
models. In R. H. Hoyle (Ed.), Structural equation modeling, con-
cepts, issues, and applications (pp. 158–176). Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage Publications.
Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in
covariance structure analysis:conventional criteria versus new alter-
natives. Structural Equation Modeling: a Multidisciplinary Journal,
6(1), 1–55. doi:10.1080/10705519909540118.
Kabat-Zinn, J. (1990). Full catastrophe living: the program of the Stress
ReductionClinic at the University of Massachusetts Medical Center.
New York: Delta.
Keng, S. L., Smoski, M. J., & Robins, C. J. (2011). Effects of mindfulness
on psychological health: a review of empirical studies. Clinical
Psychology Review, 31(6), 1041–1056. doi:10.1016/j.cpr.2011.04.
006.
Khoury, B., Lecomte, T., Fortin, G., Masse, M., Therien, P., Bouchard, V.,
et al. (2013). Mindfulness-based therapy: a comprehensive meta-
analysis. Clinical Psychology Review, 33(6), 1–9. doi:10.1016/j.
cpr.2013.05.005.
Miller, C. K., Kristeller, J. L., Headings, A., & Nagaraja, H. (2014).
Comparison of a mindful eating intervention to a diabetes self-
management intervention among adults with type 2 diabetes: a ran-
domized controlled trial. Health Education & Behavior, 41(2), 145–
154. doi:10.1177/1090198113493092.
Moskowitz, D. S., Russell, J. J., Sadikaj, G., & Sutton, R. (2009).
Measuring people intensively. Canadian Psychology, 50(3), 131–
140. doi:10.1037/a0016625.
Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (2013). Mplus user’s guide (7th ed.). Los
Angeles: Muthén & Muthén.
Reis. (2012). Why researchers should think Breal-world^:aconceptual
rationale. In T. Mehl & T. Conner (Eds.), Handbook of research
methods for studying daily life (pp. 3–21). New York: Guilford
Press.
Salmon, P. G., Sephton, S. E., & Dreeben, S. J. (2011). Mindfulness-
based stress reduction. In J. D. Herbert & E. M. Forman (Eds.),
Acceptance and mindfulness in cognitive behavior therapy: under-
standing and applying the new therapies (pp. 132–163). Hoboken,
New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
SAS Institute Inc. (2013). What’s new in SAS® 9.4. Cary, NC: SAS
Institute Inc.
Mindfulness

Satorra, A., & Bentler, P. M. (2010). Ensuring positiveness of the scaled
difference chi-square test statistic. Psychometrika, 75(2), 243–248.
doi:10.1007/BF02296192.
Segal, Z. V., Williams, J. M. G., & Teasdale, J. D. (2002). Mindfulness-
based cognitive therapy for depression: a new approach to
preventing relapse. New York: Guilford.
Shavelson, R. J., & Webb, N. M. (1991). Generalizability theory: a
primer. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Thompson, E. (2007). Development and validation of an internationally
reliable short-form of the positive and negative affect schedule
(PANAS). Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 38(2), 227–242.
Waterman, A. S., Schwartz, S. J., Zamboanga, B. L., Ravert, R. D.,
Williams, M. K., Bede Agocha, V., et al. (2010). The questionnaire
for eudaimonic well-being: psychometric properties, demographic
comparisons, and evidence of validity. The Journal of Positive
Psychology, 5(1), 41–61. doi:10.1080/17439760903435208.
Mindfulness