The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Direct and Moderating Impacts of the CARE Mindfulness-Based Professional Learning Program for Teachers on Children’s Academic and Social-Emotional Outcomes
Open accessPreprint — published as 10.1080/10888691.2023.2268327 · Paper page
Abstract
Mindfulness based interventions (MBIs) for teachers can improve classroom interactions, teacher mindfulness, and well-being, yet whether teacher focused MBIs also benefit children remains largely unexplored. This cluster randomized trial with 36 urban elementary schools, 224 K-5th grade teachers (Mage = 41.5) and 5200 children (Mage = 7.7years, tested direct and moderated effects of the Cultivating Awareness and Resilience in Education (CARE) professional development program on eight child academic and social emotional outcomes, most teacher-reported. Positive effects of CARE were found for engagement in learning, motivation for learning, and reading competence. CARE was unexpectedly related to increased conflict. CARE teachers initially low in mindfulness reported children as higher on engagement, motivation, reading competence, and math competence compared to children of control group teachers low in mindfulness. Unexpectedly, CARE teachers high in mindfulness at baseline reported children as lower in social skills compared to high mindfulness teachers in the control condition.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Mechanisms of mindfulness training: Monitor and Acceptance Theory (MAT
Lindsay, E. K., & Creswell, J. D. (2017) · Clinical Psychology Review · doi:10.1016/j.cpr.2016.10.011 · Cited by 919
Flagged first, then by citations
Metadata
- Authors
- Brown, J. L., Jennings, P. A., Rasheed, D. S., Cham, H., Doyle Fosco, S. L., Frank, J. L., Davis, R., & Greenberg, M. T.
- Affiliations
- Fordham University (US)
- University of Virginia (US)
- The Graduate Center, CUNY (US)
- Pennsylvania State University (US)
- Princeton University (US)
- Corresponding author
- Brown, Joshua L.
- ORCID
- Venue
- Applied Developmental Science
- Publisher
- Center for Open Science
- Published
- 2023-06-20
- Volume
- 29
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 14-33
- ISSN
- 1088-8691 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W4387820323
- Cited by
- 38
- References
- 1
- Citations by year
- 2026: 11 · 2025: 17 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 3
- FWCI
- 11.08
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- doi.org
- Locations
- Applied Developmental Science (publishedVersion)
- ScholarSphere (Penn State Libraries) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc)
- PsyArXiv (OSF Preprints) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- PsyArXiv (OSF Preprints) (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- U.S. Department of Education
- Institute of Education Sciences (R30 5A120180)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Mindfulness and Compassion Interventions
- Social Sciences › Education › Early Childhood Education and Development
- Social Sciences › Education › Education Methods and Practices
- Keywords
- teacher mindfulness, care programs, teacher well-being, social-emotional outcomes, student engagement, student motivation, reading skills, social skills, classroom conflict, primary school teachers, moderating effect
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review