Summary
Both the interview and weekly questionnaire support the statement that meditation has a positive influence on focus. Both groups have shown a similar amount of improvement when measured by the interview and weekly questionnaire. This could be supported by improvement in both groups in terms of acting with awareness and observing facets both in FFMQ and MfM. Even though in FFMQ acting with awareness increase of the results was much bigger by the control group rather than experimental one, observing facet improved in the experimental group and decreased in control group. In the MfM, the acting with awareness and observing facets improved a little in both groups.
Regarding MPA, even though the control group demonstrated bigger improvement regarding MPA on the stage, with both groups showing similar amounts of improvement of MPA in educational settings, the weekly questionnaire suggests that improvement of MPA was much more noticeable in the experimental group both when talking about all the MPA related questions on average and looking at the data of separate questions. For example, in the experimental group a significant improvement has been noticed in two of MPA related questions comparing to 0 in the control group. Additionally, in the control group, a decrease in three MPA related questions has been noticed in comparison to only one in the experimental group.
Regarding the facet of self-perception, it was noticed that even though self-perception between the groups improved quite equally, the experimental group was noticed to describe that they would recover their self–perception after challenges and unfortunate events more easily. This is also supported by the weekly questionnaire in which much bigger average growth was observed in the experimental group rather than in control one. Furthermore, even though in the data of the control group’s weekly questionnaire a significant improvement was noticed in one question and a little decrease in two, in the experimental group 4 questions showed significantly increased results while three of them decreased insignificantly. When it comes to FFMQ and MfM, self - perception was represented by nonjudging and nonreactivity. In the FFMQ, the control group displayed bigger improvement in nonreactivity facet while experimental group was noticed to have a bigger change in the nonjudging facet. In MfM, both groups have noticed an improvement in nonreactivity facet with experimental group improving slightly more, while nonjudging facet scores decreased in the control group and improved in experimental one, further supporting the data gathered during the interviews and weekly questionnaires.
In the MfM, the average nonjudging score of the control group during the intervention decreased by 0.7 points, while the experimental group had an increase of 1 point on average (Figure 4). In the control group, 60% of people registered lower scores after the intervention, 30% had improved scores, and one participant’s score didn’t change (Figure 12). In the experimental group, improvement was noticed in the scores of five out of six participants, and only one participant’s score after the intervention was lower than before it.
Describing
In the FFMQ, the average score differences between the control and experimental groups contrasted significantly. While the control group experienced a decrease in the describing facet’s total average score by 1.1 points, the experimental group demonstrated an improvement of 4.67 points (Figure 2). In the control group, an equal number of participants showed an increase and a decrease in the average scores of the describing facet questions, while in the experimental group, four out of six participants noticed an improvement (Figure 7).
Nonjudging
While evaluating nonjudging with the FFMQ, an increase in the scores was noticed in both groups. The control group’s scores on average improved by 2.3 points, while the experimental group demonstrated 3.67 points higher scores after the intervention (Figure 2). Eight participants of the control group had an increase in their score, one had the same results before and after the intervention, and one participant’s score decreased (Figure 11). In the experimental group, four participants had an improvement in their scores, while the scores of two participants decreased.
In the MfM, the nonreactivity of both groups increased slightly. In both groups, half of the participants have been observed to show an increase in their scores (Figure 4). Three people in the control group and two people in the experimental group have documented in the questionnaires that their score decreased, and the remainder of the participants had no change in their score (Figure 14).
Summary
Between two groups, experimental group has demonstrated a bigger improvement in almost all of the facets of both questionnaires (exceptions being acting with awareness and nonreactivity in the FFMQ, and observing in the MfM). While analysing the FFMQ, the biggest difference in favor of experimental group was noticed in describing facet. On the other hand, control group demonstrated much better acting with awareness scores. In the MfM the biggest difference in favor of experimental group was noticed in nonjudging facet and experimental group has shown better results in the observing facet.
Weekly Questionnaire
According to the weekly questionnaire, both groups have averagely experienced an improvement in focus, MPA, and self-perception facets (Figure 15). However, the difference in improvement in MPA and self-perception facets is visibly more noticeable in the experimental group rather than in the control one. For example, MPA-related scores improved by 2.09 points in the experimental group as compared to 0.26 in the control one. Furthermore, self-perception-related scores improved averagely by 1.51 points in the experimental group as opposed to 1.05 points in the control group.
Go to the previous page
Results
Interview
In the interviews, several topics were investigated. During the first interview, general information, such as instrument, study level, amount of time playing the instrument in years, and meditation experience, was gathered. In the second interview, the general information part consisted of investigating what general effects participants could name without being prompted and the most frequently chosen meditation length. After that, the questions directly affecting the research were discussed.
Focus. Control Group:
Nine out of ten participants of the control group have noticed an improvement in their focus quality. Improvements have been noticed in multiple facets, such as enhanced concentration, decreased distractibility, improved awareness of being distracted, and an enhanced ability to come back to focused work after a distraction. For example, participant C04 stated, "I've not really been distracted less, but I've been distracted for shorter periods of time. I catch it much easier when I'm distracted". Notable exceptions among the participants who have noticed an improvement are participant C09, who has noticed that meditation helps to improve the quality of focus only in that particular practice session that included meditation, and participant C01, who has noticed progress in a very peculiar way, as they are now getting distracted by other instruments rather than other activities, and, as they have observed, it is easier to snap out of being distracted because the connection to music is still there. The only participant who has not noticed an improvement in their quality of focus is participant C10, who said that it improved momentarily after starting the intervention but then came back to the previous levels. Furthermore, it is worth mentioning that five out of ten (C02, C05, C06, C07, C08) participants have noticed positive developments regarding the flow state in some way, such as the ability to reach it more easily or increased frequency.
Furthermore, before and after the intervention, participants were asked to estimate the approximate duration of their capability to stay concentrated at a time and how much quality practice time they would usually get in one day. One participant (C01) has noticed that both their ability to concentrate for a particular session as well as focused work duration in a day improved. Another participant (C05) has been observed to have an improved ability to concentrate at a time, but their overall expected concentration during the day didn’t change. Two participants (C06 and C07) have noticed that their overall expected concentration during the day improved quite significantly (by 1 hour and 1.5 hours, respectively), while their ability to stay concentrated at a time decreased, and one participant has noticed that their ability to stay concentrated at a time improved, but overall concentration stayed the same. In total, five participants have noticed a positive change in one aspect or another, two of them while having a slight decrease in the other. Two participants (C04 and C10) haven’t noticed any change at all. One participant’s (C03) data was found to be quite confusing, as initially, they stated that they could practice for one hour at a time, and after intervention it is two sessions of 25–30 minutes with a little break, so it was not clear if it should be interpreted as a decrease or staying at the same level. This same participant hasn’t noticed any changes in the overall focused practice time. Additionally, two participants (C03 and C08) experienced a decrease in one aspect, while the other one stayed the same.
Another focus-related facet measured in the interview was the frequency of ending practice sessions prematurely. Four out of ten participants have noticed an improvement in this area. Participants C03 and C08 (the ones who have noticed a decrease in one of the areas discussed in the previous paragraph) were two out of four participants who have noticed the improvement in this facet. Having this data, it can be concluded that even though their focused time decreased in one way or another, improved focus quality compensated for this, and it was expected that they would do their workload in a shorter amount of time. This is also supported by the fact of the improved ability to get into flow mentioned by participant C08. For example, before the intervention participant C08 stated that they rarely experienced flow state and in the last interview they have mentioned the following change: "I feel like I get there. Yeah, for sure. Not in every practice session, that's for sure". The other two participants who have noticed an improvement in this area are C02 and C04. Participant C10 has noticed a decrease in this facet but explained it as not being completely recovered after illness and taking it slow rather than the effect of meditation.
Furthermore, eight out of ten participants have noticed an improvement in their awareness during practice. C04, C05, and C10 have stated that they are more aware of their breathing, C08 and C09 have noticed that they are more aware of their sound, C09 saying that, "I pay more attention to my sound. I don't know if it [directly affects my sound], but I'm more aware about how I am sounding or how I want to sound in that phrase", and C03, C04, C05, C06, C09, and C10 have also stated that they have been more aware of the physical aspects of playing, such as embouchure, tongue position, and posture.
One of the participants (C01) didn’t have a chance to play in the lessons during the intervention. Among the other participants, four (C02, C03, C05, C10) have noticed improved focus during the lessons. Others didn’t notice any difference, which could be explained by the fact that the majority of the participants found it easy to concentrate in the lessons at the beginning of the intervention.
Two out of ten participants didn’t have a chance to perform during the intervention. Among the remainder, three (C01, C05, C07) of the participants have stated that they have noticed an improvement regarding thinking about being judged during the performance. Four of the participants haven’t noticed any change in this aspect. One participant (C09) stated that now they think about the audience more frequently.
Focus. Experimental Group:
In the experimental group, five out of six participants have noticed improvements in their focus quality. The specific details include going deeper into focus while practising, noticing improvement on a session basis (meaning the focus improvement is observable during particular practice session in the beginning of which it was meditated), eased coming back from being distracted, and being more aware of getting distracted. For example, participant E05 stated that they have noticed improvements in the depth of focus because they are "not so anxious anymore when they play" as well as the fact that "it's easier to get back on track" when they get distracted. Furthermore, four out of five participants have noticed improvements in their flow (E01, E02, E04, E05), which include aspects such as improved frequency of feeling in the flow and eased getting into the state, participant E05 noticing that regarding flow state, "it used to [happen] basically never. And now I can maybe point to a couple of moments".
Three out of six participants have noticed that either their ability to stay concentrated at a time or their time of focused work throughout the day increased. Two (E03 and E04) of the participants noticed an improvement in their ability to stay concentrated at a time, while general concentration time during the day stayed the same. One participant (E05) has witnessed the opposite effect, as their duration of quality practice time used to vary a lot and is now more consistent and increased, but their ability to stay concentrated at a time decreased from 30 minutes to 20 minutes. This means that three out of six participants have noticed improvement in one facet or the other. Participant E02 hasn’t noticed any changes in either of the facets. Two out of six participants have noticed a decrease, which was not related to meditation. For example, participant E01 stated that their ability to stay focused at a time remained the same, but their amount of focused work during the day decreased because they had to practice less due to personal reasons. That means that initially, they would be getting 3 hours of quality work per day, but now, as they have limited their practice to 1.5 hours per day, this is also their maximum quality practice time. A similar situation has been noticed with participant E06 – they have limited their general practice time and shortened the length of their practice sessions, thus there was a decrease in that aspect.
There was an equal number of participants who have noticed positive, negative, and no effect of meditation in the frequency of ending practice sessions prematurely. Participants E04 and E05 have noticed a positive effect with E05 stating that now they "almost never" finish their practise sessions prematurely while thinking that the answer before the intervention was definitely not the same, participants E01 and E03 have noticed no effect. Participants E02 and E06 have noticed an increased number of prematurely ended practice sessions but have also elaborated that it might not be a meditation-related development.
Four out of six participants (E01, E02, E03, and E04) have noticed improved awareness during their playing. Two participants have stated that they are more aware of their breathing (E01 and E02), and two participants (E03 and E04) have noticed that they are more aware of other physical aspects, such as tensions and weight distribution.
One of the participants (E03) didn’t have a chance to participate in the lessons during the intervention. Only one participant (E05) has been noticed to describe an improvement in the sense that initially, it was difficult for them to concentrate only if the lesson was going badly in the first place. However, all of the other participants stated that it was easy to concentrate in the lessons at the beginning as well as at the end of the intervention.
One participant (E01) hasn’t performed since the beginning of the intervention. Two participants (E05, E06) have stated that now they don’t think about the audience during the performance as much as they used to, with participant E05 saying that "things have been easier" regarding the rumination of audience's perception of themselves. All the other participants haven’t noticed any change in this aspect.
Focus. Analysis:
In both groups, there was only one participant who hasn’t noticed qualitative improvement in their focus during practice sessions. The noticed improvements of both groups were similar: improved general focus, decreased distractibility, and improved ability to come back to a focused state of mind after being distracted. However, it is notable that participant E04, who already had experience in conventional guided meditation, found that music-related meditation at the beginning of practice sessions improved their connection with the instrument, thus improving their stamina and eliminating one additional distraction. Furthermore, it is worth noticing that two-thirds of all the experimental group participants, as opposed to 50% of all control group participants, stated that there were improvements related to the flow state, thus suggesting that increased connection with an instrument might be one of the factors which might help to get into a deeper engagement during practice sessions.
Overall, both in the control and experimental groups, half of the participants have noticed an improvement in the time aspect of focus. Only one participant in the experimental group hasn’t noticed any difference, and regarding the participants who have noticed a decrease in the time aspect of focus, both had personal life circumstances leading to that, as opposed to the control group. Thus, it is evident that between the groups, there was a noticeably bigger difference in the improvement of the time aspect of focus, if only the participants who had otherwise the same environmental conditions (as much as it is possible) at the beginning and the end of the intervention were counted, in favor of the experimental group.
There is a significantly bigger percentage of participants who have experienced a decrease in prematurely ended practice sessions in the control group rather than the experimental group. It is notable that the increase in prematurely ended practice sessions in both groups was conditioned by external circumstances rather than the meditation intervention. If it is taken into account, it could be concluded that a similar percentage of people in both groups experienced a decrease in prematurely ended practice sessions.
In both groups participants have noticed improvement in physical awareness and breathing; however, in the experimental group, there were no participants who mentioned increased awareness of sound.
A significantly bigger part of the control group has noticed an improvement in focus during lessons. However, in both groups the majority of participants with no improvement already found it easy to focus in the lessons to begin with.
In both groups, a significant number of participants have noticed that they get distracted less during performances.
MPA. Control Group:
Unfortunately, one participant (C01) didn’t have any lessons during the intervention, so only nine participants will be analyzed. Participant C03 stated that they "feel more secure with what they are doing" as well as noticed that MPA affected MPQ "less than before". Three other participants (C06, C07, C10) have noticed similar improvements. Three out of nine participants stated that they did not notice any changes regarding MPA, and two out of nine participants (C02 and C04) have noticed that lately they have been feeling more MPA. However, they state that it was caused by a feeling of novelty, for example, attending the lesson after holidays (C02) or being exposed to new teachers (C04).
Two people from the control group didn’t have a chance to perform since the beginning of the intervention. However, out of eight participants who provided answers to this part of the interview, six (C01, C03, C05, C07, C08, C10) noticed improvements regarding MPA in performance settings. Among the improvements, the following developments were noticed: a general decrease in MPA, a decreased effect of MPA on MPQ, and as stated by participant C03 "easened letting go of bad thoughts". In addition, two out of six participants that experienced improvements regarding MPA (C07 and C10) have noticed that they have started to enjoy their performances more frequently. Another participant (C09) noticed no MPA improvement but stated that the frequency of enjoyable performances changed from rarely to sometimes. Furthermore, all three participants who had MPA-related blackouts on stage noticed an improvement.
MPA. Experimental Group:
Unfortunately, one of the participants (C03) had no lessons during the period of intervention. Two out of five participants experienced less MPA in the lessons. For example, participant E05 has stated that even though they still have MPA, its effect on MPQ has decreased, and participant E06 has noticed that they are experiencing MPA less frequently in the lessons, and that it is limited to cases of them not being prepared. All the other participants stated that there are no changes in MPA experienced in the lessons.
Out of all the participants, two (C01 and C05) couldn’t provide any data when it came to MPA in performances as they didn’t have a chance to perform. Out of the participants who had the chance to perform, half of them (C02 and C06) noticed an improvement regarding MPA. In addition, E06 has stated an improvement regarding music performance enjoyment. Furthermore, three out of three participants noticed an improvement regarding MPA-caused blackouts on stage.
MPA. Analysis:
Even though a similar percentage of people experienced positive changes regarding MPA in both the control and experimental groups (44.44% and 40%, respectively), there are two people in the control group who have experienced negative developments in this aspect. However, they have mentioned that this might have been influenced by external factors rather than the meditation intervention. There is a significant number of participants in both groups who haven’t experienced any changes in this regard.
In both groups, participants experienced a reduction of MPA during performances. A larger portion of the control group has noticed it in comparison to the experimental group. There is a reasonable number of participants in both groups who stated that, along with the improvement of MPA, their enjoyment of performances has also increased. All the participants who were experiencing MPA-related blackouts noticed that such occurences have decreased in frequency significantly.
Self-Perception. Control Group:
Five out of ten (C03, C05, C06, C07, C09) participants have noticed changes in the way unsuccessful practice, lessons, or performances affect their mood, self-perception, and self-esteem. For example, participant C03 has expressed it this way: "I keep thinking about [unsucessful performance], but it's easier for me to let go already, I would say". In addition to that, other participants have mentioned quicker and easier recovery of self-perception, mood, and self-esteem. Also, it was noticed that the aforementioned events affect mood and self-esteem to a lesser extent.
Furthermore, six out of ten participants (C01, C03, C05, C06, C07, C10) noticed an improved sense of self-perception. Many different improvements were named, including decreased tendency to compare themselves to other musicians, decreased rumination about their level among other musicians, increased trust in their ability to improve, and acknowledging one’s inabilities without being emotional about them. For example, participant C07 has mentioned that their mindset has evolved from "I can't do this" to "If I will practise this, then it will be easy to do this".
Regarding lessons and relationships with teachers, three out of nine participants (C03, C06, C07)(C01 was not having lessons during the intervention) have noticed an improvement in their self-perception. Participant C03 has mentioned that they do not criticize themselves in the lessons as much, take the teacher’s feedback less personally, and their self-esteem is not as dependent on the teacher’s approval as it was before, or to state it in their own words, "Maybe I don't get affected too much anymore". C06 has also noticed a decrease in the amount of self-criticism during lessons, and C07 stated that their self-esteem is not as dependent on the teacher’s approval as it was before.
Self – Perception. Experimental Group:
Five out of six participants (E01, E02, E03, E04, E05) have noticed an improvement in their ability to handle unsuccessful performances. The participants have stated that the aforementioned unfortunate events do not affect their mood and self-perception as much, it is easier to move on after experiencing them, there is an enhanced understanding that they are still learning and making mistakes is a part of the process, improved focus on the process rather than the result, and even when their self-perception or mood is affected, it is easier to recover, which could be illustrated by following statement of participant E05: "So, [I was] sitting pissed off for a little bit. I didn't really do anything. I just kind of sat there. But [...] I bounced back faster".
Four out of six participants (E02, E03, E05, and E06) have noticed an improvement in general self-perception. Participants have noticed improved self-confidence, feeling more optimistic about their career prospects, and increased trust in their ability to improve, which could be illustrated by participant E05 stating that, "So, the question I always ask myself is 'Does it seam feasible that I could have a career?' Maybe. If yes, continue. If no, consider switching to a different career. [...] I feel like the 'maybe, yes' part is more than 'perhaps' previously".
E01 and E06 have noticed improved self-perception in educational settings. E01 stated that they are not taking feedback as personally as they used to and have noticed that their self-esteem is not as dependent on the teacher’s approval, while regarding participant E06, it was noticed that the teacher’s feedback is not leading them to excessive self-criticism anymore.
Self – Perception. Analysis:
A significantly bigger part of the participants in the experimental group noticed an improved ability to cope with unsuccessful events in a musician’s daily life. Both groups have stated that meditation improved their ability to move on after an unsuccessful event, brought quicker and easier normalization of mood, self-esteem, and self-perception. Furthermore, people from the experimental group have also noticed additional benefits of focusing on the process rather than the result.
A similar part of the participants in both groups has noticed improved self-perception. Multiple aspects were mentioned as improvements, including decreased tendency to compare themselves to other musicians, reduced rumination about their level among other musicians, increased trust in their ability to improve, acknowledging their limitations without becoming emotional about them, and feeling more optimistic about their career prospects.
In both groups, approximately 30% of participants have noticed improved self-perception in the educational setting. Among the benefits, the following were mentioned: decreased self-criticism in the lessons, not taking teachers’ feedback as personally, and self-esteem being less based on teachers’ approval.
Meditation and Technique. Control Group:
Even though many participants have noticed becoming more aware of their breathing, three out of ten participants (C02, C03, and C08) also have noticed improvement in the breathing itself. Participant C02 noticed that during the intervention their breathing became "more active and relaxed", participant C03 felt that their breathing got less stiff and more relaxed, and participant C08 has noticed that their breath support is better.
Furthermore, three out of ten participants (C02, C03, and C07) noticed an improvement regarding sound, with participant C03 clarifying that it became "darker and rounder".
Meditation and Technique. Experimental Group:
Four out of six participants in the experimental group have noticed an improvement in their breathing. Participant E01 stated that their airflow improved, mentioning that their teacher has also noticed that. Participants E02, E03, and E04 also have noticed an improvement in their airflow, but it could be attributed to them giving an effort to achieve that result.
Five out of six participants in the experimental group (everyone except E06) have noticed an improvement in their sound. The sound was noticed to become more open, wider, and rounder. However, participant E05 has noticed that being aware and relaxed allowed them to "make deliberate changes to their sound", thus making it more focused, clear, and compact. Participant E04 has noticed that during the intervention they became able to make a good sound from the first try instead of having to try 2–3 times before being able to do so.
Meditation and Technique. Analysis:
A significantly bigger part of experimental group participants has noticed an improvement in breathing. However, a bigger part of them were also consciously focusing on improving that. Furthermore, a significantly greater part of participants (83.33% compared to 30%) of the experimental group have mentioned an improvement in their sound, stating that it became more open, wider, rounder, or noticed improved agency in determining their sound.
Summary of Interview Findings
Both the experimental and control groups showed improvement in the focus facet. The majority of evaluated aspects of focus improved similarly in both groups. The main difference noticed in this part of the investigation is that some of the participants in the experimental group found that music-related meditations improved their connection with the instrument, and a larger part of the participants in the experimental group felt deeper engagement during practice. Regarding MPA during performance, a noticeably larger part of the control group noticed a positive change in comparison with the experimental group. The improvement of MPA in the lessons was similar in both groups. However, a significantly larger part of participants in the experimental group noticed a positive change in their ability to cope with challenges and unfortunate events, while self-perception in general and self-perception in the educational setting improved to a similar extent in both groups. A significantly larger part of the experimental group has also noticed an improvement in their breathing and sound quality in comparison to the control group.
MfM and FFMQ
Both groups have demonstrated improved total scores in both questionnaires. It is also worth mentioning that the experimental group showed a greater improvement in both questionnaires. The average total scores of FFMQ improved by 10.83 points in the experimental group, while the control group showed an average improvement of 8.5 points (Figure 1). The experimental group showed an average improvement in each facet, while in the control group, the observing and describing facets decreased (Figure 2).
Regarding the MfM questionnaire, the experimental group showed a greater improvement, increasing their average total score by 2.33 points compared to the control group which increased their score by 0.9 points (Figure 3). Just like in FFMQ, all the facets evaluated in the experimental group showed a higher score post-intervention than before it, but the same cannot be said about the control group, in which the average total score of the nonjudging facet decreased by 0.7 points (Figure 4).
Acting with Awareness
Regarding acting with awareness portrayed in FFMQ, the control group showed a bigger improvement (6.3 points) than the experimental group (1.67 points) (Figure 2). Among the control group, all the participants have been noticed to improve their scores. In the experimental group, four out of six participants showed an improvement, one kept the same score, and one was noticed to show a decrease in their score (Figure 9).
However, in the MfM, the experimental group showed a bigger difference in the acting with awareness score pre- and post-intervention. The difference is not significant: the experimental group showed an increase of 0.67 points, while the control group showed an increase of 0.4 points (Figure 4). The scores of half of the participants in the control group increased, three people evaluated a decrease in this facet, and two people’s results showed no change in this facet (Figure 10). In the experimental group, four people were noticed to have increased scores, while two scored the exact same value.
Out of nine people in the control group, seven participants have noticed an improvement in the focus and self-perception facets, and out of eight people in the control group, seven have noticed improvements regarding MPA-related issues. Regarding the experimental group, five out of six people have noticed improvements in all the facets.
Due to the fact that there is not enough data to check its normality, the possibility of using conventional statistical analysis tools is highly limited. Because of that, the 90th percentile method was chosen due to the fact that it allows to identify relatively high values. Based on the identified 90th percentile, which was found to be 2.51, any value that exceeds the given threshold was considered to be a significant increase.
It was found that in the control group only one question has changed significantly, while 4 questions were found to become worse than at the point-zero (Table 4). Significant improvement was noticed in the DQ3 (self-perception-related) question, while the scores of PQ3, PQ4 (MPA-related questions), PQ5 (self-perception-related question), and PQ6 (both MPA- and self-perception-related question) decreased. On the other hand, in the experimental group, there were five questions that had a negative delta, despite the fact that the average increase of all the questions was 0.47 points higher, and the results of four questions were noticed to increase significantly (Table 5). The questions whose scores decreased are DQ6, LQ1 (focus-related), LQ3, LQ6 (self-perception-related), and PQ6 (self-perception- and MPA-related), while a significant increase was noticed in questions DQ4, LQ2, PQ5 (self-perception-related), PQ3 (MPA-related), and PQ2 (self-perception- and MPA-related).
In the MfM questionnaire, the control group demonstrated a slightly greater improvement than the experimental group, scoring on average 0.5 points more after the intervention compared to the experimental group, whose average total score improved by 0.33 points (Figure 4). Half of the participants demonstrated an improvement in this facet in both groups, while a similar percentage of people showed decreased scores post-intervention as well (respectively, 30% and 33.33% for the control and experimental groups) (Figure 6).
Nonreactivity
In the FFMQ nonreactivity facet, both groups have improved. The control group has shown an improvement of 2.2 points (Figure 2), with nine out of ten people documenting an improvement in their scores (Figure 13), while the experimental group averagely had their scores improved by 0.33 points (Figure 2). Four out of six participants have been noticed to show an improvement, while two have been noticed to show the opposite effect (Figure 13).
Observing
During the intervention, a decrease by 1 point in the control group's scores for the observing facet in FFMQ was noticed (Figure 2). Interestingly enough, an equal number of participants showed both improvement and deterioration in the score in the control group (Figure 5). The same proportion of improvement and decline was noticed in the experimental group, where 3 participants scored higher than in the pre-intervention evaluation, and 3 demonstrated lower scores. The pre- and post-intervention average score of the experimental group increased by 0.5 points (Figure 2), meaning that either the positive improvement in the experimental group was greater than in the control group or, on the contrary, the control group, on average, demonstrated a larger score diminishment.
Even though both groups averaged an improvement in their scores in the describing facet of MfM, the experimental group demonstrated a greater improvement, with an average increase of 2.59 points, compared to the control group, whose average describing facet score in the MfM questionnaire improved by 0.6 points (Figure 4). Furthermore, five out of ten participants in the control group demonstrated an improvement in this facet, three participants had their scores decreased, and two participants showed no changes in their describing facet total score. In the experimental group, four out of six participants showed an increased score, while one participant experienced no changes at all, and one participant demonstrated a lower score (Figure 8).
GQ = General Question
DQ = Daily Practise Related Question
LQ = Lessons Related Question
PQ = Performance Related Question
| Code | Meaning |
| MPA Evaluating Question | |
| Self - Perception Evaluating Question | |
| Focus Evaluating Question | |
| MPA and Focus Evaluating Question | |
| MPA and Self Perception Evaluating Question |
Go to the next page