The Interpersonal Mindfulness in Parenting Scale in Mothers of Children and Infants: Factor Structure and Associations With Child Internalizing Problems

Abstract

Objectives: Mindful parenting, measured by the Interpersonal Mindfulness in Parenting scale (IMP), is beneficial for parents and children. However, the IMP has not been validated in English-speaking parents. Further, little is known about whether mindful parenting is similar in parents of children vs. infants, or how it reduces child internalizing problems. We sought to validate the IMP in English-speaking mothers of children and infants, and to examine relationships between the facets of mindful parenting, child internalizing problems and parent variables related to internalizing.Methods: Using confirmatory factor analyses, we examined the fit of various models of mindful parenting in English-speaking community-recruited mothers of children aged 3–18 years (n = 396) and infants aged 0–2 years (n = 320). We used regression analyses to investigate relationships between the facets of mindful parenting, child internalizing problems, and parent variables including parental experiential avoidance, unhelpful beliefs about child anxiety and accommodation of child anxiety.Results: Mindful parenting can be measured in English-speaking mothers, using either a 5- or 6-factor, 29-item version of the IMP. These versions of the IMP operate similarly for mothers of children and infants. Child internalizing problems and related parent variables were best predicted by non-judgmental acceptance of parenting in mothers of children, and emotional self-awareness and non-reactivity in mothers of infants.Conclusions: The IMP is a valid measure of mindful parenting in English-speaking mothers of children and infants. Mindful parenting predicts child internalizing problems and related parent variables, suggesting that mindful parenting programs could benefit families of children with internalizing problems, potentially by reducing parental experiential avoidance, unhelpful beliefs about or accommodation of child anxiety.

A Mindful Parenting Program for Parents Concerned About Child Internalizing Problems: a Randomized Controlled Feasibility Study

“…Acceptance and the theme self-compassion together reflect the IMP facet Non-judgmental Acceptance of Parental Functioning (NJAPF), which captures a parent’s ability to be accepting and compassionate regarding themself as a parent. The identification of the themes acceptance and self-compassion is consistent with evidence from earlier studies, which have found NJAPF to be the aspect of mindful parenting most predictive of child internalizing problems (Burgdorf & Szabó, 2021 ). The theme empathy encompasses the Emotional Awareness of the Child (EAC) and Compassion for the Child facets of the IMP.…”

“…The theme empathy encompasses the Emotional Awareness of the Child (EAC) and Compassion for the Child facets of the IMP. After NJAPF, EAC is the only other facet of mindful parenting that has been found to predict child internalizing problems (Burgdorf & Szabó, 2021 ). Lack of awareness regarding a child’s anxiety could result in a parent failing to help the child manage that anxiety or managing it unhelpfully (Hurrell et al, 2017 ).…”

“…Fourteen items (1, 5, 9–15, 17, 19, 23, 26, 29) are reverse-coded, and higher scores indicate more mindful parenting. We used the 29-item, six-factor version of the IMP, which has the subscales Listening with Full Attention (LFA; “I rush through activities with my child without really being attentive to him/her”), Compassion for the Child (CC; “I am kind to my child when he/she is upset”), Non-judgmental Acceptance of Parental Functioning (NJAPF; “I tend to be hard on myself when I make mistakes as a parent”), Emotional Awareness of the Child (EAC; “It is hard for me to tell what my child is feeling”), Emotional Awareness of Self (EAS; “When I’m upset with my child, I notice how I am feeling before I take action”), and Emotional Non-reactivity in Parenting (ENRP; “I often react too quickly to what my child says or does”) (Burgdorf & Szabó, 2021 ; de Bruin et al, 2014 ). A total score is calculated by summing all items.…”

“…A total score is calculated by summing all items. The IMP has demonstrated good convergent and divergent validity (Burgdorf & Szabó, 2021 ; de Bruin et al, 2014 ). Pre-program internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha) and reliability (McDonald’s omega; see Hayes & Coutts, 2020 and McDonald, 1999 ) in the current sample were α = .72, ω = .72 for LFA; α = .90, ω = .91 for CC; α = .85, ω = .86 for NJAPF; α = .82, ω = .82 for EAC; α = .81, ω = .83 for EAS; α = .80, ω = .83 for ENRP; and α = .93, ω = .92 for IMP Total.…”

Development and validation of the Mindful Parenting in Infancy Scale (MPIS)

“…The Interpersonal Mindfulness in Parenting (IM‐P) scale, originally designed for use with adolescents (Duncan, 2007), and the Mindfulness in Parenting Questionnaire (MIPQ), intended for caregivers with children in the 2–16 years of age range (McCaffrey, 2015; McCaffrey et al, 2017), appear to be the only options. The IM‐P has been used more extensively, including studies with infants, and it should be noted most of these were conducted with international samples (Burgdorf & Szabó, 2021; Kim et al, 2019; Laurent et al, 2017; Lo et al, 2018; Moreira & Canavarro, 2017; Potharst et al, 2020). Although some of the studies including infants modified the IM‐P to make the instrument content appropriate for the younger children, these adjustment have not been uniform and often minimal in scope (e.g., “child” was changed to “baby” and “parenting” or “raising” to “nurturing”; Potharst et al, 2020).…”