Priori based on a power buy Aprotinin analysis conducted with GPower software using medium effect size estimates (e.g., Cohen’s f) derived from earlier trials demonstrating therapeutic effects of mindfulness training on psychological distress (Goyal et al., 2014). According to this model, a total sample size of 35 was required to gain medium effect size estimates. Approximately 87 (n=39) of the total enrolled sample (N=45) completed post-intervention assessments, with 20 participants completing the TF14016 cancer TIMBSR intervention and 19 completing the post-intervention measures from the wait-list control group; attrition did not significantly differ between groups, nor was it predicted by baseline values of study variables. We evaluated pre-post changes in measures of PTSD symptoms (PCL-C), depression (BDIII), and anxious and avoidant attachment (RSQ). For hypothesis testing, we conducted intention-to-treat (ITT) analyses. To analyze patterns of missing data, we performed Little’s MCAR test (Little, 1988). The pattern of missing data was consistent with being missing completely at random; thus, maximum likelihood estimation was employed to handle missing data. To reduce potential bias resulting from listwise deletion or last-observation carried forward techniques, ITT analysis was conducted using a linear mixed model approach, which is considered preferable to other methods of dealing with missing data (Singer Willett, 2003). Denominator degrees of freedom were obtained by a Satterthwaite approximation. ITT models were estimated with maximum likelihood methods, which estimate the variance-covariance matrix for all available data, including data from cases assessed at only one time point. In analysis models, we treated Group (TI-MBSR vs. waitlist) and Time (pre- vs. post-intervention) as fixed effects. Analyses focused on the Group X Time interaction term as the parameter of interest. Binomial McNemar tests (McNemar, 1947; Adedokun Burgess, 2012) were used to determine whether there was a significant difference in the proportion of participants in the TI-MBSR versus the control group who surpassed the validated cutoff on the PCL-C for PTSD (Harrington Newman, 2007) at baseline but no longer surpassed the threshold for PTSD at post-treatment.J Clin Psychol. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2017 April 01.Kelly and GarlandPageResultsParticipants Table 2 presents sample characteristics. The women ranged in age from 19?9 years (M age = 41.5, SD = 14.6). A majority of the women self-identified as white (73 ). Income levels varied; however a majority reported earning less than 20,000/year. Most participants (89 ) had completed at least some college. Table 3 presents clinical information related to exposure to IPV. The average number of lifetime types of IPV-related traumatic experience was 2.1 (SD = 1.7, range 1 ?6). Participants reported a wide range of symptom severity, from individuals with subclinical symptoms of traumatic stress and depression, to those who met full diagnostic criteria for mental disorders. Of those intervention or wait-list group pre- and post-survey completers, 38 of participants screened positive for PTSD per a validated cutpoint on the PCL-C (Harrington Newman, 2007) at the time of the pre-intervention survey. No statistically significant, between-groups differences were found at pre-intervention assessment for age, gender, race, income, exposure to traumatic violence, psychiatric symptoms, or attachment style. The number of women.Priori based on a power analysis conducted with GPower software using medium effect size estimates (e.g., Cohen’s f) derived from earlier trials demonstrating therapeutic effects of mindfulness training on psychological distress (Goyal et al., 2014). According to this model, a total sample size of 35 was required to gain medium effect size estimates. Approximately 87 (n=39) of the total enrolled sample (N=45) completed post-intervention assessments, with 20 participants completing the TIMBSR intervention and 19 completing the post-intervention measures from the wait-list control group; attrition did not significantly differ between groups, nor was it predicted by baseline values of study variables. We evaluated pre-post changes in measures of PTSD symptoms (PCL-C), depression (BDIII), and anxious and avoidant attachment (RSQ). For hypothesis testing, we conducted intention-to-treat (ITT) analyses. To analyze patterns of missing data, we performed Little’s MCAR test (Little, 1988). The pattern of missing data was consistent with being missing completely at random; thus, maximum likelihood estimation was employed to handle missing data. To reduce potential bias resulting from listwise deletion or last-observation carried forward techniques, ITT analysis was conducted using a linear mixed model approach, which is considered preferable to other methods of dealing with missing data (Singer Willett, 2003). Denominator degrees of freedom were obtained by a Satterthwaite approximation. ITT models were estimated with maximum likelihood methods, which estimate the variance-covariance matrix for all available data, including data from cases assessed at only one time point. In analysis models, we treated Group (TI-MBSR vs. waitlist) and Time (pre- vs. post-intervention) as fixed effects. Analyses focused on the Group X Time interaction term as the parameter of interest. Binomial McNemar tests (McNemar, 1947; Adedokun Burgess, 2012) were used to determine whether there was a significant difference in the proportion of participants in the TI-MBSR versus the control group who surpassed the validated cutoff on the PCL-C for PTSD (Harrington Newman, 2007) at baseline but no longer surpassed the threshold for PTSD at post-treatment.J Clin Psychol. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2017 April 01.Kelly and GarlandPageResultsParticipants Table 2 presents sample characteristics. The women ranged in age from 19?9 years (M age = 41.5, SD = 14.6). A majority of the women self-identified as white (73 ). Income levels varied; however a majority reported earning less than 20,000/year. Most participants (89 ) had completed at least some college. Table 3 presents clinical information related to exposure to IPV. The average number of lifetime types of IPV-related traumatic experience was 2.1 (SD = 1.7, range 1 ?6). Participants reported a wide range of symptom severity, from individuals with subclinical symptoms of traumatic stress and depression, to those who met full diagnostic criteria for mental disorders. Of those intervention or wait-list group pre- and post-survey completers, 38 of participants screened positive for PTSD per a validated cutpoint on the PCL-C (Harrington Newman, 2007) at the time of the pre-intervention survey. No statistically significant, between-groups differences were found at pre-intervention assessment for age, gender, race, income, exposure to traumatic violence, psychiatric symptoms, or attachment style. The number of women.
