Spirituality Studies 13 Phan Thi Tho et al. 3.4 Research Instruments This study examines the effects of Right Mindfulness (Pi. sammā-sati) on occupational burnout and psychological well-being among Vietnamese employees living in Japan. Standardized and psychometrically validated instruments were employed to ensure methodological rigor and construct validity. Burnout was measured using the MBI-GS, a widely used tool developed by Christina Maslach and Susan Jackson. The MBI-GS consists of sixteen items rated on a 7-point Likert scale, ranging from 0 (“never”) to 6 (“every day”), and evaluates three core dimensions of burnout: Exhaustion (5 items), Cynicism (5 items), and Professional Efficacy (6 items). This instrument has been extensively validated across diverse occupational and cultural contexts and remains a gold standard for assessing occupational burnout. Psychological well-being was assessed using the WHO-5 Well-Being Index, a brief, validated instrument developed by the World Health Organization. The WHO-5 comprises five positively framed items, with responses scored on a 6-point Likert scale from 0 (“not at all”) to 5 (“all of the time”). The total raw score ranges from 0 to 25, with higher scores indicating greater well-being. A score below thirteen indicates reduced psychological well-being and may warrant further clinical assessment. Together, these instruments provided a robust framework for quantitatively evaluating the WPRM’s impact on burnout and well-being, offering critical insights into the psychological benefits of mindfulness practice within this population. 3.5 Experimental Procedure The intervention was conducted as a two-day WPRM at Dai Nam Temple in Himeji City, Hyogo Province, Japan. Before the retreat, participants attended an orientation session, and baseline data including burnout and well-being measures were collected using the MBI-GS and WHO-5 instruments. Pre-intervention assessments were conducted in the morning, one day before the retreat, under standardized conditions. The retreat followed a strict daily schedule beginning at 05:00 a.m. and concluding at 9:00 p.m., incorporating walking and sitting meditation, mindful eating, contemplation of daily activities, Dhamma talks, meditation interviews, tea meditation, and evening chanting. All participants adhered to the same routine to control for external variables such as diet, rest, and environmental exposure. Adherence was measured using a per-session attendance log completed by the research team; adherence was calculated for each participant as the number of sessions attended divided by the total number of scheduled sessions, expressed as a percentage, and summarized at the group level. Post-intervention assessments were conducted on the final day using the same procedures, tools, and research team to ensure consistency. Environmental and procedural conditions, including timing, diet, and participant accommodations, were tightly controlled. Participants refrained from using mobile phones throughout the program. Brief post-retreat debrief reflections were collected to complement quantitative data, demonstrating the comprehensive nature of the study. These reflections aimed to provide exploratory context for participants’ experiences of the mindfulness intervention, providing a more holistic understanding of the intervention’s impact. 3.6 Data Collection Quantitative data were collected using a twenty-one-item questionnaire combining the MBI-GS and the WHO-5. These instruments were administered pre- and post-intervention to measure changes in burnout and psychological well-being following participation in the WPRM, delivered in a structured retreat setting. Qualitative data were collected immediately after the retreat via brief individual semi-structured debrief interviews (approximately 10–15 minutes). The interviewer typed participants’ responses verbatim into an electronic form to minimize burden and preserve wording. Prompts addressed perceived changes after WPRM practice, obstacles encountered during practice, and principles or strategies used to overcome obstacles. Responses were anonymized and labeled P01–P60. Because these debrief reflections were brief and collected immediately post‑retreat, they are interpreted as exploratory contextual data rather than a comprehensive qualitative inquiry aimed at thematic saturation.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTUwMDU5Ng==