Chapter 1 – Introduction
Chapter 2 – Description
Chapter 3 – Evaluation
Chapter 4 – Summary, Conclustions, Recommendations
CHAPTER 3
EVALUATION
OF THE PROJECT
Evaluating
the Program Development
Overview
The first hypothesis was that a suitable program would be developed
within the time frames of the proposal.
The acceptance of the first hypothesis was based on the development
described in chapter 2 and on the securing of and development of the four
measures described below: (1) a review
by a member of the director's doctor of ministry committee; (2) a review by an expert in criminal
justice ministry; (3) the documents of
the program; and (4) five evaluation
instruments.
Review
by Committee Member
The director worked with Alan Jackson who was a member of the director's
doctor of ministry committee. With
prior approval, the director sent drafts of the program lesson plans and
handouts to Jackson for review prior to implementation: a copy of the letter that accompanied the
drafts was placed in appendix 1, marked item #1. After receiving and reviewing the drafts, Jackson gave approval
by phone on 16 July 1996.
Review
by Expert in Criminal Justice Ministry
The director worked with Vance Drum, senior chaplain at the Eastham
State Prison in Lovelady, Texas. With
prior approval, the director sent drafts of the program lesson plans and
handouts to Drum for review prior to implementation. The director asked Drum for a written response that also included
Drum's qualifications as an expert in criminal justice ministry. On 17 July 1996, Drum responded with a
letter containing an evaluation of the program sessions. Drum's letter of response was placed in
appendix 1, marked item #2.
The Documents of the
Program
The program lesson plan drafts that were sent to Jackson and Drum were
finalized. With the finalizing prior to
implementation, the lesson plans and overheads themselves became the third
measure of the validation of the first hypothesis, as the lesson plans and
overheads represented the essence of the program that was given to the men in
the experimental group. The lesson plans
were placed in appendix 2, and the overheads were placed in appendix 3.
Five Evaluation
Instruments
The fourth measure of the first hypothesis was finding and developing
the evaluation instruments used throughout the program. Five instruments were used: two validated questionnaires were used, and
three other questionnaires were developed by the director specially suited to
measure various portions of the program.
The two validated instruments were selected prior to program
implementation: one, Stokes and
Lautenschlater's Counselor Response Questionnaire (CRQ)[97] was used in its
entirety; the other, part of Carkhuff's
"Responding: Knowledge and Skills
Assessment" was used in part, but the title was changed to Responding
Questionnaire (RQ).[98] Both of these were used as pretests and
posttests, and both were approved by director's committee chairman as suitable
assessment instruments prior to being used.
In addition to the committee chairman's validation of the CRQ and the
RQ, other validations were considered of these instruments. Professional validations of the CRQ were
placed in the background information at the beginning of appendix 5 under the
sub-heading: "validation
studies." The RQ assessment was
considered validated because of the repeated publication of Carkhuff's model
for training in helping skills, and this assumption was approved by the
director's committee chairman prior to implementation. The RQ and background information related to
the RQ were placed in appendix 6.
The director developed three instruments to aid in data collection
during the various stages of the program implementation: one, a Preprogram Background
Questionnaire (PBQ); two, a Postprogram
Interview Questionnaire (PIQ); and
three, a Postprogram Helpee Follow-up Questionnaire (PHFQ). The PBQ was used to gather some sociological
data to help divide the experimental and control groups, and that was placed in
appendix 4. The PIQ was used to gather
data from the experimental group after the last program session and in a one-on-one
setting, and that was placed in appendix 9.
The PHFQ was used to gather data from the men in the Christian
congregation who had been the recipients of the participants' helping efforts,
and that was placed in appendix 10. All
three of the instruments were developed and submitted to the director's
committee chairman prior to implementation, and all three were approved by
director's committee chairman as suitable assessment instruments prior
usage.
Evaluating
the Program Enlistment
Overview
The acceptance of the second hypothesis was based upon two factors. The first was the enlistment described in
chapter 2, and the second was the determination and development of three
measures described below: (1) the effect
of the advertisements and announcements;
(2) the experimental and control group rosters and worksheets; and (3) the posttesting of the control
group.
Effect
of Advertisement and Announcements
From the advertisement and announcements, sixty-seven men were nominated
to participate. After the nominees were
screened and invitations were given to the sixty-seven men, all of them showed
up for the pretesting stage of the project.
When sixty-seven men had been enlisted and had arrived for the
pretesting, this arrival indicated that part of the second hypothesis was
fulfilled.
Experimental
and Control Group Worksheets and Rosters
The director
developed three data collection instruments.
Two of the instruments were worksheets used to record the data from the
CRQ and RQ pretesting and posttesting of both groups. The third instrument was a basic attendance roster developed to
chronicle the attendance of the experimental and control groups. Copies of the CRQ and RQ data collection
worksheets were placed in appendix 11, marked respectively as items #1 and
#2. A copy of the attendance roster was
placed in appendix 12, marked item #2.
After the
pretesting, the CRQ and RQ scores of each of the sixty-seven men were placed on
the data collection worksheets bearing the name of the participants. That was done for both the experimental and control
groups.
As attendance was
kept throughout the program sessions of the experimental group, twenty-seven of
the participants stayed with the program.
The basic attendance roster for the experimental group indicated who
attended and who was absent. The
attendance on the roster was reflected in the pastoral observations and
reflections collected in appendix 8 and that were summarized above in chapter 2
under the subsection, summarization of daily lessons.
At the end of the
administration of the program sessions to the experimental group, the posttests
were given to the experimental group.
The posttest scores from the CRQ and RQ were placed on the data
collection worksheets of each individual man.[99]
A separate list was maintained of the control group. After the experimental group was given the
program and the posttests, the control group was recalled on the following
Saturday, 28 September 1996. The
control group attendance roster indicated that six men were absent, and a
follow-up indicated that the six men had moved from the prison and were no
longer available to participate. The
remaining twenty-eight men were given the posttests. When twenty-eight men in the original control group showed up to
complete posttesting, that arrival indicated that part of the second hypothesis
was fulfilled with respect to the two groups' attendance throughout the
implementation of the program.
Posttesting
the Control Group
When the control group was recalled on 28 September 1996, they were
given the CRQ and RQ as posttests. The
posttesting of the control group was the last phase of the program that
involved the experimental and control group participants.
Therefore, the second hypothesis was fulfilled in three phases: when the affect of advertising drew
sixty-seven men, when the experimental group and the control group attendance
rosters and worksheets indicated attendance, and with the administration of the
CRQ and RQ as posttests. Twenty-seven
men in the experimental group and twenty-eight men in the control group stayed
with the program from beginning to end.
That number of men with the data collected was deemed sufficient to
justify an evaluation.
Three reasons were found to accept the second hypothesis. The first reason was the enlistment
described in chapter 2. The second was
the general effect of advertisement.
The third reason was that the attendance rosters, worksheets, and
posttesting indicated that fifty-five men had remained with the entire
program. Therefore, the second
hypothesis was accepted in that the men remained with the program.
Evaluating
the Program Implementation
Overview
The third hypothesis was that the program would increase the inmate's
ability to use several helping skills.
Six methods of the evaluation of the program implementation indicated
the accomplishment of the third hypothesis.
The six methods were divided into two parts: (1) two professional evaluations; and (2) four statistical evaluations.
The professional evaluations included:
(1) an evaluation of a program session by a professional chaplain, and
(2) the project director's pastoral observations and reflections. After discussing how the final scores were
adjusted to compensate for absentees, the four statistical evaluations included
analyses of four program instruments:
(1) the counselor response questionnaire statistical analysis, (2) the
responding questionnaire statistical analysis, (3) the postprogram interview
questionnaire analysis, and (4) the postprogram helpee follow-up questionnaire
analysis.
Professional
Evaluations
Professional
Chaplain
Alex Taylor sat in on the seventh and last program session. His evaluation indicated that part of the
third hypothesis was fulfilled in that a program had been implemented that
improved the inmate's ability to use some helping skills.
Taylor was the regional chaplain for the Texas Department of Criminal
Justice. He was asked to view a program
session and write an evaluation based upon the session's objective and upon his
experience. The director asked if
Taylor would respond with a letter offering his evaluation and outlining his
qualifications as an expert in criminal justice ministry.
Taylor arrived on 21 September 1996.
The director gave Taylor a copy of the program lesson plans for that day
and a copy of the handouts that were given to the men that day. Several days after the program, the director
received from Taylor a letter and evaluation on 10 October 1996, and that
letter and evaluation were placed in appendix 1, marked item #3.
Pastoral
Observations and Reflections on Implementation
After each daily session of the program, the director took notes on his
observations and reflections on various aspects of the program and about the
responses of the men in the experimental group. The pastoral observations and reflections indicated that part of
the third hypothesis was fulfilled in the chronicle of the men's participation
and growth throughout the program. The
observations and reflections were placed in appendix 8.
The observations and reflections detailed how the presentation of the
lesson plans and overheads affected the participants in the program and as well
as the director. Some of the aspects
observed and reflected upon were how the director presented various parts of
the program, his feelings about the presentation, how the men in general
responded to various parts of the program, and the unexpected responses or
distractions that arose in the program.
The sum of the director's observations and reflections indicated that
the men not only learned some empathy skills but that they enjoyed the whole
process and wished that the program could continue so that they could continue
to refine their empathic skills.
Adjusting
the Pretest and Posttest CRQ Scores
As was seen in chapter 2, the Preprogram Background Questionnaire
(PBQ) and the Counselor Response Questionnaire (CRQ) were used in the
determination of the experimental and control groups from among the sixty-seven
men. Thirty-four men were placed in the
control group, and thirty-three men were placed in the experimental group.
After the posttesting of both groups was finished, the director recorded
that several men from both groups did not remain to finish the
posttesting. During the program, six
men dropped out of the experimental group for various reasons. The men who dropped out were from a variety
of sociological categories, and their CRQ scores were dropped from the
experimental group's preprogram statistical calculations: 1 YBA (25), 1 NBNA (14), 1 WNA (21), 2 NWA
(38, 32), and 1 YHNA (23).[100]
After seven weeks, six men had left the prison who had been in the
control group. Those men were from a
variety of sociological categories, and their CRQ scores were dropped from the
control group's preprogram statistical calculations: 1 YBA (32), 1 YWNA (34), 1 YHA (29), 1 NBNA (24), 1 NBA (21), and
1 NWNA (28).[101]
Since twenty-seven men in the experimental group had finished the
program and twenty-eight men in the control group had completed the CRQ
posttesting, one other man's score was deleted from the control group to allow
both groups the same number of observations.
The score chosen was a midrange score from the group of black-aggravated
men who had had no regular visits during the month: NBA (28). The midrange
score was chosen for two reason: (1)
because of the leptokurtic distribution of the scores in both groups, and (2)
because the "aggravated" time being served was represented by the
largest number of men. Thereby, the
removal of the "NBA" midrange score was perceived to have the least
effect on the overall distribution.
With the last removal, twenty-seven men remained in each group as was
reported below in table 4.
Table 4.--Adjusted Preprogram CRQ Scores
X1: Adjusted
Preprogram Experimental Group
CRQ Scores Categorized
"Yes" "No"
black "na" 32, 23 black
"na" 24
black "a" 37, 30, 17 black
"a" 41, 31, 27, 25, 21, 20,
9
white "na" 34 white
"na" 41, 28, 25,
white "a" 38, 35, 21 white
"a" 29, 24
Hispanic "na" 25 Hispanic "na" 30
Hispanic "a" 21 Hispanic "a" 26, 14
X3: Adjusted
Preprogram Control Group
CRQ Scores Categorized
"Yes" "No"
black "na" 32 black
"na" 24
black "a" 37, 29 black
"a" 40, 33, 28, 24, 24, 20,
16
white "na" 29 white
"na" 27, 26
white "a" 42, 38, 35, 24 white "a" 40,
28, 24
Hispanic "na" 23 Hispanic "na" 30, 24
Hispanic "a" 11 Hispanic "a" 44, 27
Statistics on the adjusted scores were calculated. They were reported in table 5.
Table 5.--Adjusted Preprogram CRQ Statistics
X1 X3
Range
= 9.0 - 41.0 11.0 - 44.0
Mode
= 21.0, 25.0 24.0
Median
= 26.0 27.0
= 26.962963 28.851852
X = 728.0 779.0
X2 = 21,216.0 24,097.0
= 7.666577 7.749330
2 = 58.776406 60.052126
g1 = -0.087179 0.058473
g2 = 2.778344 2.73434
The statistics of X1 and X3 indicated a more
equal distribution of scores than was indicated by the preadjusted scores
during the enlistment phase.[102] Given the sociological data and the
distribution of CRQ scores, the two groups were considered matched evenly
enough for the purposes of the program.
Counselor
Response Questionnaire Statistical Analysis
Overview
The Counselor Response Questionnaire (CRQ) was the first pretest
and posttest administered to both the experimental and control groups. The CRQ was designed to measure the
participants' level of skill in the use of empathic skills. The two groups of twenty-seven men each‑‑determined
above‑‑were used in the following statistical analysis. The highest possible score was fifty.
The statistical analysis was divided into three parts: (1) measures of central tendency and
variability, (2) measures of frequency, and (3) three t-test calculations. All
measures indicated an accomplishment of the third hypothesis in that the men in
the experimental group improved in their use of empathic skills.
Measures
of Central Tendency and Variability
After the end of the program, the experimental and control groups were
given the CRQ again as a posttest. The
tabulation and statistics on the pretest and posttest scores were reported
below in table 6.
Table
6.--Adjusted Pretest and
Posttest CRQ Statistics
Experimental
Group Control Group
X1 X2 X3 X4
1. 21 24 24 27
2. 21 30 29 32
3. 25 25 28 31
4. 20 15 28 37
5. 17 38 24 23
6. 26 44 38 42
7. 34 44 29 24
8. 9 31 27 29
9. 35 40 24 28
10. 29 47 40 23
11. 25 29 35 39
12. 31 38 30 36
13. 30 43 42 41
14. 28 28 23 26
15. 41 47 33 21
16. 24 31 26 22
17. 24 40 20 27
18. 25 25 24 26
19. 21 29 37 41
20. 30 31 40 26
21. 23 37 16 17
22. 41 47 27 24
23. 32 39 11 21
24. 38 47 44 42
25. 37 43 24 24
26. 27 39 32 25
27. 14 41 24 32
X1 = experimental group pretest scores X3 = control group
pretest scores
X2 = experimental group posttest scores X4 = control group
posttest scores
X1 X2 X3 X4
Range
= 9.0 - 41.0 15.0 - 47.0 11.0 - 44.0 11.0 - 44.0
Mode
= 21.0, 25.0 47.0 24.0 26.0
Median
= 26.0 38.0 27.0 28.0
= 26.962963 36.0 28.851852 29.111111
X = 728.0 972.0 779.0 786.0
X2 = 21,216.0 36,886.0 24,097.0 24,262.0
= 7.666577 8.375449 7.749330 7.150930
2 = 58.776406 70.148148 60.052126 51.135802
g1 = -0.087179 -0.509484 0.058473 0.053101
g2 = 2.778344 2.479727 2.73434 2.112768
In table 6 above, the results indicated a statistically significant
improvement in the CRQ scores of the experimental group over the control
group. The highest score obtainable was
fifty. The modes, medians, and means of
X1, X3, and X4 indicated close
similarity and contrasted enough with X2 to indicate a
significant improvement in overall skill level in the experimental group. The sums of the scores and the sums of the
squares of X1, X3, and X4 were similar and
also contrasted enough with X2 to indicate
significant improvement. The measures
of variability represented in the variance and standard deviation of X2 were only a little
higher than X1, X3, and X4. When the measures of variability of X2 were compared with
the measures of skewness and kurtosis for all four variables, the comparison
indicated that the whole distribution of X2 scores was
significantly higher than the scores X1, X3, and X4. These indicated that the third hypothesis
was accomplished.
Measures
of Frequency
The difference between the pretest and posttest scores of the
experimental and control groups was made more clear through a calculation of
the frequency and percentages of the top ten scores between the two
groups. The frequency and percentages
were reported below in table 7.
Table 7.--Frequency Analysis of Top
Ten CRQ Scores
Pretest
Frequency Analysis
Experimental Group Control Group
Score Freq. Percent Score Freq. Percent
25 3 11.11 24 6 22.22
21 3 11.11 40 2 7.41
41 2 7.41 29 2 7.41
30 2 7.41 28 2 7.41
24 2 7.41 27 2 7.41
38 1 3.70 44 1 3.70
37 1 3.70 42 1 3.70
35 1 3.70 38 1 3.70
34 1 3.70 37 1 3.70
32 1 3.70 35 1 3.70
Posttest Frequency
Analysis
Experimental Group Control Group
Score Freq. Percent Score Freq. Percent
47 4 14.81 26 3 11.11
31 3 11.11 24 3 11.11
44 2 7.41 42 2 7.41
43 2 7.41 41 2 7.41
40 2 7.41 32 2 7.41
39 2 7.41 27 2 7.41
38 2 7.41 23 2 7.41
29 2 7.41 21 2 7.41
25 2 7.41 39 1 3.70
41 1 3.70 37 1 3.70
From the above frequency analysis, the experimental group
did significantly better than did the control group on the CRQ posttests.
Three t-Test Calculations
The basic statistics for the three t-test
were calculated. Those statistics were
reported below in table 8.
Table
8.--Analysis of CRQ
Deviations
Experimental
Group Control Group
X2 - X1 = d1 X4 - X3 = d2
1. 24 21 3 27 24 3
2. 30 21 9 32 29 3
3. 25 25 0 31 28 3
4. 15 20 -5 37 28 9
5. 38 17 21 23 24 -1
6. 44 26 16 42 38 2
7. 44 34 10 24 29 -5
8. 31 9 22 29 27 2
9. 40 35 5 28 24 4
10. 47 29 18 23 40 -17
11. 29 25 4 39 35 4
12. 38 31 7 36 30 6
13. 43 30 13 41 42 -1
14. 28 28 0 26 23 3
15. 47 41 6 21 33 -12
16. 31 24 7 22 26 -4
17. 40 24 16 27 20 7
18. 25 25 0 26 24 2
19. 29 21 8 41 37 4
20. 31 30 1 26 40 -14
21. 37 23 14 17 16 1
22. 47 41 6 24 27 -3
23. 39 32 5 21 11 10
24. 47 38 9 42 44 -2
25. 43 37 6 24 24 0
26. 39 27 12 25 32 -7
27. 41 14 27 32 24 8
Experimental Group Control
Group
= 8.8888889 
= 0.185185
d1 = 240.0 d2 = 5.0
d12 = 3,632.0
d22 = 1,161.0
SSd1 = 1,498.6667
SSd2 = 1,159.92
= 53.805211
= 42.965707
= 7.450246 
= 6.554823
= 1.433800 
= 1.261476
g1 = 0.526499 g1 = -0.982848
g2 = 2.813055 g2 = 3.548039
By comparing the means, sums, and sums of squares of d1 and d2 in table 8, a sharp
contrast became evident even before the t-test
calculations. Though the skewness and
kurtosis were more contrasting than before, both distributions were still
similarly leptokurtic. By comparing the
measures of variance, standard deviation, and standard error with the skewness
and kurtosis, once again, the comparison indicated that the whole distribution
of scores was higher in the experimental group. The deviations indicated a very large and significant statistical
improvement in the experimental group scores.
The calculations in table 8 were used to perform three t-tests on the deviations. The three tests were: (1) a one-tailed t-test on the deviations between pretest and posttest scores of the
experimental group (as denoted above, d1 = X2 - X1); (2) a two-tailed t-test on the deviations between pretest and posttest scores of the
control group (as denoted above, d2 = X4 - X3); and (3) an independent groups t-test on the deviations between d1 and d2.[103] The null and alternative hypotheses for each
projected t-test and the t-test results according to the standard
critical values of t were reported
below in table 9.
Table 9.--CRQ
t-Test Analyses[104]
One-tailed or
directional t-test on the deviations
between pretest and posttest scores of the experimental group seen in d1 in table 8
Ho: µd1 0
alpha level .05 with 26df gave
a critical value of 1.706
Ha: µd1 0
a t = 6.0343956 was found with
p < .0005
Ho was rejected and Ha was accepted; therefore
the experimental
group improved in posttesting
Two-tailed or
nondirectional t-test on the
deviations between pretest and posttest scores of the control group seen in d2 in table 8
Ho: µd2 =
0 alpha level .05 with 26df gave a critical value of 2.056
Ha: µd2 0
a t = .1468004 was found with p > .20
Ho was accepted; therefore the control group did not improve
Independent groups t-test on the sets of d1 and d2 deviations seen in
table 8
Ho: µd1 µd2 alpha level .05 with 26df gave a critical value of 2.056
Ha: µd1 µd2 a t
= 4.4017786 was found with p <
.001
Ho was rejected and Ha was accepted; therefore, the experimental
group significantly improved
over the control group
The three t-test results
indicated that the control group did not improve during the implementation of
the program, but the experimental group made significant improvements. Therefore, based upon the three statistical
analyses‑‑(1) measures of central tendency, (2) measures of
frequency, and (3) three t-tests‑‑the
third project hypothesis was accepted.
The men improved in their empathy skills.
Responding
Questionnaire Statistical Analysis
Overview
The Responding Questionnaire (RQ) was the second pretest and
posttest administered to both the experimental and control groups. The RQ was designed to measure the
participants knowledge of some basic helping skills. The two groups of twenty-seven men used in the adjusted
preprogram groups above were used in the following analysis. The highest possible score was
twenty-seven.
The statistical analysis was divided into three parts. The three parts were: (1) measures of central tendency and
variability, (2) measures of frequency, and (3) three
t-test Calculations. All measures indicated an accomplishment of
the third hypothesis.
Measures
of Central Tendency and Variability
After the end of the program, the experimental and control groups were
given the RQ again as a posttest. The
tabulation scores and basic statistics were reported below in table 10.
Table
10.--Pretest and Posttest
RQ Statistics
Experimental
Group Control Group
X1 X2 X3 X4
1. 2 19 12 12
2. 3 21 8 6
3. 6 16 12 3
4. 15 20 14 5
5. 10 18 3 5
6. 18 22 15 10
7. 14 22 0 5
8. 10 21 7 11
9. 8 25 8 5
10. 8 25 6 1
11. 5 27 18 11
12. 17 14 13 17
13. 6 21 8 8
14. 9 19 12 16
15. 15 22 7 6
16. 5 8 11 4
17. 5 22 11 5
18. 8 17 5 1
19. 5 19 9 17
20. 11 21 10 6
21. 2 24 7 7
22. 10 21 9 8
23. 1 22 7 7
24. 21 23 11 16
25. 8 17 5 6
26. 12 19 7 11
27. 5 18 4 1
X1 = experimental group pretest scores X3 = control group
pretest scores
X2 = experimental group posttest scores X4 = control group
posttest scores
X1 X2 X3 X4
Range
= 1.0 - 21.0 8.0 - 27.0 0.0 - 18.0 1.0 - 17.0
Mode
= 5.0 22.0 & 21.0 7.0 5.0
Median
= 8.0 21.0 8.0 6.0
= 8.851851 20.111111 8.851851 7.777777
X = 239.0 543.0 239.0 210.0
X2 = 2,817.0 11,295.0 2,519.0 2,220.0
= 5.096866 3.725123 3.865360 4.661372
2 = 25.978052 13.876543 14.941015 21.728395
g1 = 0.582891 -1.058929 0.097081 0.599489
g2 = 2.606441 5.229408 3.023663 2.484236
The above indicated a statistically significant improvement in the RQ scores
of the experimental group over the control group. The improvement indicated that the helping skills program made a
significant difference in the knowledge of helping skills in the experimental
group.
Measures
of Frequency
The difference between the pretest and posttest scores of the
experimental and control groups was made more clear through a calculation of
the frequency and percentages of the top ten scores between the two
groups. The frequency and percentages
were reported below in table 11.
Table
11.--Frequency Analysis of
Top Ten RQ
Scores
Pretest
Frequency Analysis
Experimental Group Control Group
Score Freq. Percent Score Freq. Percent
5 5 18.52 7 5 18.52
8 4 14.81 12 3 11.11
10 3 11.11 11 3 11.11
15 2 7.41 8 3 11.1
2 2 7.41 9 2 7.41
21 1 3.70 5 2 7.41
18 1 3.70 18 1 3.70
17 1 3.70 15 1 3.70
14 1 3.70 14 1 3.70
12 1 3.70 13 1 3.70
Posttest Frequency
Analysis
Experimental Group Control Group
Score Freq. Percent Score Freq. Percent
22 5 18.52 5 5 18.52
21 5 18.52 11 3 11.11
19 4 14.81 6 3 11.11
25 2 7.41 17 2 7.41
18 2 7.41 16 2 7.41
17 2 7.41 8 2 7.41
27 1 3.70 7 2 7.41
24 1 3.70 12 1 3.70
23 1 3.70 10 1 3.70
20 1 3.70 9 1 3.70
From the above frequency analysis, the experimental group
did significantly better than did the control group on the RQ posttests.
Three t-Test Calculations
The basic statistics for the three t-tests
were calculated. Those statistics were
reported below in table 12.
Table
12.--Analysis of RQ
Deviations
Experimental
Group Control Group
X2 - X1 = d1 X4 - X3 = d2
1. 19 2 17 12 12 0
2. 21 3 18 6 8 -2
3. 16 6 10 3 12 -9
4. 20 15 5 5 14 -9
5. 18 10 8 5 3 2
6. 22 18 4 10 15 -5
7. 22 14 8 5 0 5
8. 21 10 11 11 7 4
9. 25 8 17 5 8 -3
10. 25 8 17 1 6 -5
11. 27 5 12 11 18 -7
12. 14 17 -3 17 13 4
13. 21 6 15 8 8 0
14. 19 9 10 16 12 4
15. 22 15 7 6 7 -1
16. 8 5 3 4 11 -7
17. 22 5 17 5 11 -6
18. 17 8 9 1 5 -4
19. 19 5 14 17 9 8
20. 21 11 10 6 10 -4
21. 24 2 22 7 7 0
22. 21 10 11 8 9 -1
23. 22 1 21 7 7 0
24. 23 21 2 16 11 5
25. 17 8 9 6 5 1
26. 19 12 17 11 7 4
27. 18 5 13 1 4 -3
Experimental Group Control
Group
= 11.259259 
= -0.0740741
d1 = 304.0 d2 = -29
d12 = 4,372.0
d22 = 585.0
SSd1 = 35.155007
SSd2 = 553.851851
= 35.155007
= 20.513031
= 5.929165 
= 4.529131
= 1.141068 
= 0.871631
g1 = -0.278209 g1 = 0.017177
g2 = 2.647392 g2 = 2.100533
Like with the CRQ, a comparison of the sums of d1 and d2 in table 12
indicated both distributions were similarly leptokurtic. By comparing the measures of variance,
standard deviation, and standard error with the skewness and kurtosis, the
comparison indicated that the whole distribution of scores was higher in the
experimental group. The deviations
indicated a very large and significant statistical improvement in the
experimental group scores. The three
tests were: (1) a one-tailed t-test on the deviations between pretest
and posttest scores of the experimental group (as denoted above, d1 = X2 - X1); (2) a two-tailed t-test on the deviations between pretest and posttest scores of the
control group (as denoted above, d2 = X4 - X3); and (3) an independent groups t-test on the sets of deviations denoted
as d1 and d2. The results were reported below in table 13.
Table 13.--RQ
t-Test Analyses
One-tailed or
directional t-test on the deviations
between pretest and posttest scores of the experimental group seen in d1 in table 12
Ho: µd1 0
alpha level .05 with 26df gave
a critical value of 1.706
Ha: µd1 0
a t = 10.503754 was found with
p < .0005
Ho was disproved and Ha was
substantiated; therefore the experimental
group improved in posttesting
Two-tailed or
nondirectional t-test on the
deviations between pretest and posttest scores of the control group seen in d2 in table 12
Ho: µd2 =
0 alpha level .05 with 26df gave a critical value of 2.056
Ha: µd2 0
a t = -1.2322576 was found
with p > .20
Ho was
substantiated; therefore the control
group did not improve
Independent groups t-test on the sets of d1 and d2 deviations seen in
table 12
Ho: µd1 µd2 alpha level .05 with 26df gave a critical value of 2.056
Ha: µd1 µd2 a t
= 44.593742 was found with p <
.001
Ho was disproved and Ha was
substantiated; therefore, the
experimental
group significantly improved
over the control group
The three t-test results
indicated that the control group did not improved during the implementation of
the program‑‑just as in the CRQ analysis‑‑but that the
experimental group made significant improvements. Therefore, based upon the three statistical analyses‑‑(1)
measures of central tendency, (2) measures of frequency, and (3) three
t-tests‑‑the third
project hypothesis was substantiated.
The men improved in their empathy skills.
Postprogram
Interview Questionnaire Analysis
About
the Questionnaire
The Postprogram Interview Questionnaire (PIQ)[105] was the first of
two postprogram questionnaires that was used, the second being the Postprogram
Helpee Follow-up Questionnaire (PHFQ).[106] Both of these were constructed by the
director and approved by the director's committee chairman prior to project
implementation. One change was made
after approval and after implementation:
the various questions on each questionnaire were numbered to facilitate
data collection and the construction of the evaluation. In the following analyses under the sections
titled "Response Percentages and Interpretation," the numbers of each
percentage breakdown and interpretation correspond to the numbers on the
questionnaire being analyzed.
The PIQ was administered individually to the 27 men in the experimental
group in the chaplain's office within one week of the last session of the
program. The men were asked the
questions by the director, and the director recorded the responses onto the
questionnaire.
To each question, there were a variety of responses. The responses that were similar to each
other were categorized. The
categorization below reflected exact and equivalent representations of the
responses given by the men in the program.
For instance, in the category of response "Feeling what they
feel," that phrase reflected exactly what the respondents said and that
phrase reflected responses that were similar to that phrase like, "helped
to feel with another." A few
responses were unique like the last one, "getting to know someone
closer."[107]
PIQ Percentages and Interpretations
In response to #1, "How would you define empathy?" the
following were reported, with several responding in more than one category:
# of % of total
Res. Res. Category of
Response (Where Res. =
Responses)
10 37.03% Feeling what they feel
9 33.33% Putting self in another's place, walking in
another's shoes
3 11.10% Both feeling what they feel and walking in
another's shoes
2 7.40% Caring about people, their feelings, and
problems
2 7.40% Helping, counseling another
2 7.40% Seeing things from another's view
2 7.40% Understanding/learning about another's
needs and helping
1 3.70% Could not define empathy
1 3.70% Give constructive feedback
1 3.70% Help without judging
1 3.70% Loving them
1 3.70% Getting to know someone closer
Of the responses, 22 or 81.46% of the men correctly defined the
essential nature of empathy that was presented during the sessions. With the exception of the one man who could
not define empathy, all of the remaining responses were empathic in nature in
that they exhibited positive and open attitudes toward helping.
In response to #2, "Has this program helped you become a better
listener?" the following were reported:
27 or 100% of the men believed the program helped them become better
listeners. In response to
"How?" the following were reported, with several responding in more
than one category:
# of % of total
Res. Res. Category of
Response (Where Res. =
Responses)
11 40.73% Used to talk, advise, or quickly
respond--now more attentive
5 18.51% Helped be to be a better listener, hear
people's problems
4 14.81% Improved body language and eye contact
2 7.40% Helped me open up
2 7.40% Helped me understand people better
2 7.40% Helped me concentrate on listening itself
1 3.70% Enhance my listening and empathic skills
1 3.70% Helped me hear a hurting person better
1 3.70% Relate better and respond with meaning
1 3.70% Understanding the need to allow the other
person to talk
1 3.70% Helped me observe others better
1 3.70% No answer
With a few exceptions, such as where the respondents gave no response
and where some said the program helped them listen better, the majority
reflected that the program helped them in specific ways. Of the responses, 22 or 81.46% of the men in
the above top four percentage groups indicated that they had become better
listeners and cited a specific skill that was taught in the program.
In response to #3, "What helped you the most?" the following
were reported:
# of % of total
Res. Res. Category of
Response (Where Res. =
Responses)
11 40.73% Learning knowledge and skills of listening
and empathy
3 11.10% Discrimination exercises
3 11.10% Talking with partners and role play
2 7.40% Hearing people's problems and hurts
2 7.40% Learning experience itself
1 3.70% Body language skills, observation and use
1 3.70% Learning about love and caring
1 3.70% Development of patience
1 3.70% Helped me avoid advice giving
1 3.70% Verbal explanations of director
1 3.70% Knowing that Christ loves me
1 3.70% Learning about communication and being open
Several of the categories such as "learning experience
itself," "learning about love," "verbal explanations,"
and "knowing that Christ loves me" did not reflect any specific
skill, but these only represented 18.5% of the responses. The remainder of the responses indicated
that the majority of the participants found that the best part of the program
was the development of a specific helping skill.
In response to #4, "What helped you the least?" the following
were reported:
# of % of total
Res. Res. Category of
Response (Where Res. =
Responses)
16 55.54% Nothing, all was helpful
5 18.51% Do not know of anything
1 3.70% Some people were distracting
1 3.70% Was not long enough
1 3.70% Big words
1 3.70% Too fast, could be more paced for amount
material
1 3.70% Bad jokes
1 3.70% Kinds of knowledge [could not understand
question]
Of the responses, 16 or 55.54% of the men indicated that everything had
value, and 5 or 18.51% of the men could not name any specific thing that was
not helpful. With regard to two
responses, "Big words" and "Too fast," these may have been
a concern for some of the others, which would indicate that the program could
be improved through simplification.
In response to #5, "During the weeks of this program, have you
noticed any improvements in your ability to relate to others?" 27 or 100%
of the men indicated that they had noticed improvements in their abilities. When asked to describe one instance, they
reported the following:
# of % of total
Res. Res. Category of
Response (Where Res. =
Responses)
5 18.51% In my general attitude, the whole way I
relate
4 14.81% In my use of empathy and being a better
listener
3 11.10% More attentive, give more effort at
listening
2 7.40% In observations of others
2 7.40% When talking to others, am more patient and
go slower
2 7.40% Helped me stop advice giving
2 7.40% I evaluate more, can hear both sides
2 7.40% Could not think of a response
1 3.70% I understand people more
1 3.70% Helping people with their problems
1 3.70% In helping the grieving
1 3.70% Got more friends
1 3.70% In how I encourage others
1 3.70% In how I read the Bible and stories
Only two men gave a specific instance with, "helped me stop advice
giving." All the others spoke in
generalities. Even though most of the
men could not be specific, all of the men felt that the program helped them
improve their relationships during the course of the program.
Question #6 was about the three phases of a relationship: namely, the foundation, the interpersonal
bridge, and the connection. None or 0%
of the men gave the desired responses.
Only two men indicated that the foundation for starting relationships was
listening, which was close to the desired response of "attending
skills."
The three phases referred to the three major divisions of the entire
program. Since they were not reiterated
or emphasized, the expectation that anyone would remember them was seen in
retrospect to be unrealistic. These
were more theoretical and of themselves not very important to actual skill
development.
In #7 the men were asked to rate themselves on a scale of 1 to 5 with
regard to improvement (1 = none, 3 =
moderate, 5 = great). The men were asked to complete the following
statement: "In light of my
participation in the helping skills program." The following were reported by the participants on how they rated
themselves.
Level
of # of % of total
Rating Res. Res. Category
of Response (Where Res. =
Responses)
5 18 66.65% I
feel the program has improved my listening skills
4 7 25.92%
3 2 7.40%
5 21 77.76% I
feel that my relationships will improve
4 5 18.51%
3 1 3.70%
5 18 66.65% I
feel that I can understand people better
4 6 22.21%
3 3 11.10%
5 20 74.06% I
feel more confident in being able to help people
4 5 18.51%
3 2 7.40%
5 16 59.24% I
understand the importance of reflecting
4 10 37.03%
3 1 3.70%
From the above figures, every man indicated that the program helped
increase his relationship and helping skills, with a large majority indicating
that the program helped to a "great" degree. The small minority of low ratings still
indicated some growth.
In response to #8, "What did you learn about listening that you did
not know before?" the following were reported, with several responding in
more than one category:
# of % of total
Res. Res. Category of
Response (Where Res. =
Responses)
6 22.21% To listen with the heart not just ears,
paying more attention
5 18.51% All the skills of listening and caring, how
to listen
3 11.10% Sharing other people's feelings and where
they hurt
3 11.10% Not to solve the person's problem, hear
before you advise
2 7.40% Need to help a hurting person understand
problem
2 7.40% Eye contact and relaxing, body language
1 3.70% A person can be hurt if you are not
listening
1 3.70% The difference between AE-I and AE-II
1 3.70% Focus on a person's movement
1 3.70% Being able to reflect
1 3.70% That some persons can be helped if they just
talk
1 3.70% Shut up and listen
With the exceptions of "Need to help a hurting person understand
problem" and "Focus on a person's movement," all of the other
responses including those in the majority reflected skills taught in the
program. The large majority of
responses indicated that the men learned some skills that they had not known
before the program was administered.
In response to #9, "In the light the program, what area of your
life would you like to improve the most?" the following were reported,
with several responding in more than one category:
# of % of total
Res. Res. Category of
Response (Where Res. =
Responses)
8 29.62% Be more empathic, better listener, more
attentive
8 29.62% Be able to be a better helper, more loving,
caring
2 7.40% More understanding
2 7.40% Be a better communicator
2 7.40% More self-disclosure, openness
2 7.40% Closer to Jesus, walk with the Lord
1 3.70% Be able to present self in a better way
1 3.70% Get closer to my family
1 3.70% Be stronger
1 3.70% Less hard on myself
1 3.70% Get dirty words out of my mouth
1 3.70% More patience
1 3.70% Me
From the first four categories above, 20 or 74.04% of the men indicated
a desire to grow with regard to their abilities to relate. Yet with the possible exceptions of
"Being more empathic," "More understanding," and "more
self-disclosure," most of the responses did not indicate any specific area
of growth. Even the three just
mentioned could be construed as general, and several of the responses like
"Closer to Jesus" and "Me" were more clichés than not.
The lack of specificity could also be due to the way in which the
question was framed. Taking into
consideration that most of the men not only want to learn but that they desire
to please, the question may have yielded more specific responses if it had been
directed to program skills rather than to "life" in general.
In response to #10, "What was the best part of the entire
program?" the following were reported:
# of % of total
Res. Res. Category of
Response (Where Res. =
Responses)
6 22.21% Sharing and growing, fellowship
5 18.51% Every meeting was good, all, no distinction
4 14.81% Self-evaluation, learning about self
3 11.10% Empathy, use and learning of empathy and
skills
2 7.40% Attending skills
1 3.70% Each week was a challenge
1 3.70% Lectures, verbal explanations
1 3.70% Different ways of communicating
1 3.70% Day on reflecting feelings
1 3.70% Day on self-disclosure
1 3.70% Helping others
1 3.70% Graduation
All of the responses, possibly even the one that was rather facetious
("graduation"), indicated that the men thought the growth they
experienced was the best part of the program.
From the first, fourth, eighth, ninth, tenth, and eleventh categories,
15 or 55.51% of the men found that the best part of the program was in the ways
they related to each other. Most of the
others found the best part in the development of their understanding or themselves.
In response to #11, "What was the worst part of the entire
program?" the following were reported:
# of % of total
Res. Res. Category of
Response (Where Res. =
Responses)
12 44.43% Nothing, no worst part
3 11.10% Self-evaluations, what I learned about
myself
2 7.40% Three hours each session, too long
2 7.40% Some worldly or bad words
1 3.70% Some of the men who hindered the program or
did not share
1 3.70% People who dropped out
1 3.70% Some of the examples
1 3.70% Get up on Saturday
1 3.70% Too rushed
1 3.70% Bad jokes
1 3.70% Writing
A large number of the men, 12 or 44.43%, did not identify a
"worst" area. The 3 men,
11.10%, who indicated the self-knowledge they learned as the worst part also
had indicated this as the best part of the program. Most of the other responses indicated some personal discomforts
that did not appear to be very significant.
In response to #12, "If you could add one thing, what would that
be?" the following were reported:
# of % of total
Res. Res. Category of
Response (Where Res. =
Responses)
12 40.73% More time for sessions, longer
5 18.51% Nothing
3 11.10% Another seven weeks, more weeks, more
sessions
2 7.40% More Scripture, Christian literature
1 3.70% More about love
1 3.70% More prayer
1 3.70% More observations of skills in use
1 3.70% Instruction on dealing with grief from
death
1 3.70% Thank you
There was a general satisfaction with the entire program as
presented. Of the responses, 15 or
55.54% of the men wanted either more time or more sessions. Similarly but from a general standpoint, 20
or 74.06% of the men wanted more of what was given in the program. The desire for more seemed to indicate an
overall satisfaction and an increased curiosity about the subject of the program
in general.
In response to #13, "If you could take one thing away, what would
that be?" the following were reported:
# of % of total
Res. Res. Category of
Response (Where Res. =
Responses)
20 74.06% Nothing
1 3.70% Large group and limit glass to 4 persons
1 3.70% Do not know of anything
1 3.70% Needless talking
1 3.70% King Pygmalion
1 3.70% Disturbances
1 3.70% Time limits
1 3.70% Bad words
There was a general satisfaction with the entire program as
presented. Of the responses, 20 or
74.06% of the men indicated that they would not take anything away from the
program. One man was not so certain,
but he just did not know of anything he would take away from the program. Most of the other responses indicated some
personal discomforts or limitations.
In response to #14, "Why is empathy and listening important?"
the following were reported, with several responding in more than one category:
# of % of total
Res. Res. Category of
Response (Where Res. =
Responses)
12 44.43% Help people deal with problems, struggles,
life
7 25.92% Understand and caring of people and their
feelings
2 7.40% To feel what they feel, to show seriousness
feelings
2 7.40% Better communicate with people
2 7.40% Helps helpee understand self
1 3.70% In order to have a deep relationship
1 3.70% Foundation of helping
1 3.70% Give a person relief
With the exception of "Helps helpee understand self," 25 or
92.57% of the men indicated in one way or another that empathy was to be
directed toward another person for that person's benefit. This was a significant increase in
understanding, especially since almost all of them could not define empathy on
the knowledge assessment pretest.
In response to #15, "What happens when a helper gives understanding
to a hurting person with problems?" the following were reported, with
several responding in more than one category:
# of % of total
Res. Res. Category of
Response (Where Res. =
Responses)
11 40.73% Relief in the hurting person, feel free,
less pain
6 22.21% Helps, makes person getting empathy feel
better
5 18.51% Liberation, help overcome, freed
4 14.81% Feel trust, aid openness
4 14.81% Feel loved and cared for
4 14.81% Growth in other person
3 11.10% Feel comforted, hits the spot
2 7.40% Feel understood, help understand
1 3.70% Helps hurting person see problem more
clearly
1 3.70% Gives room for self-evaluation in hurting
person
1 3.70% Rise up and be a leader
1 3.70% Cope with problems
1 3.70% Get a response
1 3.70% Feel connected
1 3.70% Feel security
All of the men seemed to understand something about the affects of
empathy on persons. Many of the men
gave responses that fell into several categories, and there was much
variety. The unique and feeling nature
of the responses indicated that most of the men had thought through the effects
of empathy and that they were not just parroting lessons they had learned.
In response to #16, "What other comments do you have about the
program?" the following were reported, with a few men responding in more
than one category:
# of % of total
Res. Res. Category of
Response (Where Res. =
Responses)
8 29.62% Good, like to see it continue, could go on
forever
5 18.51% Enjoyed the program
4 14.81% Suggest others should go through the
program
4 14.81% No comment
2 7.40% Helped me grow
1 3.70% Helped me understand myself
1 3.70% Need more time, so much material
1 3.70% Should do program more often
1 3.70% Really helped me understand how to be a
listener
The general consensus was that the men enjoyed the program and wished it
could have continued. Nothing very
substantial was offered relative to improving the program that was presented.
In #17 the director was to rate his impressions of the men. When the director interviewed the men, he
rated them on a scale of 1 to 5 with regard how he perceived their improvement
(1 = none, 3 = moderate, 5 = great).
The director graded each man on the basis of the listed categories,
preceding each category by the phrase:
"I feel that the participant." The following were reported by the director indicating how the
director rated the men.
Level
of # of % of total
Rating Res. Res. Category
of Response (Where Res. =
Responses)
5 12 44.43% Gained
some understanding about empathy
4 9 33.33%
3 4 14.81%
2 2 7.40%
5 10 37.03% Understands
the importance of empathy/listening
4 11 40.73%
3 4 14.81%
2 2 7.40%
5 7 25.92% Understands
the importance of communicating
4 8 29.62% understanding
3 8 29.62%
2 4 14.81%
5 21 77.76% Was
sincere about his efforts at learning how to help
4 5 18.51%
3 1 3.70%
5 19 70.35% Feels
he can better help others by listening
4 6 22.21%
3 3 11.10%
Each level given was based on one of two criteria: either the man entered the seminar with a
low empathic skills and grew, or the man entered with some empathic skills and
learned to better use the skills. Some
of the men were not as conscientious as others, and some were more
interpersonally mature than others. A
few were easily distracted and had trouble remaining focused.
All of the men made some progress in their understanding, and most of
them increased their own skill level by some degree. From the first, fourth, and fifth sets of responses, the high
levels assigned and their relative percentages indicated that the knowledge and
skill level of the large majority of the men increased significantly.
The director perceived that a few of the men, 6 or 22.21%, did not
increase very much at all in their understanding of the importance of
empathy. Most of these men were easily
distracted, had trouble taking the assignments seriously, and were more
dominant than the others. Their
personalities were more anti-empathic in general, and their participation in
the program appeared to be more along the lines of recreation rather than a
sincere desire to learn.
In response to #18, "What is the general impression of the effect
of the program on the participant?" the following were recorded, with the
director making several responses about most of the men:
# of % of total
Res. Res. Category of Response (Where Res. = Responses)
8 29.62% Tried hard and made progress according to
his level
6 22.21% Tried very hard to grow, recognizing some
former bad habits
5 18.51% Intelligent, tried hard, and built latent
empathic skills
4 14.81% Slow and very analytical, struggled with
feeling component
3 11.10% Moderately empathic, present more for
something to do
3 11.10% Strong willed, dominant, but tried hard
3 11.10% Easily distracted, but sincere
2 7.40% Already empathic and built on current skills
2 7.40% Had a little trouble reading, leaned on
others for help
2 7.40% Slow and analytical, struggled with
spontaneity
1 3.70% Had trouble with concepts and cognitive
elements
1 3.70% Admittedly distracted because of family
problems
1 3.70% Easily distracted and not that sincere,
sometimes distracting
1 3.70% Degree of interest in program questionable,
restless
Of the observations that the director recorded and within the top three
categories, 19 or 70.35% of the men tried hard and made progress. Others tried hard to overcome their
resistances to a new method of relating.
Several participated for motives other than personal growth, and the
motives of some were difficult to discern.
The results of the Postprogram Interview Questionnaire indicated
that the experimental group participants made significant gains in their use
and knowledge of empathy skills. The
percentages were high in every category.
Therefore, based upon the experimental groups' responses, the third
project hypothesis was substantiated.
The men improved in their empathy skills.
Postprogram
Helpee Follow-up Questionnaire Analysis
About
the Questionnaire
The Postprogram Helpee Follow-up Questionnaire (PHFQ)[108] was the second of
two postprogram questionnaires that were used, the first being the Postprogram
Interview Questionnaire. Both of
these were constructed by the director and approved by the director's committee
chairman prior to project implementation.
The PHFQ was designed to gather some data from some of the beneficiaries
of the helping skills of the participants in the experimental group: hence, "helpee" refers to such a
beneficiary. One change was made after
approval and after implementation: the
various questions on each questionnaire were numbered to facilitate data collection
and the construction of the evaluation.
In the following analyses under the sections titled "Response
Percentages and Interpretation," the numbers of each percentage breakdown
and interpretation correspond to the numbers on the questionnaire being
analyzed.[109]
The PHFQ was administered on the Sunday following the last program
session: 22 September 1996. During both Sunday services, the men who had
gone through the program were asked to come forward and stand before the
congregation. Of the twenty-seven
participants, only fifteen men came to the two services. With men standing, the director passed out
the questionnaire, gave some instructions, and read the list of twenty-seven
participants.
The men in both services filled out the questionnaires and turned them
in to the director. A total thirty-six
members from both services responded and turned in questionnaires that they had
answered. They were told that placing
their names on the questionnaires was optional, and only five men placed their
names on the questionnaires they had filled out.
PHFQ Percentages and Interpretations
In response to #1, "How many of the helpers do you see and talk to
at least once a week?" the following were reported:
# of % of total
Res. Res. Category of
Response (Where Res. = Responses)
12 33.33% 1
helper talked to at least once a week
11 30.55% 2
helpers talked to at least once a week
2 5.55% 3
helpers talked to at least once a week
6 16.66% 4
helpers talked to at least once a week
3 8.33% 5
helpers talked to at least once a week
2 5.55% 8
helpers talked to at least once a week
The general consensus was that the program had a positive benefit upon
the participants. In addition to the
above, in response to "Of those, generally, do you feel that they relate
to you better?" all 36 or 100% of the men indicated a "yes"
response. In the top two categories, 23
or 63.88% of the respondents indicated frequent interaction with the program
participants. Several others had
frequent interactions with several of the helpers.
In response to #2 on the questionnaire, the respondents were asked to
choose one of the helpers who had gone through the program. Then they were asked to respond to the
following questions: "How long
have you known this helper?" The
following were reported:
# of % of total
Res. Res. Category of
Response (Where Res. =
Responses)
1 2.77% A while
1 2.77% Less than a month
7 19.43% 1-3
months
4 11.10% 4-9 months
6 16.66% 1-1.5
years
10 27.77% 2-2.5
years
3 8.33% 3-3.5
years
1 2.77% 4-4.5
years
3 8.33% 5-5.5
years
1 2.77% 6
years
Of those helpees who responded, 24 or 66.63% of them had known the
helper for over a year. Given the
intensity and close quarters of the living environment, most of the helpees
were deemed to have had enough interpersonal relations with the helpers to
perceive a difference.
In response to #3 on the questionnaire, the respondents were asked to
choose one of the helpers who had gone through the program. Then the respondents were asked to answer
the following question: "How often
do you talk to this helper?" The
following were reported:
# of % of total
Res. Res. Category of
Response (Where Res. =
Responses)
1 2.77% All the time
19 52.76% 1 time a day or more
1 2.77% Almost everyday
1 2.77% Every other day
1 2.77% Every time I see him
8 22.21% 2-4 or more times a week
2 5.55% 1 time a week
1 2.77% 3 times a month
1 2.77% Every once in a while
1 2.77% Left space blank
From the first six categories listed above, 31 or 86.08% of the men had
frequent interactions with the helpers.
Because of the nature and close quarters of the men, those having daily
interactions would most likely be housed in the same area. Being housed in the same area would result
in many more interactions than would normally be experienced in the freeworld,
yielding a large number of possible observations of conduct.
When the amount of time the men have known each other from #2 above is
considered with the frequency in #3 above, a huge number of opportunities for
frequent interactions were seen to be possible. Given that the respondents may not have much expertise in
accurately evaluating the empathy and listening skills of the helpers,
nevertheless, by virtue of frequent interactions alone the respondents could
observe change with a positive degree of credibility.
Given some variables that are impossible to calculate with accuracy, the
consensus of the respondents was that the participants improved in their
general relationship skills. Given the
frequency of interactions over long periods of time, the conclusion was that
the respondents were credible in their observations.
In responding to #4, the men in the two Sunday services were to read the
questionnaire and rate the participants on a scale of 1 to 4 with regard to how
the respondent perceived that participant's improvement (1 = no improvement; 2 = improved, but barely noticeable; 3 = noticeably improved; 4 = greatly improved). On the questionnaire, each of the statements
were to be prefaced with this introductory phrase: "Do you feel."
Having chosen a single participant with which the respondent had the
most frequent interactions, the following were reported by the respondents
indicating how the respondents rated that participant:
Level
of # of % of total
Rating Res. Res. Category
of Response (Where Res. =
Responses)
4 20 55.54% That
the helper has improved his ability to help
3 12 33.32%
2 4 11.10%
4 20 55.54% That the helper listens better
3 13 36.10%
2 3 8.33%
4 18 49.98% That the helper understands you better
3 15 41.65%
2 2 5.55%
1 1 2.77%
4 15 41.65% That the helper has more insight about
you
3 14 38.87%
2 5 13.88%
1 2 5.55%
4 24 66.64%% More at ease around the helper
3 7 19.43%
2 4 11.10%
1 1 2.77%
4 26 72.20% More free to share with the helper
3 6 16.66%
2 2 5.55%
1 2 5.55%
A large majority of the respondents rated most of the participants with
a level 4, which meant that the program "greatly improved" the
participants' listening, helping skills, and general ease of presence. Even though two respondents felt that the
participant they were evaluating made no improvement, the vast majority
indicated improvement. Though improved,
a few mitigating variables existed that could have skewed the ratings in a
positive direction.
Several reasons under girded the proposition that most of the
respondents were inclined to be positive.
One, of a combined total of 167 persons in both Sunday services, only 36
responded and answered the questionnaire, which meant that some of the men who
might have been inclined to rate the participants more negatively may have
abstained. Two, the respondents, as all
prisoners, were influenced by the inmate code and the nature of the prison
environment which tends to make every prisoner an ally with every other
prisoner against the institution. That
would include the inclination to report positively and to avoid negative
reports on fellow prisoners. Three,
since the respondents did not know how to accurately describe listening and
empathy behavior in the first place, the respondents' judgments had to be based
on subjective influences like how they felt about their conversations with the
participants prior to and after the implementation of the program.
Despite influences that tended to incline the ratings in a positive
direction, reasons existed to indicate some validity, even though skewed in a
positive direction. One, enough variety
in the responses existed to indicate that a large percentage of the respondents
were making decisions upon their observations and not simply to please the
director or praise the participants.
Two, from the length of time and frequency of observations indicated
from questions #2 and #3 above, the respondents' subjective feelings about
changes in the participants' behavior needed to be considered as valuable
insights into the effects of the program.
In response to #5, "Were you aware that the helping skills program
was going on?" the following responses were reported:
# of % of total
Res. Res. Category of
Response (Where Res. =
Responses)
16 44.43% Yes
11 30.54% No
9 24.99% Did not answer
The responses indicated little.
Though the program got good publicity from the participants, knowing
whether or not the program was taking place did not seem to have a bearing upon
how the respondents rated the participants.
In response to #6, "Do you have any comments about the general
effect of the helping skills program (on participants/unit/etc.)?" the
following responses were reported:
# of % of total
Res. Res. Category of
Response (Where Res. =
Responses)
17 47.20% None, no comment
13 36.10% Good, helpful, keep it up, have more like
it, nice thing
1 2.77% I believe they are skills that are an asset
for a life time
1 2.77% He is a person someone can talk to
1 2.77% Anything that betters him in this place is
worthwhile
1 2.77% The program changes a person's attitude
toward life
1 2.77% (Name of participant) has come a long way,
program blessed
1 2.77% (Name of participant) has worked hard,
helped him a bunch
With the few exceptions like "changes a person's attitude" and
"skills that are an asset for life," the respondents did not indicate
anything substantial. Most of the
respondents did not have much to say or said nothing. Most of the comments were vague generalities.
Combined with the other responses to questions #1 through #5, the
consensus was that the program was needed and provided the participants with a
significant growth experience.
According to most of the respondents, the program improved the helping
skills of the participants. The results
of the Postprogram Helpee Follow-up
Questionnaire indicated that the experimental groups participants
made significant gains in their use and knowledge of empathy skills.
Two reasons were found to accept the third hypothesis. The first reason was that the two
professional evaluations indicated that the program lesson plans were suitable
for such growth and that the men in the experimental group learned. The second reason was that the four
statistical measures indicated an improvement in every category. Therefore, the third hypothesis was accepted
in that the men in the experimental group improved in their use of several
helping skills and the control group did not.