effects of a parent/teen workshop - brigham young university
TRANSCRIPT
Brigham Young University Brigham Young University
BYU ScholarsArchive BYU ScholarsArchive
Theses and Dissertations
1989
Effects of a Parent/Teen Workshop Effects of a Parent/Teen Workshop
Roberta Magarrell Brigham Young University - Provo
Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/etd
Part of the Family, Life Course, and Society Commons, Mormon Studies Commons, and the
Psychology Commons
BYU ScholarsArchive Citation BYU ScholarsArchive Citation Magarrell, Roberta, "Effects of a Parent/Teen Workshop" (1989). Theses and Dissertations. 4899. https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/etd/4899
This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by BYU ScholarsArchive. It has been accepted for inclusion in Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of BYU ScholarsArchive. For more information, please contact [email protected], [email protected].
effects ofA parentteenParent workshopTeen
A thesispresented to the
department of family sciencesbrigham young university
in partial fulfillmentof the requirement for the degree
master of science
by
roberta magarrellmay 1989
kagaagdatadat6
wesleyburrWesley eeburr conylitreeCony chairmanliTree
MM tlthomas holman committee membercgrichard C galbraith committee member
jl4imdat 7
ruzrobert stahmann department chairman
11
this thesis by roberta LI magarrell is accepted in itspresent form by the department of family sciences of brigham
young university as satisfying the thesis requirement for thedegree of master of science
zbxowes ley
L I1
bao
acknowledgments
I1 wish to express sincere appreciation to my chairman
dr wesley burr for his hours of assistance and his continual
trust and confidence in me I1 would also like to express
gratitude to dr tom holman for his helpful suggestions and
support
I1 sincerely appreciate dr richard galbraith for hispatient assistance with the statistical analysis of thisproject with his expert help I1 gained a great deal of
insight into statistical procedures I1 would also like to
thank jeff carlson for learning with me and for his help with
computer analyses
special thanks is offered to janalee russell and peggy
for helping with the final typing and editing of my research
to my dear husband jim magarrell and my children JJjeff robert and david I1 extend love and appreciationpidreciationa for
their patience interest and encouragement without theirsupport I1 would never have achieved this milestone
iii
iiiliililLIST OF TABLES
60go
TABLE OF CONTENTS
page
acknowledgements
v
LIST OF appendices ivCHAPTER
1 introduction and REVIEW OF literature 1
summary 14
statement of the problem 16
2 METHODS 17
3 RESULTS 28
4 SUMMARY conclusions AND limitations55
APPENDIX A 0 0 0 9 0
0 0 0
0 9 0
0
0 9 0
45
75
93
loo
.4545
references.6060
APPENDIX B 0 0 .7575
APPENDIX C .9393
ABSTRACT .100100
IV
LIST OF TABLES
table1 pre and post test means and standard
deviations of experimental group one
2 pre and post test means and standarddeviations of experimental group two
3 pre and post test means and standarddeviations of combined experimentalgroups
4 means and standard deviations of thecomparison group
5 pearson correlation coefficients andprobability levels for fathers forthe combined experimental groups bypretest scores and change scores oneight variables
6 pearson correlation coefficients andprobability levels for mothers forthe combined experimental groups bypretest scores and change scores oneight variables
7 pearson correlation coefficients andprobability levels for teens for thecombined experimental groups bypretest scores and change scores oneight variables
8 means and standard deviations and rankorder of the subjective ratings byfathers mothersandmotherlandMother teenssand on thehelpfulness of session parts
v
page
29
31
33
35
37
39
41
43
introduction AND REVIEW OF literaturethe purpose of this study was to investigate the short
terms effects of a parent teen structured family facilitationprogram PAT previous research has provided littleinformation about the factors that influence effects of
structured family facilitation programs but this is an
important issue therefore the present study extended
previous research by performing a number of exploratory post
hoc comparisons to determine whether factors such as family
composition religiosity gender and generation were relatedto the effects of the workshop
PREVIOUS RESEARCH
research about marriage enrichment programs
there has been some research on marriage enrichment
programs regarding their impact on the populations they have
been administered to wamplers review 1982 of the
minnesota couple communication program CCP indicated theprogram was effective in teaching communication skills to
couples the data from both by self report and behavioralmeasures of couple interaction supported this conclusionwampler reported that the effects of CCP appeared to be due
to the program itself rather then to confounding variablessuch as attention to the couples relationship or to unique
skills of particular instructors however almost nothing isknown about how well CCP works in other than a middleclassmiddle class
fam lly
marria e pr rams
1
liy
population wamplerWar statedapierapler that the quality of research done
on this particular enrichment program can be characterized as
good and improving
ridley et al 1982 indicated that the most widely used
and carefully researched of existing premaritalmaritalenrichment programs was relationship enhancement RE
developed by gurney 1977 premarital couples experienced
increases in behavioral communication skills in terms of
expression and awareness of feelings the data suggested thatmarried couples increased in marital communication skillsacceptance of self and others feelings and overall maritaladjustment ridley et al stated that even though the resultswere impressive conceptual and methodological deficitsexisted and needed to be addressed in futurefluture research
lester and dohertys 1983198 research assessing couples
evaluations of the marriage encounter ME program found both
positive and negative results eighty percent of the couples
reported the program helped them in the area of increased
ability to communicate and express feelings to each otherhowever a small portion of those taking the program reportednegative effects the main negative effect was that one or
both spouses identified and expressed needs during the
marriage encounter experience and subsequently did not have
those needs fulfilled the net result was greater frustrationfor about ten percent of the participants the authorssuggested that the couples who found it a negative experience
premarital marital
C
3
2
difdlf ferenceserencen
befbeaore
satisfsatishaction
had serious relationship problems before the enrichment
program and this actorfactor indicated that more research needs
to be done to determine the factors that influence the
possible negative effects of these programs
lester and doherty made reference to other studies thatindicated the presence of both positive and negative resultsmilholland and avery found shorttermshort increasesterm in couples
levels of trust and marital satisfaction but not in selfdisclosure the unpublished dissertations of french 1976
Huberhubert 1976 and samko 1976 reported positive changes of
six weeks duration on scores of self esteem selfdisclosureselfand
disclosureintimacy mccabesCabelsMc threeyearthree followupfollowyear studyup 1978 found
no significant differences between couples who made a marriage
encounter weekend and a matched control group who did not
lester and doherty 1982 p 556
the majority of the studies reviewed thus far indicated
that the programs are effective in the areas they focused on
and only a few studies did not find significant effectsadditional research is therefore needed to determine the
effects programs have and the factors that influence these
effectsanother issue raised by the studies previously mentioned
was the generality of the effects the majority of them found
that the effects were limited to the specific content areas
that the curriculum focused on only one study found thatthe effects of their program gurney 1983 generalized to
f
huber1976
3
cabets
modifbodif icationmication
other family characteristics gurney 1983 found that hisprogram generalized to marital satisfaction more research isneeded to determine how general the effects are in various
structured programs and the factors that influence thisgenerality for example factors such as the timing of the
intervention the methods of intervention the curriculum
content the length of time married or relationship problems
that already exist may make a difference
research about parent education programs
croake and glover defined parent education as the
purposive learning activity of parents who are attempting tochange their method of interaction with their children for thepurpose of encouraging positive behavior in their children
1977 p151 As this definition suggests parent education
is a broad and inclusive area that includes everything from
lectures to video tapes and pamphlets the present researchhowever focuses on one specific type of parent education
structured programs that have an enrichment orientationhoopes et al 1984
there have been a number of studies on the effects of
structured parenting programs that have raised several issues
that need additional research for example 0dellsodellsodelasOD 1974ellselisreview of research suggested that the effects of programs are
determined by the specific content of the curriculumprograms that focused on behavioral modification tended to
influence the specific types of behavior that were targeted
ef fectsacts
def ined
for
effectsacts
effectsacts
4
harmfcharmfuau1 ef fectsacts and
and programs thattheltthatt focused on attitudes and feelings tended to
influence them rather than behavior odellODem 1974ll and dembo
sweitzer and lauritzen 1985
another issue is the long debate as to whether adultsbenefit or are harmed by programs designed to teach them how
to parent their children hess 1980 argued that parent
education programs can induce feelings of powerlessness and
dependence in parents westin 1981 suggested that parents
are flooded by pop remedies that tell them that they dontknow how to parent and suggested that this has eroded theparents confidence many others such as mace 1983 and
gordon 1970 have argued that parent education has positive
effects dembo et al 1985 argued that this controversy
provided a significant reason for additional evaluation of
programs to determine which programs havehalve which outcomes and
which factors influence these outcomes this would provide
information that would allow family life educators to minimize
the harmful effectsandeffect maximizesand the beneficial effects and
match peoples needs with the programs that are availablemalloy 1980 suggested that because of the great
variability in parent characteristics and the problems parents
report with childrearing individually tailored programsprogtams may
be more effective in producing desired results for a wide
range of parents dembo et al 1985 indicated the need to
learn whether certain programs are more likely to influence
certain kinds of change they felt that if parent educators
b knef icialacial ef fectsacts
effectiveactive for
5
child- rearing progkamstams
odeil
attempted to teach programsTro witharams out regard for the needs
interests and abilities of the participants there is a good
possibility for negative effects to occur
malloy 1980 felt that behavioralbehaviorabehaviors adlerianAdiadl anderianerlan PET
programs placed too much emphasis on child behavior and not
enough on the behavior of the family as a unit he felt thatthe family system is important in creating change and thatchange was multidirectional this suggested that to be
effective parenting programs need to take a systemic approach
and include those individuals in the family that the programs
are attempting to influence
research about parentteenParent programprogramsTeen
dinkmeyer and mckay 1983 indicated that on the one
hand the parentteenparent relationshipteen has the potential to be
one of the most rewarding stages of parenting while on the
other hand most parents find the teen years to be the most
trying this suggested that one of the target populations inneed is parents and teens there have been a number of
parentteenparent programsteen developed that attempted to meet thisneed foster 1978 robin 1978 1979 stanley1978Stanley
dinkmeyer
1978
1983 and there has been some research about theseprograms
robin 1978 conducted a problemsolvingproblem communicationsolving
training program to teach parents and teens effective skillsfor seeking independence methods of communicating without
antagonizing and alienating each other methods for resolving
for
multi directional
dinkmeyer1983
6
Behavioravlora L
modifbodif led
specific disputed issues and methods for relating in an
adultadultadult ratheradult than an adultchildadult mannerchild 1978 p69prepro and post assessments were made by means of two self reportmeasures that were audiotapedaudio antaped issues checklist a
conflict behavior questionnaire and a modified version of the
marital interaction coding system were used to assess parent
teen needs and progress one major strength of this study was
the multivariate methods used to assess parentteenparent needsteen and
progress A major weakness was the lack of random assignment
to another treatment program or a control group
the results of robins study 1978 indicated that theproblemsolvingproblem communicationsolving training program produced
improvement in overall parentadolescent relations he found
that not all families improved and maintained gains but the
majority had significant gains in verbal problemsolvingproblem
communication
solving
skills and significant reductions in specificdisputes and negative communication at home these changes
were maintained over two to three month followupfollow intervalsup
the results suggested that the program was effective in the
area the curriculum focused on and generalized to the overallquality of the parentteenparent relationshipsteen they also indicated
that although the program was beneficial not every one was
helped
robin suggested that future research needed to address
the following questions first which family members should
participate second what is the relationship between
7
conf lictlica
parent adolescent
excyexcq ssiveasive
therapeutic outcome and marital quality sex and age of the
adolescent and other parameters of treatment such as the
number of sessions these contingencies should be evaluatedto see if they limit or increase program effectivenessthird which components of programs contribute to theiroutcomes because some studies reported conflicting resultshe indicated a need for additional crosssectionalcross andsectionallongitudinal research to compare skill deficits attitudinalreactions and negative interaction patterns amongst familiesof varying degrees of distressrobindistress 1978Robin p 82
foster 197839783.978 employed the problemsolvingproblem andsolving
communication program in both of her treatment conditions
the skills training treatment group received seven sessionsof training in problemsolvingproblem andsolving communication thegeneralization group received the same training plus
generalizationenhancinggeneralization proceduresenhancing including home work
assignments of graduated difficulty and weekly discussions of
factors affecting the use of problemsolvingproblem skillssolving at home
her purpose for structuring the program this way was so she
could investigate the effects that would enhance
generalization of learning these skills to the home twenty
eight families consisting of one or two parents and theirteen who had been complaining of excessive arguing were
randomly assigned to either a wait list control group or toone of two treatment groups she had both groups emphasize
resolving current distressing problems as opposed to
8
3978
selfseif re
illsilis
hypothetical problems used in robins studies prepro and post
assessments were made by means of portsrcsports evaluation of
audiotapesaudio globaltapes ratings of satisfaction with the
relationshipthe results of fosters study 1978 indicated that there
was significant increase in satisfaction with parentteenparent andteen
teenparentteen relationshipsparent in both treatment groups both
treatments produced positive effects negative communication
decreased in the generalization group and worsened slightlyin the control group and skills training group at the post
test from the post test to the followupfollow testup some counter
intuitive results were found the skills training group
continued to improve on several of the questionnaire measuresmea
while
surestthe generalization group worsened slightly these
findings suggested that both treatments had positive but
different effects and that we need to learn more regarding
how content and intervention methods affect the family
stanley 1978 did a comparison study between two
methodologies one group included both parents and theirteens while the second group trained only the parents A
control group of parents and teens received postponed
treatment the adlerianAdiadl basederianerlan concept of the family meeting
and the problemsolvingproblem conceptssolving from gordons parent
effectiveness training were used to see if they affected the
moral atmosphere of the family
s
9
the results indicated that both the interventions were
effective in teaching families ways of becoming moremor just in
their methods of establishing rules and resolving conflictsA portion of these results were attributed to the curriculum
it was felt that the focus of the curriculum provided
stimulation for the families to learn and thus brought about
significant changes in the desired direction stanley was not
able to specify which aspects of the curriculum accounted forthe changes observed the authors conclusion was that no
final answers can be given until subsequent research
evaluates the relative effectiveness of each phase of the
curriculum stanley 1978 p 116
although both groups in the stanley study were
significantly affected the group where the parents and
adolescents participated together was more effective inchanging parent behavior decreasing conflict increasingproblemsolvingproblem abilitiessolving between parents and their teens
and impacting moral development of the teens stanley
attributed this to the fact that one group had opportunitiesto practice under direct supervision these findings
suggested that more effective communication and resolution of
conflict in families resulted if parents and adolescentsparticipated jointly in a group experience stanley felt thatparents and teens participating together were more likely to
continue using the skills they had learned than those families
in which parents participated alone in the training
10
morejustejust
the actual parentadolescentparent interactionadolescent and supervised
practice of skills may have been essential for certain changes
in behavior to occur the other group practiced on otherparents who played the role of adolescents apparently the
simulated practice did not have the same effect as attempting
to solve conflicts directly with one own children thissuggested that a systemic approach was more effective inproducing change hoffman 1981
these findings suggested there are characteristics thatmay be significant in and peculiar to the family realm thatneed attention for example it may be that factors such as
privacy generation and permanence emotionality and a totalperson orientation may make the interaction in the family
different burr et al 1988 hess 1980 oserwalderwaldoderwaldOs 1985
stanleys study 1978 also had several limitationsall of the participants were volunteers and therefore may have
been predisposed to change hess indicated however that thismay not be a limitation it may be an important requirement
for a program to be effective he stated that we may need to
take more seriously the established principle that initiativeon the part of the learner is a crucial element in the
development of a new skill hess 1980p 157 other
limitations were that the sample size was small and there was
no randomizing of group membership this limited the extent
to which results could be generalized the experimenter was
one of the group leaders and consequently there was no control
11
ones
maybe
ef fectiveactive
I1 s
over possible experimenter bias A major strength was thecomparison of using just parents and comparing the results toa group including both parents and teens also a no treatmentcomparison group was used
stanleystanleys 1978 study also raised another issue about
the effects of different intervention methods he found thatthe parent only group had greater impact on parental
attitudes stanley attributed this to the fact that parentswere able to listen to their own peers and critically reason
about their own behavior because their children were not
present this finding indicated that we need to learn more
regarding how content and intervention methods affect thefamily
robin 1979 conducted another study using the same
problemsolvingproblem andsolving communication programprog robinranarararani et al 1977
robin 1978 to find out which family members should
participate in treatment the sample consisted of five
motherfatheradolescentfatherather triadstreadsadolescent and six motheradolescent or
fatheradolescentfather diadsdiadaadolescent he foundoundaund that the absence of one
parent hampered the progress of the other parent and teen
participating this provided additional evidence for the
conclusion mentioned earlier from stanleysstanley study 1978 thata systemic approach is helpful in producing change what thismeans for parentteenparent programsteen is that they will be more
effective if both parents and their teens are involved
12
experimenteranter ma lor s
mother f mother adolescent
f
for
for
exper ime
dinkmeyer and mckays 1983 systematic training for
effective parenting of teens stepteenStep programTeen was writtento provide special training for the challenges of raisingteenagers the parents take the program without their teens
it is heavily adlerianAdiadl inerianerlan theory and follows an
educationenrichment format hoopes et al 1984 that is very
skilldevelopmentskill orienteddevelopment
this program is still relatively new and research has
not been available on it several masters theses and
doctoral dissertations have begun to investigate this program
but the researcher was not able to obtain any completed
research on it reinhardt1984Reinhardt smith1984 1985
research pertaining to parentteenparent programsteen indicatedseveral tentative conclusions that are applicable to the
present study first parentteenparent programsteen tend to benefitthe families in the desired direction second programs thathave parents aridandarld adolescents together in a group are more
effective in changing parent behavior while programs thatinvolve just the parents have greater impact on parental
attitudes third parents and teens being able to practiceunder direct supervision with each other rather than merely
having the parent role play with another adult makes a
difference in parents being able to generalize their behavior
to specific applications with their teens and the teens being
able to generalize their behavior to specific application with
their parents fourth when one of the parents is absent they
13
education enrichment
tentative
sometcomet imes fifafif thsometimes sabotage or retard the change process fifththese generalizations suggest a need for a systemic approach
that is the need to included those members of the familyamily thatthe program is designed to have an impact on sixth the
effects of programs tend to be content specific this means
that they tend to have an impact on the areas they focus on
SUMMARY
research about marriage enrichment programs parent
education programs and parent teen programs has indicated itis possible to produce programs that help cope with such
stress and decrease dysfunctional behaviorbeh gordonaLVior 1970
guerney 1982 mace 1983 robins 1978 1979 wampler
1982 it is important to promote healthy interaction to
facilitate growth and the family science field has been
developing structured family facilitation programs to help
meet this need
this review of the literature on structured maritalparenting and parentteenparent programsteen has led to several general
conclusions first programs are effective in the areas where
they focus they appear to have specialized effectsresearch suggests that they make a difference in the areas
that the programs are designed to change and there is littleevidence that they have other effects only a few studies
indicate that results generalize to improve the over allrelationship more research is needed to determine specific
14
generaai1izationslations for
f
focus
he althy
F rst
signifsignia icanticart
effects as well as how general the effects are in various
structured programs and the factors that influence thisgenerality
second programs produce mixed results many
participants areariaartearla helped but some are not not all familiesor individuals improve or maintain gains this controversy
provides a significant reason for additional evaluation of
programs to determine which programs have which outcomes and
which factors influence these outcomes
third conceptual and methodological deficits existthere are many limitations in the earlier research such as
lack of random assignment to other treatment programs or a
control group and small sample sizes because of this it isnecessary to be very tentative about the results that have
been found more research to is needed to correct theseproblems and to confirm results that have been suggested
fourth we need to be tentative in the conclusions we
draw we still dont know much regarding the contingencies
that affect the effectiveness of structured programs or which
aspects of curriculums account for which changes As stanley1978 wrote no final answers can be given until
subsequent research evaluates the relative effectiveness of
each phase of theithe curriculum we need to learn more about
how content and intervention methods affect the family
fifth there is evidence that structured programs are
more effective if they take a systemic approach and include
15
ef fectsacts ef fectsfacts
for
those individuals in the family that the programs are
attempting to have an influence on the familyamily system isimportant in creating change in ways that are different from
other social systems
STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEMPROBLEX
to provide additional insights about the five tentativeconclusions and issues identified in the review of literatureand mentioned in the summary the present study was
undertaken the purpose of this thesis was to investigate the
shorttermshort effectsterm of a parentteenparent structuredteen familyamily
facilitation program the program evaluated was the parent
and teen PAT workshop developed by burr smith marshall
and henry 1986 the study was designed to compared pre and
post workshop scorescoresSIB on a number of dependent variables inrandomly assigned experimental and control groups and therewas to be a replication of the PAT workshopworlworp theshop criterionvariables were kindness listening consensus seeking
behavior transferring control skills controlling anger and
providing support several measures of each of thesedependent variables were made the study also attempted to
determine whether factorsactors such as gender generation that isparents versus teens completion of workshop homework and
level of preworkshoppre scoresworkshop are related to differencesbetween the pre and post scores
16
f
ef fectsacts f
f
I1 t focus
famicami ly
CHAPTER 2
methodology
hypotheses and objectivestwo hypotheses were developed in this study they were
1 parents and teens who take part in the PAT workshop
will show gain from their pretest to post testscores in the six areas where the program focuses
that is on measures of kindness listeningconsensus seeking behavior transfer of controlcontrol of anger and increased support but not
on the two areas where it doesntdoesndoean focus cohesion
and adaptability2 the gains in the six criterion variables in the
hypothesis will be found in a replication of the
workshop
previous research has provided very little information
about the factorsactors that influence the effects of structuredfamily facilitation programs but this is an important issue
the present study therefore undertook a number of
exploratory posthocpost comparisonshoc to determine whether any
factors were related to the effects of the workshop thisobjective was to determine whether factors such as completion
of program homework involvement of parents with teens and
teens with parents religiosity family composition
attendance at the sessions gender and generation were
related to the effects of the workshop
17
f inf luence ef fectsacts
c2
design
the original design for the study was to have an
experimental group and a time delayed treatment group thatwould act as a control group and provide a replication of theworkshop the plan was to randomly divide the people who
registered into experimental group one and into a time delayed
treatment control group experimental group two since justbarely enough people signed up to have a meaningful workshop
each time we were not able to have a control group As a
result the next best thing was done data were obtained from
a comparison group the comparison group was from the same
general geographic location as the participants in the firstexperimental group the addresses of the families in the
first group were obtained and the family ini then fourthourth house
east or south of the participants was randomly designated to
be administered the pretest questionnaire only those
families with teens were interviewed if the designated
family had no teens they were informed that the interviewerwas doing a project involving families with teens and they
were then asked if they would identify a few families with
teens in their neighborhood if several families were
mentioned all of the families mentioned were administered thepretest questionnaire
all of the teens in the family were asked to fill out the
questionnaire but only the data from the oldest teen in thefamily were uscsd so the data on teens would be comparable
18
for
f rom
part lcipants
f f fr
USE d
across families regardless of family size using a design
that has pretests and post tests has advantages and
disadvantages the main disadvantage is the possibility thatthe post test may sensitize participants to the questionnairebeing used the advantage of a pretestpostpretest testpost is that itmakes it possible to compute gain scores for the same
individuals the gain scores from pretest to post test willprobably have less variance than the scores on the family
profile and this will increase the sensitivity of the
statistical testsdue to a limited number of people volunteering to take
the parentteenparent courseteen it was impossible to randomly assign
them to groups consequently there was no control group
because there was no control group information was obtainedon the eight variables from the population from which the
first group volunteered the comparison group received thesame prepro test as both experimental groups since both
experimental groups were taken from the same general
population they were considered the same the means on the
eight variables from their combined data were compared to the
data of the comparison group
sample
because of difficulty in recruiting subjects it was not
possible to get enough subjects to randomly assign them to thetwo conditions that is experimental group one and the time
delayed experimental group two the total number of
19
iss
participants for both groups was 53 11 fathers 12 mothers
and 30 teens subjects were parents and teens that responded
to advertizingadvertisingadvert ofizing the workshop thorough mormon church
settings to announcements in PTA news letters sent out
through the public school system and a newspaper article inprovo and orem utah the workshops were open to allfamilies
the advertising for our first group consisted of
announcements made in church meetings by bishops priesthood
leaders relief society leaders as well as in weekly sunday
programs and monthly newsletters flyers listed greater
details of the parentteenparent workshopsteen and were located in the
foyers of the church buildings samples of the fliers are
reproduced in appendix A PERC arranged the advertising forour second group they placed an announcement in fliers and
sent them out to several school through the PTA in the orem
school district they also placed announcements in a localnewspaper
definition of terms
the eight major dependent variables considered were
defined as follows
kindness is the amount family members respond in a
caring loving considerate and patient manner to each otherespecially when things are not going well in the family burrand lowe 1987
20
d
12mothers
PTAs
listeninglistenin is the amount family members increase theirunderstanding by hearing more messages about emotions hearing
more nonverbalnon messagesverbal listening actively burr smith
marshall and henry 1986
consensus is the amount the family tries to use a
consensusseeking method of making decisions this method issometimes called a winwinwin methodwin burr and lowe 1987
control is how adequately the familyamily is able to gradually
transfer to children the responsibility for various aspects
of their own lives burr and lowe 1987
anger is how well the family is able to keep tempers and
anger from being disruptive in the family and how well they
turn anger into constructive use burr and lowe 1987
support is the amount family members provide nurturancenur
to
turance
each other through physical contact helping each other
achieve successes and companionate interaction burr and
lowe 1987
adaptabilityada2tabil is the ability of a member of a family or
the family system to change its power structure rolerelationships and relationship rules in response to
situational developmental stress the continuous score of
adaptability ranges from rigid very low to structured low
to moderate to flexible moderate to high to chaotic very
high olson russell sprenkel 1983
cohesion is the emotional bonding that family members
have toward one another the continuous score of cohesion
21
consensus seeking
f
Lis tenin
measured by faces III111ili ranges from disengaged very low
to separated low to moderate to connected moderate to
high to enmeshed very high olson russell sprenkel
1983
adaptability and cohesion were added to the projectbecause previous research has indicated that programs make a
difference in the areas where they focus and usually do not
generalize to other areas these two variables are slightlydifferent than where the program focused and this will eitherrefute or collaborate whether results are content specific or
generalize to other areas of the parentteenparent relationshipteen
most studies in the past have dealt with marital satisfactionas the generalizing variableprocedures
those who took part in the workshop attended six sessions
that were each two and one half hour long each session
consisted of ait review and processing of the homework
assignment from the week before parents and teens then
gathered in a large group to receive information and to see
modeling of techniques on the subject matter for that evening
participation through group discussion role playing and
workbook assignments were encouraged participants then
separated into small groups with their own family members and
with from one to three other families further discussionsand practicing of the subject of focus took place each small
group had a separate facilitator the families were assigned
22
f rom
homework designed to help transfer their learning to the home
settingsession one focused on kindness it was seen as the
foundation principle without which none of the others would
develop session two focused on understanding better through
improving listening skills session three focused on
consensus learning as a family to make decisions where every
member would feelfeel like they had won session four focused on
control to teach parents to gradually transfer more controlto the teens through use of skills discussed in previous
sessions especially listening and consensus session fiveivelvefocused on dealing effectively with anger while session sixfocused on familyamily members becoming more supportive of each
other the sixth session was also a commencement ceremony a
celebration which represented the beginning of the time when
they could use their enhanced family living skills the
families who completed their four post workshop enrichment
activities received a family living certificatethe main facilitatoracilitatorfacilitator of the program was dr wesley R
burr he was the main spokesman in the general teaching
sessions and supervised the facilitatorsacilitatorsfacilitators of the small group
sessions he was assisted by four or fiveivelve student
facilitators they directed the small group presentationsand assisted with small segments of the large group sessions
all of the student facilitators were trained by professor
burr this provided a consistency for the way materials were
23
f under s tandingbanding
f
f
f
f
four f
handled in the various session and between samples it alsohelped to insure that leadership roles were effectivelyadministered and coordinated he met with them weekly both
prior to and during the actual sessions in the preprogramproprogramprepro
trainingprogram
sessions the student facilitators reviewed and
practiced giving the sessions to other student volunteers
after each of the six sessions they met to review in detailwhat responsibilities each would have during the coming weeks
session as well as evaluated their perceptions of the
effectiveness of the evenings program
instrumentation
the participants were given a pretestprotestprepro familytest profile
in the first session since there were no instruments to
measure the aspects of the six areas the program focuses on
the family profile FP instrument was developed it was
designed to measure eight factors kindness listeningconsensus control anger support adaptability and
cohesion faces 111IIIliilil was included in the family profile itprovided measures of adaptability and cohesion because the
family profile was in the stage of being developed no
information was available about its validity and reliabilityat the beginning of the workshops it was used in an earlierworkshop and revised as a result of followupfollow interviewsup and
analyses of the items by the leaders after the data were
collected on the two experimental groups a test for internalreliability was computed for the entire sample on the eight
24
week Is
69gg
scales the coefficients were fathers kindness scalefather I1 s father I1 s
077
from olsens
f ll1lii111wlllla
67 63
45 50
73
28 36
59
77 62 54
36 34
57 58 62
65
47
.6767 fathers listening scale .6363 fathers consensus scale.4545 fatherss transfer of control .5050 fathers anger
scale .7373 fathers support scale .6969 mothers kindness
scale .2828 mothers listening scale .3636 mothersconsensus scale .5959 mothers transfer of control scale
.7777 mothers anger scale .6262 mothers support scale .5454
teens kindness scale .3636 teens listening scale .3434
teens consensusconsensuc scale .5151 teens transfer of control scale.5757 teens anger scale .5858 teens support scale .6262
the items used to measure adaptability and cohesion were taken
fromolsens scale and had the internal reliability of .6565 and
.4747 for the group within two weeks of the sixth sessiona post test family profile was administered a second time to
each family by one of the trained facilitators the
facilitator remained in the home while the participants filledout the form to answer questions and to ensure that each
person answered the questionnaire on their own if an
individual was not able to meet with the facilitator heshebeshewas given the questionnaire asked to fill it out on hisheraisherown and mail it in a sealed envelope to the family living
officethe pretest questionnaire obtained general demographic
information on age occupation education religiosity ethnicbackground marital status family composition and family
recreational activity level the post test questionnaires
25
included subjective evaluation of session parts samples of
the instruments used for prepro and post tests for fathersmothers and teens are located in appendix B located inappendix C are the items that comprised each of the subscalessub
forscales
kindness listening consensus control anger and
support marital satisfaction adaptability and cohesion inplace of letters in appendix C numbers have been assigned
to show the numeric values given when the scores were computed
for each criterion variable
statistical testsonewayone anovasadovasway were used to test change scores between
the pre and post tests of the experimental groups also pre
and post test scores for individuals who participated in the
spring 1987 workshop and the fall 1987 workshop were compared
because both groups were so small and because they were
so much alike theithe data were combined and another onewayone away
nova was run to test change scores between the pre and post
tests of the combined experimental group next a twowaytwo
anova
way
was run on the combined group in order to check for an
interaction effect by ID that is father mother and
teenager and by time pre and post as well as by childrenand by church attendance or religiosity
pearson correlations and scatter diagrams were run
between pretest scores and changes scores on the eight
variables for fathers mothers and teens they were alsorun on change scores on the eight variables by the number of
26
cchildrenildrenlidren that is family size and by church attendance for
fathers mothers and teens in order to determine if therewas a relationship between each of these factorsactors and amount
of change
the researcher also evaluated thethie firstirstarst page of the
questionnaire on the posttestpost questionnairetest which asked
people to evaluate their perceptions of how valuable the
various sessions were the means were calculated for those
scores so that some subjective evaluations of which sessionswere the most helpful were obtained
27
f
1 f
signifsignia icanticart differenceserencen f rom
signifsignia icanceacance
signifsignia icanticart p 10
CHAPTER 3
RESULTS
the purpose of this study was to investigate the shortterm effects of a parentteenparent structuredteen family facilitationprogram the parent and teen workshop developed by burr
smith marshall and henry 1986 it also attempted to
determine whether factors such as gender generation family
composition religiosity and level of preworkshoppre scoresworkshop were
related to differences between prepro and post scores
the first hypothesis was that parents and teens who took
part in the PAT workshop would show gains from their pretestto post test scores on measures of kindness listeningconsensus seeking behavior transferring of control controlof anger and support the data for this hypothesis are in
table 1 and there were no meaningful changes in any of the
six areas A few of the post scores were slightly higher and
a few were slightly lower but the amount of change was very
minimal
A onewayone novaway was run for each of the six criterionvariables and for adaptability and cohesion for experimental
group one there were no significant differences from pre to
post test for fathers mothers or teens the t for fathers
self perception of support approached significance t4
18 to 1.00100loo100 based on these statisticaltests it was concluded that fathers mothers and teens who
28
for
1 00
08
2.61261df .0808 but all others were not close to being
significant
I1I1SDpreSDpostSDNID
preSDpostSD
fathers
father41.75417541754.50450
39.00390039004.69469
28.25282528254.79479
27.25272527252.50250
34.7534753475.9696
35.50355035505.455455.505501.301301306.75675
.5050
5.005001.831834.504501.92192
31.75317531755.56556
29.25292529256.13613
15.7515751.26126
17.25172517252.06206
17.50175017503.11311
19.0019002.58258258
gg96
TABLE 1
pre and post test means and standard deviationsof experimental group one
dependentpendentDp variablekindness
listening
consensus
transfer ofcontrol
control ofanger
support
cohesion
adaptability
preSDpostSDpreSDsedosedepostSDpreSDpostSDpreSDpostSDpreSDpostSDpreSDpost
n4
mother
42.7542753.30330330
39.5039502.52252252
25.0025001.94194194
260026.0012600126.003.16316316
18.0018004.08408408
17.2517252.872872877.507507502.082082087.757757752.22222222
10.5010503.32332332
10.2510252.99299299
36.5036503.11311311
35.2535256.40640640
18.0018002.16216216
18.5018502.6526526519.2519252.99299299
19.5019502.65265265
mothers n4
teen
20.25202520254.11411411
21.25212521254.72472472
25.75257525756.95695
24.00240024003.16316
31.753175317512.041204120425.00250025005.355357.757751.711718.758751.71171
12.75127512755.56556
12.25122512251.71171
29.50295029506.86686
28.50285028503.79379
13.00130013002.16216
15.50155015503.42342
15.50155015504.51451
15.75157515754.17417
teens n4
4 DS
14
Nigi431 D
13 D
44
13C D
D
29
4 4
50
ild
44
hid
na na na
444.4CI 4 D
og09
ilii
took part in the firstirstarst PAT workshop did not show a gain from
their pretest to post test scores in any of the six criterionvariables therefore hypothesis one was not supported for
that group
the second hypothesis stated that the gains in the sixcriterion variables in hypothesis one would be found in a
replication of the workshop the data for the replicationare in table 2 and the pattern in this also was that no
meaningful changes occurred some scores went up slightlyand some went down slightly but all of the changes were
minimal
A onewayone anovaway was run for each of the six criterionvariables and for adaptability and cohesion for experimental
group two there were no significant differences from prepro to
post test for fathers mothers or teens the t for mothers
self perception of kindness approached significance t6 E
f f rom
f
th Ls
P
be ame
few
1.00100100loo based on the statistical tests it was
concluded that fathers mothers and teens who took part in
the replication of the PAT workshop did not show a gain from
their pretest to post test scores in any of the six criterionvariables
when the data in table 2 were compared to the data in
table 1 it became clear that these two groups were very
similar A few more of the scores in group two changed in
the desired direction but not many and none of them were
30
2.12212212df .0909 however all others were not significant
2 .1111 to
I1
I1SDODpostSDpreSDpostSDpreSDpostSD
father38.17381711.621162116240.33403340338.24824
28.00280028009.94994
28.50285028507.04704
27.30273027304.41441
28.00280028008.328325.505502.072077.007002.002006.676673.013016.00600goo1.41141
30.50305030506.95695
30.00300030006.33633
16.00160016003.29329
16.83168316832.64264
16.0016002.76276
17.50175017501.64164
mother
42.0042004.15415415
388338.8311883118.832.48248248
24.1724174.92492492
253325.331453314.533145
4.4644644633
19.5019503.78378378
18.8318834.074074077.337337332.732732737.007007001.90190190igo
13.1713173.19319
11.3311333.93393393
35.1735173.79379
36.5036503.78378378
14.6714673.56356
15.8315833.43343343
15.50155015502.58258
17.6717672.07207
teen
25.00250025005.61561
25.00250025004.06406
24.80248024805.36536
23.20232023205.36536
24.00240024008.46846
24.40244024408.368366.806806801.921921928.208202.17217217
14.8014801.64164164
14.40144014403.72372372
29.2029204.09409409
31.4031408.62862862
14.8014802.58258258
15.0015002.74274274
15.6015601.34134
16.0016002.35235235
fathers n6 mothers n6 teens n531
1188341883
TABLE 2
pre and post test means and standard deviationsof experimental group two
dependent variablekindness
listening
consensus
transferof
control
controlof
anger
support
cohesion
adaptability
preSDpostSDpreSDpostSDpreSDpostSDpreSDpostSDpreSDpostSDpre
1D D
D
ID DS
D
N131 D
140 D
4 D
D 9
14533
iss
na na na
I1
69gg
06og
gg96
substantial thus the data indicated that the workshops hadno effects that could be detected with the scales that wereused and the replication doubles the evidence that thehypothesis should not be accepted
thus there were no significant differences between thetwo experimental groups when they were considered separatelyhowever both samples were small and if a pattern had existedit would have been difficult to discern the pattern with thesmall numbers of participants because both groups were sosimilar they were combined to form one group because effectsthat didnt appear with the two samples separately might beapparent in the combined data
the means and standard deviations are in table 3 anda pattern did emerge with some of the variables A one way
nova revealed there two statistically significant differencesfrom prepro to post test in the combined data the mean for the
fathers self perception of transfer of control increased from
5.555 to 6.969 t 10 p
10
9
f rom for
P
P
55 03
423
02
14
2.23223223 df
2.69269 df .0303 the mean of the
mothers self perception of kindness decreased from 42.3423 to
39.1391 t 2.85285 df .0202 the mean of the teens
self perception score on transfer of control increased from
7.22722 to 8.44844 and this approached significance t.0606 but none of the others changes approached
significance p .1414 to .9696 thus there is some basis forconcluding that fathers and the teens perceived that they
improved in their ability to transfer control but there was
no change on this measure for mothers there is also some
evidence that the mothers perceived that they decreased in
kindness toward their family members
32
I1255025.5091550915.503.89389389
25.6025603.66366366
189018.90389038.903.76376376
18.2018203.553553557.407407402.372372377.307307301.95195195
121012.10321032.103.35335335
109010.90309030.90logo3.45345345
357035.7023570235.70335702.83283283
36.0036004.69469469
160016.0011600116.003.40340340
169016.90269026.903.28328328
17.0017003.23323323
18.4018402.37237237
teen
22.89228922895.33533
23.33233323334.53453
25.22252225225.72572
23.56235623564.28428
27.442744274410.331033103324.67246724676.766767.227221.791798.448441.88188
13.89138913893.76376
13.4413443.50350
28.89288928895.11511
30.1130116.70670
14.0014002.45245
15.22152215222.86286
15.56155615562.92292
15.89158915893.06306
fathers n10nio mothers n10nio teens n9
I101 D
logo1090
TABLE 3
pre and post test means and standard deviationsof combined experimental groups
dependent var
kindness
listening
consensus
transferof
control
controlof
anger
support
cohesion
adaptability
lablelabiepreSDpostSDpreSDODpostSDpreSDpostSDpreSDkidpostSDpreSDpostSDpreSDpostSDpreSDpostSDOD
preSDpostSD
father36.6036609.23923923
39.8039806.75675675
28.1028107.91791791
28.0028005.48548548
30.3030305.08508508
31.0031007.967967965.505505501.721726.906906901.521521526.00600600goo2.632632635.405405401.71171171
31.0031006.13613
29.7029705.91591591
15.9015902.56256256
17.0017002.31231231
16.6016602.84284284
18.1018102.08208
mother
423042.3041230412.304230412303.65365365
39.1039102.38238238
variable
4
10 D
D
4
SI D
N
CI0 D
D130
3 D
33
C 4
0 D
C q00
C 4
C I
C 4
nde
1890
nid
1210
ild
na
alscis
the study consisted of an experimental and a comparison
group and a replication of the workshop since just barelyenough people signed up to have a meaningful workshop eachtime it was not possible to randomly assign families to a
control group As a result the next best thing was donedata were obtained from a comparison group to see if thefamilies who volunteered for the workshops were similar to ordifferent from families randomly selected from the sameneighborhood theme families in the comparison group wereadministered the same pretest questionnaire as those in theexperimental groups
the means and standard deviations for the comparisongroup are in table 4 A comparison of the data from table4 with table 3 indicated that the groups were very similar ona majority of the measures however there was also a patternin most of the differences that were not statisticallysignificant the comparison group measures tended to behigher
the experimemtalexperimental group was not the samesalme as the comparisongroup on a few measures in the comparison group fathersperceived themselves as seeking consensus more and as beingmore supportive to their families the t ratio for fathersfatherssconsensus was 4.87487487 df 35 p
35 gp
36
p
36 p
r
p
cls
136
025
005
05
07 98
.000500050005 and for fatherssupport it was 2.28228228 df
2.80280280 df
1.87187187df
.025025 mothers in thecomparison group rated themselves as being less kind to theirfamilies the t ratio for mothers kindnesskindne was
.005005 the teens rated themselves as being more kind totheir families the t ratio for the teens kindness was
05.05 all of the other differences were notsignificant p .0707 to .9898
the objective in this study was to determine whetherfactors such as the completion of the homework involvementof parents with teens and teens with parents religiosity
34
sas4 D
TABLE 4
means and standard deviationsof the comparison group
dependent var
kindness
listening
consensus
transferof
controlcontrol
ofanger
support
cohesion
adaptability
lab iere
SD
preproSD
preproSD
preproSD
preSD
preSD
preSD
preSD
fathers
father
38.95389538954.75475475
29.53295329534.18418418
39.92399239926.76676676
5.665665662.11211211
4.554554552.04204204
35.8435845.18518518
17.1617162.55255255
18.5018503.25325325
n35
mother
40.11401140115.05505
26.79267926794.25425
14.451445344534.4514455.87587
8.278271.68168
10.0010004.22422
37.50375037504.98498
17.5317533.08308
191619.162.14214
mothers n36
teen
26.6126615.38538538
26.3626365.64564564
27.2027206.37637
7.897897892.28228228
11.7011704.07407407
31.8231828.09809809
15.7015703.68368368
16.3716374.10410
teens n36
35
devicltionslations
variablepre
D
1
NNI 0 D
14 Ds
RL 19 16
1
1
6373445
family composition attendance at the sessions gender and
generation were related to the effects of the workshop due
to complications during the data gathering phase of the
project data were not acquired on the completion of homework
involvement of parents with teen and teens with parents and
attendance at sessions measures were obtained on
religiosity family size gender and generationone method of testing whether any of these contingencies
interacted with the effects of the workshop was to run a two
way nova for the combined group on the eight variables even
though this analysis is post hoc and any patterns must be
viewed very tentatively if the interaction effects were
significant it could be because the contingencies were relatedto the workshop effects the two actorsfactors were effects of theworkshop pretest and post test and family position
father mother teen family size and religiosity thenova indicated that there were no interaction effects with
any of the variables this suggests that none of the
contingencies were related to the workshop effectsthe two way nova provided us with two pieces of
information one on a before and one on an after the workshop
effect as related to family position family size and
religiosity on theithe eight variables correlations were used
to help us gain insight as to what was happening with those
who went up and those who went down on the measures and to
further explore the possibility of whether any combination of
36
effectsacts f ef fectsacts
ef fectsacts
T
01oi
li11
iglg
loio
lgig
lg19
09og
09og
lg19
06og
06og
lg19
iolo
loio
oiol
ooi001
06og
li11
gigl
oolooi
TABLE 5pearson correlation coefficients and probability levelsleveis
for fathers for the combined experimental groupsby pretest scores and change scores on eight variables
changescores
kind
listen
consensus
control
anger
support
cohesion
adapt
kind
76005
5007
77005
2029
40
3218
1732
1336
34
72
5505
31
0842
38
32
5505
2921
44
1435
2327
33
0248
1435
35
2723
32
5904
40
31
37
2029
0445
40
30
36
80003
2029
52
53
0742
3020
0347
30
2524
37
3020
5007
39
44
1337
3318
74
2128
92
53
2822
5605
2524
0446
43
0742
03
84
.7676005.005
.5050
.0707
.7777005.005
.2020
.2929
.4040
.1313
.3232
.1818
.1717
.3232
.1313
.3636
listen.3434.1717
.7272
.0101
.5555
.0505
.1818
.3131
.0808
.4242
.1111
.3838
.3232.1919
.5555
.0505
pr
consensus
.2929
.2121
.4444
.1010
.1414
.3535
.1818
.3131
.2323
.2727
.3333
.1717
.0202
.4848
.1414
.3535
oteststest scoisaoi
control
.3535
.1616
.2727
.2323
.3232
.1919
.5959
.0404
.0909
.4040
.1818
.3131
.1313
.3737
.2020
.2929
es
anger
.0404
.4545
.0909
.4040
.1919
.3030
.1313
.3636
.8080003.003
.2020
.2929
.5252.0606
.5353
.0606
support
.0707
.4242
.3030
.2020
.0303
.4747
.3030
.1919
.2525
.2424
.3737
.1515
.3030
.2020
.5050
.0707
cohesion
.1010
.3939
.4444
.1010
.1313
.3737
.3333
.1818
.7474
.0101
.2121
.2828
.9292001.001
.5353
.0606
adapt
.2828
.2222
.5656
.0505
.2525
.2424
.0404
.4646
.4343
.1111
.0707
.4242
.6161
.0303
.8484001.001
n10nio
I1
oolooi ooiool
coefboeff icients
helpfhelfful for
the variables influenced the effects of the workshoppearsonionPear correlationssonion and scatter plotsplotpiot were run for pretestscores by change scores on the eight variables for athersfathersmothers and oldest teens
the correlations for fathers are in table 5 A consistentpattern existed on the variables of kindness listeningtransfer of control anger family cohesion and familyadaptability they were all negative for these variables thegeneral pattern was that the higher the fathers ratedthemselves below the mean at time of pre test the more theychanged in a positive direction at the time of post testthese data imply that the workshop is the most helpful forfathersathers who have lower scores at the time of pretest many
of the correlation coefficients were quite high andsignificant the degrees of freedom for fathers for the posthoc test was tentein the correlation for kindness was
for anger 003 for cohesion
lat ionslons forfor f
forf
76
005 72 009
59 04 80 92
84
corre
.7676 p.005005 for listening .7272 jgp .009009 for transfer of control
.5959 E .0404 .8080 p .9292 p.001001 and for adaptability .8484 p .001001 these coefficients
suggest that the level of fathers proficiency influenced theeffects of the workshop
for mothers the correlations are in table 6 A consistentpattern existed on the correlations for mothers on thevariables of kindness transfer of control cohesion andadaptability they were all negative
for these variables the general pattern was the higherthe mothers rated themselves above the mean at time of pretest the more they changed in a negative direction at the timeof post test those mothers who rated themselves the lowestbelow the mean at the time of pre test perceived themselvesas changing the most in a positive direction at the time ofpost test these data imply that for these variables theworkshop is most helpful for those mothers who perceivethemselves as doing the worst at the time of pretest and least
38
bohspossdohs
O0 f a
oiol
ll11
oloi
09og
iolo
06og
60go
lo10
06og
iolo
19lg
06og
06og
06og
oloi
06og
loio
li11
ig19
lg19
69gg
oloi
nan1
TABLE 6
pearson correlation coefficients and probability levelsfor mothers for the combined experimental groups
by pretest scores and change scores on eight variables
changescores
kind
listen
consensus
control
anger
support
cohesion
adapt
kind
pretest scores
controjiroilrodl ang r 4sumsue a& oohs 4 adanaadant
50
F1 C
022 .3434IA.1717050 014
017
t- r0
A AD it at 31jl
78004
2821
3218
3615
72
43
18
37
49
40
4808
4112
0446
00350
47
3020
0445
35
4808
45
5549
38
43
0446
5805
07
34
03
44
44
0445
39
45
37
34
2623
31
00250
43
5704
2822
43
43
2623
49
2227
1732
12
40
34
0347
2425
34
3417
45
6502
31
0347
2227
38
30
32
2921
aa
.7878
.004004
.2828
.2121
.3232
.1818
.3636
.1515
.7272
.0101
.4343
.1111
.1818
.3131
.3737
.1515
listen.0101.4949
.4040
.1313
.4848
.0808
.4141
.1212
.0404
.4646
.003003
.5050
.4747
.0909
.3030
.2020
pr
consensus
.0404
.4545
.1414
.3535
.4848
.0808
.4545
.1010
.5555
.4949
.3838
.1414
.0606
.4343
.0404
.4646
idestitest scor
control.5858.0505
.5050
.0707
.3434
.1717
.6060
.0303
.4444
.1010
.0606
.4444
.0404
.4545
.3939
.1414
esanger
.4545
.1010
.3737
.1515
.1515
.3434
.2626
.2323
.3131
.1919
.002002
.5050
.0606
.4343
.5757
.0404
support
.2828
.2222
.0606
.4343
.0606
.4343
.2626
.2323
.0101
.4949
.2222
.2727
.1717
.3232
.4141
.1212
cohesion
.0606
.4040
.3434
.1717
.0303
.4747
.2424
.2525
.1515
.3434
.4545
.1010
.6565
.0202
adapt
.1818
.3131
.0303
.4747
.2222
.2727
.1111
.3838
.1919
.3030
.3232
.1919
.2929
.2121
.6969
.0101
n10nio
0.0
60go
69gg
69gg
difdlf ferencearence
helpfhelfful forcoefboef f icients
coefboef f icients
helpful for those perceive themselves as doing the best at thetime of pretest these three correlation coefficients werequite high and significant the degrees of freedom for thepost hoc tests for mothers was ten the correlation forkindness was
for for
P
for
for
Pr
78 004
03 014
57
053 71 olg 78
007 67 02
023
691.6969691.691 p .014014 thesecoefficients suggest that the level mothers proficiencyinfluenced the effects of the workshop thecorrelationsforthe teens are in table 7 A consistent pattern existed on thecorrelations for teens on the variables of kindnesslistening consensus cohesion and adaptability they were allnegative
for these variables the general pattern was the higherthe teens rated themselves above the mean at time of prepro testthe more they changed in a negative direction at the time ofpost test those teens who rated themselves the lowest belowthe mean at the time of pre test perceived themselves aschanging the most in a positive direction at the time of posttest these data imply that for these variables the workshopis most helpful for those mothers who perceive themselves asdoing the worst at the time of pretest and least helpful forthose perceive themselves as doing the best at the time ofpretest these three correlation coefficients were quite highand significant the degrees of freedom for the post hoc testfor teens was nine the correlation for kindness was
thesecheserhese coefficients suggest that the level ofteens proficiency influenced the effects of the workshop
the correlations provided a little bit of evidence thatbeing high or low on certain measures made a difference on how
father mothers and teens changed on those measures therewas a consistent pattern in the data which suggests that theparticipants who perceive themselves to be better relative to
40
.7878 p .004004 for transfer of control .6060
p .0303 and for adaptability
.5757
P .053053 for listening .7171 p .016016 for consensus .7878
p .007007 for cohesion .6767 p .0202 and for adaptability.6969 p .023023
I1
09og
09og
lgig
iolo
66gg
60go
09og
loio
06og
oiol
60go
ig19
iglg
loio
li11
og09
09og
llli
ooiool
19lg
ilii
loio
69gg
silkil
TABLE 7
pearson correlation coefficients and probability levelsfor teens for the combined experimental groups
by pretest scores and change scores on the eight variables
changescores
kind
listen
consensus
control
anger
support
cohesion
adapt
kind
pretest scores
Kind r en or 4 w- r 1w W L L W 16 f an 9m ir support.1717.3333
057
1 nO0 L I1 031
052
054
015 018
5705
49
38
40
5207
2724
4114
02
7102
04
3022
3518
2923
35
47
55
78
4412
1238
0742
0743
31
04
33
5108
40
2625
31
5805
39
45
48
2427
44
38
46
1733
0347
88
81004
2922
00450
5407
3617
3022
33
80004
81004
1436
36
6702
1832
31
46
85002
47
31
1337
2823
02
na
am
.040404
.1717
.3333
.5757
.0505
.0909
.4141
.4949
.0909
.3838
.1616
.1010
.4040
.5252
.0707
.2727
.2424
.4141
.1414
listen.6666.0202
.7171
.0202
.6060
.0404
.3030
.2222
.3535
.1818
.0909
.4141
.2929
.2323
.1515
.3535
pr
consensus
.4747
.1010
.5555
.0606
.7878
.0101
.4444
.1212
.1212
.3838
.0707
.4242
.0707
.4343
.3131
.2121
oteststest acolscol
control.6060
.5151
.0808
.4040
.1414
.1919
.3131
.2626
.2525
.1919
.3131
.5858
.0505
esanger
.1010
.3939
.4545
.1111
.4848
.0909
.2424
.2727
.4444
.1212
.1212
.3838
.0909
.4141
.4646
.1111
.0303
.4747
.8888
.001001
.8181
.004004
.2929
.2222
.004004
.5050
.5454
.0707
.3636
.1717
cohesion.3030.2222
.1818
.3333
.8080
.004004
.8181
.004004
.1414
.3636
.3636
.1717
.6767
.0202
.1818
.3232
adapt.1919.3131
.4646
.1111
.8585
.002002
.4747
.1010
.3131
.2121
.1313
.3737
.2828
.2323
.6969
.0202
n9
2.2 9
findinfindan
others experienced less effect in this type of enrichmentworkshop and the lower the participants perceive themselvesto be the greatergreate the positive effect this type workshop willhaveother findings
subjective measures of participants evaluations of thehelpfulness of the various parts of the workshop wereobtained the results are in table 4
the session parts that were found most helpful by
fathers they were how to give love gifts and how to seekconsensus the part thought least helpful was on thevocabulary for transferring control
the session part found most helpful the mothers was
paying attention to the emotional messages in communicationthe part found least helpful was information regarding how toprovide support through companionship
the session part found most helpful by the teens was how
to actively listen the part found least helpful was on
providing support through physical touchthere was a generation difference on the subjective
measures of which parts of the workshops were most helpful andwhich parts of the workshops were least helpful the teensconsistently rated the workshop parts lower than either theirfathers or mothers
it is important to note that even though the resultsof the program were statistically not significant thesubjective ratings of the participants placed the program inthe quite helpful range this subjective rating is biasedwhat this illustrates is that the participants have their own
perceptions of theithe program in which they were involved thiskind of subjective evaluation must be taken into account when
designing and evaluating any family education program As
stated by jacobson 1981 it may be that anecdotalinformation from parents teachers and even children can
42
ef fectact
r
fathersfathers1 n10nio mothers n10 teensyteens1 n9
TABLE 8
means standard deviation and rankpank orderingof the subjective ratings by fathers mothers and teens
on the helpfulness of session parts
R R R
love gifts 1 4 5
vicious cycles 3 2 3
emotions 7 1 6
nonverbal 6 5 10
active listening 3 2 1
consensus 2 2 7
vocabulary for 9 6 8
transfer ofcontrolfour steps indealing with anger
new ways ofdealing with anger
physical touch
companionshipsupport
successsupport
8 3 2
4 7 4
4 8 11
5 9 9
43
fathers mothers teens
Success Support1 nio na
2552.55255 7
3.30330330 3.083083083.00300300 2.822822822.60260260 3.25325325 2.642642642.70270270 2.362362363.00300300 3.093093093.20320320 2.552552552.50250250 2.50250250
2.57257257 2.90290290
2.86286286 2.80280280
2.002002002.45245245
3003.00 3 3003.00 5
2.732733.17317
3.003003.173173.173172.92292
3.10310
2.90290
2.86286 2.822822.71271 2.64264
provide the richness needed to evaluate programs of this sorta richness which statistical studies cannot reveal
44
CHAPTER 4
SUMMARY conclusions AND limitations
the purpose of this study was to investigate the shortterm effects of the PAT program by comparing prepro and post
workshop scores on measures of kindness listening consensus
seeking behavior transferring control skills controllinganger and providing support another purpose of the study
was to see if factors such as gender generation family
composition and religiosity were related to the effects of theworkshop
the study consisted of an experimental group a
comparison group and a replication of the workshop because
of the limited response to the advertizingadvertisingadvert forizing the workshop
subjects were not randomly assigned to the two conditionsconsequently we were not able to randomly assign subjects in
to the two experimental groups subjects were parents and
teens that responded to advertizingadvertisingadvert ofizing the workshop those who
took part in the workshop were to attend six two and one halfhour sessions dealing with the six criterion variables of
kindnesslisteningkindness skillslistening consensus transferring of
controlcontrolcontrol ofcontrol anger and support
the participants were given a pretestpre intest the firstsession it was a new instrument the family profile FP
developed specifically to measure the sixsiysly factors of kindness
listening consensus control anger support adaptability
45
ef fectsacts
signifsignia 1
and cohesion along with pre test measures of behavior
general demographic information was obtained within two
weeks of the sixth session a post test family profilerofileerofile was
administered to each family by a trained facilitatorit was hypothesized that parents and teens who took part
in the PAT workshop would show gain from their pretest to post
test scores in the six criterion variables no significantchange was found therefore it was concluded that hypothesis
one was not supported
it was also hypothesized that the gains in the sixcriterions variables for participants taking part in the firstexperimental group referred to in hypothesis one would be
found for the new group of participants who took part in a
replication of the workshop no significant change was found
no pattern could be established for the minor differencesbetween group one and group two therefore hypothesis two
was not supported
the general hypothesis that parents and teens would show
a gain in their post test scores on the variables of kindness
listening consensus transfer of control control of anger
and increasing support was not supported by the data when the
groups were tested separately when the data from the two
experimental groups were combined the results indicateddicateddilated thatthe program had limited effects and that these limited effectswere different for gender and generation the data indicated
46
cant
ldcou
the
in
that fathers increased in their ability to transfer controland the mothers decreased in kindness
there are several possible reasons why this lack of
change from pretest to post test was found with participantsin experimental group one and with those who took part in the
replication of the workshop it could have been that theworkshop was ineffective or that the instrument was not
sensitive enough to be able to measure the changes taking
place it can be seen from the reliability tests that on some
of the measures the reliability was quite low this suggests
that there are some problems with the measures themselves and
indicates a need for further refinement of the family profileinstrument
anovasadovas were used to test differences in scores prior to
and after participants took part in the workshops and change
scores were obtained in an effort to explore the possibilitythat some of the variables might influence the effects of the
workshops A twowaytwo novaway was run to check for interactionseffects related to family position family size and
religiosity no interaction effects were present however
even though there was no appreciable change in the pattern for
families from start to finish there was some differencewithin the families for fathers mothers and teens family
position was significant fathers mothers and teens
responded differently from each other at the time of pretestand post test
47
difdlf ferent
next correlations and scatter plots were used to urtherfurtherexplore the possibility that some of the variables might have
influenced the effects of the workshop there was a littlebit of evidence that the level of proficiency of fathersmothers and teens influenced the effects of the workshops
the data also suggest that participants who perceive
themselves as doing less well will be the ones who willbenefit the most from this type of enrichment workshop
the post hoc tests provided a littlelittleslittie bit of evidence thatbeing high or low on certain variables made a difference on
how father mothers and teens changed on those variablesthere was a consistent pattern in the data which suggests thatthe better participants perceive themselves to be the lesseffect this type of enrichment workshop has and the lower the
participants perceive themselves to be the greater the
positive effect this type workshop has
there is alsoaisoaliso a little bit of evidence that those who
volunteer for educationenrichment programs see themselves as
slightly different then those who do not the general patternwas that families who did not volunteer saw themselves as
doing slightly better than those families who did volunteer
this trend was evidenced across family positionan evaluation of the measured change suggests this
program has little effect however the data do not take intoaccount the subjective evaluation by parents and teens of the
helpfulness of the program the program was rated as quite
48
f
ef fectact
education enrichment
helpful and fathers and mothers consistently rated theworkshop higher than the teens valuable information was
provided by the participants as to what parts of the program
the participants perceived helped them the most the partswere different for fathers mothers and teens thisinformation suggests that family members perceived themselves
as benefiting from the program
research literature indicates that enrichment programs
that appear to be the most effective irlin producing change inthe desired direction teach few things the instructors spend
several weeks on the same subject trying to teach a skillthat has been the findings of the research with guerneys
relationship enhancement program gordons PET program and
dinkmeyers STEP program they have one simple set of ideas
and they teach it several different ways research has been
able to demonstrate that people learn such skills as activelistening and encouragement when they have sufficientexposure and practice one mistake that the instructorsprobably made in the parentteenParent programTeen is that they only
spent one night on one subject and each successive night was
on a different subject participants did not spent long
enough on any one topic what the program developers needed
to learn from the previous research is that it takes a while
to teach these skills it is doubtful whether a facilitatorcan focus on a different topic each night and change people
therefore this suggests that another possible reason why the
49
program did notriot effectef thef necessaryectact changes in itsparticipants the program tried to teach too many things intoo short a period
the subjective reports of the athersfathers mothers and teens
attending the workshops were not consistent with the
statistical analysis of the effectiveness of the workshop
these results lead to several questions as to why there was
such a great discrepancy between the subjective evaluationsof the participants and the objective statistical measures
was the prepro and post test administered the family profileFP sensitive enough to provide an accurate measure of
changes in the six criterion variables Is an individualsperceptions of being helped by session parts more variableas a measure are there certain aspectsaspect of change that the
instrument cannot measure Is it possible that when
individuals take such a course together and are exposed to
the ideal that they might become more critical of
themselves and others in terms of evaluating their strengthsand weaknesses does being tested at the end of a six week
workshop give enough time for change in behavior to catch up
with change in attitude that comes as a result of
participation in the workshop does participation in a sixweek workshop allow enough exposure to new information and
practice for sufficient change to take place are there other
methods of sharing the same information that would have a
higher impact
50
f
s
conclusions
hypothesis one that parents and teens who took part in
the PAT workshop would show gain from their pretest to post
test scores in the six criterion variables was not supported
hypothesis two that the gains in the six criterion variablesin hypothesis one would be found in a replication of theworkshop was not supported
in relation to the objective several factors were found
to be related to the effects of the workshop researchregarding the objective was exploratory and needs to be viewed
tentativelythe data suggest that family position which involves
factors of gender and generation influenced the effects of
the workshop even though there was no appreciable change in
the pattern for families from start to finish there was some
significant main effects for difference within the familiesfor fathers mothers and teens
the data suggest that the level of proficiency of
participants influenced the effects of the workshop the
less proficient the participants were the more they willchange in a desirable direction
the data suggest that those who volunteer to participatein educationenrichmenteducation workshopsenrichment will be slightly differentfrom those who do not the data from this study suggest thatthe families who volunteer will see themselves as having
slightly more difficulties
51
f rom
f CL
the discrepancy between lack of measured change and the
positive subjective evaluations of the participants suggests
the need to use both kinds of measures when evaluatingprograms of this kind perhaps the perception of having been
helped is a first step to changing in the desired directionthe workshops had no measurable effects one reason may
have been that the PAT program dealt with too many skills and
did not put enough emphasis on any one of the skills to be
able to produce the desired change another explanation may
be that there were some problems with the instrument itselflimitationsthe results of this study may have been influenced by the
following limitations1 the sample consisted of a rather homogeneous population
of caucasian middle class mormon subjects from a
cultural area strongly influenced by religious and genyfruydeny
values consequently results are limited in the
populations that they can be generalized to2 both samples were very small and did not allow for random
assignment to an experimental and a control group
therefore conclusions need to be viewed very
tentatively3 the treatment period consisted of only six sessions
apparently there were too many topics and no one was
dealt with enough the participants only spent one
night on one subject and each successive night was on
52
for
renrei f ining famicami
a different subject it appears that the program triedto teach too many things in too short a period of time
programs that appear to be more effective cover lessmaterial epeatrepeatepertX information and take time for more skillpractice
4 when the instrument was tested for reliability a few of
the measures were low what this means is that for a few
of the measures it was not possible to get an accurate
picture of what was happening it also suggests therewere some problems with the measures themselves
recommendations
1 further refining and testing of the instrument family
profile to improve its reliability at measuring changes
in the criterion variables2 repeat the program with inementsrefinements in the session parts
mentioned as being least helpful by parents and teens3 experiment with session parts in order to facilitate more
involvement of the teens4 administer the program to different populations samples
should be drawn from a more heterogenous populationwith a greater variety of social economic
religious and ethnic backgrounds
5 administration of the post test immediately following a
program and again at a six month to one year
followupfollow
53
up
few
ref inelnements
6 organize the workshop so that fewer things are taughtthen incorporate a repetition of the content in each
successive session
54
fewer
swenswez
trltri ferenceserencen
famicami
itzeratzer
aherrher 0 71
referencesabidin R R ed 1977 parent education and
interventionnewIntervention york academic press
anchor K and thomason T 1977 A comparison of twoparenttrainingparent modelstraining with educated parents journalof community psychology 5 134141134
bank
141
S and kahn M 1975 sisterhoodbrotherhoodsisterhood isbrotherhoodpowerful subsystemssub andsystems family therapy familyprocess 25 4 311376311
burr
376
W 198619861 family facilitation programs provofamily facilitation programs repository and database
burr W ed 1986a1986 the scientificscientif basis of twoenrichment strategies for improving conflictresolution technical papers provo utah thefamily living center
burr W smith S marshall C and henry G 1986parent and teen workshop provo utah brigham younguniversity press
burr W and lowe T 1987 olsons circumplexcircumflexcircum modelplex areview and extension family science review 1 1 5-
22
carkhuff R and bierman R 1970 training as apreferred mode of treatment of parents of emotionallydisturbed children journal of counseling psychology17 2 157161157
croake
161
J and glover K 1977 A history and evaluationof parent education the family coordinatoroordinator 26 2
151158151
dembo
158
MH sweitzer M and lauritzen P an evaluationof group parent education behavioral PET andadlerianAdiadl programserianerlan review of educational researchsummer 55 2 155200155
dinkmeyer
200
D jr 1979 A comprehensive and systematicapproach to parent education the american journalof familyfamil therapy 7 2 465046
dinkmeyer
50
D and mckay G 1983 stepteenStep systematicTeentraining for effective parenting of teens circle eimeseireselmes
minnesota american guidance service
55
41
papers
work 10
c hi ldrenidrenadren21
21
New
a scient if ic
trif
carcaf
famicami ay1yfamily facilitation programs 1986 provo utah familyfacilitation programs repository and database
fine M J 1980 the parent education movement anintroduction handbook on parent education new yorkacademic press
french M 197619776 the changes in selfesteemself asesteem a functionof self disclosure unpublished doctoral dissertationcalifornia school of professional psychology san diegoCA 1976
friedman T 1969 relation of parental attitudes towardchild rearing and patterns of social behavior in middlechildhood psychological reports 24 575579575
gordon
579
T 1970 parent effectiveness trainingTrainin new yorkpeter wyden
guerney EGBG 1977 relationshiprelationsh enhancement skilltraining programs for therapy problem prevention andenrichment san francisco josseybassjossey
guerneybass
B and guerney L 1981 family life educationas intervention family relations 30 591598591
guerney
598
B coufal J and vogelsong E 1983relationship enhancement versus a traditional approachto therapeuticpreventiveenrichmenttherapeuticpreventiveenrichmeiat parentadolescent programs international journal of eclecticpsychotherpsychotherapy 2 2 314331
hess
43
R D 1980 experts and amateurs some unintendedconsequences of parent education in M fantini & Rcardenas eds parenting in a multicultural societypp 3163 new16 york longmanLong
hoffman
manemanO
lynn 1981 foundations of family therapy A
conceptual framework for systems change new yorkbasic books
hoopes M fisher B and barlow S 1984 structuredfamily facilitation programs rockville marylandaspen publication
huber J 1976 the effects of dialogue communicationupon interpersonal marital relationship unpublisheddoctoral dissertationisser californiatation school of professionalpsychology san diego CA
hynson L 1979 A systems approach to community familyeducation the family coordinator 28 3 383387383
56
387
1 ducat ionlon
0
d
31
2
Relationsh
Psychother 0 af2f 21
ap
thelthei 9 91
coaldcoaiditionaition
af8f
leichter H 1974 the family as educator teacherscollege record 76 2 175217175
lester217
ME and doherty WJ 1983 couplescouples1 longtermlongevaluations
termof their marriage encounter experience
journal of marital and family therapy 9 183188183
levant
188
R and doyle G 1983 an evaluation of aparent education program for fathers of schoolagedschoolchildren
agedfamily relationslations 32 293729
mace
37
D 197919719 marriage and family enrichment a newfield the family coordinatorordinatorgo 2828r 3 409419409
mace
419
D 1981 the long long trail from informationgiving to behavioral change family relations 30599606599
mace
606
DR ed 1983 prevention in family servicesbeverly hills sage publications
malloy GN 1980 wanted some guidelines forinvestigating reporting and evaluating parent traininginterventions australian journal of developmentaldisabilities 6 717771
mccabe
77
P 1978 marriage encounter a comparison onpersonal and interpersonal aspects of marriageunpublished masters thesis university of connecticut
milholland TA and avery AW 1982 effects of marriageencounter on self disclosure trust and maritalsatisfaction journal of marital and family therapy8 878987
noller
89
P and callan V 1986 adolescent and parentperceptions of family cohesion and adaptability journalof adolescence 9 9710697
olsen
106
DH russell CS and sprenke DH 1983circumplexcircumflexCircum modelplex of marital and family systems familyprocess 22 698369
payne
83
C ed 1983 programs to strengthen familiesA esourceresourceresource guide chicago the family resourcecoalition
reinhardt B 1984 the effects of parental training onthe behaviorbeh ofavilor the first offender juvenile delinquentsunpublished masters thesis southern methodistuniversity
57
30j
andfamily
prog amsR
1
ameriamerlcan
ridley CA jorgensen SR morgan AG and Avery AW1982 relationship enhancement with premarital couples
an assessment of effects on relationship qualityamerican journal of family therapy 10 3 414841
robin
48
A L 1978 problemsolvingproblem communicationsolving traininga behavioral approach to the treatment of parentadolescent conflict the american journal of familyfamiltherapy 7269827126982726971269
samko
82
M 1976 selfdisclosureself anddisclosure marital communicationas a function of participation in a marriage workshopand the subsequent use of communication techniqueunpublished doctoral dissertation californiaschool of professional psychology san diego CA
schaffer HR 1984 the childs entry into a socialworld orlando academic press
schofield RG 1976 A comparison of two parent educationprograms parent effectiveness training andbehavior modification and their effects of the childsself esteem published phd dissertation universityof northern colorado greenley colorado
simmons martin A 1975 facilitating parentchildparentinteractions
childthrough the education of parents journal
of research and development in education 8 2 9610296
smith
102
D 1985 doctoral dissertation in progress theprofessional school for psychological studies sandiego CA
stanley S 1978 family education to enhance the moralatmosphere of the family and the moral development ofadolescents journal of counseling psychology 25 2
110118110
strain
118
P guralnick M and walker FI 1986 children ssocial behavior orlando academic press
summerlin M and ward R 1981 the effect of parentgroup participation on attitudes elementary schoolguidance counseling 16 133136133
tavormina
136
J B 1974 basic models of parent counselinga critical review psychological bulletin 81 11 827-835
wampler KS 1982 the effectivenessectivenessactiveness of the minnesotacouple communication program a review of researchjournal of marital and family therapy 8 345354345
58
354
avery
q u a 1 i t y31
p a r e n tther 0
21
Is
counsel
K S ef f
ther 81
caarepaareamtnmtbelievibelieve
westin J 1981 the coming parent revolution whyparents must toss out the experts and start believingin themselves again chicago rand mcnally
59
APPENDIX A
60
SAMPLES OF advertising
the orem city parent education resource center PERCincluded the following announcement in their fall 1987brochure
wednesday october 14 wednesday november 18 1987730 930 pmpparent
OMID
teen workshoptake lessons with your childrenageschildren 121912agesthis
19family workshop can help you it is under the direction
of dr wesley burr and roberta magarrell and their assistantsfrom the department of family science at BYU sessionsinclude short presentation demonstrations video tapesdiscussions handouts and practice time limited to 20families enrollment sheets are available at PERC
the workshop will be held in the orem city building multi-purpose room on the main floor if you need more informationcall PERC at 2247043224
61
7043
demons trationsorationstrat ionslonstime
information sent to stake presidents
december 6 1986
address
dear president glazier371
the
azierattached sheets describe the parentteenparent workshopteen
we have been offering in the edgemont south stake the otherset of pages are the materials we are giving to the bishopsto publicize the workshop also each individual whoparticipates receives a copy of the enclosed workbook
feel free to call me if you have any questions andpresident overton would also be happy to provide anyinformation you would like I1 will call you next week tosee if you want to pursue the possibility of families in yourstake joining us
thank you
wesley R burr
62
free
g-ilvingalving
helhei
parentteen WORKSHOP
information FOR STAKE presidencies
the parentteenparent workshopteen is a sixweeksix programweek designed tohelp normal familiesamiliesamiliea who are struggling with the challengesof the teenage stage of family life the workshop helpsfamilies by increasing such things as the kindness supportcommunication agreement problem solving and understandingin their daytodayday familyto lifeday
the workshop was developed in the provo utah edgemont southstake but enough leaders have been trained that it can alsonow be offered in a few other areas if they want to make itavailable the workshop is usually limited to 20 familiesand the sessions are from 700 to 930 on a weekdayweek eveningdayfamilies who want to enroll are accepted on a firstcomefirstfirstservedfirst
comebasisserved the families who want to enroll send in
a registration form and there is a small registration fee tocover the costs of the materials the families receive
WHAT THE FAMILIES CAN EXPECT
the main goal in the workshop is to improve skills that canpromote harmonious family living the workshop sessions havepresentations lecturettes demonstrations video tapesgroup discussions practice time during the sessions andassignments to do at home
the workshops areeiregureaire under the direction of wesley R burr heis a professor of family science at BYU who has written anumber of books and lectured widely he is also a formerbishop and is a member of the edgemont lith ward in provoutah there are a number of others who have been certifiedas workshop directors and each director usually has severalassistant leaders the assistant leaders work with a smallgroup of families during the practice parts of the workshops
the workshops are primarily skilltrainingskill andtrainingmotivational they are analogous to takingtalking music lessonsgolf lessons voice lessons etc except these sessionsteach family living skills the goals of the workshops areto help
63
f
C
demons trat ionslons
former
PARENT TEEN
fair families become good familiesgood families become great familiesgreat families become even better
this means that the workshops are not for families who haveserious problems they are for normal families who arestruggling with the normal challenges of living theyshould therefore be described as enriching andgrowthoriented experiences for normal families they arenot family therapy or counseling and they are not an attemptto fix pathological families
64
growth oriented
THE TOPICS IN THE SIX SESSIONS
SESSION 1 KINDNESS
this session helps parents and teens learn how to bemore cooperative how to show love to others in families evenwhen the others deserve it least how to stop vicious cyclesand how to create more kindness in the family
SESSION 2 understanding
this session helps individuals learn how tomore deeply and truly understand other family members and
how they can make themselves understood better it improveslistening by teaching skills in listening for nonverbalnon andverbalemotional messages
SESSION 3 CONSENSUS
this session helps families learn new ways to resolveconflicts and disagreements so the parents and teens feelgood about the solutionsSESSION 4 transferring CONTROL
this session helps families learnsome innovative and creative ways to turn control orresponsibility over to the teens it minimizes the usualparentteenparent struggleteen where the teens fight for more controland the parents try to keep the child from getting too muchfreedom too earlySESSION 5 EMOTIONS
this session improves ability to control emotions such asanger frustration and short tempers it teaches skills indirecting these feelings toward constructive use
SESSION 6 SUPPORT
this session teaches methods of getting and giving morehelp assistance and support to each other both parentsand teens become more aware of the developmental changesadults and teens are experiencing and they learn new waysto help each other grow rather than stifle or hinder growthand fulfillment
65
conf lictslichts
J
ITEMS EACH FAMILY RECEIVES
1 A parentteenparent workbookteen for each person the workbook hasreadings and activities
2 several handouts posters and charts are given to eachfamilyamily to help them learn the skills and remember topractice them
3 when families complete the requirements for graduationthey receive a certificate and each participant receivesa commemorative key to symbolically remind them to usethe skills that have been practiced
4 refreshments are provided for the first and last eveningin most workshops the familiesamiliesamiliea decide to take turnsbringing refreshments the other nights
5 several letters are mailed to the families during theworkshop to motivate them to do the homework activities
6 A twoyeartwo subscriptionyear to family keys newsletter7 each family receives a letter indicating their
application has been received the letter also givesthem instructions on topics such as dress standards andthe time and rooms for the sessions
8 each person receives two questionnaires to fill out A
preworkshopproworkshopprepro questionnaireworkshop helps the director adjust theworkshop so it meets the needs of the individuals as muchas possible A postworkshoppost questionnaireworkshop gives thedirector ideas and feedback that can help improve theworkshop
BUDGET FOR THE WORKSHOP
the families receive a variety of materials so there issome cost for the workshop for example the workbook thateach person receives costs 3.50350 to print and each familyreceives 15 to 20 mailings the director of the workshop hasa small grant to help with some of the costs but familiesare asked to pay a 20.002000 per family registration fee ifthat amount is a hardship for a familyamily the amount beadjusted somewhat
66
for
f
f
6a
8each
ques itionnairef
for f
350
2000
aa
relrei lef
lstrationlustration
procedures IN organizing A WORKSHOP IN A STAKE
the stake presidency usually consults with thehigh council and bishops council in decidingwhether to sponsor a workshop if they decideto sponsor a workshop they usually appoint amember of the stake presidency or a highcouncilman to be a coordinator of itthe workshop coordinator and director then makearrangements this includes scheduling roomspreparing publicity materials gettingassistants and preparing registration materialsat least two or three months before a workshopbeings the bishops should be informed of thedetails about the workshop the workshopdirector can be invited to a bishops councilmeeting to help explain the program and answerquestions A packet of materials is usuallygiven to each ward bishop the packet has oneposter and the following six pages ofinformation1 A page that briefly explains what the
workshops are and what the bishop is to do
2 A flyer about 40 copies of the flyer willbe in a pocket of each poster that will bein each foyer
3 an article that is shorter than the flyerthat can be published inielletint a sunday program ora monthly ward newsletter
4 an announcement the bishop is asked to givein priesthood meeting
5 an announcement the relief society presidentis asked to give in relief society
if a stake has a monthly newsletter a flyer isusually attached to it about two months beforethe workshop begins the flyers have a tearofftearregistration
offform and a sample flyerlyeriyer is
attachedposters are usually placed in foyers all daysunday for about four weeks before theregistration deadline the posters are providedby the workshop leaders and they usually havepockets to hold about 40 copies of the flyer
67
STEP 1
STEP 2
STEP 3
STEP 4
reg f
STEP 5
iesles
alstedjlsted
information FOR BISHOPS
the stake is sponsoring three parentteenPARENT WORKSHOPSTEEN in 1987the workshops are designed to improve such things as thekindness support cooperation understanding andcontrolling anger in families the dates will be
winter workshop january 28th to march 4thathspring workshop march lith to april 15thsummer workshop july 8thath to august 12th
the workshops are for normal families who are strugglingwith the typical challenges of the teenage years they arenot for families that have serious problems families withpathologies or serious problems should not attend theworkshops are enriching experiences for normal familiesthey are primarily skilltrainingskill andtraining motivational and arelike taking music lessons golf lessons or voice lessonsthe goals are to help
fair families become good familiesgood families become great familiesgreat families become even better
the sessions will be held in the edgemont south stakecenter 2950 north canyon road from 700 to 930 onwednesday evenings they will be under the direction ofwesley burr a member of the edgemont lith ward a formerbishop and a professor of family science at brigham younguniversity brother burr will be assisted by a group oftrained assistants from BYU
there will be a 20.002000 registration fee for each family thatenrolls all of the fees will be used for books handoutsand other materials the participants will receive eachworkshop will be limited to 25 families and they will beaccepted on a firstcomefirst firstservedfirstcome basisserved thereforethose who want to enroll should send their registration formin as soon as possiblefamilies register by sending an application form to the
following addressparentteenparent workshopteen
3290 mohawk circleprovo utah 84604
posters will be placed in the foyersboyers of each chapel in thestake between december 21st and january 18th and theposters will have application forms and a brochure to givefamilies more detailed information about the workshopsif anyone has questions they should call brother burr at
3757314375
68
7314
ass
famil
foyers
2000
WHAT DO participants RECEIVE
1 each participant will receive their own copy of aparentteenparent workbookteen the workbook has readings andactivities
2 each family will get a number of colorful handoutsposters and cards that will help them learn the skillsthat are taught
3 refreshments during the sessions4 each family will get a letter indicating their
application has been received the letter will alsogive them instructions on topics such as dressstandards how to prepare for the workshop and the timeand places for the sessions
5 several letters will be mailed to the families duringthe workshop to motivate them to do the homeworkactivities
6 when families complete the requirements for graduationthey will receive a certificate and each member ofthese families will receive a commemorative key tosymbolically remind them to use the skills that havebeen practiced
7 each familyamily will get a complementary twoyeartwosubscription
yearto the family keys newsletter
69
f
A REQUEST TO BISHOPS
please use the attached materials to help inform familiesin your ward about the workshop the following listsummarizes what you should have and what to do with eachpage
blue page
green page
canary page
ivory page
announcement for priesthood give theannouncement in priesthood meeting
announcement for relief societyR S president
get it to
announcement for sunday program get it toeditor of program this can also be put ina monthly newsletterbrochure that will be in posters keep itit is for your information make copies togive to some families if you wish
70
pi ogram
marchathmarcheth
announcement FOR priesthood MEETING
PLEASE GIVE THIS announcementIN priesthood MEETING FOR
TWO OR THREE SUNDAYSsunday&BEFORE JANUARY 18th
the stake is sponsoring three parentteenPARENT WORKSHOPSTEEN in 1987and some of you may want to enroll in one of them
the workshops are designed to help families who haveteenagers improve such things as the kindness cooperationsupport and understanding in their family the workshopsare like taking music lessons golf lessons or voice lessonsthe difference is that the parents and teens attend thesesessions togethertogethc and they teach family living skillsthe workshops will last six weeks and they will meet on
wednesday evenings the dates of the workshops are
WINTER WORKSHOP january 28th to march 4thathSPRING WORKSHOP march lith to april 15thSUMMER WORKSHOP july 8thath to august 12th
there is a fee of 20.002000 per family all of the fee goes tothe books handouts and other materials the participants willreceive
if any of you would like to enroll or if you would like moreinformation there is a poster in the foyer that has brochuresand application forms
71
c
kr liv
MarchAth
2000
famicami L liv
announcement FOR RELIEF SOCIETY
PLEASE GIVE THIS announcementIN THE RELIEF SOCIETY FOR
TWO OR THREE SUNDAYSBEFORE JANUARY 18th
the stake is sponsoring three parentteenPARENT WORKSHOPSTEEN in 1987and some of you may want to talk with your husbands aboutenrolling in one of them
the workshops are designed to help families who haveteenagers improve such things as the kindness cooperationsupport and understandingderstandingferstanding in their family the workshopsare like taking music lessons golf lessons or voice lessonsthe difference is that the parents and teens attend thesesessions together and they teach family living skillseach workshop will last six weeks and they will meet on
wednesday evenings the dates of the workshops are
WINTER WORKSHOP january 28th to march 4thathSPRING WORKSHOP march lith to april 15thSUMMER WORKSHOP july 8thath to august 12th
there is a fee of 20.002000 per family all of the fee goes tothe books handouts and other materials the participants willreceive
if any of you would like to enroll or if you would like moreinformation there is a poster in the foyer that has brochuresand application forms
72
19871
understanding
theN re
2000
announcement TO BE PUBLISHED INTHE WEEKLY SUNDAY PROGRAM
note to the editorplease include the following announcementin the sunday program for as many weeks aspossible between now and january 18th
parentteenPARENT WORKSHOPSTEEN the stake is sponsoring threeparentteenparent workshopsteen they will help families how tohave more harmony cooperation and kindness during theteenage years there are posters in the foyer that havedetails about the workshops and application forms
73
blepossi
foyer
bie
SAMPLE enrollment FORM
PLEASEPLEAIpleak ENROLL THE FOLLOWING FAMILYIN A parentteenPARENT WORKSHOPTEEN
name
tel no
address
street city state zip
names and ages of teens who will attend
which workshop is your firstput an X by the workshopsyou cannot attend
second and third choice
winter workshopspring workshopsummer workshop
january 28th march 4thathmarch lith april 15thjuly 8thath august 12th
send this application with 20.002000 toparentteenparent workshopteen3290 mohawk circleprovo utah 84604
74
cq E
11x11
2000
APPENDIX B
75
I1 s
difdlf fers f rom
on the following pages are samples of prepro and post workshopquestionnaires for fathers mothers and teenspage one on the prepro test of the fathers mothersmother and teensquestionnaires were different A sample of page one for eachis reproduced on the following pages
page one of the post test differs from page one of thepretest page one of the post test was exactly the same forfathers mothers and teens it has been reproduced next
lastly the main body of the questionnaire is reproducedpages two through 7 of the questionnaire were exactly the samefor athersfathers mothers and teens for the pretest and for thepost test
76
father IS teen I1 s
V
for f for for
100loo 9000.9000
FATHERS questionnairepage 1 of the pretestpre
dear
test
father
this questionnaire asks your opinion about your family thereare no right11right or wrong answers since the questions ask how youfeel about things fill out the questionnaire alone withouttalking to other members of the family while you are doing it
the information from your questionnaire will be treatedconfidentially as your answers will be combined with all of theothers who participate in the project
thank you for your assistance
1 name
2 address
3 agestreet city state zip
4 occupations
5 highest education you have completed
6 religion LDS protestant catholic other
7 in an average month how many church meetings do you attend
8 ethnic background white spanish indian blackother
9 Is your current marriage your first second thirdother
10 number of years married
11 do you own or rent your own home
12 what is the approximate value of your home
13 considering your total family income what category was your
family in in 1986 under 154000015 15400001540000
4010000040
40000
over100000 100000
14 in an average month how many times does your family usuallyspend in family recreational activities things you do as afamily
77
40100
11
MOTHERS questionnairepage 1 of the pretestprotestprepro
dear
testmother
this questionnaire asks your opinion about your family thereare no right11right or wrong answers since the questions ask how youfeel about things fill out the questionnaire alone withouttalking to other members of the family while you are doing it
the information from your questionnaire will be treatedconfidentially as your answers will be combined with all of theothers who participate in the project
thank you for your assistance
1 name
2 address
3 agestreet city state zip
4 occupations
5 highest education you have completed
6 religion LDS protestant catholic other
7 in an average month how many church meetings do you attend
8 ethnic background white spanish indian blackother
9 Is your current marriage your firstirstarst second thirdother
10 how many marriage or family workshops or courses have your beenin before
11 how many daughters do you have in your family
12 how many sons do you have in your familyamily
13 where were you married temple civic settingchurch or home
14 in an average month how many times does your family usuallyspend in family recreational activities things you do as afamily
78
f
in f
11
otherther what is it
6 in an average month how many church meetings do you attend
7 in an average month how many hours does your family usuallyspend in family recreational activities things you do as a
family
ignore questions 8148 they14 are only on the parentsquestionnaires
79
TEENAGER questionnairepage 1 of the pretestprotestprepro
dear
test
teen
this questionnaire asks your opinion about your familyamily thereare no right11right or wrong answers since the questions ask how youfeeleel about things fill out the questionnaire alone withouttalking to other members of the family while you are doing it
the information from your questionnaire will be treatedconfidentially as your answers will be combinedcomb withLined all of theothers who participate in the project
thank you for your assistance
1 name
2 address
3 age
4 grade in school
5 religion
JLDSprotestantcatholicjewish
f
f without
LDS
31
11
quitequit helpfulc
opinikopiniI1 ons
FATHERS MOTHERSMOTHER AND TEENAGER questionnairepage 1 of the post test
dear
this questionnaire asks your opinions about your familythere are no right or wrong answers since the questions ask howyou feel about things fill out the questionnaire alone withouttalking to other members of the family while you are doing it
the information from your questionnaire will be treatedconfidentially as your answers will be combined with all of theothers who participate in the project
thank you for your assistance
1 evaluate how helpful the following parts of the workshopsessions were to your family
a extremely helpfulb
A little bit helpfuld not helpful
e you cant remember that part of theworkshop or you didnt attend thatsession
a b c d e session I11 the love gifts
a b c d e session 1 breaking vicious cycles
a b c d e session 2 pay attention to theemotional part of what otherssay
a b c d e session 2 being alert to nonverbalnonmessages
verbal
a b c d e session 2 active listening
a b 0 d e session 3 trying to get consensus
a b c d e session 4 the vocabulary fortransferring control to teens
a b c d e session 5 the four steps in handlinganger
a b c d e session 5 new ways to deal with anger
80
S
extremelye
0ri
extremely helpfulb quite helpful
c A little bit helpfuld not helpful
e you cant remember that part of theworkshop or you didnt attend thatsession
a b 0 d e
a b c d e
a b 0 d e
session6sessions
session6sessions
session6sessions
being supportive throughphysical touch
being supportive throughcompanionshipcompanionsh
being supportive throughfindingindinganding ways to help familymembers get successes
81
a
can t
session 6
session 6
session 6
fsuccessesbesses
companionsh 1i p
in the fathers mothermothershother s and teenager questionnairespages 272 are7 duplicated on prepro and post tests and a samplefollows
page 2
15 how much improvement would you like to see in your familyin each of the following areas circle the appropriatelettera no improvement is needed in this area
b A little improvement in this areac s A moderate improvement in this area
d quite a bit of improvement in this areae we need a great deal of improvement
here
a b c d e being kind and considerate towardeach other
a b c d e amount family members listen care-fully to each other
a b c d e resolving disagreements andconflicts
a b c d e agreeing how much control the teensshould have over things in theirlives
a b c d e controlling anger or tempers
a b c d e being supportive of other members ofthe family
a b c d e following through on respons-ibilities
a b c d e reducing arguing and fighting
a b c d e forgiving and forgetting when some-one does something wrong
a b c d e understanding the opinions andfeelings of others
a b c d e doing nice things for others in thehome
a b c d e spending more timetimie doing pleasantthings together
a b 0 d e managing money
82
f
bili ties
befbeaore
a no improvement is needed in this areab A little improvement in this area
c A moderate improvement in this aread quite a bit of improvement in this area
e we need a great deal of improvementhere
a b 0 d e teens wanting to do things beforethey are old enough
a b c d e parents not giving the teensenough freedom
a b c d e power struggles about who shouldhave the most say
a b c d e people feeling its safe to expresstheir true feelings
a b c d e spirituality in the family
a b c d e companionship in the family
a b c d e amount of cooperation in the home
a b c d e some family members being mean toothers in the family
a b 0 d e communication in the family
83
ii n
want ing
scly
page 3
16 fill out one column for yourself one for our spouse andone column for the teens in your family if there areseveral teens think of them as a group use thefollowing 0100 scale10 and put numbers on the linescompare yourself and your spouse to other adults comparethe teens to youth who are about the samesautesaule age
lowest average highest0 5 10
father mother teens
helpful
stubborn
cooperative
impatient
loving
doesnt careabout othersfeelings
kind
selfish
unwilling togive in
good listener
helps others inthe family besuccessful
supportive
looses temper
adaptable
manipulative
thinks mostlyof self
84
feel ings
page 3 continued
16 fill out one column for yourself one for our spouse andone column for the teens in your familyamily if there areseveral teens think of them as a group use thefollowing 0100 scale10 and put numbers on the linescompare yourself and your spouse to other adults comparethe teens to youth who are about the same age
lowest average highest0 5 10
father mother teens
does nicethings forothers in family
understandsothers
85
f
forii n
page 4
17 how often do the following things occur in your family
a not at all neverb A littlelittie bit
c occasionallyd fairly often
e very often
a b c d e dad goes out of his way to be helpful tothe teens
a b c d e mom goes out of her way to be helpful tothe teens
a b c d e the teens go out of their way to be help-ful to the parents
a b c d e dad loses his temper
a b c d e mom loses her temper
a b c d e the teens loose their tempers
a b c d e dad tries hard to understand the teensopinions
a b c d e mom tries hard to understand the teensopinions
a b c d e the teens try hard to understand theparents opinions
a b c d e dad does something for someone else justto be nice
a b c d e mom does something for someone else justto be nice
a b c d e the teen does something for someone elsejust to be nice
a b c d e dad does enjoyable things with the teens
a b c d e mom does enjoyable things with the teens
a b c d e the teens do enjoyable things with theparents
a b c d e the teens do enjoyable things withsiblings
86
of ten
i
page 4 continued
17 how often do the following things occur in your family
a not at all neverb A littleittleittielttie bit
c occasionallyd fairly often
e very often
a b c d e dad expresses love to the teens throughphysical affection
a b c d e dad expresses love to the teens throughwords
a b c d e mom expresses love to the teens throughphysical affection
a b c d e mom expresses love to the teens throughwords
a b c d e the teens express love to the parentsthrough physical affection
a b c d e the teens express love to the parentsthrough words
a b c d e dad tries to control the teens lives toomuch
a b c d e mom tries to control the teens lives toomuch
a b c d e the teens want too much freedomreedom fromf theromparents control
a b c d e dad is too permissive with the teens
a b c d e mom is too permissive with the teens
a b c d e teens dont take enough responsibility fortheir own lives
a b c d e dad lets the teens make their own
decisions the right amount
a b c d e mom lets the teens make their own
decisions the right amount
a b c d e the teens want to make their own decisionsthe right amount
87
1
of ten
c
a f
page 5
18 the questions on this page ask how often things happenin your family when you are having a problem betweenthe parents and teens an argument fight disagreementetc when you have problems how often do thefollowing occur
a neverb rarely
c occasionallyd usually
e all the time
a b c d e there is a cooperative attitude in thefamily
a b 0 d e yelling and shouting occurs
a b c d e there is a we can solve this attitude
a b c d e dad is kind to others
a b c d lee mom is kind to others
a b c d e the teens are kind to others
a b c d e dad says things he regrets latera b c d e mom says things she regrets latera b c d e the teens says things they regret latera b c d e dads anger or temper gets out of hand
a b c d e moms anger or temper gets out of hand
a b c d e the teens s anger or temper gets out ofhand
a b c d e dad is willing to give in
a b c d e mom is willing to give in
a b c d e the teens are willing to give in
a b c d e dad listens to others well
a b 0 d e mom listens to others well
a b c d e teens listens to others well
88
is
teensis
page 5 continued
18 the questions on this page ask how often things happenin your family when you are having a problem11problem betweenthe parents and teens an argument fight disagreementetc when you have problems how often do thefollowing occur
a neverb rarely
c occasionallyd usually
e all the timeime
a b c d e dad tries hard to find solutions all willfeel good about
a b 0 d e mom tries hard to find solutions all willfeel good about
a b c d e teens try hard to find solutions all willfeel good about
a b c d e dad understands the teens
a b c d e mom understands the teens
a b c d e the teens understand the mom and dad
a b c d e dad is concerned about how others feel
a b c d e mom is concerned about how others feel
a b c d e teens are concerned about how othersthersfeeleelf if
89
ta
E
E
0
11
page 6
19 how would you describe your marital relationship as ofsix months ago
very dissatisfying
fairly dissatisfying
mixed or dont know
fairly satisfying
very satisfying
perfect
20 how would you describe your marital relationship as itstands now
very dissatisfying
fairly dissatisfying
mixed or don t know
fairly satisfying
very satisfying
perfect
21 in relation to the marriages of your friends andassociates is your marriage
much more satisfying than the averagemarriage
somewhat more satisfying than the averagemarriage
about as satisfying as the average
somewhat less satisfying
much less satisfying
90
dont
easaas 1elyilyaly
page 7
1 2 3 4 5
almost never once in a sometimes frequently almostwhile always
USE THE ABOVE NUMBERS TO DESCRIBE YOUR FAMILY NOW
22 family members ask each other for help
23 in solving problems the childrens suggestionsare followed
24 we approve of each others friends
25 children have a say in their discipline
26 we like to do things with just our immediatefamilyamily
27 different persons act as leaders in our family
28 family members feel closer to other family membersthan to people outside the family
29 our family changes its way of handling tasks
30 family members like to spend free time with eachother
31 parents and children discuss punishmenttogether
32 family members feel very close to each other
33 the children make the decisions in our family
34 when our family gets together for activitieseverybody is present
35 rules change in our family
36 we can easily think of things to do together asa family
37 we shift household responsibilities from personto person
38 family members consult other family members ontheir decisions
91
f
Y
page 7 continued
1 2 3 4 5
almost never once in a sometimes frequently almostwhile always
USE THE ABOVE NUMBERS TO DESCRIBE YOUR FAMILY NOW
38 family members consult other family members ontheir decisions
39 it is hard to identify the leaderleaders s in ourfamily
40 family togetherness is very important
41 it is hard to tell who does which householdchores
92
1identicidentify
APPENDIX C
93
measurement OF CRITERION VARIABLES and METHOD OF COMPUTINGSCORES FROM PRE AND POST WORKSHOP questionnairescoding information for the kindness scalethe kindness scale was comprised of a total of eightquestions each was assigned a number of from 1 to 8
1 question 16 impatience score 10 number assignedby the participant
2 question 16 loving score number assigned by theparticipant
3 question 16 kind score number assigned by theparticipant
4 question 16 selfish score 10 number assigned bythe participant
5 question 16 thinks mostly of self score 10 numberassigned by the participant
6 question 16 does nice things for other in familyscore 10 number assigned by the participant
7 question 17 dad mom the teenteens does something forsomeone else just to be nice score the correspondingnumeric value for the letter assigned by the participant
a0 bl c2 d3 e48 question 18 dad mom the teens is kind to others
score the corresponding numeric value for the letterassigned by the participant
a0 bl c2 d3 e4range of scores possible 0 68
coding informationinformant for the listening scalethe listening scale was comprised of a total of 7 questionseach was assigned a number of from 1 to 7
1 question 16 doesnt care about others feelings score10 number assigned by the participant
2 question 16 good listener score number assigned bythe participant
94
c
Ininformatformat lon
aa ca da ea
aa ca da ea
particbartic ipantidant
3 question 16 understands others number assigned bythe participant
4 question 17 dad mom the teens tries hard tounderstand the teens opinions score numeric value forthe letter assigned by the participant
ao bl c2 d3 e45 question 18 dad mom the teens listens to others
well score the corresponding numeric value for theletter assigned by the participantao bl c2 d3 e4
6 question 18 dad mom the teens understands theteens score the corresponding numeric value for theletter assigned by the participantao bl c2 d3 e4
7 question 18 dad mom the teensisteenteens concernedis about howothers feel score the corresponding numeric value forthe letter assigned a by the participant
a0 bl 02.02 d3 e4range of scores possible 0 46
coding information for the consensus scalethe consensus scale was comprised of a total of 7 questionseach was assigned a number of from 1 to 7
1 question 16 stubborn score 10 number assigned bythe participant
2 question 16 cooperative score number assigned by theparticipantoparticipantparticipants
3 question 16 unwilling to give in score 10 numberassigned by the participant
4 question 16 adaptable score number assigned by theparticipant
5 question 16 manipulative score 10 number assignedby the participant
95
for
for
for
sis
02
ca da ea
ca da ea
ca da ea
aa da ea
theithe correspondingnumeric value for the letter assigned by the participantao bl c2 d3 e4
range of scores possible
6 question 18 dad is willing to give in score thecorresponding numeric value for the letter assigned by theparticipant
a0 bl c2 d3 e47 question 18 dad tries hard to find solutions all will
feel good about score the corresponding numeric valuefor the letter assigned by the participant
a0 bl c2 d3 e4range of scores possible 0 58
coding information for the control scalethe control scale was comprised of a total of 3 questionseach was assigned a number of from 1 to 3
1 question 17 dad tries to control the teens lives toomuch score the corresponding numeric value for theletter assigned by the participant
a0 bl c2 d3 e42 question 17 dad is too permissive with the teens score
the corresponding numeric value for the letter assignedby the participantao bl c2 d3 e4
3 question 17 dad lets the teens make their owndecisions the right amount score
0 12
coding information for the anger scale
the anger scale was comprised of a total of 4 questions eachwas assigned a number of from 1 to 4
1 question 16 looses temper 10 number assigned by theparticipant
96
aa ca da ea
aa ca da ea
aa ca da ea
ca da ea
ca da ea
2 question 17 dad looses his temper score thecorresponding numeric value for the letter assigned by theparticipantao bl c2 d3 e4
3 question 18 dad says things he regrets later scorethe corresponding numeric value for the letter assignedby the participant
a0 bl c2 d3 e44 question 18 dads anger or temper gets out of hand
score the corresponding numeric value for the letterassigned by the participant
a0 bl c2 d3 e4range of scores possible 0 22
coding information for the support scale
the support scale was comprised of a total of 7 questionseach was assigned a number of from 1 to 7
1 question 16 helpfulhelpfhelff score number assigned by theparticipant
2 question 16 helps others in the family be successfulscore number assigned by the participant
3 question 16 supportive score
the corresponding numeric value for theletter assigned by the participant
a0 bl c2 d3 e45 question 17 dad does enjoyable things with the teens
score the corresponding numeric value for the letterassigned by the participantao bl c2 d3 e4
6 question 17 dad expresses love toitottoibo the teens throughphysical affection score the corresponding numeric valuefor the letter assigned by the participant
a0 bl c2 d3 e497
for
dad I1 sfor
ul
number assigned by theparticipant
4 question 17 dad goes out of his way to be helpful tothe teens score for
1
ca da ea
aa ca da ea
aa ca da ea
aa ca da ea
ca da ea
aa ca da ea
7 question 17 dad expresses love to the teens throughwords score the corresponding numericnurrie valueric for theletter assigned by the participant
a0 bl c2 d3 e4range of scores possible 0 46
coding information for the adaptability scalethe adaptability scale was comprised of a total of 5
questions each was be assigned a number of from 1 to 5
1 question 22 family members ask each other for helpscore number assigned by the participant
2 question 23 in solving problems the childrenssuggestions are followed score number assigned by theparticipantsparticipant
3 question 24 we approve of each others friends scorenumber assigned by the participant
4 question 25 children have a say in their disciplinescore number assigned by the participant
5 question 26 we like to do things with just ourimmediate familylmily score number assigned by theparticipant
range of scores possible 0 25
coding information for the cohesion scale
the cohesion scale was comprised of a total of 5 measureseach measure will be assigned a number of from 1 to 5
1 questionnumber assigned by the participant
2 question 28 family members feel closer to otherfamily members than to people outside the family scorenumber assigned by the participant
3 question 29 our family changes its way of handlingtasks score number assigned by the participant
4 question 30 family members like to spend free timewith each other score number assigned by theparticipant
98
50
fc
a
is
227
aa ca da ea
amily
2272722.7 different persons act as leaders in ourfamily score
5 question 31 parents and children discuss punishmenttogetherto scoreaetheroether number assigned by the participant
range of scores possible 1 25
subjective evaluation of session parts
there were 12 session parts evaluated one item made up thescale for each session partquestion 1 on the post testthe scale for each of the following measures was
a4 b3 c2 dld1 eothe score for each session part the corresponding numericvalue for the letter assigned by the participantsession 1 giving love giftssession 1 breaking vicious cycles
session 2 paying attention to the emotional part of whatothers say
session 2 being alert to nonverbalnon messagesverbal
session 2 active listeningsession 3 trying to get consensus
session 4 the vocabulary for transferring control to teens
session 5 the four steps in handling anger
session 5 new ways to deal with anger
session 6 being supportive through physical touch
session 6 being supportive through companionship
session 6 being supportive through finding ways to helpfamily members get successes
range of possible scores 0 4
99
aa ba ca da
fawefm
signifsignia icantlyscantly
mmittammittao50
EFFECTS OF A parentteenPARENT PROGRAMTEEN
roberta magarrell
department of family sciencesMS degree april 1989
ABSTRACT
the purpose of this study was to investigate the shortterm effects of a parentteenparent structuredteen family facilitationprogram PAT the study compared prepro and post workshop scoreson a number of dependent variables in a workshop areplication of the workshop and a comparison group
analysis of the data revealed no significant differencesfrom pretest to post test in either of the groups howeverwhen the groups were combined there were some statisticallysignificant differences from pretest to post test the fathersincreased in their ability to transftransfertransi control while themothers decreased in kindness A few post hoc analyses werecarried out to explore the possibility that several variablesmight influence the effects of the workshop the data suggestthat the level of proficiency of participants influenced theeffects of the workshop the less proficient the participantswere the more they changed in a desirable direction thecomparison of families that volunteered for the workshop withthe families thathat did not suggests that families thatvolunteer are significantly lower on most measures it wassuggested that one reason for the minimal effects is that thePAT program may have dealt with too many skills and not haveput enough emphasis on any one of the skills to producechange
COMMITTEE APPROVAL
av4vwesley burburr comnncohnn ateettee chairman
jvujq3 TJUis holmaholman committee member
richard C galbraithGalbrait committee member
fsw zlrobert F stahmann department chairman
er
ef fectsacts prof icientscient
tfor effectsacts
wes ayqy r conrattconr4tt
sZs 5o
robert
fi
al