TPC-Journal-V1-Issue1

The Professional Counselor \ Volume 1, Issue 1 33 Because the school is small (currently 100 students), the entire student population, except for pregnant or parenting teens, was utilized as a census sample. Therefore, no sampling procedures were enacted through the process. Four participants from the experimental group dropped out of the study. One male, grade 9, age 17, dropped out of school to get his GED; another male, grade 12, age 18, and the two female participants, both grade 12 and age 18, dropped out of school to seek full-time employment. Instruments/Materials Self-Efficacy Scale. The instrument used to measure self-efficacy was the Self-Efficacy Scale (Sherer et al., 1982). According to Bandura (1997), expectations of self-efficacy are the most powerful determinants of behavioral change because self-efficacy expectancies determine the initial decision to perform a behavior, the effort expended, and persistence in the face of adversity. According to Sherer, the primary author of the instrument, the goal in developing this instrument was to create a measure of self-efficacy that would not be tied to a specific situation or behavior. The purpose of this study was discussed with Sherer (personal communication, August 10, 2004), who agreed this instrument would be appropriate to measure a growth factor in the self-efficacy domain for this student population. The Self-Efficacy Scale is a 30-item measure assessing two self-efficacy constructs: general self-efficacy and social self-efficacy. The total scores for each subscale were utilized. Parent Effectiveness Measure . Parent effectiveness, the second variable, was assessed with an adapted version of the Parenting Self-Agency Measure (Dumka et al., 1996). The 10-item instrument was measured on the same scale, but the items were modified to account for the fact that the student participants are not yet parents. The wording of items was changed to future tense to validate the change of context (e.g., “I feel sure of myself as a mother/father” was modified to Table 1 Demographic characteristics of student participants Characteristic Experimental Group Control Group Total n = 39 n = 43 n = 82 Gender Female 21 16 37 Male 18 27 45 Grade Level Seventh 0 3 3 Eighth 6 8 14 Ninth 7 6 13 Tenth 12 10 22 Eleventh 7 9 16 Twelfth 7 7 14 Primary Caregiver Mother (female) 30 35 65 Father (male) 9 8 17 Family Status Living with two parents 11 16 27 Living with one parent 26 24 50 Living with neither parent 2 3 5