TPC-Journal-V1-Issue1

34 The Professional Counselor \ Volume 1, Issue 1 “I will feel sure of myself as a mother/father”). Dumka (personal communication, October 6, 2004), the primary author of this measure, agreed that the instrument would be equally valid when adapted as a prospective parenting assessment, even though it was originally developed for use with parents of young teens. Dumka et al. noted that hypothetically, increased parenting self-agency should be one outcome of any preventive or therapeutic parenting intervention. Procedure Student participants were randomly assigned to either the experimental or the control group, initially 43 in each group. In order to study the effect of parenthood education with only non-pregnant, non-parenting alternative school students, this study was delimited to participants who fit this criteria—students who were either pregnant or already a parent were not included in the initial randomization of students to experimental or control groups. The experimental group attended the parenthood education program two mornings each week, for eight weeks. The control group was offered the opportunity to attend the same parenthood education course after the post data collection. A survey of parent education research revealed a range in curricula length, with the mean program at 10.5 weeks of instruction (Bamba, 2001; Cline & Fay, 1990; Cutting & Tammi, 1999; Doetsch, 1990; Fay, Cline, & Fay, 2000; Herz, 1984; Stirtzinger et al., 2002). The parenthood education program was designed as a pre-pregnancy prevention strategy to teach pro-social parenting skills, a realistic picture of child raising (including financial, time, and emotional demands), child development, goal setting, proactive family planning strategies, and included learning opportunities for the development of self-efficacy and empathy (with current parent/caregiver roles and responsibilities). The program is partially a derivative of an established parenting program, which was read and approved by Dr. Foster Cline, a renowned child psychiatrist and parenting educator/author (personal communication, November 2004). Based upon extensive experience and certification, the first author was selected as the instructor for the program. The teaching method consisted of lectures, small and large group discussions, daily journaling, instructional videos, role-playing, practical and relevant information dissemination, and question and answer periods. Results The program impact for the results of the two instruments described above was assessed using a between-subjects posttest design. The experimental group concluded the last program session by completing the four instruments while the control group participants simultaneously finished the instruments in their advisory classes. The classroom teachers adhered to the posttest protocol discussed by the first author prior to testing (test environment, order of instruments, student question guidelines, timeline, data collection). It should be noted that the experimental group was much larger ( n =39) and the testing environment was considerably louder and less focused than control group settings, where the participants in each room ranged from only two to six students and the rooms were observed to be quiet and composed. The experimental group was reported to be “in a hurry to finish” and “distracted,” with “excessive talking and chitchat” present in the room. It was expected that these factors might negatively influence the validity of the instrument results. Table 2 summarizes the descriptive data—means and standard deviations of the scores—for each dependent variable with both the experimental and control group. The alpha level was set at .05 throughout the study, unless otherwise indicated. Table 2 Means and Standard Deviations for Experimental and Control group on each measure Experimental group Control group Dependent Measures M SD M SD General Self-Efficacy (GSE) 62.97 7.65 58.86 13.14 Social Self-Efficacy (SSE) 22.44 4.82 20.91 5.83 Parent Effectiveness (PE) 5.16 1.10 5.5 .85