TPC-Journal-V1-Issue2

126 The Professional Counselor \ Volume 1, Issue 2 Results Between-Group Analysis Teacher-reported measures. Results were initially analyzed using independent-samples t -tests comparing the pre-test assessment scores of the PEGS Program to the ARK Program. Statistical comparisons are displayed in Table 1. Analysis of teacher-reported social skills failed to reveal a significant difference between the two groups, t (12) = 0.76; p < .46. The effect size was computed as d = .76, which represents a large effect. Analysis of teacher-reported problem behaviors also failed to reveal a significant difference between the groups, t (10.73) = -0.15; p < .88. The effect size was computed as d = .08, which represents a very small effect. Analysis of teacher-reported bullying behaviors failed to reveal a significant difference between the groups, t (12) = -0.97; p < .35. The effect size was computed as d = .97, which represents a large effect. Analysis of teacher-reported peer victimization also failed to reveal a significant difference between the groups, t (12) = -2.14; p < .054. The effect size was computed as d = 2.13, which represents a very large effect. Results were then analyzed using independent-samples t -tests comparing the post-test assessment scores of the PEGS Program to the ARK Program. Statistical comparisons are displayed in Table 1. Analysis of teacher-reported social skills failed to reveal a significant difference between the two groups, t (12) = 0.08; p < .94. The effect size was computed as d = .08, which represents a very small effect. Analysis of teacher-reported problem behaviors also failed to reveal a significant difference between the groups, t (12) = -0.28; p < .78. The effect size was computed as d = .28, which represents a small effect. Analysis of teacher-reported bullying behaviors failed to reveal a significant difference between the groups, t (12) = -1.56; p < .14. The effect size was computed as d = 1.56, which represents a very large effect. Analysis of teacher-reported peer victimization revealed a significant difference between the groups, t (11.29) = -3.48; p < .005. The effect size was computed as d = 1.84, which represents a very large effect. Self-reported measures. Results were initially analyzed using independent-samples t tests comparing the pre-test assessment scores of the PEGS Program to the ARK Program. Mean scores, significance, and effect size are displayed in Table 1. Analysis of self-reported social skills failed to reveal a significant difference between the two groups, t (3.25) = 1.16; p < .32. The effect size was computed as d = 5.88, which represents a very large effect. Analysis of self-reported problem behaviors also failed to reveal a significant difference between the groups, t (13) = 0.56; p < .59. The effect size was computed as d = .56, which represents a medium effect. Analysis of self-reported bullying behaviors failed to reveal a significant difference between the groups, t (13) = 1.25; p < .23. The effect size was computed as d = 1.25, which represents a very large effect. Analysis of self-reported peer victimization also failed to reveal a significant difference between the groups, t (13) = 1.09; p < .30. The effect size was computed as d = 1.09, which represents a very large effect. Analysis of self-reported self-esteem failed to reveal a significant difference between the groups, t (13) = 0.18; p < .86. The effect size was computed as d = .18, which represents a small effect. Analysis of self-reported perception of self also failed to reveal a significant difference between the groups, t (13) = -1.17; p < .26. The effect size was computed as d = 1.17, which represents a very large effect. Results were then analyzed using independent-samples t -tests comparing the post-test assessment scores of the PEGS Program to the ARK Program. Mean scores, significance, and effect size are displayed in Table 1. Analysis of self- reported social skills failed to reveal a significant difference between the two groups, t (13) = 2.03; p < .06. The effect size was computed as d = 2.03, which represents a very large effect. Analysis of self-reported problem behaviors also failed to reveal a significant difference between the groups, t (13) = 0.56; p < .59. The effect size was computed as d = .56, which represents a medium effect. Analysis of self-reported bullying behaviors failed to reveal a significant difference between the groups, t (13) = -1.31; p < .21. The effect size was computed as d = 3.40, which represents a very large effect. Analysis of self-reported peer victimization also failed to reveal a significant difference between the groups, t (13) = 0.82; p < .43. The effect size was computed as d = .82, which represents a large effect. Analysis of self-reported self-esteem failed to reveal a significant difference between the groups, t (13) = 0.79; p < .44. The effect size was computed as d = .80, which represents a large effect. Analysis of self-reported perception of self also failed to reveal a significant difference between the groups, t (13) = 0.33; p < .75. The effect size was computed as d = .33, which represents a small to medium effect.