TPC-Journal-V1-Issue2

The Professional Counselor \ Volume 1, Issue 2 127 Table 1 Pre- and Post-Test Comparisons between the PEGS (Traditional) and ARK (Thematic) Program Assessment Instrument Pre-Test Post-Test T p d t p d Teacher-reported SSRS – Social skill 0.76 .46 .76 0.08 .94 .08 SSRS – Problem behaviors -0.15 .88 .08 -0.28 .78 .28 Bully behaviors -0.97 .35 .97 -1.56 .14 1.56 Peer victimization -2.14 .054 2.13 -3.48 .005 1.84 Self-reported SSRS – Social skill 1.16 .32 5.88 2.03 .06 2.03 SSRS – Problem behaviors 0.56 .59 .56 0.56 .59 .56 Bully behaviors 1.25 .23 1.25 -1.31 .21 3.40 Peer victimization 1.09 .30 1.09 0.82 .43 .82 Self-esteem 0.18 .86 .18 0.79 .44 .80 Perception of self -1.17 .26 1.17 0.33 .75 .33 Within Group Analysis – PEGS Teacher-reported measures. Results were analyzed using paired-samples t -tests comparing the pre-test assessment scores of the PEGS Program to the post-test assessment scores of the PEGS Program. Mean scores, significance, and effect size are displayed in Table 2. Analysis of teacher-reported social skills failed to reveal a significant difference between the pre- and post-test assessments, t (10) = 0.38; p < .71. The effect size was computed as d = .11, which represents a very small effect. Analysis of teacher-reported problem behaviors also failed to reveal a significant difference between the pre- and post-test assessments, t (10) = 1.95; p < .08. The effect size was computed as d = .59, which represents a medium effect. Analysis of teacher-reported bullying behaviors failed to reveal a significant difference between the pre- and post-test assessments, t (10) = 0.13; p < .90. The effect size was computed as d = .04, which represents a very small effect. Analysis of teacher-reported peer victimization also failed to reveal a significant difference between the pre- and post-test assessments, t (10) = -0.20; p < .84. The effect size was computed as d = .06, which represents a very small effect. Self-reported measures. Results were analyzed using paired-samples t tests comparing the pre-test assessment scores of the PEGS Program to the post-test assessment scores of the PEGS Program. Mean scores, significance, and effect size are displayed in Table 2. Analysis of self-reported social skills failed to reveal a significant difference between the pre- and the post-test assessments, t (10) = -1.52; p < .16. The effect size was computed as d = .46, which represents a medium effect. Analysis of self-reported problem behaviors revealed a significant difference between the pre- and post- test assessments, t (10) = 2.81; p < .02. The effect size was computed as d = .85, which represents a large effect. Analysis of self-reported bullying behaviors failed to reveal a significant difference between the pre- and post-test assessments, t (10) = 0.52; p < .62. The effect size was computed as d = .15, which represents a small effect. Analysis of self-reported peer victimization revealed a significant difference between the pre- and post-test assessments, t (10) = 2.95; p < .01. The effect size was computed as d = .89, which represents a large effect. Analysis of self-reported self-esteem failed to reveal a significant difference between the pre- and post-test assessments, t (10) = -0.22; p < .83. The effect size was computed as