TPC-Journal-V1-Issue2

130 The Professional Counselor \ Volume 1, Issue 2 teacher-reported victimization than those in the PEGS Program. Note however that there was no difference between the pre- and the post-test assessment for ARK participants on this measure and only a non-significant increase for PEGS participants. While these results indicate that the implementation of thematic programming directed at peer harassment does not have a significantly greater positive impact on students than traditional programming directed at students who show more generalized problems, there were some large effects ( d ≥ .80) between the groups. This may indicate that there may have been some differences between the participants of the two programs, although not statistically significant. PEGS Findings indicated that there was significant improvement on self-reported problem behaviors and peer victimization when comparing the pre- and post-test assessments for the PEGS Program participants. In other words, students reported fewer problem behaviors and a decrease in victimization by their peers. While not significant, improvement also was found for teacher-reported problem behaviors and bully behaviors and self-reported social skills, bully behaviors, and self- esteem. ARK Findings indicated that there was significant improvement on teacher-reported bully behavior and on self-reported social skills and bully behaviors. In other words, students reported increased social skills and both teachers and students reported a decrease in victimization. Additionally, meaningful improvements ( d ≥ .80) were found on teacher-reported problem behaviors. That is, teachers noted fewer problem behaviors in students after their participation in the ARK Program. Conclusions Finding effective programming that can positively impact at-risk students can be difficult. Further complicating the issue is the onslaught of thematic programming targeting specific groups of at-risk students (Hartzler & Brownson, 2001). While targeted programming can be beneficial to a select group of students it may exclude other students who can benefit but may not have the same “label.” This study showed that the more traditional group (i.e., PEGS) was equally effective as the more thematic group (i.e, ARK). Limitations and Future Directions There were several limitations to this study. First, we were limited to working within the parameters the school established. That is, we were limited to 4th and 5th grade males only and we were limited to providing services during their respective lunch periods. It may have been beneficial to have both genders in each group as well as a mix of grades. Second, group sizes were small. While larger group sizes would result in a greater ability to detect a statistically significant difference if one exists, larger group sizes also can result in reduced effectiveness. Third, we were unable to have a no-treatment group. The use of a control group may have resulted in a more robust study. Finally, the unequal group sizes may have impacted the comparison of the two groups. We attempted to adjust for this by using the Satterthwaite method when the equality of variances was significantly different (O’Rourke et al., 2005). Implications There are several implications for school and school-based counselors. First, it would be important in program management if school and school-based counselors are made aware that traditional psychoeducational groups are similarly effective to thematic psychoeducational groups. With this information they can make more informed decisions about the type of groups they implement as well as the type of intervention programs they offer and purchase. If the results of this study hold true for other groups of students and other schools, school and school-based counselors who choose to utilize more traditional programming would be able to provide these services to a broader range of students, consistent with the ASCAModel (ASCA, 2005), and not limit it to a select group of students targeted for a specific issue. Additionally, the purchase of thematic intervention programs can be costly given that the use is limited to a smaller number of students and several different types of programs are needed to address students with differing issues.