TPC-Journal-V2-Issue1

70 The Professional Counselor \Volume 2, Issue 1 Table 2 Contributions to Total Personal Growth of Selected Academic and Non-academic Experiences (Attributions of Cause): Descriptive Statistics of Column 2 in Appendix A (N = 122 students) Note. First, Second, Third, Fourth = student-identified experiences from Lines 1, 2, 3, and 6, 7, 8, 9 of Appendix A listed in descending order of magnitude, Course = Problems of Personal Adjustment course from Line 4. Academic Non-academic Experience M SD M SD First 14.79 7.64 25.96 10.12 Second 8.03 4.44 15.18 6.34 Third 4.19 3.12 9.17 4.66 Course 7.94 6.46 -- -- Fourth -- -- 4.89 3.71 Misc. 4.68 4.53 5.16 6.01 Sum 39.63 11.94 60.36 11.94 Research Question 3 Numerical PTGI scores and percentage attributions of cause are subjective assessments by participants, as are most self-reports. Our research purposes require data with a degree of internal validity (veridicality or truthfulness; that is, correspondence between self-reports and actual subjective impressions). Internal validity can be assessed by comparing results of analyses across samples of multiple studies. For purposes of the following comparisons, we will use words to number our previous studies and a numeral to designate Study 1 of the current paper. Thus, our sample one (Anderson & Lopez-Baez, 2008) was a group of 347 students who described total growth in 2005 and 2006 for their preceding semester, M = 59.07 ( SD = 15.77). Our sample two (Anderson & Lopez-Baez, 2011) was a group of 117 students who described total growth and attributions of cause in May of 2007 for their preceding semester, M = 60.42 ( SD = 16.61). Our sample 1 is that of the current study. Samples are characterized by similar demographic characteristics. Comparison one. Members of samples one and two described total growth for a single semester. Therefore, we expected samples one and two to have similar mean PTGI scores (null 1: unequal mean PTGI scores). A visual inspection finds similar means. Null 1 is rejected on the basis of that visual inspection, Cohen’s d of .08 (minimal effect size), and 95% C. I. of – 4.71 to 2.01 that includes 0.00 (SE difference = 1.71). As expected, mean total scores of samples one and two are similar. Comparison two. Members of sample 1 described total growth over more semesters than did members of samples one or two. Therefore, we expected our sample 1 mean PTGI score to be higher than the mean of either sample one or sample