TPC-Journal-V3-Issue1

9 The Professional Counselor \Volume 3, Issue 1 and how to dispute irrational beliefs. Participants were responsible for commenting on the readings and responding to other participants’ comments. The consultant moderated the discussion modules. Participants could access and complete the discussion modules at their convenience due to the asynchronous format of the group consultation. Participants were required to dedicate approximately 1.25 hours a week to the group consultation, completing the online discussion modules and applying concepts discussed to daily living. At the conclusion of the study, members of the control group received copies of the articles used during online consultation. Results Preliminary Analysis Univariate analyses of variance (ANOVAs) were conducted on scores of the IBI and the GSES compiled from both treatment conditions and the control group. No significant differences were found among the three conditions in terms of irrational beliefs, F (2, 39) = .37, p > .05. Pre-test equivalency also was noted for efficacy beliefs for all conditions F (2, 39) = .48, p > .05. In summation, irrational beliefs and efficacy beliefs held by elementary school teachers in this study were comparable across all groups. Treatment Efficacy Means and standard deviations for the face-to-face, on-line and control groups are presented in Table 1. Teachers who received the treatments were expected to respond by maintaining fewer irrational beliefs than the control group. Analysis revealed statistical significance for teachers’ irrational beliefs, F (2, 33) = 8.80, p < .001, which accounted for approximately 35% of the variance among the three groups. Post hoc analyses using Tukey HSD criterion for significance indicated the average level of irrational beliefs was significantly lower in the face-to-face treatment ( M = 49.33, SD = 15.57), when compared to the control group ( M = 65.95, SD = 9.66). Contrary to the hypothesis, the effect of the on-line treatment on teachers’ irrational beliefs ( M = 74.2, SD = 13.41) was not statistically different from the control group. Table 1 Means and Standard Deviations of Pre-Intervention Measures Control Face-to-Face Online ( n = 24) ( n = 9) ( n = 9) Measure M SD M SD M SD IBI 144.25 15.55 141.33 12.07 147.56 17.32 GSES 30.38 4.59 31.56 2.13 31.89 5.60 Note. IBI = Irrational Beliefs Inventory; GSES = General Self Efficacy Scale. Further analyses on the items from the subscales of the TIBS provided additional insight into the effects of the treatments on specific irrational beliefs. Analysis of the three groups indicated statistical significance for self-downing attitudes (SDA), F (2, 35) = 5.97, p = .006. Post hoc comparisons indicated the mean for the face-to-face group ( M = 16.89, SD = 4.57) statistically differed from the control group ( M = 22.95, SD = 4.49) in terms of SDA. An omnibus ANOVA indicated that means for low frustration tolerance attitudes (LFTA) were not significantly different across groups, although a slight trend toward significance was present, F (2, 33) = 3.13, p = .057. Another analysis indicated statistical significance across groups for attitudes of school organization (ASO), F (2, 33) = 4.78, p =. 015. However, criterion for significance in a Tukey HSD analysis was not met when comparing the mean of the control group ( M = 16.95, SD = 2.36) with the mean of either treatment, face-to-face ( M = 13.89, SD = 5.95) or online ( M = 20.0, SD = 2.74). Group means for authoritarian attitudes toward students (AATS) also were found to be statistically significant when an ANOVA was conducted, F (2, 33) = 6.35, p = .004. Post hoc comparisons using the Tukey HSD analysis indicated the mean scores of the face-to-face treatment ( M = 10.78, SD = 3.67) were significantly different from the control group ( M = 15.43, SD = 4.07). However, the effect of the online treatment on AATS ( M = 17.4, SD = 2.61) was not statistically different from the control group. The effects of the treatments on the participants’ irrational thoughts are presented in Table 2.