TPC-Journal-V4-Issue5

The Professional Counselor \Volume 4, Issue 5 535 In order to increase client buy-in, school staff introduced the author of this article (who was also the group facilitator) to candidates. The author met with candidates and explained the study in more detail, in addition to answering any questions. If the candidates were interested in participating, the author gave them informed consent forms to have their parents sign. To increase the likelihood of the candidates returning the informed consent forms, candidates received tokens from the school, which allowed them to buy goods in the school store. If candidates returned signed informed consent forms, they received five tokens, comparable to five U.S. dollars. Out of 30 candidates, 20 returned signed informed consent forms. Although this is a small number, this quantity is permissible for pilot studies (Heppner, Wampold, & Kivlighan, 2008). The author split the participants in half based on gender (10 males and 10 females). One participant dropped out of each group, leaving 18 who completed the study. Each group met at a different time and was not aware of the existence of the other group (Burt, 2010). This pilot study assessed participants’ behavior via the STAXI-2 C/A, given pre- and post-intervention. Structure of the intervention/anger management group used in the pilot study. The anger management group consisted of eight counseling sessions and two assessment sessions (pretest and posttest assessment; Burt, 2010). Program duration was 10 weeks, and the author of this article conducted each session weekly. Corresponding with Blanton, Christensen, and Shakir (2006), each counseling session contained the following four essential components: an opening question (such as an icebreaker or introductory segment), a behavioral lesson (information gathering and learning), a behavioral activity (an experiential segment in which learned information is applied), and an appreciations and closings segment ending the group (a bonding piece for group members). Counseling sessions concluded after 60 minutes, with opening questions lasting approximately 5–10 minutes. Behavioral lessons took between 10 and 25 minutes and behavioral activities lasted 15–30 minutes. Appreciations and closing concluded after 5–10 minutes. Pre- and post-group paperwork sessions took approximately 15–30 minutes (Burt, 2010). As Burt et al. (2012) suggested, groups must be strength-based (i.e., accentuating members’ strong points), and incorporate collaboration and teamwork. The group was prosocial in nature, emphasized clients’ strengths and developed social bonding. Topics for the eight sessions included the following: improving communication skills, recognizing personal emotions, identifying emotions within others, improving observational skills, advanced detection of emotions in others, noticing anger cues in others, understanding personal anger cues, strategies for calming down, and problem-solving. Mental health counselor for the intervention. The mental health counselor for both groups was this author, who has experience as a group facilitator and counselor educator. Additionally, the author worked as a training liaison for anger management groups in the school system, teaching conflict resolution and peer mediation. He also has experience working with groups for adults and children with oppositional defiance disorder and anger management issues. The group facilitator used an integrative orientation, utilizing social cognitive theory (SCT) and cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT; Burt, 2010). Results The focus of the study was to determine whether differences existed between male and female levels of excessive aggression. Table 1 displays descriptive statistics and indicates results from the one-way repeated measures ANOVA for AC and AX. Results for youths’ overall AC levels pre- and post-intervention indicated the following, F1, 8 = 6.36, p = .003, ES = .44. Thus, the pilot study showed preliminary findings that a significant difference existed between genders on AC. For the scale of AX, results indicated a statistically significant difference between genders pre- and post-intervention (F1, 8 = 4.06, p = .018, ES = .34). Although repeated measures indicated a statistically significant difference between genders, pair-wise comparisons