1 / 20

A Review of Selected Process Measures for Group-Based Interventions

Goals of Presentation. Establish the need to effectively and efficiently measure targeted group factors related to outcomesIdentify selected instruments to measure processes in groups for adolescent AOD users. Why Look Inside the Black Box?. Studies have identified particular group-related factors that affect outcomes:Feldman, Caplinger

bill
Download Presentation

A Review of Selected Process Measures for Group-Based Interventions

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

    1. A Review of Selected Process Measures for Group-Based Interventions Mark J. Macgowan, PhD, LCSW Community-Based Intervention Research Group (C-BIRG) Florida International University, Miami Email: Macgowan@fiu.edu

    2. Goals of Presentation Establish the need to effectively and efficiently measure targeted group factors related to outcomes Identify selected instruments to measure processes in groups for adolescent AOD users

    3. Why Look Inside the Black Box? Studies have identified particular group-related factors that affect outcomes: Feldman, Caplinger & Wodarski (1983) found that group factors (e.g., composition, leadership behaviors) mediated group outcomes regardless of treatment method in their study of antisocial boys in groups Dishion, Poulin, & Burraston (2001) found that “the group process, more than the individual affiliation patterns, contributed to iatrogenic growth. This finding suggests that skilled group leadership that could orchestrate a dynamic group environment that does not provide group attention to deviance would reduce or eliminate the iatrogenic effect” (p. 89) Few empirical studies examine both outcomes and processes (Hill, Nutt, & Jackson, 1994)

    4. How Could Measuring Processes be Helpful? Illuminate the mechanisms of change in groups to allow for explication, replication, or control Maximize the “dosage” of group work Such processes could be monitored and manipulated, treating processes as active ingredients of group

    5. Measures for Group and Member Variables

    6. Measures of Group and Member Variables Group cohesion Group climate Therapeutic alliance Group engagement

    7. Group Cohesion “The group’s attractiveness to the participants and a sense of belonging, inclusion, and solidarity” (Corey, 1990, p. 116). Related to positive outcomes in groups (Budman, et al., 1989; Burlingame, et al., 2002; Yalom, 1995). Regarded as “demonstrably effective,” Division 29 Task Force (Steering Committee, 2002). Caveat: Cohesion in adolescent groups can be problematic.

    8. Cohesion: Group Attitude Scale (Evans, 1982, 1984; Evans & Jarvis, 1986)

    9. Group Climate Definition: A property of the group that facilitates or impedes the work of an individual to reach a goal (MacKenzie, 1981, 1983) Three areas: Engaged - positive working group atmosphere Avoiding - avoidance of personal responsibility Conflict - anger and tension in the group. Empirically associated with positive outcomes (Kivlighan & Tarrant, 2001; Ogrodniczuk & Piper, 2003). Has been used in research involving adolescents (Kivlighan & Tarrant, 2001)

    10. Group Climate Questionnaire (MacKenzie, 1981, 1983)

    11. Therapeutic Alliance in Groups “Perceptions of the therapists’ attitudes, feelings, and behaviors toward the respondent as well as toward other group members” (Marziali et al., 1999, p. 430) An important element of empirically supported therapy relationships (Steering Committee, 2002; Horvath & Bedi, 2004; Martin, Garske, & Davis, 2000) and of successful groups (Marziali, et al., 1997).

    12. Group Therapy Alliance Scale (Marziali, Munroe-Blum, & McCleary, 1997)

    13. Engagement – Group Engagement Measure (Macgowan, 1997, 2000)

    15. Group Engagement Measure

    16. How Could Process Instruments be Utilized in Research? Description Correlation Sequential analysis

    17. Summary and Conclusions We should measure particular group factors related to outcomes Instruments to measure processes in groups for adolescent AOD users are available, which are relatively easy to administer and score The data yielded by such instruments provide important quantitative data about group factors Needs: Psychometric testing of instruments with adolescents Relationships between measures and constructs suggests the presence of common factors/higher-order factors. Need more effective and efficient measurement technologies

    18. References Budman, S. H., Soldz, S., Demby, A., Davis, M., & Merry, J. (1993). What is cohesiveness? An empirical examination. Small Group Research, 24(2), 199-216. Burlingame, G. M., Fuhriman, A., & Johnson, J. E. (2002). Cohesion in group psychotherapy. In J. C. Norcross (Ed.), Psychotherapy relationships that work: Therapist contributions and responsiveness to patients. (pp. 71-87). New York: Oxford. Corey, G. (1990). Theory and practice of group counseling (3rd ed.). Pacific Grove, Calif.: Brooks/Cole. Dagley, J. C., Gazda, G. M., Eppinger, S. J., & Stewart, E. A. (1994). Group psychotherapy research with children, preadolescents, and adolescents. In A. Fuhriman & G. M. Burlingame (Eds.), Handbook of group psychotherapy: An empirical and clinical synthesis (pp. 340-369). New York: John Wiley and Sons. Dishion, T. J., Poulin, F., & Burraston, B. (2001). Peer group dynamics associated with iatrogenic effects in group interventions with high-risk young adolescents. In D. W. Nangle & C. A. Erdley (Eds.), The role of friendship in psychological adjustment (pp. 79-92). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Evans, N. J. (1982). The relationship of psychological type and attraction to group in a growth group setting. Journal for Specialists in Group Work, 7(2), 74-79.

    19. References Evans, N. J. (1984). The relationship of interpersonal attraction and attraction to group in a growth group setting. Journal for Specialists in Group Work, 9(4), 172-178. Evans, N. J., & Jarvis, P. A. (1986). The Group Attitude Scale: A measure of attraction to group. Small Group Behavior, 17(2), 203-216. Feldman, R. A., Caplinger, T. E., & Wodarski, J. S. (1983). The St. Louis conundrum: The effective treatment of antisocial youths. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Hill, C. E., & Lambert, M. J. (2004). Methodological issues in studying psychotherapy processes and outcomes. In M. J. Lambert (Ed.), Bergin and Garfield's handbook of psychotherapy and behavior change (5th ed., pp. 84-135). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. Hill, C. E., Nutt, E. A., & Jackson, S. (1994). Trends in psychotherapy process research: Samples, measures, researchers, and classic publications. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 41(3), 364-377. Horvath, A. O., & Bedi, R. P. (2004). The alliance. In M. J. Lambert (Ed.), Bergin and Garfield's handbook of psychotherapy and behavior change (5th ed., pp. 37-69). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

    20. References Kivlighan, D. M., & Tarrant, J. M. (2001). Does group climate mediate the group leadership - group member outcome relationship? A test of Yalom's hypotheses about leadership priorities. Group Dynamics, 5(4), 220-234. Macgowan, M. J. (1997). A measure of engagement for social group work: The Groupwork Engagement Measure (GEM). Journal of Social Service Research, 23(2), 17-37. Macgowan, M. J. (2000). Evaluation of a measure of engagement for group work. Research on Social Work Practice, 10(3), 348-361. Macgowan, M. J., & Levenson, J. S. (2003). Psychometrics of the Group Engagement Measure with male sex offenders. Small Group Research, 34(2), 155-169. Macgowan, M. J., & Newman, F. L. (in press). The factor structure of the Group Engagement Measure. Social Work Research. MacKenzie, K. R. (1981). Measurement of group climate. International Journal of Group Psychotherapy, 31(3), 287-295. MacKenzie, K. R. (1983). The clinical application of a group climate measure. In R. R. Dies & K. R. MacKenzie (Eds.), Advances in group psychotherapy: Integrating research and practice (pp. 159-170). New York: International Universities Press.

    21. References Martin, D. J., Garske, J. P., & Davis, M. K. (2000). Relation of the therapeutic alliance with outcome and other variables: a meta-analytic review. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 68(3), 438-450. Marziali, E., Munroe-Blum, H., & McCleary, L. (1997). The contribution of group cohesion and group alliance to the outcome of group psychotherapy. International Journal of Group Psychotherapy, 47(4), 475-497. Marziali, E., Munroe-Blum, H., & McCleary, L. (1999). The effects of the therapeutic alliance on the outcomes of individual and group psychotherapy with borderline personality disorder. Psychotherapy Research, 9(4), 424-436. Ogrodniczuk, J. S., & Piper, W. E. (2003). The effect of group climate on outcome in two forms of short-term group therapy. Group Dynamics, 7(1), 64-76. Steering Committee. (2002). Empirically supported therapy relationships: Conclusions and recommendations of the Division 29 Task Force. In J. C. Norcross (Ed.), Psychotherapy relationships that work: Therapist contributions and responsivenss to patients (pp. 441-443). New York: Oxford. Yalom, I. D. (1995). The theory and practice of group psychotherapy (4th ed.). New York: Basic Books.

More Related