Hypothesis 3 Ways of Coping Results

Ways of Coping Results (n=71)

The transactional model of stress (Folkman and Lazarus, 1984) explores the relationship between the stress response and the coping styles used by the individual. Hypothesis 3 of the study predicted changes in coping variables as parents interacted with the Parent Programme. Specifically, the study aimed to explore changes in accepting responsibility, confrontive coping, self controlling and positive re- appraisal, a set of coping styles which may reflect changes in parental beliefs as to the degree to which child behaviours may change (Aldwin et al., 1980, Lazarus, 1986) and offer healthier psychological outcomes.

Although analysis was carried out on all three time points in the coping domains explored, the analyses of variables was primarily concerned with investigating the hypotheses that the intervention would result in a change in the use of coping styles, with the two time intervals, time 1 and time 3 being of the greatest interest. Sphericity is always met for two levels of a repeated measure, and therefore given that the main focust was change in coping styles from the beginning to the end of the intervention, sphericity is met.

Sample size requirements, and normality was assessed for coping dependent variables. The minimum sample size requirement that was within the repeated measures ANOVA was 10 + the number of dependent variables, which was 2 as only two time periods were being compared. As the number of cases was 71 and the number of dependent variables in the analysis was 2 (time periods, assessed) the resulting number is 73 which satisfies the minimum sample size requirement (12) across all of the coping variables evaluated.

7.3.1 Accepting Responsibility

In order to test the hypothesis that total accepting responsibility prior to and following the intervention would be significantly different a repeated measures ANOVA was performed. At time 1 the Skewness of the distribution was .328 and the Kurtosis was -.490 as both values fall between +2.0 and -2.0 the assumption of normality was upheld. At time 3 the Skewness of the distribution was -.355 and the Kurtosis was -.326, as both values fall between +2.0 and -2.0 the assumption of normality was upheld.

The ANOVA compared scores at Time 1 (prior to intervention), Time 2 (at a midpoint, prior to workshop 2), and at Time 3 at the end of the intervention. The means and standard deviations are presented in table 8 below. There was a significant effect for time, Wilks’ Lambda =.526, F(2, 69)= 31.052, p<.0005, multivariate eta squared =.474

Table 8. Descriptive Statistics for accepting responsibility

Time Period N Mean Standard

Deviation Time 1 Time 2 Time 3 71 71 71 5.20 8.10 8.15 2.214 3.190 3.115

The results indicate a significant change in the use of the coping style accepting responsibility with a large effect size. Bonferroni correction determined that the mean use of accepting responsibility differed statistically significantly between time points F(1, 70)= 61.859, p < 0.0005. The post hoc tests using bonferroni correction revealed that the parent programme was effective in increasing the use of accepting responsibility from a time point prior to intervention (time1)(M=5.20, SD= 2.214) to the end of the programme (time 3) (M=8.15, SD=3.115) which was statistically significant p<0.0005. We can therefore conclude that the Parent Programme gave rise to an increased use of accepting responsibility as a coping style in those participating in the programme

7.3.2 Confrontive Coping

In order to test the hypothesis that total confrontive coping prior to and following the intervention would be significantly different a repeated measures ANOVA was performed. At time 1 the Skewness of the distribution was -.260 and the Kurtosis was -.796 as both values fall between +2.0 and -2.0 the assumption of normality was upheld. At time 3 the Skewness of the distribution was -.191 and the Kurtosis was -.677, as both values fall between +2.0 and -2.0 the assumption of normality was upheld.

The ANOVA compared scores at Time 1 (prior to intervention), Time 2 (at a midpoint, prior to workshop 2), and at Time 3 at the end of the intervention. The means and standard deviations are presented in table 9 below. There was a significant effect for time, Wilks’ Lambda =.710, F(2, 69)= 14.112, p<.0005, multivariate eta squared =.290

Table 9 Descriptive Statistics for confrontive coping

Time Period N Mean Standard

Deviation Time 1 Time 2 Time 3 71 71 71 6.48 8.18 8.28 2.222 2.820 2.663

The results indicate a significant change with a large effect size in the use of the coping style confrontive coping. Bonferroni correction determined that the mean use of confrontive coping differed statistically significantly between time points F(1, 70)= 28.578, p < 0.0005. The post hoc tests using bonferroni correction revealed that the parent programme was effective in increasing the use of confrontive coping from a time point prior to intervention (time1)(M=6.48, SD= 2.222) to the end of the programme (time 3) (M=8.28, SD=2.663) which was statistically significant p<0.0005. We can therefore conclude that the Parent Programme gives rise to an increased use of confrontive coping as a coping style.

7.3.3 Self Controlling

In order to test the hypothesis that total self controlling prior to and following the intervention would be significantly different a repeated measures ANOVA was performed. At time 1 the Skewness of the distribution was .001 and the Kurtosis was .066 as both values fall between +2.0 and -2.0 the assumption of normality was upheld. At time 3 the Skewness of the distribution was -.498 and the Kurtosis was .285, as both values fall between +2.0 and -2.0 the assumption of normality was upheld.

The ANOVA compared scores at Time 1 (prior to intervention), Time 2 (at a midpoint, prior to workshop 2), and at Time 3 at the end of the intervention. The means and standard deviations are presented in table 10 (p.93). There was a significant effect for time, Wilks’ Lambda =.645, F(2, 69)= 19.010, p<.0005, multivariate eta squared =.355

Table 10. Descriptive Statistics for self-controlling

Time Period N Mean Standard

Deviation Time 1 Time 2 Time 3 71 71 71 9.08 9.75 8.85 3.363 3.600 3.197

The results indicate a significant change with a large effect size in the use of the coping style self controlling. Bonferroni correction determined that the mean use of self controlling did not differ statistically significantly between time points, F(1, 70)= .447, p =.506 Therefore the parent programme did not alter the use of the coping style self controlling

7.3.4 Positive Re-appraisal

In order to test the hypothesis that total positive re-appraisal prior to and following the intervention would be significantly different a repeated measures ANOVA was performed. At time 1 the Skewness of the distribution was .292 and the Kurtosis was -.424 as both values fall between +2.0 and -2.0 the assumption of normality was upheld. At time 3 the Skewness of the distribution was -.738 and the Kurtosis was .354, as both values fall between +2.0 and -2.0 the assumption of normality was upheld.

The ANOVA compared scores at Time 1 (prior to intervention), Time 2 (at a midpoint, prior to workshop 2), and at Time 3 at the end of the intervention. The means and standard deviations are presented in table 11 below. There was a significant effect for time, Wilks’ Lambda =.350, F(2, 69)= 63.169, p<.0005, multivariate eta squared =.650

Table 11 Descriptive Statistics for Positive Re-appraisal

Time Period N Mean Standard

Deviation Time 1 Time 2 Time 3 71 71 71 7.94 11.53 12.64 3.468 4.003 3.017

The results indicate a significant change in the use of the coping style positive reappraisal, with a large effect size. However, Bonferroni correction determined that the mean use of positive re-appraisal did not differ statistically significantly

between time points, F(1, 69)= .172, p =.679, therefore the parent programme did not alter the use of the coping style positive re-appraisal.