All the instructors regarding data had been specialized Enneagram teachers on Narrative Community. https://datingranking.net/bbwcupid-review/ The fresh new Enneagram Intensive training Programmes put four pri kind of boards, (2) didactic discovering, (3) meditation practise, and you may (4) experiential mining. Enneagram Extreme Courses instructors adopted an overview titled The fresh Enneagram Rigorous®: Partnering Mental Lifetime and Heart.
The 3 Introductory courses included pri studying methods. New Berkeley movement provided everyday Enneagram form of boards and didactic learning. The fresh Minnesota path utilized all four of your own top reading strategies. This new Palo Alto path put Enneagram form of boards, didactic understanding, and you can experiential exploration instance guided visualization.
Research Study
Questionnaires was in fact blogged because of the a study secretary and delivered to a beneficial Cook-Greuter-certified SCT scorer (Hy and you will Loevinger 1996) thru blog post mail. Code numbers were utilized and so the rater try blind to the sort of shot, brand new dates of your test, as well as the studies classification types of. The new scorer followed the education of the Susan Create-Greuter, utilizing the brand new Loevinger guide, with the exception of stems beyond the tips guide (Cook-Greuter 1999). Obtained solutions were delivered back on the scientists for the a stick out pass on layer that has been after that utilized for study investigation. To be certain accuracy of rating to possess causes which players ran right up otherwise off several level, an example ones training was also scored of the Create-Greuter by herself.
Efficiency
An analysis of variance (ANOVA) confirmed that there were no pre-existing ego development differences at baseline among the participants between the sites, F(8, 9) = 0.38, p = .93. The pretest and posttest ego development scores were significantly correlated (r = .48, p < .001), whereby participants with higher pre-training scores also had higher post-training scores.
Since there are even more avove the age of young grownups inside test, a diagnosis are presented to check on the partnership ranging from age bracket and you will knowledge feeling. Altogether, forty users (33%, n = ) increased one or more levels pursuing the degree. Proportionally, a lot more fifty–59 season olds (45%, letter = ) compared to the other age range enhanced a minumum of one amounts shortly after the training (20%, letter = 1/5, under 31; 0%, letter = 0/3, 30–39 season olds; 25%, n = 7/twenty eight, 40–44 season olds; and twenty-four%, letter = 8/33, 60+ year olds). To look at if or not it trend try mathematically extreme, an effective ? dos try of freedom is determined from the comparing years group and you may whether a person educated ego phase advancement of you to or higher grade following the input (or otherwise not).
An analysis has also been used to evaluate the connection between fellow member intercourse and education impression. Even when proportionally, alot more ladies (36%, letter = ) than guys (18%, letter = 4/22) state-of-the-art no less than one degrees following the training, a great ? dos shot out-of independence revealed zero relationship between gender and you will pride innovation.
Two repeated-measures ANOVAs were conducted to test for within-subject ego development changes across the training sites. The first model examined the interaction term of ego development by training site type as a dichotomous variable (intensive site vs. introductory site); the model was not significant at the p < .05 level, F(1,120) = 1.32, p = .25. The second model examined the interaction term of ego development by individual training site; the model was also not significant at the p < .05 level, F(7, 114) = 1.40, p = .21.
Paired sample t tests were conducted to examine whether there were significant changes in ego development scores before compared to after the Enneagram training interventions at each site. Data revealed that the Asheville 2005 participant group showed a significant increase in ego development scores following the intervention, t(22) = ? 3.36, p < .01. Table 4 sument scores and the paired t test results.