All of the educators regarding study were formal Enneagram educators regarding the Story Community. The Enneagram Intensive training Programmes utilized five pri particular antichat dating boards, (2) didactic discovering, (3) reflection teaching, and you will (4) experiential exploration. Enneagram Intensive Courses teachers accompanied an outline named Brand new Enneagram Extreme®: Integrating Emotional Lives and you will Soul.
The 3 Basic courses provided pri reading methods. The latest Berkeley movement provided casual Enneagram type of boards and you can didactic understanding. The latest Minnesota direction put all four of the primary training strategies. New Palo Alto way utilized Enneagram style of panels, didactic understanding, and you may experiential mining particularly directed visualization.
Surveys had been penned by the a research assistant and provided for a beneficial Cook-Greuter-certified SCT scorer (Hy and Loevinger 1996) through blog post post. Password quantity were utilized so the rater is actually blind in order to the kind of try, the new dates of the decide to try, and the training classification style of. The fresh new scorer used the education of the Susan Make-Greuter, with the modern Loevinger manual, apart from stems not in the guide (Cook-Greuter 1999). Scored solutions have been sent back with the experts in the an excel bequeath piece that was following used in analysis research. To make certain reliability of one’s rating having causes which professionals ran right up otherwise off two or more levels, an example ones degree was also scored of the Cook-Greuter by herself.
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 more older than younger adults contained in this try, a diagnosis is actually used to check on the connection ranging from age bracket and studies impact. Overall, forty players (33%, n = ) increased a minumum of one levels following the degree. Proportionally, alot more 50–59 year olds (45%, n = ) versus almost every other age range enhanced no less than one values shortly after the education (20%, n = 1/5, under 30; 0%, letter = 0/step three, 30–39 year olds; 25%, letter = 7/28, 40–forty-two season olds; and twenty four%, letter = 8/33, 60+ year olds). To look at if this trend is mathematically extreme, an excellent ? dos sample out of freedom try determined from the comparing ages category and you can whether an associate educated pride phase development of that or even more values pursuing the intervention (or perhaps not).
An analysis was also presented to check on the connection ranging from new member gender and training perception. Even when proportionally, significantly more lady (36%, n = ) than simply men (18%, letter = 4/22) cutting-edge a minumum of one values following the knowledge, good ? dos decide to try off freedom shown zero dating between sex and you may ego advancement.
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.