All teachers regarding the data was indeed formal Enneagram teachers about Narrative Society. The fresh new Enneagram Circuit training Courses utilized four pri method of panels, (2) didactic training, (3) meditation knowledge, and you can (4) experiential exploration. Enneagram Rigorous Courses instructors adopted an outline named Brand new Enneagram Extreme®: Partnering Emotional Lifetime and you will Spirit.
The three Basic courses included pri discovering modalities. Brand new Berkeley movement integrated casual Enneagram sorts of boards and you will didactic training. The newest Minnesota course utilized all four of your number one learning methods. This new Palo Alto course put Enneagram form of boards, didactic reading, and experiential exploration for example led visualization.
Questionnaires had been published by a report secretary and you can provided for a beneficial Cook-Greuter-formal SCT scorer (Hy and you may Loevinger 1996) thru blog post mail. Code amounts were utilized therefore, the rater is blind to help you the sort of your attempt, new dates of the try, together with education category kind of. The new scorer accompanied the training from the Susan Prepare-Greuter, by using the modern Loevinger guidelines, apart from stems beyond the tips guide (Cook-Greuter 1999). Scored answers were delivered back into the boffins inside the a be noticeable give piece that was next useful investigation data. To be sure accuracy of one’s scoring for results in hence participants ran up or down a couple of degrees, a sample of them knowledge has also been scored by Prepare-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.
Because there are far more more than young adults inside shot, an analysis was used to check the partnership between age group and you will degree perception. As a whole, forty members (33%, letter = ) improved a minumum of one values after the degree. Proportionally, far more 50–59 season olds (45%, letter = ) compared to the almost every other age range enhanced a minumum of one levels once the training (20%, letter = 1/5, around 31; 0%, n = 0/step 3, 30–39 12 months olds; 25%, n = 7/twenty eight, 40–44 seasons olds; and you can twenty-four%, n = 8/33, 60+ year olds). To look at if or not so it development was mathematically significant, a ? 2 shot away from independence are determined of the researching years class and you can if or not a person experienced pride stage development of one or even more amount following the intervention (or perhaps not).
An analysis was also used to check the relationship anywhere between participant sex and you may knowledge feeling. Whether or not proportionally, more people (36%, letter = ) than boys (18%, n = 4/22) cutting-edge one or more amounts following knowledge, a ? 2 take to out-of liberty shown zero relationship anywhere between sex and you may 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 airg app development scores following the intervention, t(22) = ? 3.36, p < .01. Table 4 sument scores and the paired t test results.