Change in Spontaneity of Expression
4.6 Evaluation of the focus group method
4.6.1 Quantitative programme evaluation
The pre- and post-test means for the total scale and the sub scales of the CDQ for the experimental and the comparison groups can be found in tables below. A major limitation of attempting statistical analysis relates to the small group size in both experimental and comparison groups.
Table 4.7: The pre-' and post-test means for the total scale
Total maturity scores pre-CDQ means post-CDQ means
Experimental 52.63 69.00
Comparison 55.29 53.14
According to the CDQ manual, the norm for black high school learners for the total CDQ score is 62.90 (with a standard deviation (SD) of 13.03). This shows that before the focus groups, both the experimental and comparison groups scored below the mean, with the average score approaching one SD below the mean.
An examination of Table 4.7 suggests that differences occurred between the means of the pre- and post-test total and sub-scale scores for both groups. For example, while the total mean score of the experimental group increased from 52.63 (pre-test mean score) to a post-test mean score of 69.00, the comparison group's total mean score decreased from the pre-test score of 55.29 to a post-test score of 53.14.
A two way mixed analysis of variance (ANOVA) test with group as a between factor and test time as a within (repeated measures) factor was run to assess whether the differences noted between the pre-post test total career maturity scores were significant for the experimental and the comparison group.
The ANOVA yielded no significant difference for the group factor (p > 0,1) or the time (pre-test vs post-test) factor (p > 0.1), suggesting that both groups scored at similar levels and the pre- and post-test responses were equivalent overall. However, the interaction of these factors approached statistical significance (F 1; 13) - 4,21; P
<
0,07). This would suggest a slight trend for the experimental group to have. scored higher on the post-test, but this suggestion needs to be viewed cautiously as the difference did not reach statistical significance.4.6.1.1 ProfIle of career maturity sub-scales
The mean scores for each group on each sub-scale at each test time may be seen in Tables 4.6-4.11 below and are represented graphically in the corresponding figures below:
Table 4.6: Self-information means (SO
SI Pre-Test Post-Test
Experimental 11.6 13.6
Comparison 12.6 11.9
SI Means
14 - . . - - - , 13.5 - t - - - f
c
13 + - - - tca
12.5 +---l'C"~~-_I~
12 + - - - - f l l . .11.5 11
1O. 5 +----'-'---...,..,,'""-'"'-'---...,..----'-'...~~o.L_--!
o
Experimental~Comparison
Pre-test Post-test
Figure 4.6: Graph showing self-information means (SO
According to the CDQ manual, the norm for black high school learners for the self information sub-scale is 14.02 (with a standard deviation (SD) of 2.56). This illustrates that before the focus group intervention, both the experimental and the comparison groups scored below the mean, with the average score approaching two SD below the mean.
Table 4.9: Career information means (Cn
Cl Pre-Test Post-Test
Experimental 8.8 13.3
Comparison 8.4 9.3
Cl Means
15 . . . - - - ,
~, ,
',-: ( ,
; , i
, ~ 10 + - - - - l :
caQ)
:E 5
Pre-test
i .
<, .
s . ;
...--_---1! ;i; .
Post-test
Cl Experimental;
~Comparison'
Figure 4.7: Graph showing career information means (Cn
The norm score mean for black high school learners for the career information subscale is according to the CDQ manual 14.40 (with standard deviation (SD) of 2.86). This shows that both the experimental and the comparison groups scored below the mean before the focus groups.
Table 4.10: Career planning means (CP)
CP Pre-Test Post-Test
Experimental 10 14.3
Comparison 10.1 10.7
CP Means
20
- r - - - ,
~ 15 -r---.===:;----1 c - - - _
~ 10
iD
Experimental: ::lE 5
I
[!Comparison I'o
-l.-.---L;.,;-":"";"."'-Jlo",J~---;_..L.;":,,,;,.--Il~~~Pre-test Post-test
Figure 4.8: Graph showing career planning means (CP)
According to the CDQ manual, the career planning subscale norm score mean for black high school learners is 11.49 (with a SD of 3.00). The graph and table above illustrates that both the experimental and comparison groups scored below the mean before the focus groups and that the experimental group scored above the mean, after the focus group intervention.
Table 4.11: Decision-making means (DM)
DM Pre-Test Post-Test
Experimental 11 14.3
Comparison 12.7 10.9
OM Means
20 . . . - - - , tn 15 1---~;;;;;;;:;;;,_-__1
c: ,...---,
~ 10
I
Cl Experimental11:: I~Comparison
c 5 I
O-J...---L,;...;..;..;..;,~~~~-....J..-...;;.,;"";,,.~~u-___l
Pre-test Post-test
Figure 4.9: Graph showing decision-making means (DM)
.The decision making subscale norm score mean for black high s~hool learners is according to the CDQ manual, 13.53 (with a standard (SD) deviation of 2.95). This shows that before the focus groups both the experimental and the comparison groups scored below the mean.
Table 4.12: Integration of information of self and the world of work means (D
I Pre-Test Post-Test
Experimental 11.3 13.6
Comparison 11.4 10.4
I Means
15
- r - - - ,
~
10ca
Cl):lE 5
~Cl Experimental· '
I ,
I
~Comparison! :;,
Pre-test Post-test
Figure 4.10: Graph showing integration of information of self and the world of work means (I)
According to the CDQ manual, the norm score mean for black high schoo11earners for the integration of information of self and the world of work scale is 12.66 (with a standard deviation (SD) of 3.10). This once again shows that both the experimental and comparison groups scored below the mean before the focus group intervention.
On visual inspection, a noticeable increase was noticed in the career information subscale of the experimental group with pre-test mean score of 8.75 and a post-test mean score of 13.25, in contrast the comparison group's career information sub-scale increased from 8.43 to 9.29.
Similar increases seem to be evident for the career planning, decision making and the integration of information of self and the world of work scales.
These scores were submitted to a three way mixed analysis of variance (ANOVA) with group as the between factor and test time and subtest as within (repeated measures) factors. The ANOVA yielded no significant differences for the main effects of group (p > 0.3) or test time (p > 0.3), while the sub-test differences did reach significance (F(4;52) = 3.347; P
<
0.025). There were no significant interactions to weaken this main effect. The primary
interaction group by subtest was not significant (p > 0,3), while those of group by test time (F (1; 13)
=
3,567; P < 0,09) and test time by subtest (F (4; 52)=
2,458; P < 0,07), were possibly approaching significance. While not significant, these results would add to the trend by locating differences on particular subtests. The secondary interaction of group by test time by sub test was not significant (p > 0.1).Since the sub test factor reached significance, and given the trends indicated in the interactions, further simple main effects analyses and post hoc comparisons were carried out.
The Neuman-Keuls test indicated that Career Information was significantly lower than the other sub tests, especially at pre-test level. The change between pre and post test just reached significance (F(1; 13) = 4.65; P < 0,05). Career Planning showed a similar, but non significant trend (F (1; 13) = 3.73; P
<
0,08).The only subtest to yield significant differences in the form of a group by test interaction was decision making (F(1;13) = 7.61; P < 0,02). Inspection of the means in Table 4.12 would show the source of this to be the higher post-test score in the experimental group.
Taken together these results suggest that career-related focus groups to some extent, seemed to facilitate career maturity in learners as measured by the CDQ.