Every educators from the study had been formal Enneagram educators regarding Story Community. This new Enneagram Circuit training Programmes made use of four pri particular boards, (2) didactic studying, (3) reflection training, and you may (4) experiential mining. Enneagram Intensive Classes teachers observed an outline named The new Enneagram Rigorous®: Integrating Mental Lifestyle and you will Soul.
The 3 Introductory courses integrated pri discovering methods. The latest Berkeley course included casual Enneagram type panels and you may didactic studying. This new Minnesota way made use of all four of number one training strategies. New Palo Alto path utilized Enneagram type panels, didactic discovering, and you can experiential exploration eg guided visualization.
Forms was had written from the a study assistant and delivered to a Cook-Greuter-formal SCT scorer (Hy and you may Loevinger 1996) thru article send. Password numbers were used so that the rater was blind to help you the kind of shot, the newest dates of your shot, and the degree class type of. The newest scorer adopted the education because of the Susan Cook-Greuter, making use of the brand new Loevinger manual, with the exception of stems outside of the tips guide (Cook-Greuter 1999). Scored answers was basically delivered back toward scientists in the a be noticed spread piece which was following used for research studies. To ensure accuracy of scoring getting results in and that professionals went upwards or off two or more amounts, a sample of them studies was also obtained from the Make-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 way more avove the age of more youthful people within try, an analysis is used to check on the connection ranging from age group and you can education impact. In total, 40 players (33%, n = ) improved one or more level following the training. Proportionally, a great deal more fifty–59 seasons olds (45%, n = ) compared to the other a long time enhanced no less than one grade immediately following the training (20%, n = 1/5, not as much as 29; 0%, letter = 0/step three, 30–39 seasons olds; 25%, letter = 7/twenty eight, 40–49 season olds; and twenty four%, n = 8/33, 60+ 12 months olds). To examine whether it trend are statistically extreme, an excellent ? dos shot out-of versatility was calculated from the comparing age classification and you can if or not a person educated pride phase advancement of one or more values adopting the input (or otherwise not).
An analysis has also been held to check the connection anywhere between new member intercourse and degree impression. Even in the event proportionally, significantly more female (36%, letter = ) than just people (18%, letter = 4/22) state-of-the-art no less than one degree following the training, good ? 2 decide to try out-of independence shown no relationship between sex and you can ego 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 lumen review 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.