توسعه مقیاس فرآیند سوگ از طریق نوشتن ترانه موسیقی درمانی با نوجوانان داغدیده

Due to the small sample sizes, the GPS data were analyzed via tables and using descriptive statistics. A visual analysis of the data was used to look for noticeable differences between treatment and control groups in the amount/degree of pre-test to post-test changes in mean GPS scores in two main areas of consideration and evaluation. The first evaluation compared GPS mean scores of treatment and control participants. Six sets of calculations were made, including group pre-test and post-test GPS scores for treatment groups one through four combined, control group, and treatment groups one through four individually. To calculate group means, raw scores for all 30 GPS items for all participants in the corresponding group(s) were totaled, divided by 30 (number of GPS items), and then further divided by the number of participants in the group(s). The percentage pre-test to post-test change in scores for each of the group means was also figured. Table 1 compares pre-test to post-test changes in GPS means between treatment and control groups. The treatment groups will be discussed first, followed by the control group. As can be seen in Table 1, changes in means ranged from a minimum decrease of 20 points for treatment group two to a maximum decrease of 28 points for treatment group one. The pre-test to post-test difference in means was an average decrease of 25 across the four treatment groups. This decrease in scores suggests a noticeable improvement in grief processing as measured by the GPS. In contrast, the pre-test to post-test change in the control group was an increase of two points. This suggests that the control group did not display noticeable change/improvement across time. Table 1. Pre- to post-test changes in GPS mean scores across treatment and control groups Group Pre Post Difference Percentage change Control group 59 61 +2 +03 Treatment groups combined 58 33 −25 −43 Treatment group 1 63 35 −28 −44 Treatment group 2 51 31 −20 −39 Treatment group 3 49 27 −22 −45 Treatment group 4 68 42 −26 −38 Table options The second evaluation of GPS means was designed to determine if there were noticeable differences in pre-test to post-test changes in means across the five grief processing domains between the control group and combined treatment group scores. To calculate group means for each of the five GPS domains, raw scores for all six domain (grief process area)-specific GPS items for all participants in the corresponding group(s) were totaled, divided by six (number of GPS domain items), and then further divided by the number of participants in the group(s). Percentage changes from pre-test to post-test were also calculated. Table 2 displays these data. As can be seen, pre-test to post-test changes in GPS means for the treatment groups combined ranged from a minimum decrease of 15 points for area #5—growing, to a maximum decrease of 27 points for area #2—feeling. In contrast, the maximum pre-test to post-test change in GPS means for the control group was an increase of four points for area #5—growing. Minimum changes were noted of an increase of one point for area #4—integrating, and a decrease of one point for area #1—understanding. Analysis of these data suggest that the treatment was noticeably effective in decreasing GPS scores across all grief domains as compared to the control condition. Table 2. Pre-test to post-test changes in GPS mean scores of treatment groups 1–4 combined and control group across five grief processing domains Domain Treatment groups 1–4 combined Control group Pre Post Difference Percentage Pre Post Difference Percentage #1 Understanding 58 33 −25 −43 62 61 −1 −02 #2 Feeling 63 36 −27 −43 61 64 +3 +05 #3 Remembering 55 30 −25 −45 51 54 +3 +06 #4 Integrating 59 35 −24 −41 63 64 +1 +02 #5 Growing 49 34 −15 −31 58 62 +4 +07 Table options Due to time constraints during the first session with one of the treatment groups, only three of the four treatment groups completed the HGRC. Results from the HGRC indicated an average modal pre-test to post-test decrease of one point (out of a possible five points) for the treatment group participants. All but one of these treatment participants had a decrease of one point, with one participant demonstrating no pre-test to post-test change. This average decrease in HGRC scores suggested pre-test to post-test improvement in grief reactions/processing in the same direction as the results of the GPS. Results from the control group suggest an average modal increase of one point. As with the results using the GPS, these scores suggest that the control participants did not evidence improvement in grief reactions/processing as measured by the HGRC. Comparative results of the HGRC were, therefore, similar in overall direction to those of the GPS in comparing pre-test to post-test changes between treatment and control participants.

Results Due to the small sample sizes, the GPS data were analyzed via tables and using descriptive statistics. A visual analysis of the data was used to look for noticeable differences between treatment and control groups in the amount/degree of pre-test to post-test changes in mean GPS scores in two main areas of consideration and evaluation. The first evaluation compared GPS mean scores of treatment and control participants. Six sets of calculations were made, including group pre-test and post-test GPS scores for treatment groups one through four combined, control group, and treatment groups one through four individually. To calculate group means, raw scores for all 30 GPS items for all participants in the corresponding group(s) were totaled, divided by 30 (number of GPS items), and then further divided by the number of participants in the group(s). The percentage pre-test to post-test change in scores for each of the group means was also figured. Table 1 compares pre-test to post-test changes in GPS means between treatment and control groups. The treatment groups will be discussed first, followed by the control group. As can be seen in Table 1, changes in means ranged from a minimum decrease of 20 points for treatment group two to a maximum decrease of 28 points for treatment group one. The pre-test to post-test difference in means was an average decrease of 25 across the four treatment groups. This decrease in scores suggests a noticeable improvement in grief processing as measured by the GPS. In contrast, the pre-test to post-test change in the control group was an increase of two points. This suggests that the control group did not display noticeable change/improvement across time. Table 1. Pre- to post-test changes in GPS mean scores across treatment and control groups Group Pre Post Difference Percentage change Control group 59 61 +2 +03 Treatment groups combined 58 33 −25 −43 Treatment group 1 63 35 −28 −44 Treatment group 2 51 31 −20 −39 Treatment group 3 49 27 −22 −45 Treatment group 4 68 42 −26 −38 Table options The second evaluation of GPS means was designed to determine if there were noticeable differences in pre-test to post-test changes in means across the five grief processing domains between the control group and combined treatment group scores. To calculate group means for each of the five GPS domains, raw scores for all six domain (grief process area)-specific GPS items for all participants in the corresponding group(s) were totaled, divided by six (number of GPS domain items), and then further divided by the number of participants in the group(s). Percentage changes from pre-test to post-test were also calculated. Table 2 displays these data. As can be seen, pre-test to post-test changes in GPS means for the treatment groups combined ranged from a minimum decrease of 15 points for area #5—growing, to a maximum decrease of 27 points for area #2—feeling. In contrast, the maximum pre-test to post-test change in GPS means for the control group was an increase of four points for area #5—growing. Minimum changes were noted of an increase of one point for area #4—integrating, and a decrease of one point for area #1—understanding. Analysis of these data suggest that the treatment was noticeably effective in decreasing GPS scores across all grief domains as compared to the control condition. Table 2. Pre-test to post-test changes in GPS mean scores of treatment groups 1–4 combined and control group across five grief processing domains Domain Treatment groups 1–4 combined Control group Pre Post Difference Percentage Pre Post Difference Percentage #1 Understanding 58 33 −25 −43 62 61 −1 −02 #2 Feeling 63 36 −27 −43 61 64 +3 +05 #3 Remembering 55 30 −25 −45 51 54 +3 +06 #4 Integrating 59 35 −24 −41 63 64 +1 +02 #5 Growing 49 34 −15 −31 58 62 +4 +07 Table options Due to time constraints during the first session with one of the treatment groups, only three of the four treatment groups completed the HGRC. Results from the HGRC indicated an average modal pre-test to post-test decrease of one point (out of a possible five points) for the treatment group participants. All but one of these treatment participants had a decrease of one point, with one participant demonstrating no pre-test to post-test change. This average decrease in HGRC scores suggested pre-test to post-test improvement in grief reactions/processing in the same direction as the results of the GPS. Results from the control group suggest an average modal increase of one point. As with the results using the GPS, these scores suggest that the control participants did not evidence improvement in grief reactions/processing as measured by the HGRC. Comparative results of the HGRC were, therefore, similar in overall direction to those of the GPS in comparing pre-test to post-test changes between treatment and control participants.