a
’7
~.'
'9
‘ . .1
o t 3, a‘ j S 9
x . .. .~
‘ a
.H _ . g “I '
"‘- . "I." ‘QL‘F- sadly... -§ '0‘ I 3‘ Ct
‘ )- p‘u t ° ‘ x . ,
i ' " '
' _I>‘. . . ‘ -'.' .
. .I“: 3 if*m‘.‘. d c. I I.
n ‘\
t 1
~ ‘ ' - p . ~:,’~ .'. {'5‘ J‘

A FOLLOW'J'J’P‘ STUDY
ON
ATTITUDE CHANGES OF HUSBANDS AND WIVES

IN TIME-LIMITED GROUP PSYCHOTHERAPY

%.<‘”“‘I¢" ~3- ‘ ~ 7 Maww.’~

’ .
i 1., I; ‘ ,r 1. 5
'3 t; Rafi: $.13
~‘.~Id;&1f'1' f-' ,.'-. V O .
_... :wfir'-’ -4m _.1
BIZ . ”3‘" it“? “" 1
3! 9" 53!.“ Rafi (22': g
x *

mam:mmww
and

Theresa Tilker

A RESEARCH PROJECT

Submitted to Michigan State University in
partial fulfillment of the requirements for
the degree of

MASTER OF SOCIAL WORK

College of Social Science
School of Social Work

1966

 

MW km“,
1 m!
. n t. E
11‘ are)”; 1.3.3::

ME! 2351.211: at m *
{rigfiz'h’fi'x‘i‘fifg

 

 

 

- . .- -‘..AA“‘AMA
m

' 971 1»
., 5-, 1

—. “ ‘RNING MATERIALS:
{1*55~ ~ ~1 in book drop to
° this checkout from
"0rd FINES will
'=d if book 15
» 9 date

 

 

 

 

 

 

I] 3 ABSTRACT
‘5
I]; Beginning on June, 1954, a study was conducted by
'1‘ Maizlish and Hurley on the shift in attitudes of parents
of "disturbed" children as a result of time-limited
rm ' ' rhange in attitude was noted in
. a re-thera and ost-thera
*" RETURNING MATERIALS: p W D W
531.] Place in book drop tof
RAfiJES remove th1s checkout rom
”B » your record LNES W‘“ of 1966, the same attitude
be charged 1f book 15 ‘. a
i returned after the date tered toa ' alpsu‘b-sample (N=l2) to
stamped below.
r_ ement in these shifts in attitude.

wed a considerable drop back to

l e for all items cqybined and both

ever, there QQL'a difference

I ales in that the females showed
pre-therapy level than did the males,

‘ pre-therapy level - as well as

’ atal group of twelve subjects.

of the present study suggest

~stion the value of the partici-

‘ .

0/7
fi/

ental pairs in time-limited

o.

 

 

 

 
   

  

LIBRARY
Michigan State
University

 

. we!

 

 

M

ABSTRACT

Beginning on June, 1954, a study was conducted by
Maizlish and Hurley on the shift in attitudes of parents
of "disturbed" children as a result of time-limited
therapy. A significant change in attitude was noted in
80% of the subjects given a pre-therapy and post-therapy
questionnaire.

Again, in the spring of 1966, the same attitude
questionnaire was administered tb g sub-sample (N=12) to
ascertain any further movement'inythese shfifts in attitude.
The follow-up results showed gjcsnsiderablé drop back to
the mean Dre-therapy score for all itams cgmbined and both
both sexes combined. However, there was J difference
between the males and females in that the females showed
less regression to their pro-therapy level than did the males,
who regressed below their pre-therapy level - as well as
below the level for the total group of twelve subjects.

Briefly, the results of the present study suggest
that perhaps we should question the value of the partici-

pation of the male member of parental pairs in time-limited

therapy.

11

 

.
. .
. 1 . .
. v, . . .
. .. i 1
.1
. ~ .
l . v. (a b k
. o r
A i .
. 0 ' .
.. .. a . I I
y .
. - .. I
o .
V . l
A D >
. . I
. I . l
.. n .
n . . _ _ .
I t a
1 . . a
y . I A
. 1 i . 1 s . l a
. . v 7 w~ . _
a v
a . a .. . . . a .
a ‘ O
V .
o. . V. . o

l . . C
O p . A . .
i . .
, . o o, . .

. O

1 . . . a .x a

. _ u . .

. I.

_ any..-
. « .. ‘

 

 

!! !!'!!!!!!!!!
a

 

 

-' . 1‘ 31-21. ”fin—3| 'fl" 1 .. ‘-

w. 5"312'12-4‘: £32755 L3»: -'..e ‘.-

 

.111." w. '1 V _. " _
W. _ 19m: «Log-t, ~',~_,_m-w . I -'

‘A. {l

— . I.
J m u

 

 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF APPENDICES a o o o O o o O o o 0

INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
METHOD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
RESULTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS . . . . . .

REFERENCES 0 o o o o o o o o o o o o O o

APPENDICES O Q 0 O O O O O O O O 0 O O 0

iii

giqu-wflfit u. I n a

v .
v C a
. t
. O
. a r C
3
o . ‘ . . I
,v O
‘ . o u
1
I u . D C
v
n a C L v
.
o a T n. .
O
C I . . A I
I
a o 4 o
.
I A O n 5
. 0
v 6 I . .
- . .
.
k u o t a
u .
. .. w a
w I
m . i w
I v
u . . c 9
t .,
‘ a ’ n.
l
' I I o |
O
b d. a 9 t
a .
J I C
I 1
I . o .
l C
. I u. C
a .

Appendix

A
B

LIST OF APPENDICES

Attitude Questionnaire . .

Raw Data 0 O o 0 O o O O 0

iv

 

Minn-hu-

INTRODJSTICN

It is apparent from a review of the literature re-
gardinm psychotherapy that the greatest hope for dealing
with certain unanswered questions posed by mental illness

is research related to the outcomes of prevailing forms

of psychotherapy, (Reznikoff and Toomey, 195'). In this
reg rd, Brown (1965) cites among the basic issues in

psychotherapy today is that of aporaisin; the permanence
of improvement. It is also noted that the quantity and
quality of research in this area is meager and in many
instances of very poor research design, (Reznikoff and
Toomey, 1959; fiaters and Dymond, 1954; Rogers, 1951;
Borers, 1931; and Fiske, 1965). Other writers, (Hebb,
1949; dubin, 1953; and Denker, 964), are very skeptical
about the outcome of psychotherapy. Sysenck (1952) re—
viewed the various studies assessing the outcome of
psychotherapy and tentatively concluded that there is no
evidence that psychotherapy is of any value in the treat—
ment of emotional disturbances.

However, recently there have been efforts of a seem-
ingly more valuable nature as they attempt to evaluate
the benefits of therapy over a sustained period of time
rather than the mere assessment of benefits during and
immediately following therapy. For example, Eiske and
Goodman (1965) have shown that after eighteen months
following the termination of therapy there are systematic
trends of improvement in the subsequent eighteen months,
and that results compare well with the results immediately
following therapy.

Also, McNari and Lorr, e3 a1. (1954) found, in a
three year follow- up study, similar improvements. In
this study, a three year follow-up study was made of
eighty—one male psychiatric outpatients who had been seen

Ill-Hflinn-lnh

 

in individual therapy for at least four months; and, com—
pare with pre—trea ment, patients reported significantly
less anxiety, hostility, and dependency as well as greater
self—acceptance at follow-up. There was no evidence of
relapse after one year of treatment, but rather some fur-
ther reduction in anxiety after three years. In addition,
ioqers (19El)‘has noted, (Not only are hanges shown by
studies to occur during the period of therapy, but care—
ful follow-up studies conducted six to eighteen months
following the conclusion of therapy indicate that these
changes persist." Probably the most comprehensive and
extensive studies in the area of assessing the there eutic
gains of psychotherapy have been done by Rogers and his

"\

associates, (Borers, l9w2; Defers, 1951; HOZEIS, Dymond,
1954; 3ogers, 1959; 7ubinstein,bl959; shlien, Lewis, 1959;
and Rowers, 1961).

Further, Rogers, Dymond, Butler, Seaman, et a1. con-
ducted a series of studies at the University of Chicag
Counseling Center in which they hypothesized that there
would be significantly more change in the therapy clients
as contrasted to a non-therapy control group, (Rogers,
Dymond, Butler, deeman, at 21., 1954). They noted during
a six month to one year follow-up period that there may
be some falling away from the therapeutic gains, some
small dearee of reg ession in the direction of the pre-
therapy state. In some subjects, this regression was
sharp and little of the therapeutic gain was retained ---
in others, there was no rem ession at all, but a contin-
uance of the trend noted in therapy. As they state:

Several of our studies have shown
in our total client group, or in
certain subgroups, a slight average
regression from the end of therapy

to the follow-up point. This falling
away from the peak point of therapy

is not significant, and from a
statistician's point of View could
be ignored. (Rogers, DymOnd,
Butler, Seeman, at al., 1954, p.426)

The authors noted that this is an area for further study;
more specifically, why do some clients continue to show
marked improvement and others regress?

Muench found that various kinds of therapy, e.g.,
time-limited, are as effective as short-term therapy and
more effective than long—term therapy. The study examines
a clinical approach which may maximize the effectiveness
of professional staff time and significantly reduce the
problem of client waiting lists, (Muench, 1965).

In regard to a new approach needed because of lack
of facilities and staff, Maizlish and Hurley also con-
ducted a series of time-limited therapy groups during a
ten—year period and also did some beginning research on
the effectiveness, (Maizlish, 1957; Maizlish and Hurley,
1965). They also noted there were significant therapeutic
gains as measured by an attitude questionnaire adminis-
tered during the first and last therapy sessions. However,
their studies did not measure or show whether these "gains”
were, or would be, sustained for any length of time after
therapy.

This brings us to the aims and purposes of the
present study, as it is a follow-up and extension of the
1965 Maizlish-Hurley study. This is an attempt to as-
sess whether the gains measured by the above-mentioned
study were maintained after a five to six year interval
following completion of therapy. In View of the above
reasoninr and evidence, our hypothesis can be stated
as follows: 1) we expect that the very significant
therapeutic gain found at the end of therapy reflected

 

I n , I I . III S
. -
at to z

a maximum gain and therefore, also expect some regression

from this point; however, 2) we also expect that a
significant positive change will have been sustained
from the first pre-therapy administration of the

questionnaire to the present.

I -I I, I I. -I I IIIIIIJII I I I I III:

EIYPO TH 3.3 .9 J

1) Positive attitudes, as measured by the P.A. Index,
will be Si"niLicartly hi““or on follow—up administration
than attitudes ex ressed at the be3innin3 of therapy.
2) We assume tLut an integration and application of
therapeutic gains usually folkms the termination of
therapy; however, we also assume that the immediate post-
therapy results will reflect maximum gain. Therefore,
we e33 ' ct that the present P. A. Index results will not
be as hi3h as those f01nd on the immediate post— therapy

administration.

DEFINITION OF TmLP

Positive attitude (P.A.) was defined in the Maizlish—
Hurley study "as including at least the fOllOWIH 3; a more
open and accepting psychological orientation toward
either one's self or others; a hei3htened sense of respon-
sibility in interpersonal relationships; an increased
adaptability &/or personal resourcefulness." For the
purpose of this study we will refer to an increase in
positive attitudes as "gains," and a decrease in P.A.

as ”re3ression.”

(3le LJRAL FROG-3' U733 TO OBTAIN DATA: SAMPLE, ILTL3L; LULLLLV‘T LL
CCTIIT {CL GROJP

Between the period 1955 and 1965, time-limited group

therapy was conducted with parents of children referred
for various problems ranging from poor school adjustment
and sibling rivalry to delinquent acting-out and severe
regressive behavior. Maizlish and Hurley (1963) conducted
a study to establish the nature of the gains made in the
attitude changes of husbands and wives in time—limited
group therapy. On the basis of a questionnaire adminis—
tered prior to therapy and at the termination of therapy,
this study showed that there was a significant gain in
positive attitudes.

TLe questionnaire utilized was constructed by
Maizlish, and was based upon his several years of experi—
ence with time—limited groups, as well as upon suggestions
drawn from Slavson (1958) and others. A five-step series
of graded alternative responses was offered for each of
the 50 items, ranging through strong agreement, mild
agreement, "neither agree nor disagree,” and mild dis—
agreement to strong disagreement. Items on the question-
naire were independently appraised for relevance to posi-
tive attitude change by representatives of the three

major mental health professions.

The composition of the groups involved in the study
were limited to a maximum of five couples who attended
12-15 weekly group therapy sessions at the Flint Mental
Health Clinic. During the above—mentioned ten year P9TiOd,

'5"
hi

there were thirteen groups. In addition to the therapist,

Hanan-Iflfifilnflflf SE
n . r alum

a co-therapist, typically either a trainee in clinical
psychology or in social work, participated in most of
these groups.

Upon comparison of the attitude questionnaires which
were administered on the first and last sessions, 80% of
the 52 parent participants in the therapy groups manifested
a net shift in “esponse toward more positive attitudes.

A control group of parents enrolled in a college child
psychology course disclosed no evidence of positive at-
titude gains by either the students or their spouses.

For purposes of the present study, we are selecting
a sub-sample of twelve of the original subjects used by
uaizlish and Hurley in their 1965 study. The method
employed in contacting subjects of the original sample
cansisted of having Dr. Maizlish make the initial contact
by phone, as he was the common therapist for all groups.
The subjects came into the clinic and the above-mentioned

attitude questionnaire was administered for the third time.

 

RESULTS

L‘J
L; .4

In all comparisons between pre—therapy, post-
therapy and follow—up scores on PA data, Student's "t"
tests and one-tailed rejection regions were used (Edwards,
1954).

Is positive attitude, as measured by the PA Index,
significantly higher on the follow-up administration than
positive attitude expressed at the beginning of therapy?

Mean PA values for H, H + m, and H + M + L items
are presented for husbands and wives combined in Table 1.

TABLE 1

Pre-Therapy, Post-Therapy and Follow-Up Comparisons
Of Mean Total PA Scores (H, H+M and H+M+L Items)
Of Husbands and Wives Combined.

 

 

‘u‘

Item Class Mean PA Score t Value P Value
Pre Post Follow-up

 

 

 

 

H 51.6 ‘ 52.5 1.51 noSo*
55-6 52.5 4.15 .01*

H+M 105.0 10500 --""- 11. So *
107.8 103.0 5.18 001*

H+EI+L 141. 5 142.0 -0 51 no So *
146.7 142.0 2.04 .05*

 

*one-tailed tests with df = 11

There are no significant differences between pre-therapy
and follow-up PA scores on H+M+L items (t: -.51, df=ll).
Also, when comparing the mean PA scores obtained on H

and H+M items, which according to Maizlish and Hurley (1965)

were the items with the highest reliability, we again find

 

VIIIIIHIIEIIIIII

 

no significant differences between pre-therapy and follow—
up administrations of the PA Index.

Arepositive attitudes, as measured by the PA Index,
somewhat lower on the follow-up administration thanppositive

Oattitudes measured immediately after therapy, thereby

 

reflecting a slight regression to theppre-therapy level?

As shown in Table 1 there are significant differences
between post-therapy and follow-up PA scores as measured by
all item classes ( H, H+h and H+H+L). However, the difference
is much greater than originally anticipated. It was hy-
pothesized that the post-therapy period would reflect max-
imum gain in PA with a slight Pregression" occurring as a
result of the consolidation of therapeutic gains between

the post-therapy period and the present follow-up.

FIGWEBl

Distribution of Mean PA Scores (H+m Items) for Husbands
and Wives lndividually and Combined On Pre-Therapy,
Post-Therapy and Follow-Up Administrations.

H3-r
....
Ill-9- / ‘

, ,/ ‘*-~. Husbands______.
:3: (n'61,'/ " Wives__.__...
:3: ./-" Combined=_.__._d

Mean PA we. /,«’ ‘\\.\~
Score :?+‘ (n=l2) ,/° ‘~\
(H-I-M w} /
Items)M

(61.4-
IN ( n: 6 )
100 .
fi+
w+
({1
“it
(ls-4f»

cm+
)
01 -~\ 4-,- .-. ' -——-—_._..-H_-....-- -.-..... ...-.. .. ......— ..
rre- Post- Follow-up
Administration

. I '
/
‘

     

 

 

I “u._- I I I I Ill:- I I I If

 
 

10

As noted in Figure l, the data (H+M Items) for the
husbands and wives combined shows that the total group of
parents are at exactly the same level (105.0) during the
present study as they were before group therapy was in-
stituted. Any overall gains which may have resulted from
group therapy appear to have been lost. The wives started
off initially with a higher mean PA index than their husbands
and this difference has been maintained, and even widened, in
the follow-up administration. The mean PA index for the
wives in the present study is below the post-therapy level
but is still higher than the pre-therapy level. The wives

have ”regressed" somewhat from their post-therapy level of

maximum gain but have still maintained some of the gains
resulting from therapy. The husbands, on the other hand,
have regressed back to a level which is even below their
pre-therapy level. Any gains which may have resulted from
participation in group therapy appear to have been temp-
orary and short lived. The differences between the post-
therapy and follow-up scores reflect a regression in the
scores of both husbands and wives, however, the husbandé‘
contribution to this regression is much greater than that

of the wives.

.M-MH:.I:-III III-III.

DISCUSSION
IMPLICATIONS
LIMITATIONS

In our hypotheses we expected to find that the thera-
peutic gain at the end of therapy would reflect a maximum
gain,and it was further anticipated that the third adminis-
tration of the attitude questionnaire would show a regression
from this point. We did not, however, anticipate that this
regression would return as far as it did; to a score of
103, the same as that found on the pre-therapy questionnaire.

.It is interesting to note that this score is for the
entire sub—sample and, when broken up by sex, tends to show
a very different movement between the males and females.
The females started out on the pre-therapy test with much
higher scores (108.5) than the males, achieved the highest
score (112.5) between these two groups, and regressed very
slightly from this high point to a score of 111.0. This is
quite a contrast to the male mean P.A. score of 95.0 in the
follow-up attitude score, which is even lower than their
pre-therapy mean score of 97.5. Hence, according to the
results of this study, the males seem to have lost whatever
gains they might have made in therapy during the interval
of time between post-therapy and follow-up administrations
of the attitude questionnaire.

11

   

 

   

- I
_ -J

7 ; J -

12

Since the total group regressed to their pre-therapy
level, one can question whether the therapeutic experience
made any difference in the lives of these subjects; and, as
was noted in the introduction, this question is Open to much
controversy. However, as further statistical analysis with
the present sample revealed striking differences between
husbands and wives, we feel the more pertinent question
raised by our results is whether there is more value in
treating the female member of a parental team, rather than
both in a time-limited group therapy program aimed at help-
ing disturbed children by improving parental child-rearing
attitudes.

It is possible that the husbands have little to do
with the daily child rearing practices, and wish to keep it
that way. Many males feel that a child's upbringing is the
mother's function and are content to abide by the results.
An analysis of the initial clinic contacts would probably
reveal that it was the females which requested aid and,

'due to clinic policies, the husbands were required to
participate, probably against their will. Usually it is

the policy of the clinics not to offer services to the child
unless both parents are willing to attend. However, the
clinics realize that the mother is the most important

agent in child rearing and often do not require the presence

or participation of the father. These factors might serve

II.‘ A
'1... lu .
I: .

n I « v .
I n I A
t. .
.v .
\ v u w
. v I A- .
. . . . .
e e -
. » ~ .
p . . I
, . . a
.
. . - a r, y
. .
I .

. \
p. a y t .
u .
. o u . u
t . I a u
I o v u \e
. . . . ..
u v ,I
u a .A U | .I
t
. , . . f . r
t t
. t . .
. . f
.a. . .. t t
t r t
t he. . q! u\ I
n . A. c e -
~. . ....
0 . \
t t o v A
t . .. . n .1! .i ,
v v r . 1‘ v
A I. . .A
4 l.
. .. t .
A . n .
,1
, 4! Q )
. t
y t .u .
. I .
t c t
e: a c A . V. a
. . u t t .
p A .. u x
N , u
. I . f . . t. ,
. e ,
v I l
e t . ‘. I
.t . . v . I ,
. l .- .
, A v ., .
. . . n ...;A u
v s
V x t v .
.
A . I
I n l
v o
A .
I .
u ‘1 .. r
. . e . r
u
. I . . u '
f . .. e
I
. \ I .
. I ,-
c u

I
til.

I #5:

.t .. t; .
r . A . x .
t . e .
.
t: A . . A
_
o. e 4 ,
.o o» .
A I .-
. . .
. , ..b
! .
S . .A
t r .
.
. o
1 . I
. ..
e . z
5 ..
A
. .
. ,.
. \
. t A
.
t . . s
e
.. a
. r
. .
u . r . I
.
I P . r
. f x
A ‘
I. y
.o .
, . I ,
. .i A
, .
. .
. , J
. 1
I
. .
i
. . .
. r. u
.
.1 :01 . .
o.
o
e
.

 

 

 

 

 

13

to explain why the husbands did not '"benefit" from group
therapy. Future research would have to take into account
the differences between husband and wife attitudes and
behavior in regard to family problems.

The present research also has implications concerning
the instrument used to measure gains in positive attitudes.
For, in view of the results of this study, the question
remains as to whether the questionnaire measures a change
in attitude or a change in response to the questionnaire
after the subjects knew what child rearing attitudes were
considered to be acceptable or prOper. A way to further
strengthen this type of study would be to evaluate parental
behavior toward the child since much previous research has
shown that there is often a wide gap between espoused at-
titudes and actual behavior.

Of course, one of the limitations of this follow-up
study was the fact that only a partial sample was available
for this research. It can be argued, then, that these
results are expressive of a biased sub-sample rather than
representative of the entire group. Due to the nature of
the present sample, the generalizability of the results is
more severely limited than it would have been had a larger,
more representative sub-sample been used. However, even if
this limitation seems to negate the regressive trend of the
total group, it is unlikely that it could entirely account

 

. — I A w I
I \
V it

 

o \ . I A , . A t I . .l I
A . .
A A . A . .A A A a A .
I . A A
1 I ~ I o I
A to \ A. A I
r A . A . I
A .. I A
I A e A
o y I
I
A A I v A. I! AA. A . - I . M II
A A . I . .

 

 

A A I o A 'I A a A A A A. A .. A .
N A . A A A. s r .A
. . n A , v,_ . A A . .A
I b u . n av |
I .I ‘ I I I
. _ . AA A
I. .. A I A A v u A
A I ~ b . A A A
. I. A u . I
.I . A I. A . A,
a A A A .. .A a
4 A L I . . 3 3 .
rot . A . I I: r I
. ..- \l I I A . A .AA A ,
A ’I A I i u I ‘
s I Al . e. A . A _ « A _
A . A I . l , I. .I .l.
. A A I . ..A A} . I A» . . I I
I , r v . A . II
A I A I . I . A .
. v\ A l..
I I I . 1 AA. I . I
A A I I .
A . AA IA
: I l .I 0 v l .I 0 A i
. v . . A n
.. .o A u a o s A
A A A I I A . I
. A A C (
A o. A
I A A I I N
A e A
A A . I . I I A AA. A A A I
p e I I- I p I s h I
A \ A A I. lA .
J I. .
A A \ I I A A n .
I v u .»I ..
\I , A I a A A . .
. A A A v .
A a t
A. A . I A.
A A . .
r o A A. A
v
t“ A.. ~ A A, .I .
. A A r A I I I V,
AA A \I I A . I . A
A A IA . . \ I .I IAI‘
. I‘ AA A A I
A . A A A t
I o I I n
A A A I. .V .
0 I
| AA A
A -:.A r A A I .
e t I A I
A. A \ A A . A
I. A. A I . . . .
v . .
. I A . 1. A eA A c . o. , A. A
A . AA. A
A I ta r. .
A A AA . , l I A
A . A. . . A I A .
A . II A is I As V II A’ 1 I ..o
‘ I .. ' A. I
I I .I A I I
. . \,
AI . I . .
V . A A, A A A. .IIA
. A 1A I I a ...
d A A p
I A . 0 AA . y A A
A c 0 AA A A t. .
A A. r A ~ A. A A .
A x I A A .
A . A .I I I
A . t . I A, v
r A . A . , A
D. A I A
A. ,. u A s .
A d I . A I
l .. A A. I A I A I
A A e .. g I A A
. I. I A \- A I . A. A I .I a A
. A. A. t I... I A III . A . .A ...A,
I I I!» I O
A. . p A
A A A I
I o A
« AAA A A . . A .
I; A . . A. I, A .
I v A A A
A. .I . A
. . A . A o
t A . l .
A A A 1A . A
A AA I . as . A A
A t I
Q I: h I t I
I .
I » I) .I AA II I 4
n eh. I A A A I
r I
A A t A
Q 0
A v v I A
. . V I — . A

 

_ fl ... ..
-___J , .

14

for the sharply contrasting results between husbands and
wives.

Finally, the question must be raised as to the value
of time-limited group therapy. On the basis of our findings
one could say that time-limited therapy results in time-
limited gains. It would appear that more evaluation of
time-limited therapy per se is required before its effects
can be adequately appraised. Although we do not find
conclusive support for the original hypotheses, there are
many variables which may have served to confound the data
and yield such results. Further research in this arevmust

take all of these into account.

7‘. ~w1:\f\v3 H} In“
.‘LaJA -4- ~I.J.v LJ

Brown, D.G. (U.S. Public Health Service) some current issues
in psychotherapy. Psychol. Report: 1965, 17 (2),
651-6580

 

Denkcr, P.G. Results of treatment of psychoneurosis by the
general practitioner: A follow-up study of 50?
cases. Y.V.S. J. Medicine. XLYI, 19b6, 216h-2166.

 

Edwards, A.L. Statistical methods for the behavioral sciences.
New York. Rinehart 00., 1956.

Eysenck, H. The effects of psychotherapy: An evaluation. J.
consult. Psychol. 1952, XVI, 319—3hl.

 

Fiske, D.W. and Goodman, G. (U. of Chicago) The postthcrapy
period. J. abnormal Psychol. 1965, 70 (3), 169-179.

 

Hebb, D.O. The organization of behavior. New York. John
Wiley & Sons, 19h9.

 

Maizlish, L. Group psychotherapy of husband—wife couples in
a child guidance clinic. Group Psychother. 1957,
10, 169-1300

 

Kaizlish, L. and Hurley, J. Attitude changes of husbands and
wives in time-limited group psychotherapy. Psychiat.
Quarterly Supplement, 1963.

 

"clari, D.F., Lorr, M., Young, H.N., Roth, 1., and Boyd, R.w.
(Veterans Benefit ‘ffice, Washington, D.C.) A three-
year follow-up of psychotherapy patients. J. clinical
Psychotherapy. l96h, 20 (2), 258—25u.

 

 

Huench, G.A. An investigation of the efficacy of time-limited
psychotherapy. J. counseling Psychotherapy. 1965,
12 (3), 29h-298.

 

Rcznikoff, N. and Toomey, 1.0. Evaluation of changes associated
with psychiatric treatment. Springfield, Illinois.
1959.

 

 

15

Rogers, C. Client-centered therapy: Its current pract'ce,

w

implications, and theory. Boston. Houghton tifflin
COO, 1.9/10

 

 

 

”orers C. Counseli " and )svchothera3v: Newer conce ts in
6 2 b u .
practice. Boston. Roughton flifflin Co.,i19h2.

 

Rogers, C. On becoming a person: A therapist's view of

psychotherapy. Boston. houghton Kif‘lin Co., 1961.

 

Rogers, C. and Dymond, R. Psychotherapy and personality ' .
change. University of Chicago, lQSh.

 

 

Rubinstein, E.A. (ed.) Survey of clinical practice in
psychology. New York. International’University
Press, l9gh.

 

 

Siegel, S. Eon-parametric statistics for the behavioral
sciénces. HcGraw-Hill, 1955.

 

 

Zubin, J.A. Evaluation of therapeutic outcome in mental
disorder. J. Nervous and Mental Disorders. 1953,
CKVII, 95—111.

 

16

.. . 1 ll! .
Ill-l-EII I
Flzl ..

APPENDICES

Illllllllllirlllllfli

17

APPENDIX A

The statements in this questionnaire are rated differently by many people.

swers are in this sense neither "right" nor "wrong."

and rate each of them as follows:

Strongly agree
Mildly agree

In doubt

The an-

Please re ad these statements

Strongly disagree
Mildly disagree

Do not hesitate to rate each statement exactly the way you feel at this time. Make
If anything is not clear,

a V in the space you consider appropriate for each item.

_. feel free to ask questions at any time.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ‘ - - - - -
l

l.

2.

3.

S.

6.

7.

9.

10.

We can improve as parents by Lis-
tening to others as they give con-
vincing examples of good relation-
ships with their children.

If a child behaves well at home he

still may have good reasons for be-

having poorly in school.

When visiting, I often enjoy havin

our children with us.

. I
1y own faults make it very difficul

 

 

to deal adequately with the childro .

Parents should never disagree with
the school principal and teachers.

Sharing family difficulties with
a group of parents seeking under-
standing can be helpful.

It is all right for the children
to need me less and less as they
grow up.

I make constructive efforts to be.
a good and understanding parent.

If the mother cares for the chil-
dren in the right way it is
unimportant for the father to
participate frequently.

I believe that I can profit from
information and acquire know-how
about being a good and understand-
ing parent.

 

"'"l"

 

 

i
EStrongly : Mildly
Agree 1 Agree
i
I
3
l
u 1 .—
2
fit I .-
I
. .. ..
I .
I
| .. ..
‘Strongly Mildly
I Agree Agree
1 i
i .... .'...
1
I .
I
1..
I an. —s
.1,

I
g
S
1
l
i
!

 

.----q

Mildly
Disagree

Mildly
Disagree

Strongly
Disagree

 

 

 

 

_4

—_~_

ll.

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

.18
APPENDIX A

In relation to the children I am
likely to act on impulse rather
than to take time to consider
things calmly.

It is better if children do not
play with the neighbors' children

Undesirable behavior in parents may
be reflected'by the child so that
the child in turn engages in un-
desirable behavior.

I enjoy our children.

Whether in giving children a good
time you succeed in making them
happy individuals, will also depend
on how you feel about them.

I am considered a good parent by
those who know our family.

In relation to the children my spouse
is likely to act on impulse rather
than to take time to consider things
calmly.

My spouse is reluctant to help our
children with sex education.

If whippings don't help, bribes should
be used to gain cooperation from
children.

My spouse's faults make it very dif-
ficult to deal adequately with the
children.

'2-

Strongly
Agree

Strongly
Agree

 

Mildly

Agree

Mildly
Agree

 

 

 

 

In

Doubt

In
Doubt

 

*-*<-

 

 

Mildly
Disagree

Mildly
Disagree

 

Strongly
Disagree

Strongly
Disagree

 

h)
w
c

— - -
PO
E“

f0
...1
e

to
t.
O

— fi-_—~_._ ... .... -

19

APPENDIX A
-3-

Strongly Mildly
Agree Agree

Most of the pro.lems with my
children are siznilar to those

thrt other parelfi US he ave with their
Culifliel ..

I think that husband and wife
should never disagree on how to
disciplin their children.

‘ouli understand our children

 

The child should know that his
teachers always do everything for

.0 .‘ a O
iii; decib: it e

Tvenv m,ll trained children need not
necessa ily be polite at all times.

Strongly Mildly
Agree Agree

I believe that much progress will
be made in our family}

'Plziizliing back about my own child-
hood experiences could he lp me to
be a better parent. -

I am often burdened with guilt
feelings about my behavior toward
the children.

Only a sttbbcrn child will continue
with b d habits such as nail biting
and f1 equent crying spells.

Because of my civic interests,
community affairs should come
before my family responsibilities.

 

 

 

 

In
Doubt

Mildly
Disagree

Mildly
Disagree

 

 

Strongly
Disagree

Strongly
Disagree

 

 

Eton *;siting, my spouse often enjoys
having our children with us.

’V

of parents seeking understanding
could offer a lot of comfort.

Showing your child affection
would not tend to make him a
"softy."

My spouse enjoys our children.
I have been an inadequate parent

almost since the children were
born.

. *J‘
l -I
Q’
a?
:i
73
G:
(D
Q.
(...
O
O‘
(D
H:
c?-
53
H.
C.-
D‘

I believe that my spouse can
it from information and

proi
acqu':e knowahow about being
a goo and understanding parent.

My spouse makes constructive
efforts to be a good and under-
standing parent.

My spouse is considered a good
parent by those who know our
f 3.22in .

Sharing one’s problems with a group

2 C)

APPENDIX A

~h-

i

 

_.4. ~—‘.—.—.—‘.‘ ....-

-— “...—“......“- -.—-u-o —— a -

 

mun-r--. .--.mm o

Stronglyl Mildly

Agree

Strongly
Agree

 

ildly
Agree

 

 

In
Doubt

Mildly
Disagree

Mildly
Disagree

 

 

Strongly
Disagree

Strongly
Disagree

 

 

 

 

‘!555 '55! E!!! !!!! Ill!

'35‘35

.15

-
l

ZL

APPENDIX A

, “F -.--.r. c.0‘I '1 .2 . ‘
SVA?.—~.a muggy.) BO. «:3 Cillldl‘eiw 3117.031;
'7- .--- . :- .,-, -. ,3
ii. ys brings gOOd results

If the .ochev is even partly
em.loyed sh e al 003 t always does
IA55; .501 U0 liC‘Jr Chi 1d; an.

Ky spouse has seen an inadequate
parent almost Wires the children
3231'; bu-“ o

in gzteral, relatives cause
t;o:o;e between pare ants and

a

Ca-Aildr Al O
"t is nc-t enough to teach childm

right, how you teach them
0 impOI‘tanT;

..LE.

r:
0] t6"

3

+1.3 '2‘

i often feel helpless and over-
whelmzd in dealing with the

I. ‘1 an
wold-4.x...— Llo'o.

lenienc cy with children almost
always bzings good results.

Relief may, at times, be
obtained M.r0‘gh the right
O¢u0~uhnity to express one's
ul C. 3.83 and 61011231350

1..

My spouse often feels helpless
and ove mhelmsd in dealing with
the childien

‘~ents should :1ot talk about
any of their di-agre eements in
front of their children.

o.—.--.. ...

 

J

_>.—

Strongly;

Agree

Strongly
Agree

.-_---- -.-0 - a ..

o.‘ “...-...... ~>--.~ ...—i

”a pa... .-.—.— Ma.-- “0——

 

Mildly
Agree

Mildly
Agree

 

 

 

 

 

— o“...

 

‘v-Jv.

 

ldly Strongly
a Disagree}

I

I

-‘ - ”0.45..

 

i

I

8
....J__

i

2
_1_

i

E

Mildly Strongly
Disagree Disagree

V
I
.- all—-
f
L

 

JRH:#81
Oct. 59

 

APPENDIX B

22

 

 

 

 

 

RAW DATA
Subject Sex Administration PA Item Total PA Score
H M L H / M / L
Pre 51 52 hl lhb
Mr.1 M Post 58 Sh hé 158
Follow up 53 51 39 1u3
Pre 56 b7 27 130
mrs.1 F Post 61 50 33 lhb
Follow-up Sh 50 38 1&2
Pre D9 51 33 133
UP . 2 M Post 51 58 1:1 1’48
Follow-up hh b5 37 126
Pro 59 59 3b 152
Hrs.2 F Post 59 57 37 153
Follow—up 59 SD hl 15h
Pre b1 h3 37 121
Mr.3 LT Post h6 h2 35 123
Follow-up h2 £3 37 12?
Pre DS 50 h2 137
Nrs.3 F Post 53 51 33 137
Followaup b6 50 33 13h

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I 23
APPESTK‘IX B (Continued)
I RAW DATA
I Subject Sex Administration PA Item_ Total PA Score
I H 1: L H ,l M ,1 L
I Pre 50 h? )12 1111
Mr . h M Post 56 53 112 151
I Follow-up 1:3 '31 311 133
' m 59 55 11 153
hrs . h F Po st 59 53 M; 156
I Follow—up S7 53 1:1 156
' Pro 53 M1 113 1&0
I was 1' Post 56 51 58 1115
F o 11 o'.‘~'-—up 50 1:5 3 7 l3 2
I Pre 57 SO 36 1:13
I 233.5 F Post 53 s; 33 1311
Follow-up 60 S2 37 159
' Pre 53 119 37 139
thus 1.: Post {70 L11 3? 131
I Follow-up 5'1 113 33 137
' Pre 56 58 311 1:5
7 W3 '6 F Po st 65 59 h? 173
' Follow—up 63 62 bl 166