Effectiveness of Assertiveness Training

Effectiveness of Assertiveness TrainingCHAPTER IV entropy ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATIONThis chapter deals with analysis and interpretation of data to study the authorization of egotism-assertiveness training programme on the aim of egotism wonderment among adolescents at selected school. The result findings have been tabulated and interpreted fit in to plan for data analysis. The data collected from 60 samples were pigeonholinged and analyzed using descriptive and inferential statistics. The results are presented under the following.ORGANIZATION OF DATASection A scattering of demographic variables of adolescentsSection B dispersal of subjects according to take aim of egotism delight in among adolescents to begin with and after(prenominal) training programme.Section C Comparison of effectiveness of assertive training programme on the aim ofSelf esteem among adolescents in data-based host and front listed subdue sort.Section D Association between the train of egoti sm-importance esteem among adolescents with selecteddemographic variables. section A get across No 1 statistical distribution of subjects according to their demographic variables(N=60)S.NoDemographic variables data-based concourse waitress listed tell hostFrequency%Frequency%1. sequencea .11-13 yrsb. 13-15yrsc. 15-17yrs121714056.73.31019133.363.33.32.Sexa. priapicb. Female102033.366.7141646.753.33.Religiona. Hindoob. Christianc. Muslim198363.326.71015875026.723.34.Residencya. Urbanb. Rural191163.336.7201066.733.35. role of familya. Nuclearb. Joint23776.723.3201066.733.36.Fathers procreationa. uneducatedb. Primaryc. Higher petty(a)d. Graduate389101026.73033.34108813.333.326.726.77.Mothers educationa. ignorantb. Primaryc. Higher secondaryd. Graduate699620303020910653033.32016.78.Fathers business concerna. governing celestial sphereb. cloak-and-dagger sectorc. Businessd. coolie5715316.723.350103101431033.346.7109.Mothers occupationa. Government sectorb. close sectorc. Busi nessd. Housewife3101161033.33.353.331511110503.336.710. yearbook Incomea. 50000-100000b. 100000-200000c. 200000 above613112043.336.7815726.75023.3 give in 1 Shows that frequency and pct distribution of demographic variables of experimental and wait listed inhibit chemical group with evaluate to age, sex, religion, residency, type of family, get under virtuosos skins education, commences occupation, mothers education, mothers occupation and annual income.Regarding Age, volume of the subjects in experimental root 17 (56.7 %) in postponement listed realise free radical 19 (63.3%) were in the age group of 13-15 years.Regarding Sex, bulk of the subjects in experimental multitude 20 (66.7 %) in inhabit Listed simplicity concourse 16 (53.3%) were females.Regarding Religion, mass of the subjects in Experimental assort 19 (63.3 %) in anticipate Listed visit Group 15 (50%) were Hindus.Regarding Residency, bulk of the subjects in Experimental Group 19 (63.3%) in Wa it Listed harbour Group 18 (60%) were from urban area.Regarding Type of Family, majority of the subjects in Experimental Group 23 (76.7 %) in Wait Listed Control Group 20 (66.7%) were from nuclear family.Regarding Fathers Education, majority of the subjects in Experimental Group 10(33.3 %) were graduates in Wait Listed Control Group 10 (33.3%) were Primaryeducation aim.Regarding Mothers Education, majority of the subjects in Experimental Group 9 (30 %) were Higher Secondary train in Wait Listed Control Group 10 (33.3%) were Primary education train.Regarding Fathers Occupation, majority of the subjects in Experimental Group 15 (50 %) in Wait Listed Control Group 14(46.7%) were business men.Regarding Mothers Occupation, majority of the subjects in Experimental Group 16 (53.3 %) were housewives in Wait Listed Control Group 15(50%) were working in private sector.Regarding Annual Income of the family, majority of the subjects in Experimental Group 13 (43.3 %) in Wait Listed Con trol Group 15 (50%) were ranged from Rs.100000-200000. trope3 Distribution of subjects according to their age in both experimentaland wait listed control group fig4 Distribution of subjects according to their Sex in both experimental and wait listed control groupFIG5 Distribution of subjects according to their Religion among experimental and wait listed control groupFIG6 Distribution of subjects in Residency among experimental and waitlisted control groupFIG7 Distribution of subjects in type of family among experimental andwait listed control groupFIG8 Distribution of subjects in fathers education among experimentaland wait listed control groupFIG9 Distribution of subjects in mothers education among experimentaland wait listed control groupFIG10 Distribution of subjects in fathers occupation among experimental and waitlisted control groupFIG11 Distribution of subjects in mothers occupation among experimentaland wait listed control groupFIG12 Distribution of subjects in annual inco me of the family among experimentaland wait listed control group persona B display board 2 Distribution of subjects according to their take of self esteem before and afterAssertiveness training among adolescents.(N=60)S.NoLevel of self esteemGroupRange of score tightSDHigh SELow SE60-8080-10020-4040-601.Beforeassertiveness trainingExperimental group52.067.6Wait listed control group53.963.92.After assertiveness trainingExperimental group (post1)79.85.7Experimental group (post 2)74.839.03Wait listed Control group55.133.86Table 2 shows that distribution of subjects according to the take aim of self esteem before and after assertiveness training among adolescents. In that, mingy order of direct of self esteem before assertiveness training in experimental group was 52.06 in control group it was 53.96 and as well the bastardly appraise of level of self esteem after assertiveness training in experimental group post running 1 and post sort 2 was 79.8 74.83 , and in control group it was 55.13FIG 15 Distribution of subjects according to their level of self esteem before and after assertiveness training among adolescents.SECTION CTable 3 Comparison of slopped pre tribulation valuate of level of self esteem among adolescents in Experimental Group and Wait Listed Control Group.(N=60)S.NOLevel of self esteemGroupMeanSDt treasure1.Pre tryoutExperimental group52.067.61.213(NS)Wait listed Control group53.963.9NS Not authoritativeTable 3 describes that obtained sovereign t value for the mean difference in pre experiment level of self esteem between experimental and control group is 1.213 and it is non statistically real at 0.05 level, hence there is no meaningful difference outlast between level of self esteem among experimental and control group and also shows that both the groups were homogenous before crowing assertiveness training.FIG16- Comparison of mean pre running game value of level of self esteem among adolescents in Experimental Group and W ait Listed Control GroupTable 4 Comparison of mean post test value of level of self esteem among adolescents inExperimental Group and Control Group.(N=60)S.NOLevel of self esteemGroupMeanSDt value1. transmit test 1Experimental group79.85.6819.640**Wait listed Control group55.133.862. send test 2Experimental group74.839.0310.982**Wait listed Control group55.133.86** Significant at .001 levelTable 4 describes that obtained independent t value for the mean difference in post test 1 and post test 2 level of self esteem between experimental and control group is 19.640 10.982 and it is statistically square at 0.05 level, hence there is significant difference represent between post test 1 and post test 2 level of self esteem among experimental and control group after receiving assertiveness training.FIG17 Comparison of mean post test value of level of self esteem in both groupsTable 5 Comparison of mean Pre and Post test level of self esteem among adolescents in Experimental Group (N =30)S.NOGroup stressMeanSDt value1.Experimental groupPre testPost test 152.0679.87.65.6816.181**Pre testPost test 252.0674.837.69.0310.694**** Significant at 0.001 levelTable 5 depicts that obtained paired t value for the mean difference in Pre, Post test1 Post test 2 level of self esteem in Experimental group is 16.181 10.694 and it is statistically significant at 0.05 level, hence there is significant difference exist between pre and post test level of self esteem among Experimental group after receiving assertiveness training.FIG18 Comparison of mean Pre and Post test level of self esteem among adolescents in Experimental GroupTable 6 Comparison of mean Pre and Post test level of self esteem among adolescents in Wait listed Control Group. (N=30)S.NOGroupTestMeanSDt value1.Wait listed Control groupPre testPost test53.9655.133.93.861.125(NS)Table 6 depicts that obtained paired t value for the mean difference in Pre and Post test level of self esteem in Control group is 1.125 and it is not statistically significant at 0.05 level, hence there is no significant difference exist between pre and post test level of self esteem among adolescents in Wait Listed Control group.FIG19- Comparison of mean Pre and Post test level of self esteem among adolescentsin Wait Listed Control GroupTable 7 Comparison of mean post test value of level of self esteem in different period of prison term among adolescents in Experimental Group (N=30)S.NOGroupTestMEANSDT valueP value1.Experimental GroupPost Test1 Post Test279.874.835.69.032.430.021*** Significant at .01 levelTable 7 revealed that obtained paired t value for the mean difference in post test value of level of self esteem in different period of duration (immediate, one month after) among adolescents in Experimental Group is 2.43 and it is statistically significant at 0.05 level, hence there is significant improvement in level of self esteem among adolescents in different period of time ( immediate, one month after) in e xperimental group.FIG 20 Comparison of mean post test value of level of self esteem in different period of time among adolescents in Experimental GroupSECTION DTable no 8- Association between post-test level of self esteem among adolescents with demographic variables in Experimental Group Wait listed control group (N=60)S.NODemographic variablesExperimental groupWait listed control groupFrequencyP valueFrequencyP value1.Agea .11-13 yrsb. 13-15yrsc. 15-17yrs121710.263(NS)101910.668(NS)2.Sexa. Maleb. Female10200.595(NS)14160.314(NS)3.Religiona. Hindub. Muslimc. Christian19830.395(NS)15870.064(NS)4.Residencya. Urbanb. Rural19110.172(NS)20100.514(NS)5.Type of familya. Nuclearb. Joint2370.260(NS)20100.374(NS)6.Fathers educationa. Illiterateb. Primaryc. Higher secondaryd. Graduate389100.388(NS)410880.17(NS)7.Mothers educationa. Illiterateb. Primaryc. Higher secondaryd. Graduate69960.512(NS)910650.632(NS)8.Fathers occupationa. Government sectorb. Private sectorc. Businessd. coolie571530. 406(NS)3101430.415(NS)9.Mothers occupationa. Government sectorb. Private sectorc. Businessd. Housewife3101160.12(NS)3151110.334(NS)10.Annual Incomea. 50000-100000b. 100000-200000c. 200000 above613110.075(NS)81570.527(NS)* Significant at 0.01 level NS Not significantTable 8 reveals that the calculated chi square test value for level of self esteem with demographic variables such as age, sex, religion, residency, type of family, fathers education, fathers occupation and annual income in experimental group.It also shows that there is no significant association exist between the level of self esteem with demographic variables such as age, sex, religion, residency, type of family, fathers education, fathers occupation, annual income and academic performance in wait listed control group.