Table 3.
Analyses of repeated measures, plus reliable change index (RCI) scores for hope, anger-hostility, anxiety, interpersonal sensibility, and depression
| Mean (SD) | n (%)b | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Outcome Domains | Group | T1 | T2 | T3 | Time*group | Within-subjects | Post hoca |
T1 vs. T2 |
T1 vs. T3 |
T2 vs. T3 |
|||
| RI | RT | RI | RT | RI | RT | ||||||||
| Hopec | MSC | 19.52 (2.50) | 26.96 (1.94) | 26.64 (2.03) | F (2–90) = 87.89, p < .001, η2 = .66 | F (2–48) = 153.75, p < .001, η2 = .88 |
T1 < T2 T1 < T3 T2 = T3 |
22 (88%) | 0 (0%) | 22 (88%) | 0 (0%) | 1 (4%) | 1 (4%) |
| TAU | 20.13(3.65) | 19.54(3.24) | 19.09 (2.26) | F (2–42) = 2.04, P = .14, η2 = .09 |
T1 = T2 T1 = T3 T2 = T3 |
0 (0%) | 0(0%) | 0(0%) | 1 (4.5%) | 0 (0%) | 2 (9%) | ||
| Anger-Hostilityc | MSC | 1.15 (0.41) | .39 (0.21) | .49 (0.35) | F (2–90) = 43.42, p < .001, η2 = .49 | F (2–48) = 40.24, p < .001, η2 = .71 |
T1 > T2 T1 > T3 T2 = T3 |
16 (64%) | 0 (0%) | 14 (56%) | 0 (0%) | 5 (20%) | 12 (48%) |
| TAU | 0.97 (0.53) | 1.14 (0.56) | 1.10 (0.55) | F (2–42) = 7.16, P = .01, η2 = .43 |
T1 < T2 T1 < T3 T2 = T3 |
0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | 1 (4.5%) | 0 (0%) | 1 (4.5%) | ||
| Anxietyc | MSC | 1.39 (0.52) | 0.48 (0.25) | 0.53(0.31) | F (2–90) = 35.19, p < .001, η2 = .44 | F (2–48) = 47.97, p < .001, η2 = .67 |
T1 > T2 T1 > T3 T2 = T3 |
17 (68%) | 0 (0%) | 16 (64%) | 0 (0%) | 3 (12%) | 4 (16%) |
| TAU | 1.22 (0.55) | 1.22 (0.59) | 1.34 (0.53) | F (2–42) = 1.88, P = .17, ns, η2 = .06 |
T1 = T2 T1 = T3 T2 = T3 |
2 (9%) | 1 (4.5%) | 0 (0%) | 2 (9%) | 0 (0%) | 2 (9%) | ||
| Interpersonal Sensitivityc | MSC | 1.21 (0.30) | 0.62 (0.24) | 0.52 (0.31) | F (2–86) = 25.63, p < .001, η2 = .37 |
F (2–48) = 44.17, p = .001, η2 = .64 |
T1 > T2 T1 > T3 T2 = T3 |
17 (68%) | 0 (0%) | 21 (84%) | 0 (0%) | 9 (36%) | 7 (28%) |
| TAU | 1.21 0(.33) | 0.97 (0.52) | 1.28 (0.44) | F (2–38) = 12.10, p < .001, η2 = .39 |
T1 > T2 T1 < T3 T2 < T3 |
6 (27%) | 0(0%) | 2 (9%) | 2 (9%) | 2 (9%) | 4 (18%) | ||
| Depressionc | MSC | 3.58 (0.34) | 1.84 (0.71) | 1.97 (0.42) | F (2, 90) = 17.25, p < .001, η2 = .28 | F (2–48) = 64.55, p < .001, η2 = .73 |
T1 > T2 T1 > T3 T2 = T3 |
21 (84%) | 0(0%) | 18 (72%) | 0 (0%) | 5 (20%) | 7 (28%) |
| TAU | 3.63 (0.28) | 3.25 (0.55) | 3.06 (0.47) | F (2–42) = 11.92, p = .001, η2 = .36 |
T1 > T3 T2 = T3 |
1 (4.5%) | 0 (0%) | 7 (32%) | 0 (0%) | .7 (32%) | 0 (0%) | ||
T1 pre-test, T2 post-test, T3 follow-up; MSC (n = 23); TAU (n = 22), * p < .05), RI reliable improvement, RT reliable deterioration
aGames-Howell post-hoc test for significant homogeneity of variance was used if Leven's test for homogeneity of variance was significant; otherwise, Bonferroni was used; significant pairwise differences are displayed as " > " and non-significant pairs as " = "
bThe clinically significant changes were calculated using RCI calculations (Jacobson and Traux, 1992)
cConfounding impact of age and educational level was controlled as covariate variables
The mean and standard deviation values presented in the table are prior to controlling for the main effects of gender and educational level. The modified means after controlling are depicted in Figs. 1 to 5