Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2020 Feb 4.
Published in final edited form as: Soc Work Groups. 2019 Feb 4;42(3):197–212. doi: 10.1080/01609513.2019.1567437

Table 2.

Open-Ended Responses

Question/Respondents Total Responses Codes n %

Cohesion

1. What were the ways that the group facilitated cohesion (n=29) 34 Shared experiences 17 50%
Interpersonal learning 8 23.5%
Familiarity/sense of family 5 14.7%
Open communication 4 11.8%
2. Ways group did not facilitate cohesion 11 Group dynamics 5 45.5%
Lack of trust 3 27.3%
Attendance issues 2 18%
Other 1 9.1%

Universality

3. Ways participants felt they were not the only one in the group experiencing difficulties with their child (n=27) 27 Shared experiences 18 66.7%
Discussions/group problem 5 18.5%
solving
Openness/trust 3 11.1%
Other 1 3.7%

Catharsis

4. Ways the group helped caregivers express their feelings (n=24) 29 Shared experiences/Group discussions 14 48.3%
Supportive environment/Open communication 12 41.4%
Other 3 10.3%

Interpersonal Learning

5. Ways in which the group facilitated learning about caregivers’ self as a parent (n=23) 27 Learned techniques to increase interpersonal learning 9 32.1%
Identification of personal strengths 7 25%
Recognized maladaptive patterns in communication 5 17.9%
Universality/Shared experiences 4 14.3%
Recognized positive patterns in communication 1 3.6%
Other 1 3.6%

Guidance

6. Preference to receive feedback from group members or group facilitators group facilitators (n=18) 18 No preference 13 72.2%
Group facilitator 3 16.7%
Group members 2 11.1%

Overall Feedback

7. Additional comments (n=12) 16 Positive experience 5 31.3%
Activities 4 25%
Group dynamics 2 12.5%
Would participate again 2 12.5%
Issues with facilitator approach 1 6.3%
Shared experiences 1 6.3%
Other 1 6.3%