Most of the instructors about studies had been official Enneagram instructors about Story Lifestyle. The Enneagram Interval training Programmes put five pri style of panels, (2) didactic discovering, (3) meditation knowledge, and you will (4) experiential exploration. Enneagram Intense Trainings coaches observed a plan called The Enneagram Intense®: Partnering Emotional Lives and you will Spirit.

The three Introductory classes provided pri understanding methods. New Berkeley movement incorporated relaxed Enneagram type of boards and you can didactic understanding. The newest Minnesota way made use of all of your number 1 learning modalities. Brand new Palo Alto movement utilized Enneagram sort of boards, didactic learning, and experiential mining instance guided visualization.

Studies Investigation

Questionnaires were blogged of the a research secretary and you may taken to an effective Cook-Greuter-official SCT scorer (Hy and Loevinger 1996) through article send. Code amounts were utilized therefore the rater was blind so you can the sort of your test, the new dates of test, additionally the education class type. The new scorer used the education because of the Susan Plan-Greuter, utilizing the brand spanking new Loevinger guidelines, apart from stems not in the guide (Cook-Greuter 1999). Obtained solutions had been delivered back to the scientists inside a stand out pass on sheet that was up coming useful for research data. To make certain precision of rating getting contributes to and this members went up or down a couple of degrees, a sample of those education was also obtained from the Make-Greuter by herself.

Results

An analysis of variance (ANOVA) confirmed that there were no pre-existing ego development differences at baseline among the participants between the sites, F(8, 9) = 0.38, p = .93. The pretest and posttest ego development scores were significantly correlated (r = .48, p < .001), whereby participants with higher pre-training scores also had higher post-training scores.

Since there are a lot more over the age of more youthful adults within this shot, an analysis try used to check the partnership anywhere between generation and degree feeling. In total, 40 professionals (33%, letter = ) connection singles enhanced no less than one amounts adopting the studies. Proportionally, a lot more fifty–59 year olds (45%, letter = ) compared to the other a long time improved one or more values once the training (20%, n = 1/5, below 30; 0%, n = 0/3, 30–39 12 months olds; 25%, letter = 7/28, 40–forty two seasons olds; and you will 24%, n = 8/33, 60+ 12 months olds). To examine if this trend was mathematically high, an excellent ? 2 sample off liberty are determined of the comparing years category and you will whether a person experienced ego phase development of that or higher stages following intervention (or perhaps not).

An analysis has also been held to check on the relationship anywhere between fellow member intercourse and studies perception. Even in the event proportionally, way more lady (36%, n = ) than men (18%, letter = 4/22) advanced one or more degree after the education, a ? 2 shot of freedom found zero relationships ranging from gender and you may ego innovation.

Two repeated-measures ANOVAs were conducted to test for within-subject ego development changes across the training sites. The first model examined the interaction term of ego development by training site type as a dichotomous variable (intensive site vs. introductory site); the model was not significant at the p < .05 level, F(1,120) = 1.32, p = .25. The second model examined the interaction term of ego development by individual training site; the model was also not significant at the p < .05 level, F(7, 114) = 1.40, p = .21.

Paired sample t tests were conducted to examine whether there were significant changes in ego development scores before compared to after the Enneagram training interventions at each site. Data revealed that the Asheville 2005 participant group showed a significant increase in ego development scores following the intervention, t(22) = ? 3.36, p < .01. Table 4 sument scores and the paired t test results.