An Analysis of AGPA Institute Groups

MacKenzie, Kimberly; Dies, Robert R.; Coché, Erich; Rutan, J. Scott; Stone, Walter N.

doi:10.1080/00207284.1987.11491041

Cited by 68 publications

(54 citation statements)

References 1 publication

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In one study, examining members' appraisals of self-help groups (i.e., Multiple Sclerosis, Compassionate Friends, and Overeaters Anonymous groups), members who perceived that their group was well organized and had a proficient leader reported greater satisfaction with the group, higher levels of selfγesteem, and lower levels of depression (Maton, 1988). Similar findings have been obtained in other studies, which have shown that primary group outcomes are related to several features of group environments, including perceived levels of group cohesion (Budman, Soldz, Demby, Feldstein, Springer & Davis, 1989;Meredith, 1987), disruptive group dynamics (Faris & Brown, 2003), group leadership and implementation (Kulic, Horne, & Dagley, 2004), and perceived group climate (Choi, Price, & Vinokur, 2003;MacKenzie, Dies, Coché, Rutan, & Stone, 1987).…”

supporting

confidence: 71%

“…As the use of group-level interventions increases in both research and applied settings, it is very important to document the possible moderators to individuals' change as a result of participating in an intervention group (Stefanek, 2004). As previous research has shown, features of group environments play an important role in determining the effectiveness of a group-level intervention (Budman et al, 1989;Choi et al, 2003;MacKenzie et al, 1987;Maton, 1988;Meredith, 1987). Thus, researchers and practitioners utilizing interventions groups may benefit from routinely asking: "How do participants' perceptions of the group environment affect their individual progress, and progress for the intervention as a whole?"…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, given its explicit focus on psychotherapeutic processes, the GCQ is best suited to assess psychotherapy-based intervention groups, and not other types of groups. Most items in both the long-and shortversions of the GCQ are primarily relevant to psychotherapy groups (e.g., "The members research personal information which is usually kept secret," and "Members tried to understand why they do the things they do, tried to reason it out"), and the majority studies using the scale have been conducted with psychotherapeutic groups (MacKenzie et al, 1987;MacKenzie & Livesley, 1986;Ogrodniczuk & Piper, 2003). While this type of group is often used in clinical work, a measure specifically designed for psychotherapy groups may not be relevant to many group interventions taking place in community-based and clinical settings that are not psychotherapy-based.…”

Section: Existing Scales Used To Assess Group Environmentsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Scale development of a measure to assess community‐based and clinical intervention group environments

Wilson

Hansen

Tarakeshwar

et al. 2008

Journal Community Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Though group interventions are widely used in community-based and clinical settings, there are few brief instruments for assessing the group environment. Two studies on the development of a brief measure to assess intervention group environments are described, and psychometric properties of the new scale are presented. The new measure is based on Moos' (1994) Group Environment Scale (GES). Participants in the studies were from two independent randomized controlled clinical trials (RCTs) of group interventions (combined N = 334). In Study 1 (N = 139), the factor content of the original 90-item GES was examined. The scale was shortened, the response format was changed, and items were adapted and added to in an effort to increase applicability to community-based and clinical intervention groups. In Study 2 (N = 195), the new scale was evaluated, the factor solution obtained in Study 1 was cross-validated, and subsequently the length of the scale was shortened again. The final scale contains 25 items with three subscales. Reliability and validity of the new scale was examined. Finally, the research and practice implications of the scale are discussed.Group interventions have been proposed as perhaps the most promising psychosocial treatment modality for persons receiving care in clinical and community-based health care settings (Simonton & Sherman, 2000), and interest in and practice of group interventions is growing among researchers and practitioners (Sherman et al., 2004). For the purposes of this study, group interventions refer to the broad range of behavioral and mental health interventions that are delivered within the group environment. Types of groups that fall under the umbrella of a "group intervention" include psychotherapeutic groups, educational groups, support groups, skills-building groups, and any combination of the four. Using this perspective, group NIH-PA Author ManuscriptNIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript interventions may take place as a part of a research study examining the effectiveness of an intervention (e.g., a randomized controlled clinical trial), or they can exist as a part of services provided to clients in public or private health service organizations or community-based organizations. Likewise, intervention groups refer to groups that are unstructured and conducted for indefinite periods of time, as well as those that are structured and delivered for a predetermined number of sessions to a fixed number of participants.There are many advantages of using the group environment to deliver an intervention. These advantages include: (a) the development of a sense of universality, cohesion, and social support among group members; (b) the opportunity for modeling and social learning from other group members, and (c) the positive experience of sharing with and helping others (Burlingame, MacKenzie, & Strauss, 2003;Hyde, Appleby, Weiss, Bailey & Morgan, 2005;Yalom, 1985). Additionally, research suggests that participants often view group interventions as less stigmatiz...

show abstract

supporting

confidence: 71%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Existing Scales Used To Assess Group Environmentsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Scale development of a measure to assess community‐based and clinical intervention group environments

Wilson

Hansen

Tarakeshwar

et al. 2008

Journal Community Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…O'Neill et al [8] quasi-experimental study compared the process and outcome of 6 systems-centered training groups to those of similar but non-SCT training groups from two prior studies [28,29]. They based their hypotheses on Agazarian's [12] statements about functional subgrouping.…”

Section: Systems-centered Research Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Systems-Centered Management: A Brief Review of Theory, Practice and Research

2014

Review Pub Administration Manag

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A theory is useful to the extent that it allows for new understanding and more effective solution of problems, such as improving morale and increasing organizational member participation in problem-solving under stressful conditions. Systems-Centered theory and practice are hypothesized to be useful to management of human systems in all contexts. In organizational contexts, the systems-centered approach presents an innovative approach to leadership, organizational structure and teamwork to improve performance. The goal of this paper is to introduce systems-centered theory and practice as well as to review the empirical studies of SCT methods including studies of comparative training group and work group performance and the unique, cardinal SCT method of functional subgrouping. We found preliminary, significant support for SCT hypotheses and methodology.

show abstract

“…In group psychotherapy with psychotic patients, cohesion was the most valued therapeutic factor (17). A variety of variables including age, theoretical orientation, length, size of group have, interpersonal style, and personality factors worked as moderator variables predicting the magnitude of correlation between cohesion and outcome (7,18,19,20,21,22,23).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Psychometric Properties of The Curative Climate Questionnaire-Turkish Version

Bilican¹

2017

J Clin Psy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

An Analysis of AGPA Institute Groups

Cited by 68 publications

References 1 publication

Scale development of a measure to assess community‐based and clinical intervention group environments

Scale development of a measure to assess community‐based and clinical intervention group environments

Systems-Centered Management: A Brief Review of Theory, Practice and Research

Psychometric Properties of The Curative Climate Questionnaire-Turkish Version

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About