Covert modeling vs. behavior rehearsal in the training and generalization of assertive behaviors: A crossover design

Abstract

Twenty‐four underassertive individuals from the community were assigned randomly to two treatment orders that included covert modeling and behavior rehearsal in a crossover design. Dependent measures included two self‐report inventories and a behavioral assertiveness test. This test included a self‐rating scale, two nonverbal measures, and eight measures of speech content. No measurable differences between treatments were found, and both significantly improved assertive skills on 10 of the 13 measures. However, Ss had greater expectations of improvement from behavior rehearsal both during and after treatment. Generalization of assertive skills from trained to untrained situations occurred on 8 of the 11 behavioral measures. Suggestions were made for exploring the use of covert modeling as a personal coping procedure capable of enhancing generalization and maintenance.

Development and evaluation of a modified brief assertiveness training for nurses in the workplace: a single-group feasibility study

“…In particular, our pre-post effect size of 0.24 (small effect) in terms of the RAS was larger than the effect sizes ranging from −0.56 to 0.17 (indicating no effect) reported in previous studies that employed a brief program (total time < 5 h) [6, 23–25]. Furthermore, the mean total score of the RAS increased from −12.9 to −8.6, which corresponds to clinical improvement from outside of the optimal range (< −10) to inside of the optimal range (≥ −10).…”

“…To the best of our knowledge, four studies have employed a brief program for healthy participants (e.g. nurses, university students) using outcome measures for evaluating assertiveness (e.g., the Rathus Assertiveness Schedule) [6, 23–25]. When we calculated the pre-post effect sizes of these studies by the same formula (Cohen’s d = [M pre  − M post ]/SD pooled ) using raw data from each study, effect sizes ranged from −0.56 to 0.17 (i.e., there was no effect).…”

Is modified brief assertiveness training for nurses effective? A single-group study with long-term follow-up

“…As shown in Table , the pre–post training effect size of the current study (0.22, indicating small effect) was larger than the effect sizes (ranging from −0.56 to 0.17, indicating no effect) reported in previous studies that used brief training (total time <5 hr) (Honjo & Komada, ; Suzuki et al., ; Yamamoto et al., ; Zielinski & Williams, ).…”

“…This matches and further replicates our preliminary results (Nakamura et al., ). In particular, the pre–post effect size of the modified brief training achieved a “small effect,” whereas previous brief trainings had “no effect” on improving nurses’ assertiveness (Honjo & Komada, ; Suzuki et al., ; Yamamoto et al., ; Zielinski & Williams, ). Furthermore, the mean total RAS score improved from −14.2 to −8.9, which corresponds to meaningful improvement from outside the optimal range (<−10) to inside the optimal range (≥−10).…”

“…From the literature search, only a few studies have developed and evaluated the effectiveness of a brief version of assertiveness training (total time <5 hr); however, these studies found that the training had no meaningful effect on participants’ assertiveness. For example, four studies have included brief training for healthy participants (e.g., nurses or university students) and used measures for assessing assertiveness (e.g., the Rathus Assertiveness Schedule) (Honjo & Komada, ; Suzuki et al., ; Yamamoto, Ishida, Shimizu, & Hanada, ; Zielinski & Williams, ). When the pre–post effect sizes of Cohen's d was calculated using the same formula with raw data from each study, the effect sizes ranged from −0.56 to 0.17 (indicating no effect).…”