introduction - a reservoir of indian theses @...

142

CHAPTER IV: RESULTS

Introduction

The purpose of the present study was to investigate the effectiveness of cognitive

behavior therapy (CBT) on academic stress among high school students. In this chapter,

the collected data was analyzed with appropriate statistical methods such as mean,

standard deviation, independent t-test, and repeated measure analysis of variance. For

clear understanding this chapter has been divided into 7 sections.

Section I: Analysis of demographic variables.

Section II: Pre-testing for selected variables for randomization/matching of group.

Section III: Descriptive findings

Section IV: Effect of intervention on academic stress.

Section V: Effect of intervention on depression.

Section VI: Effect of intervention on self-efficacy.

Section VII: Effect of intervention on academic performance.

Section I: Analysis of demographic variables.

In this section demographic variables have been analyzed for establishing

homogeneity among experimental and control groups. The variables considered are

subject’s age, student’s family educational background, and student’s family income

background.

Table 4.1 Showing Mean age of the subjects in experimental and control group

Group Mean SD t-value P value

Experimental 15.67 0.61 0.41 0.68NS*

Control 15.73 0.64

Note: df= 58, * Non-significant

The mean age of the experimental group was found to be 15.67 years with SD of

0.61, whereas the mean age of the control group was found to be 15.73 with a SD of

0.64. There was no significant difference between two groups t (58) = 0.41, p= 0.68

(table 4.1).

143

Table 4.2 Mean age of subjects from each grade

Grades Mean SD F-value P value

10th

15.45 0.69

3.045 0.33NS* 11th

15.70 0.66

12th

15.95 0.39

Note: df= 2, 57; * Non significant

The mean age of the 10th

grade was 15.45 years with SD of 0.69, the mean age of

the 11th

grade was 15.70 with a SD of 0.66, and the mean age of the 12th

grade was 15.95

with a SD of 0.39. One way analysis of variance (ANOVA) showed that there was no

significant difference between three grades regarding to the age F (2, 57) = 3.045, p>0.05

(table 4.2).

Table 4.3 Showing distribution of sample by group and economic statue

Economic status

Group

Total

Contingency

coefficient

(CC)

P Exp* Ctrl**

High

(20000000 and above)

Frequency 10 10 20

0.07 0.25

NS***

% 33.0% 33.0% 33.0%

Average

(9460000 to 20000000)

Frequency 13 12 25

% 43.0% 40.0% 42.0%

Low

(Below 9460000)

Frequency 7 8 15

% 23.0% 27% 25.0%

Total Frequency 30 30 60

% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

*Experimental; **Control; ***Non significant

Contingency coefficient of 0.07 (p= 0.25) was observed for association between

economical status of the selected group. In other words, pattern of distribution of

subject’s parents economic status in two groups were same (table 4.3). It should be

mentioned that in Iran monthly income is accounted based on Rial. In fact, 500 Rial is

equal to one Indian Rupee. The above information obtained based on the subject’s

reports in the screening stage.

144

Table 4.4

Distribution of the boy’s parents by group and literacy level

Literacy levels

`Group Primary

education Secondary education

Diploma and above

Cramer’s

coefficient

(V)

p

Exp.*

Father frequency 4.00 5.00 6.00

0.14 0.26

NS***

% 27.0% 33.% 40.0%

Mother frequency 7.00 5.00 3.00

% 47.0% 33.0% 20.0%

Ctrl**

Father frequency 7.00 4.00 4.00

% 47.0% 27.0% 27.0%

Mother frequency 7.00 6.00 2.00

% 47.0% 40.0% 13.0%

*Experimental; **Control; ***Non-significant

Cramer’s V coefficient of 0.14 (p= 0.26) was observed for association between

the boy’s parents literacy level. In other words, pattern of distribution of boy’s parents

literacy level in two groups were same (table 4.4).

Table 4.5 Distribution of the girl’s parents by group and literacy level

Literacy levels

Group

primary secondary Diploma

and above

Cramer’s

coefficient

(V)

p

Exp. *

Father frequency 7 4 4

0.15 0.25

NS***

% 47.0% 27.0% 27.0%

Mother frequency 6 6 3

% 40.0% 40.0% 20.0%

Ctrl**

Father frequency 7 4 4

% 47.0% 27.0% 27.0%

Mother frequency 5 8 2

% 33.0% 53.0% 13.0%

*Experimental; **Control; ***Non-significant

Cramer’s V coefficient of 0.15 (p= 0.25) was observed for association between

the girl’s parents literacy level. In other words, pattern of distribution of girl’s parents

literacy level in two groups were same (table 4.5).

Section II: Pre-testing for selected variables for randomization/matching of group.

The analyses of this part have been done with Leven’s test table (4.6), and

independent t-test to observe the probable significant differences between experimental

145

and control groups regarding to academic stress, depression, self-efficacy, and academic

performance (table 4.7).

Table 4.6

Leven’s homogeneity of variances test

Variables F Sig.

Academic stress 0.03 0.86 NS*

Depression 2.51 0.12 NS*

Academic performance 2.26 0.14 NS*

Self-efficacy 1.64 0.21 NS*

Note: df= 1, 58; * Non significant

In order to test the homogeneity of variance matrices, Leven's test was used and

supports the homogeneity of variances.

Independent t-test: To confirm matching of groups, independent sample t-test was

applied to selected variables. This would help us to randomize the groups on the scales

obtained in pre-test sessions. Following is the result obtained in different variables.

Table 4.7 Pre-treatment mean scores of experimental and control groups, with results of

independent sample t-test for academic stress and its subscales.

Variables

Statistics

Groups Mean SD

Mean

difference t df Sig

Academic stress

(Total )

Experimental 21.90 2.74 0.23 0.32 58

0.75 NS* Control 21.67 2.94

Cognitive Experimental 5.37 0.99

0.14 0.58 58 0.63 NS* Control 5.23 0.97

Affective Experimental 4.6 0.67

0.07 0.41 58 0.72 NS* Control 4.53 0.81

Physical Experimental 2.73 0.98

0.00 0.00 58 1.00 NS* Control 2.73 1.10

Social/interpersonal Experimental 4.37 0.85

0.23 0.96 58 0.47 NS* Control 4.07 1.14

Motivational Experimental 4.97 1.40

0.06 0.16 58 0.89 NS* Control 5.03 1.41

* Non significant

It may be seen from the table 4.7, that on none of the factors of academic stress

significant differences existed between experimental and control groups as the obtained

t-values indicated none-significant difference in means. In other words, it can definitely

say that the allotment of subjects into two groups was matched.

146


independent sample t-test for depression and its subscales

Variables

Statistics

Groups

Mean SD Mean

difference

t df Sig

Depression

(Total )

Experimental 27.53 3.47 1.23 1.33 58 0.19 NS*

Control 26.30 3.70

Negative

mood

Experimental 6.60 2.12 0.07 0.31 58 0.75 NS

Control 6.53 1.98

Interpersonal

problems

Experimental 5.43 1.59 0.10 0.55 58 0.61 NS

Control 5.23 1.77

Ineffectiveness Experimental 4.83 1.46 0.50 1.24 58 0.20 NS

Control 4.33 1.71

Anhedonia Experimental 5.07 1.14 0.04 0.12 58 0.89 NS

Control 5.03 1.56

Negative self-

esteem

Experimental 5.57 1.76 0.14 0.57 58 0.61 NS

Control 5.43 2.07

* Non significant

From table 4.8, it is clear that on none of the factors of depression significant

differences existed between experimental and control groups as all the obtained ‘t-

values’ indicated none-significant difference in means. In other words, it can definitely

say that the allotment of subjects into two groups was matched.

*Non significant

Table 4.9 indicates that there was no significant difference between experimental

and control groups in relation to the self-efficacy t (58) = 0.97, p= 0.33, and academic

performance t (58) = 0.61, p= 0.54 in pre-treatment.


independent sample t-test for self-efficacy and academic performance.

Variables

Statistics

Groups

Mean SD Mean

difference t df Sig

Self-efficacy Experimental 19.03 2.38 0.60 0.97 58 0.33 NS*

Control 19.63 2.38

Academic

performance

Experimental 13.46 0.59 0.08 0.61 58 0.54 NS*

Control 13.56 0.54

147

Section III: Descriptive findings

In this section descriptive findings consist of mean, standard deviation and mean

differences (change/gain) of variables from pre to post treatment in both experimental

and control group are described.

Tables 4.10 to 4.17 show descriptive findings such as mean and standard deviation

of variables in pre-post treatment in both experimental and control groups. Comparison

of means show that subjects in experimental group had better performance in post-test

rather than control group.

Table 4.10 Mean scores of pre and post treatment for experimental and control groups on academic stress in

girls with respect to grades

Groups Grades Pre Post

Change M SD M SD

Experimental

10th

22.60 2.30 14.20 3.42 8.40

11th

21.00 3.53 14.60 3.13 6.40

12th 22.40 3.28 15.00 3.53 7.40

Total 22.00 2.95 14.60 3.14 7.40

Control

10st 22.6 2.30 22.6 1.14 0.00

11th 20.8 3.90 21.2 3.11 0.40

12th

22.0 2.55 21.2 4.09 0.80

Total 21.8 3.17 21.7 2.89 0.10

As shown in the table 4.10, the mean score and standard deviation of academic

stress of 10th grade girls in pre-test was (M=22.60; SD= 2.30) and in post-test was (M=

14.20; SD= 3.42) indicating a change (decrease in academic stress) of 8.40 score from

pre to post treatment in experimental group. The mean score and standard deviation of

academic stress of 11th

grade girls in pre-test was (M=21.00; SD= 3.28) and in post-test

was (M= 15.00; SD= 3.53) indicating a change (decrease in academic stress) of 6.40

score from pre to post treatment in experimental group. The mean score and standard

deviation of academic stress of 12th grade girls in pre-test was (M=22.40; SD= 3.28) and

in post-test was (M= 15.00; SD= 3.53) showing a change (decrease in academic stress)

of 7.40 score from pre to post treatment. Further, the total change observed in control

group was 0.10. In the other words no change seen from pre to post treatment sessions in

the control group.

148

Table 4.11 Mean and SD scores of pre and post treatment for experimental and control groups on academic

stress in boys with respect to studying in different grades.

Groups Grades Pre Post Change

M SD M SD

Experimental

10th

21.40 3.36 14.00 1.87 7.40

11th

21.80 2.77 13.60 2.30 8.20

12th

22.20 2.17 14.80 1.92 7.40

Total 21.80 2.63 14.13 1.95 7.67

Control

10st 21.00 3.53 19.8 3.83 1.20

11th

21.60 2.79 21.0 2.82 0.60

12th 22.00 2.91 21.8 3.34 0.20

Total 21.50 2.80 20.9 3.23 0.60

As shown in the table 4.11, the mean score and standard deviation of academic

stress of 10th

grade boys in pre-test was (M=21.40; SD= 3.36) and in post-test was (M=

14.00; SD= 1.87) showing a change (decrease in academic stress) of 7.40 score from pre

to post treatment in experimental group. The mean score and standard deviation of

academic stress of 11th grade subjects in pre-test was (M=21.80; SD= 2.77) and in post-

test was (M= 13.60; SD= 2.30) indicating a change (decrease in academic stress) of 8.20

score from pre to post treatment. The mean score and standard deviation of academic

stress of 12th

grade subjects in pre-test was (M=22.20; SD= 2.17) and in post-test was

(M= 14.18; SD= 1.92) showing a change (decrease in academic stress) of 7.40 score

from pre to post treatment. Further, total change (decrease in academic stress) for boys in

experimental group was 7.67, whereas total change (decrease in academic stress) for

boys in control group was 0.60 from pre to post treatment sessions indicating no change.

Table 4.12 Mean and SD scores of pre and post treatment for experimental and control groups on depression

in girls with respect to grades.


M SD M SD

Experimental

10th

27.4 2.70 19.8 5.49 7.60

11th

28.4 3.84 21.2 3.56 7.20

12th 27.50 4.34 21.00 3.24 7.60

Total 27.8 3.44 20.7 2.97 7.10

Control

10st 24.20 6.5 25.20 6.87 1.00

11th 22.60 2.30 25.20 3.03 2.60

12th

23.60 2.70 23.60 3.44 0.00

Total 23.46 4.01 24.67 4.48 1.21

Table 4.12 shows that for 10th

grade girls there was a change (decrease in the

level of depression) from pre testing (M=27.4; SD= 2.70) to post-treatment (M=19.8;

149

SD=5.49) in the experimental group. There was a decrease in depression score (7.60)

indicating effectiveness of intervention. Similar trend was seen for 11th

grade girls

between pre (M=28.4; SD=3.84) and post treatment sessions (M=21.2; SD=3.56). There

was a decrease of 7.20 score indicating decrease in the level of depression in girls of 11th

grade. Same trend was observed for 12th grade girls from pre to post mean score. There

was a change (decrease in the level of depression) from pre testing (M=27.50; SD= 4.34)

to post-treatment (M=21.0; SD=3.24) in the experimental group. There was a decrease in

depression score (7.60) indicating effectiveness of intervention. Further, total change

(decrease in depression) for girls in experimental group was 7.10, whereas total change

(decrease in depression) for girls in control group was 1.21 from pre to post treatment

sessions indicating no change.

Table 4.13 Mean and SD scores of pre and post treatment for experimental and control groups on depression

in boys with respect to grades


M SD M SD

Experimental

10th

26.4 3.04 22.8 1.79 3.60

11th

25.2 3.27 19.8 2.17 5.40

12th

27.20 3.77 20.8 4.15 6.40

Total 26.2 3.50 21.1 2.97 5.10

Control

10st 21.60 3.45 21.80 4.82 0.20

11th

20.00 5.80 21.20 4.92 1.20

12th 20.80 3.27 23.00 4.06 2.20

Total 20.80 4.00 22.00 4.35 1.20

As shown in the table 4.13, the mean score and standard deviation of depression

of 10th grade subjects in pre-test was (M=26.40; SD= 3.04) and in post-test was (M=

22.80; SD= 1.79) showing a decrease of 3.60 score from pre to post treatment in

experimental group. The mean score and standard deviation of depression of 11th

grade

subjects in pre-test was (M=25.20; SD= 3.27) and in post-test was (M= 19.80; SD= 2.17)

showing a decrease of 5.40 score from pre to post treatment. The mean score and

standard deviation of depression of 12th grade subjects in pre-test was (M=27.20; SD=

3.77) and in post-test was (M= 20.80; SD= 4.15) indicating a decrease of 6.40 score from

pre to post treatment in the experimental group. Further, the mean and standard deviation

for control group has presented. Comparatively girls of 10th

, 11th

, and 12th

grade show

more decrease in the level of depression than boys of 10th

, 11th

, and 12th

grade.

150

Further, total change (decrease in depression) for boys in experimental group was

5.10, whereas total change (decrease in depression) for boys in control group was 1.20

from pre to post treatment sessions indicating no change.

Table 4-.14 Mean and SD scores of pre and post treatment for experimental and control groups on self-

efficacy with respect to girls studying in different grades


M SD M SD

Experimental

10th

19.40 2.07 26.00 3.16 6.60

11th 19.40 3.20 28.40 2.58 9.00

12th

17.60 2.07 24.60 3.57 7.00

Total 18.80 2.48 26.13 2.97 7.33

Control

10st 18.60 2.40 19.40 3.51 0.80

11th 20.80 2.58 21.80 3.20 1.00

12th

20.00 2.54 20.20 3.11 0.20

Total 19.80 2.51 20.47 3.20 0.67

It may be seen from the table 4.14, the mean score and standard deviation of self-

efficacy of 10th grade subjects in pre-test was (M=19.40; SD= 2.07) and in post-test was

(M= 26.00; SD= 3.16) showing an increase of 6.60 score from pre to post treatment in

experimental group. The mean score and standard deviation of self-efficacy of 11th

grade


indicating an increase of 9.00 score from pre to post treatment in the experimental group.

The mean score and standard deviation of self-efficacy of 12th grade subjects in pre-test

was (M=17.60; SD= 2.07) and in post-test was (M= 24.60; SD= 3.57) showing an

increase of 7.00 score from pre to post treatment in the experimental group. Further, total

change (increase in self-efficacy) for girls in experimental group was 7.33, whereas total

change (increase in self-efficacy) for girls in control group was 0.67 from pre to post

treatment sessions indicating no change.

Table 4.15 Mean and SD scores of pre and post treatment for experimental and control groups on self-

efficacy with respect to boys studying in different grades


M SD M SD

Experimental

10th

18.60 3.28 26.20 2.94 7.60

11th

20.20 1.64 26.20 2.28 6.00

12th

19.00 2.00 25.80 1.79 6.80

Total 19.27 3.34 26.07 2.65 6.80

Control

10st 19.60 2.30 19.40 3.27 0.20

11th

19.00 3.39 19.80 2.95 0.80

12th

19.80 1.30 20.20 1.30 0.40

Total 19.46 2.32 19.80 2.46 0.34

151

From the table 4.15, it is clear that the mean score and standard deviation of self-

efficacy of 10th

grade subjects in pre-test was (M=18.60; SD= 3.28) and in post-test was


experimental group. The mean score and standard deviation of self-efficacy of 11th

grade


indicating an increase of 6.00 score from pre to post treatment in experimental group.

The mean score and standard deviation of self-efficacy of 12th grade subjects in pre-test

was (M=19.00; SD= 2.00) and in post-test was (M= 25.80; SD= 1.79) showing an

increase of 6.80 score from pre to post treatment. Further, the mean and standard

deviation for control group has presented. Further, total change (increase in self-efficacy)

for boys in experimental group was 6.80, whereas total change (increase in self-efficacy)

for boys in control group was 0.34 from pre to post treatment sessions indicating no

change.

Table 4.16 Mean and SD scores of pre and post treatment for experimental and control groups on Academic

performance with respect to girls studying in different grades


M SD M SD

Experimental

10th

13.40 0.43 15.65 0.97 2.25

11th

13.61 0.60 15.76 0.95 2.15

12th 13.36 0.40 15.58 0.49 2.22

Total 13.46 0.46 15.66 0.78 2.20

Control

10st 13.65 0.49 13.63 0.43 0.02

11th 13.79 0.69 13.83 0.74 0.04

12th

13.32 0.60 13.00 0.47 0.32

Total 13.58 0.59 13.49 0.71 0.03

It is clear from the table 4.16 that the mean score and standard deviation of

Academic performance of 10th

grade subjects in pre-test was (M=13.40; SD= 0.43) and

in post-test was (M= 15.65; SD= 0.97) showing an increase of 2.25 score from pre to

post treatment in experimental group. The mean score and standard deviation of

Academic performance of 11th grade subjects in pre-test was (M=13.61; SD= 0.60) and

in post-test was (M= 15.76; SD= 0.95) followed by a change of 2.15 score from pre to




in post-test was (M= 15.58; SD= 0.49) indicating an increase of 2.22 score from pre to

post treatment in experimental group. Further, the mean and standard deviation for

control group has presented. Further, total change (increase in academic performance)

152

for girls in experimental group was 2.20, whereas total change (increase in academic

performance) for girls in control group was 0.03 from pre to post treatment sessions

indicating no change.

Table 4-17 Mean and SD scores of pre and post treatment for experimental and control groups on Academic

performance with respect to boys studying in different grades


M SD M SD

Experimental

10th 13.34 0.82 15.05 0.90 1.71

11th

13.79 0.57 15.66 0.47 1.87

12th

13.29 0.74 15.36 0.45 1.97

Total 13.47 0.71 15.36 0.63 1.89

Control

10st 13.34 0.59 13.47 0.85 0.13

11th

13.40 0.46 13.44 0.63 0.04

12th

13.83 0.42 13.71 0.47 0.12

Total 13.52 0.51 13.54 0.90 0.02

According to table 4.17, the mean score and standard deviation of Academic

performance of 10th

grade subjects in pre-test was (M=13.34; SD= 0.82) and in post-test

was (M= 15.05; SD= 0.90) showing an increase of 1.71 score from pre to post treatment

in experimental group. The mean score and standard deviation of Academic performance

of 11th

grade subjects in pre-test was (M=13.79; SD= 0.57) and in post-test was (M=

15.66; SD= 0.47) indicating an increase of 1.87 score from pre to post treatment in

experimental group. The mean score and standard deviation of Academic performance of

12th grade subjects in pre-test was (M=13.29; SD= 0.74) and in post-test was (M= 15.36;

SD= 0.45) showing an increase of 1.97 score from pre to post treatment in experimental

group. Further, total change (increase in academic performance) for boys in experimental

group was 1.89, whereas total change (increase in academic performance) for boys in

control group was 0.02 from pre to post treatment sessions indicating no change.

153

Table 4.18 Total Mean and SD scores of pre and post treatment for experimental and control group on

dependent variables

Groups

Time

variables

Pre-treatment Post-treatment

M SD M SD MD*

Experimental

Academic stress 21.90 2.75 14.37 2.57 7.53

depression 27.53 3.47 20.90 2.93 6.63

Self-efficacy 19.03 2.39 25.36 2.62 6.33

Academic performance 13.46 0.59 15.51 0.71 2.05

Control

Academic stress 21.67 2.94 21.17 3.03 0.50

depression 26.30 3.70 25.90 3.97 0.40

Self-efficacy 19.63 2.38 20.13 2.81 0.50

Academic performance 13.56 0.54 13.52 0.66 0.04

*Mean difference

Table 4.18 indicates that there was a change observed between pre-treatment and

post-treatment mean score in academic stress. 1) For experimental group with respect to

academic stress pre-treatment score was 21.9 which was reduced to 14.37 in post-

treatment assessment (MD= 7.53). For control group academic stress pre-treatment score

was 21.67 which was reduced to 21.17 in post-treatment assessment (MD= 0.50). 2) As

for as is concerned in experimental group pre-treatment depression score was 27.53

which was reduced to 20.90 in post-treatment assessment (MD= 6.63). For control group

depression pre-treatment score was 26.30which was reduced to 25.90 in post-treatment

assessment (MD= 0.40). 3). with regard to self-efficacy in experimental group pre-

treatment score on self-efficacy was 19.03 which was increased to 25.36 in post-

treatment assessment (MD= 6.33). For control group self-efficacy pre-treatment score

was 19.63 which was increased to 20.13 in post-treatment assessment (MD= 0.50). 4)

For experimental group academic performance pre-treatment score was 13.46 which was

increased to 15.51 in post-treatment assessment (MD= 2.05). For control group academic

performance pre-treatment score was 13.56 which was reduced to 13.52 in post-

treatment assessment (MD= 0.04). The result indicates a change in the mean score from

pre treatment to post treatment sessions for experimental group in dependent variables

namely academic stress, depression level reduced and there is enhancement of self-

efficacy and academic performance compared to control group.

154

Section IV: Effect of intervention on academic stress.

Table 4.19 Pre-treatment, post treatment means and SD scores for experimental and control groups on

academic stress

Groups Times Academic Stress

M SD MD*

Experimental Pre -treatment 21.9 2.75 7.53

Post-treatment 14.37 2.57

Control Pre -treatment 21.67 2.94 0.50


*Mean difference

Table 4.19 indicates that there was a change (reduction) observed between pre-

treatment and post-treatment sessions mean score in academic stress. 1) For experimental

group academic stress pre-treatment score was 21.9 which was reduced to 14.37 in post-

treatment assessment (MD= 7.53). 2) For control group academic stress pre-treatment

score was 21.67 which was reduced to 21.17 in post-treatment assessment (MD= 0.50).

Table 4.20 Results of repeated measure ANOVA for mean scores on pre-treatment and post-

treatment for academic stress Source of

variation Sum of squares df Mean squares F Sig

Within subject effects

Time 297.67 1 297.67 134.93 0.000*

Time*group 316.87 1 316.87 143.64 0.000*

Error 127.95 58 2.21

Between subject effects

Intercept 45202.09 1 45202.09 338.53 0.000*

Group 216.09 1 216.09 16.18 0.000*

Error 774.48 58 13.35

*significant at p<0.001

According to table 4.20, the effect of CBT on academic stress was statistically

significant F (1, 58) =134.93, p<0.001. It indicates (table 4.19) that the differences in

pre-post test scores (7.53) clearly showed the efficacy of CBT in decreasing academic

stress. Further, the combination of time*group showed a significant effect in decreasing

academic stress F (1, 58) =143.64, P<0.001).

Further, between subject effects showed that the effect of group in relation to the

efficacy of CBT interventions in decreasing academic stress which was statistically

significant F (1, 58) =160.18, P<0.001).

155

Table 4.21 Pre-treatment, post treatment means and SD scores for experimental and control groups on

subscales of academic stress

Groups Times Cognitive Affective Physical

Social

interpersonal Motivational

M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD

Exp.* Pre 5.37 0.99 4.6 0.67 2.73 0.98 4.37 0.85 4.97 1.40

Post 3.33 1.06 2.97 0.92 2.13 1.00 3.00 0.79 2.9 1.12

MD*** -1.9 2.04 1.63 1.63 2.07

Ctrl.** Pre 5.23 0.97 4.53 0.81 2.73 1.10 4.07 1.14 5.03 1.41

Post 5.03 1.09 4.43 0.68 2.80 1.06 3.93 1.28 4.90 1.24

MD*** 0.20 0.10 0.08 10 0.13

* Experimental; **= Control; ***Mean difference; pre= Pre-treatment; Post= Post-treatment

Table 4.21 indicates that there was a change observed between pre-treatment and

post-treatment mean score in subscales of academic stress. 1) In Cognitive factor

subscale of academic stress pre-treatment score was 5.37 which was reduced to 3.33 in

post-treatment assessment (MD= 1.9). In Affective factor subscale pre-treatment score

was 4.6 which was reduced to 2.97 in post-treatment assessment (MD= 2.04). In Physical

factor subscale pre-treatment score was 2.73 which was reduced to 2.13 in post-treatment

assessment (MD= 1.63). In Social/interpersonal pre-treatment score was 4.37 which was

reduced to 3.00 in post-treatment assessment (MD= 1.63). In Motivational pre-treatment

score was 4.97 which was reduced to 2.9 in post-treatment assessment (MD= 2.07)

indicating a decrease in motivational symptoms of academic stress. 2) For control group

Cognitive factor pre-treatment score was 5.23 which was reduced to 5.03 in post-

treatment assessment (MD= 0.2). In Affective factor pre-treatment score was 4.53 which

was reduced to4.43 in post-treatment assessment (MD= 0.10). In Physical factor pre-

treatment score was 2.73 which was increased to 2.80 in post-treatment assessment

(MD= 0.08). In Social/interpersonal factor pre-treatment score was 4.07 which was

reduced to 3.93 in post-treatment assessment (MD= 0.10). In Motivational pre-treatment

score was 5.03 which was reduced to 4.90 in post-treatment assessment (MD= 0.13)

indicating no change.

156

*P< 0.001; ** P <0.01; *** P<0.05; NS= Non Significant

Repeated measure ANOVA showed that there was a significant change

(decrease) in all independent factors of academic stress namely cognitive factor F (1, 58)

= 6.45, P< 0.05; Affective factor F (1, 58) = 18. 13, P< 0.001; Physical factor F (1, 58) =

11.69, p<0.01; Social/interpersonal factor F (1, 58) = 42.39, p< 0.001; and Motivational

factor F (1, 58) = 56.04, p< 0.001 indicating the effectiveness of CBT in decreasing the

symptoms of academic stress. Further, the between subject effects showed that there are

significant differences observed between the groups in cognitive factor F (1, 58) = 37.37,

p<0.001; affective factor F (1, 58) = 68.82, p<0.001; physical factor F (1, 58) = 6.21,

p<0.01; social/interpersonal factor F (1, 58) = 11.51, p<0.01; and motivational factor F

(1, 58) = 42.75, p<0.001.

Further, the combination of time*group showed a significant effect in decreasing

academic stress on cognitive factor F (1, 58) =4.69, P<0.05); Affective factor F (1, 58) =

20.55, p< 0.001; Social/interpersonal factor F (1, 58) = 38.54, p< 0.001; and

Motivational factor F (1, 58) = 24.91, p< 0.001.

Table 4.22 Results of repeated measure ANOVA for mean scores on pre-treatment and post-treatment

for subscales of academic stress

Components Sources Sum of

squares df

Mean

squares f-value Sig

Cognitive Time 92.75 1, 58 92.75 6.45 0.02***

Group 67.63 1, 58 1.16 37.37 0.000*

Time*group 67.50 1, 58 67.50 4.69 0.03***

Affective Time 7.08 1, 58 7.08 18.13 0.000*

Group 38.33 1, 58 0.66 68.82 0.000*

Time*group 27.07 1, 58 27.07 20.55 0.000*

Physical Time 3.33 1, 58 3.33 11.69 0.001**

Group 62.27 1, 58 1.07 6.21 0.002**

Time*group 0.133 1, 58 0.133 0.47 0.50 NS

Social

Interpersonal

Time 15.41 1, 58 15.41 42.39 0.000*

Group 65.87 1, 58 1.14 11.51 0.001**

Time*group 14.01 1, 58 14.01 38.54 0.000*

Motivational Time 36.30 1, 58 36.30 56.04 0.000*

Group 81.40 1, 58 1.40 42.75 0.000*

Time*group 16.13 1, 58 16.13 24.91 0.000*

157

Gender and academic stress

*Mean difference

Table 4.23 indicates that there was a change (decrease) observed between pre-

treatment and post-treatment mean score in academic stress. 1) For girls in the

experimental group academic stress pre-treatment score was 22.00 which was reduced to

14.60 in post-treatment assessment session (MD= 7.40). 2) For boys in the experimental

group academic stress pre-treatment score was 21.80 which was reduced to 14.13 in

post-treatment assessment (MD= 7.67). In control group academic stress pre-treatment

score for girls was 21.80 which was reduced to 21.67 in post-treatment assessment (MD=

0.13) and for boys academic stress pre-treatment score was 21.53 which was reduced to

20.86 in post-treatment assessment (MD= 0.67) indicating no change from pre treatment

to post treatment session.

Table 4.24 Results of repeated measure ANOVA for academic stress and gender

Source of variation Sum of

squares

df Mean squares F Sig


Time 297.68 1 297.68 39.44 0.000*

Time*gender 7.09 1 7.09 0.93 0.34NS**

Error 437.82 58 7.55


Intercept 45202.01 1 45202.01 265.03 0.000*

Gender 1.008 1 1.01 0.06 0.81 NS**

Error 989.48 58 17.06

*Significant at p<0.001; ** Non Significant

Table 4.23 Pre-treatment, post treatments mean and SD scores on academic stress and gender

Groups Gender Time

Academic stress

M SD MD*

Experimental

Girls Pre-treatment 22.00 2.95 7.40


Boys Pre-treatment 21.80 2.62 7.67


Control

Girls Pre-treatment 21.80 3.17 0.13


Boys Pre-treatment 21.53 2.80

0.67 Post-treatment 20.86 3.23

158

Table 4.24 shows a significant difference was observed from pre to post assessment

in relation to academic stress irrespective of gender, F (1,58) = 39.44, p< 0.001. When

gender-wise comparison was made (time*gender), a non significant F (1, 58) = 0.93, p=

0.34 value showed pattern and amount of change between boys and girls was similar

from pre treatment to post assessment session. Further, table 4.24 shows a non

significant difference in between subject effects F (1.58) =0.06, p= 0.81.

Efficacy of CBT on academic stress and grades

Table 4.25 Pre-treatment, post treatments mean and SD scores on academic stress and different grades in

experimental and control groups

Groups Grades Pre Post

MD* M SD M SD

Experimental

10th

22.00 2.83 14.10 2.64 7.90

11th

21.40 2.9 14.10 2.71 7.30

12th

22.30 3.23 14.90 2.73 7.40

Total 21.90 2.98 14.37 2.69 7.53

Control

10st 21.80 2.91 21.20 2.49 0.60

11th 21.20 3.34 21.10 1.96 0.10

12th

22.00 2.73 21.5 3.72 0.50

Total 21.67 2.99 21.27 2.72 0.40

*Mean difference


treatment and post-treatment mean score in academic stress. 1) In the experimental

group, for 10th

grade students pre-treatment academic stress score was 22.00 which was

reduced to 14.10 in post-treatment assessment (MD= 7.30), for 11th grade students pre-

treatment academic stress score was 21.40 which was reduced to 14.10 in post-treatment

assessment (MD=7. 30), and for 12th grade students pre-treatment academic stress score

was 22.30 which was reduced to 14.90 in post-treatment assessment (MD= 7.40). In

control group pre-treatment academic stress score for 10th

grade students was 21.80

which was reduced to 21.20 in post-treatment assessment (MD= 0.60); for 11th

grade

students pre-treatment academic stress score was 21.20 which was reduced to 21.10 in

post-treatment assessment (MD=0.10); and for 12th grade students pre-treatment

academic stress score was 22.00 which was reduced to 21.50 in post-treatment

assessment (MD= 0.50) indicating no change.

159

Table 4.26 Results of repeated measure ANOVA for academic stress and grades

Source of variation Sum of

squares

df Mean squares F Sig


Time 297.67 1 297.67 38.42 0.000*

Time*grades 3.150 2 1.58 0.20 0.82NS**

Error 441.67 57 7.74


Intercept 45202.09 1 45202.09 270.83 0.000*

Grades 39.12 2 19.56 1.17 0.32NS**

Error 951.38 57 16.69

*Significant at p<0.001; ** Non Significant

For academic stress and grades analysis showed a significant change (reduced

academic stress) from pre to post treatment session irrespective of grades. There was a

substantial decrease in academic stress mean score which was found to be highly

significant F (1.57) = 38.42, P< 0.001. Further, when grade wise comparison was made a

non significant F (2. 57) = 0.20, P= 0.82 value showed pattern and amount of change

observed between the grades was similar. Further, table 4.19 shows a non significant

difference in between grades in academic stress F (2. 57) = 1.17, p= 0.32.

Mutual interactions

Table 4.27 Mutual interactions of group, gender, grade on academic stress

Source of variation Sum of squares df Mean

squares F Sig


Intercept 22027.38 1 22027.38 243.4 0.00*

Group 216.01 1 216.01 15.43 0.00*

Gender 1.01 1 1.01 0.07 0.79**

Grades 39.12 2 19.56 1.40 0.26**

Group*Gender 7.008 1 7.01 0.50 0.48**

Group*Grades 47.82 2 23.91 1.71 0.19**

Gender*Grades 2.02 2 1.01 0.07 0.93**

Group* Gender * Grades 5.72 2 2.86 0.20 0.82**

Error 671.80 48 14.00

*P<0.001; **Non significant

Table 4.27 shows that the interaction of group*gender F (1, 48) = 0.5, P=0.483;

group*grades F (2, 48) = 1.71, p= 0.192; Gender*Grades F (2, 48) = 0.072, p= 0.931;

and Group* Gender * Grades F (2, 48) = 0.204, p= 0.816 in relation to the efficacy of

CBT on academic stress were not statistically significant. It indicates that the interaction

of independent variables with respect to the efficacy of CBT in reducing academic stress

160

was not significant. It refers to a similar pattern and amount of change between

group*gender, group* grades, Gender*Grades and Group* Gender * Grades from pre to

post assessment.

Figure 4.1: Mean score/ change on academic stress from pre-treatment to post-treatment

sessions in two groups

Figure 4.1 shows significant change from pre treatment to post treatment sessions

in academic stress in the experimental group. Graph indicates that subjects in

experimental group had a decrease in academic stress in post-test session. Further, figure

4.1 indicates that change from pre treatment to post treatment sessions in academic stress

and its subscales which is not significant in control group.

Section V: Effect of intervention on depression.

Table 4.28 Pre-treatment, post treatment total mean and SD scores on depression

Groups Times Depression

M SD MD*

Experimental Pre-treatment 27.53 3.47


Control Pre-treatment 26.30 3.70


*Mean difference

Table 4.28indicates that there was a change (decrease in the level of depression)

observed between pre-treatment and post-treatment mean score in academic stress. 1) For

experimental group pre-treatment depression score was 27.53 which was reduced to

20.90 in post-treatment assessment (MD= 6.63). 2) For control group pre-treatment

depression score was 26.30 which was reduced to 25.90 in post-treatment assessment

(MD= 0.40) indicating no change.

21.9

14.37

21.67 21.17

0

5

10

15

20

25

Pre-test Post-test

Experimental

Control

161

* P< 0.001

Table 4.29 shows that as far as effect of CBT on depression was reduced, a significant

change (difference) was observed from pre to post treatment session. The difference was

highly significant F (1, 58) = 106.34, P<0.001) indicating the effectiveness of CBT in

reducing level of depression. Further, when combination of time × group was made a

differential decrease between the groups was observed and it was significant F (1, 58)

=118.84, p<0.001. Further, between subject effects showed that the effect of group in

relation to the efficacy of CBT in decreasing depression was statistically significant F (1,

58) =33.74, P<0.001.

Table 4.30

Pre-treatment, post-treatment mean and SD scores on depression subscales in experimental and

control group

Groups Time

Negative

mood

Interpersonal

problems Ineffectiveness Anhedonia

Negative

self-esteem

M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD

Exp.* Pre 6.60 2.12 5.43 1.59 4.83 1.46 5.07 1.14 5.57 1.76

Post 4.70 1.93 4.33 1.09 3.30 1.10 4.47 1.86 3.90 1.24

MD*** 1.9 1.10 1.53 0.60 1.67

Ctrl.** Pre 6.53 1.98 5.23 1.77 4.33 1.71 5.03 1.56 5.43 2.07

Post 6.33 1.92 5.20 2.09 4.30 1.62 5.30 1.70 5.23 2.09

MD 0.20 0.03 0.03 0.27 0.20

*Experimental; **Control; *** Mean difference; Pre= Pre-treatment, Post= Post-treatment


treatment and post-treatment mean score in subscales of depression. 1) For experimental

group in Negative mood subscale pre-treatment score was 6.60 which was reduced to

4.70 in post-treatment assessment (MD= 1.9); In interpersonal problems subscale of

depression pre-treatment score was 5.43 which was reduced to 4.33 in post-treatment

Table 4.29

Results of repeated measure ANOVA for mean scores on pre-treatment and post-treatment for

depression

Source of variation Sum of squares df Mean squares F Sig


Time 255.21 1 255.21 106.34 0.000*

Time*group 285.21 1 285.21 118.84 0.000*

Error 139.08 58 2.40


Intercept 22027.38 1 22027.38 2612.98 0.000*

Group 284.44 1 284.44 33.74 0.000*

Error 489.18 58 8.43

162

assessment (MD= 1.10); In Ineffectiveness subscale of depression pre-treatment score

was 4.83 which was reduced to 3.30 in post-treatment assessment (MD= 1.53); In

Anhedonia subscale of depression pre-treatment score was 5.07 which was reduced to

4.47 in post-treatment assessment (MD= 0.60); and for Negative self-esteem pre-

treatment score was 5.57 which was reduced to 3.90 in post-treatment assessment (MD=

1.67). 2) For control group negative mood pre-treatment score was 6.53 which was

reduced to 6.33 in post-treatment assessment (MD= 0.2)., interpersonal problems pre-

treatment score was 5.23 which was reduced to5.20 in post-treatment assessment (MD=

0.03), ineffectiveness pre-treatment score was 4.33 which was increased to 4.30 in post-

treatment assessment (MD= 0.03), Anhedonia pre-treatment score was5.03which was

reduced to 5.30 in post-treatment assessment (MD= 0.27), negative self-esteem pre-

treatment score was 5.43 which was reduced to 5.23 in post-treatment assessment (MD=

0.2) indicating no change.

Table 4.31 Results of repeated measure ANOVA for mean scores on pre-treatment and post-

treatment for subscales of depression

Components Sources Sum of

squares

df Mean

squares

F-

value

Sig

Negative

mood

Time 21.67 1, 58 21.67 37.92 0.000*

Group 214.97 1, 58 3.71 10.78 0.002**

Time*group 12.67 1, 58 12.67 22.17 0.000*

Interpersonal

Problems

Time 5.63 1, 58 5.63 7.75 0.007**

Group 161.47 1, 58 2.78 4.05 0.04***

Time*group 19.20 1, 58 19.20 26.41 0.000*

Ineffectiveness

Time 16.13 1, 58 16.13 24.16 0.000*

Group 110.60 1, 58 1.91 7.87 0.007**

Time*group 26.13 1, 58 26.13 39.13 0.000*

Anhedonia

Time 3.68 1, 58 3.68 6.13 0.02***

Group 105.77 1, 58 1.82 5.71 0.02***

Time*group 9.08 1, 58 9.08 15.15 0.000*

Negative

Self-esteem

Time 3.33 1, 58 3.33 7.59 0.008**

Group 172.07 1, 58 2.97 8.99 0.004**

Time*group 19.20 1, 58 19.20 43.73 0.000*

*P< 0.001; ** P <0.01; *** P<0.05

Repeated measure ANOVA showed that there was a significant change

(decrease) in all symptoms of depression namely Negative mood F (1, 58) = 37.92, P<

163

0.001; Interpersonal problems F (1, 58) = 7.75, P< 0.01; Ineffectiveness F (1, 58) =

24.16, p<0.001; Anhedonia F (1, 58) = 6.13, p< 0.05; and Negative self-esteem F (1, 58)

= 7.59, p< 0.01 indicating the effectiveness of CBT in decreasing the symptoms of

depression. Further, the between subject effects cleared that there are significant

differences observed between the groups in Negative mood F (1, 58) = 10.78, P< 0.01;

Interpersonal problems F (1, 58) = 4.05, p<0.05; Ineffectiveness F (1, 58) = 7.87, p<0.01;

Anhedonia F (1, 58) = 5.71, p<0.05; and Negative self-esteem F (1, 58) = 8.99, p< 0.01.

Further, the combination of time*group showed a significant effect in decreasing

depression on Negative mood F (1, 58) =22.17, P< 0.001); Interpersonal problems F (1,

58) = 26.41, p< 0.001; Ineffectiveness F (1, 58) = 39.13, p< 0.001; Anhedonia F (1, 58)

= 15.15, p< 0.001; and Negative self-esteem F (1, 58) = 43.73, p< 0.001.

Role of gender with regard to the effectiveness of CBT on depression

Table 4.32 Pre-treatment, post treatments mean and SD scores on depression and gender in experimental

and control groups

Groups Gender Time Depression

M SD MD*

Experimental

Girls Pre-treatment 27.80 3.45




Control





*Mean difference

Table 4.32 indicates that there was a change (reduction in the level of depression)

observed between pre-treatment and post-treatment mean score in academic stress. 1) For

girls in the experimental group, depression pre-treatment score was 27.80 which was

reduced to 20.70 in post-treatment assessment (MD= 7.10). 2) For boys in the

experimental group, pre-treatment depression score was 27.26 which was reduced to

21.10 in post-treatment assessment (MD= 6.16). In control group, depression pre-

treatment score for girls was 26.80 which was reduced to 26.30 in post-treatment

assessment (MD= 0.50) and for boys, depression pre-treatment score was 25.80 which

164

was reduced to 25.30 in post-treatment assessment (MD= 0.30) indicating no change in

the level of depression from pre to post treatment session.

Table 4.33 Results of repeated measure ANOVA for depression and gender

Source of

variation

Sum of squares df Mean squares F Sig


Time 255.21 1 255.21 34.94 0.000*

Time*gender 0.675 1 0.675 0.09 0.76**

Error 423.62 58 7.30


Intercept 62975.01 1 62975.01 192.63 0.000*

Gender 78.41 1 78.41 2.40 0.13**

Error 1896.08 58 32.69

* p<0.001; **Non significant

Table 4.33 shows, a significant difference (decrease in the level of depression)

was observed from pre to post assessment in relation to depression irrespective of

gender, F (1,58) = 34.94, p< 0.001. When gender-wise comparison was made

(time*gender), the F value (1, 58) = 0.09, p= 0.76; show no significant value indicating

similar pattern and amount of decrease in the level of depression in boys and girls.

Further, table 4.33 shows a non significant difference between girls and boys regarding

to the efficacy of CBT in decreasing depression F (1.58) =2.40, p= 0.13.

Efficacy of CBT on depression and grade

Table 4.34 Pre-treatment, post treatments mean and SD scores on depression and grade in experimental and

control groups

Groups Grades Pre Post MD

M SD M SD

Experimental

10th

26.9 2.87 21.3 3.64 5.60

11th 26.8 3.56 20.5 1.65 6.30

12th

27.40 4.06 20.9 3.64 6.50

Total 27.53 3.50 20.9 2.98 6.13

Control

10th 27.30 3.16 26.80 3.68 0.5

11th

25.60 3.60 25.20 3.71 0.4

12th

26.00 4.42 25.70 4.69 0.3

Total 26.30 3.71 25.90 3.97 0.4

*Mean difference


treatment and post-treatment mean score in depression in subjects studying in different

grades. 1) In the experimental group, for 10th

grade depression pre-treatment score was

165

26.9 which was reduced to 21.3 in post-treatment assessment and the level of depression

has come by 5.60 point (MD= 5.60), for 11th

grade subjects depression in pre-treatment

was 26.8 which was reduced to 20.50 in post-treatment assessment (MD=6. 30), and for

12th

grade subjects depression in pre-treatment was 27.40 which was reduced to 20.90 in

post-treatment assessment (MD= 6.50). In control group pre-treatment depression score

for 10th grade subjects was 27.30 which was reduced to 26.80 in post-treatment

assessment (MD= 0.50); for 11th grade subjects pre-treatment depression was 25.60

which was reduced to 25.20 in post-treatment assessment (MD=0.40), and for 12th

grade

subjects pre-treatment depression was 26.00 which was reduced to 25.70 in post-

treatment assessment (MD= 0.30) indicating no improvement or change in the level of

depression in control group.

Table 4.35 Results of repeated measure ANOVA for depression and grades

Source of variation



Time 255.21 1 255.21 78.04 0.000*

Time*grades 16.82 2 8.41 1.67 0.192**

Error 286.82 57 5.03


Intercept 62975.01 1 62975.01 1913.55 0.000*

Grades 98.82 2 49.41 1.50 0.23**

Error 1875.65 57 32.91


Table 4.35 shows, a significant difference (decrease in the level of depression)

was observed from pre to post assessment in relation to depression irrespective of

grades, F (1,57) = 78.04, p< 0.001. When grades-wise comparison was made

(time*grades), the F value (2, 57) = 1.67, p>0.05 showed a non significant difference in

10th, 11th and 12th grades subjects on depression in post assessment. Further, table 4.35

shows a non significant difference between grades regarding to the efficacy of CBT on

depression F (2, 57) =1.50, p= 0.23.

166

Mutual interactions (between subject effects)

Table 4.36 Between subjects interaction effects of group, gender, and grade on depression

Source of variation Sum of squares df Mean

squares F Sig

Between group effects

Intercept 62975.01 1 2975.01 251.1 0.00*

Group 91.88 1 91.88 3.66 0.05**

Gender 78.41 1 78.41 3.12 0.08***

Grades 98.82 2 49.41 1.97 0.15***

Group*Gender 21.33 1 21.33 0.44 0.88***

Group*Grades 123.34 2 61.66 2.46 0.09***

Gender*Grades 99.57 2 49.78 1.98 0.12***

Group* Gender * Grades 42.82 2 21.41 0.85 0.43***

Error 1204.40 48 25.09

*p<0.001; **p≤0.05;***Non significant

Table 4.36 shows that the interaction of group*gender F (1, 48) = 0.44, p= 0.88;

Group*Grades F (2, 48) = 2.46, p= 0.09; Gender*Grades F (2, 48) = 1.98, p= 0.12; and

Group* Gender * Grades F (2, 48) = 0.85, p= 0.43 in relation to the efficacy of CBT in

reducing depression was not statistically significant. . It refers to a similar pattern and

amount of change between group*gender, group* grades, Gender*Grades and Group*

Gender * Grades from pre to post assessment.

Figure 4.2: Mean score/ change on depression from pre-treatment to post-treatment

sessions in two groups

Figure 4.2 shows significant change from pre treatment to post treatment sessions

in depression in the experimental group. Graph indicates that subjects in experimental

group had a decrease in depression in post-test session. Further, figure 4.2 indicates that

change from pre treatment to post treatment sessions in depression which is not

significant in control group.

27.53

20.9

26.325.9

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Pre-test Post-test

Experimental

Control

167

Section VI: Effect of intervention on self-efficacy

Table 4.37 Pre-treatment, post treatment total mean and SD scores on self-efficacy

Times

Groups

Pre-test Post-test

MD* M SD M SD

Experimental 19.03 2.39 25.36 2.62 6.33

Control 19.63 2.38 20.13 2.81 0.50

*Mean difference

In self-efficacy measure a significant change (increase in the level of self-efficacy)

was observed in experimental group from pre-treatment to post-treatment. In pre-

treatment the mean score was 19.03 which was increased to 25.36 (MD= 6.33 in post-

treatment session (table 4.37).

Table 4.38 Results of repeated measure ANOVA for mean scores of pre and post treatment for self-efficacy

Source of



Time 388.80 1 388.80 394.32 0.000*

Time*group 264.03 1 264.03 267.78 0.000*

Error 57.17 58 0.99


Intercept 53594.13 1 53594.13 4429.27 0.000*

Group 168.03 1 168.03 13.89 0.000*

Error 701.83 58 12.10

* p<0.001

Table 4.38 shows that increase in the self-efficacy mean score which was found to be

significant F (1, 58) = 394.32, p<0.001, whereas increase in the mean score from pre to

post treatment for control group was only 0.50 (table 4.37). When group-wise

comparison was made (time × group) a significant F (1, 58) = 267.78, P< 0.001 value

indicated an increase in mean scores from pre to post-treatment session in experimental

group. This indicates the effectiveness of CBT in increasing self-efficacy. Further, in

between group effects also a significant F-value was observed F (1, 58) = 13.89,

P<0.001.

168

The effects of gender, grades and their interactions on self-efficacy

Table 4.39 Pre-treatment, post-treatment mean and SD scores on self-efficacy and gender of experimental

and control group

Groups Gender Time Self-efficacy

M SD MD*

Experimental





Control



Boys

Pre-treatment 19.47 2.32


*Mean difference

Table 4.39 indicates that there was a change (increase) observed between pre-

treatment and post-treatment mean score in self-efficacy. 1) For girls in the experimental

group self-efficacy score pre-treatment was 18.80 which was increased to 25.13 in post-

treatment assessment (MD= 6.50). 2) For boys in the experimental group self-efficacy

score pre-treatment was 19.27 which was reduced to 25.60 in post-treatment assessment

(MD= 6.33). In control group academic stress self-efficacy score on self-efficacy for

girls was 19.80 which was increased to 20.47 in post-treatment assessment (MD= 0.67)

and for boys self-efficacy pre-treatment score was 19.47 which was reduced to 19.80 in

post-treatment assessment (MD= 0.33) indicating no change.

Table 4.40 Results of repeated measure ANOVA on self-efficacy and gender

Source of

variation



Time 165.68 1 165.68 112.71 0.000*

Time*gender 0.675 1 0.675 0.46 0.50**

Error 82.27 58 1.47


Intercept 64821.008 1 64821.008 2604.3 0.000*

Gender 18.41 1 18.41 0.74 0.39**

Error 1444.08 58 24.89

*p<0.001; **Non significant

169

Table 4.40 shows, a significant difference (increase in self-efficacy scores) was

observed from pre to post assessment in relation to self-efficacy irrespective of gender,

F (1, 58) = 112.71, p< 0.001. When gender-wise comparison was made (time*gender),

the F value (1, 58) = 0.459, p= 0.501 shows no significant change between boys and girls

on self-efficacy in post assessment. Further, table 4.40 shows a non significant difference

between girls and boys regarding to the effectiveness of CBT in increasing self-efficacy

F (1.58) =0.74, p>0.05.

Table 4.41 Mean scores of pre and post treatment for experimental and control group on self-efficacy and

grade in experimental and control group


M SD M SD

Experimental

10th

19.00 2.68 26.10 3.05 7.10

11th

19.8 2.42 27.30 2.43 7.5

12th

18.3 2.03 25.2 2.68 6.9

Total 19.03 2.38 26.2 2.72 7.17

Control

10st 19.1 2.35 19.40 3.39 0.30

11th 19.9 2.94 20.8 3.08 0.90

12th

19.9 1.92 20.20 2.21 0.30

Total 19.63 2.40 20.13 2.90 0.50

From the table 4.41, it is clear that the mean score and standard deviation of self-

efficacy of 10th

grade subjects in pre-test was (M=19. 0; SD= 2.68) and in post-test was


experimental group. The mean score and standard deviation of self-efficacy of 11th grade


indicating an increase of 7.50 score from pre to post treatment in experimental group.

The mean score and standard deviation of self-efficacy of 12th

grade subjects in pre-test

was (M=18.30; SD= 2.03) and in post-test was (M= 25.2; SD= 2.68) showing an increase

of 6.9 score from pre to post treatment. Further, the mean and standard deviation for

control group has presented. Further, total change (increase in self-efficacy) for all

grades in experimental group was 7.17, whereas total change (increase in self-efficacy)

for all grades in control group was 0.50 from pre to post treatment sessions indicating no

change.

170

Table 4.42 Results of repeated measure ANOVA on self-efficacy and grade

Source of



Time 285.21 1 285.21 32.44 0.000*

Time*grade 9.22 2 4.61 0.52 0.56**

Error 501.075 57 8.791


Intercept 64728.08 1 64728.08 2509.8 0.000*

Grade 9.450 2 4.72 0.18 0.83**

Error 1469.98 57 25.79


Table 4.42 shows, a significant difference (increase in self-efficacy) was observed

from pre to post assessment in relation to self-efficacy irrespective of grades, F (1,57) =

32.44, p< 0.001. When grades-wise comparison was made (time*grades), the F value (2,

57) = 0.52, p=0.56 showed no significant difference in 10th, 11th and 12th grades subjects

on self-efficacy in post assessment. Further, table 4.42 shows a non significant difference

between grades regarding to the efficacy of CBT on depression F (2, 57) =0.18, p=

0.833.

Mutual interactions of group, gender, grades

Table 4.43 Mutual interactions of group, gender, grades on self-efficacy

Source of variations Sum of

Squares df

Mean

Squares F Sig.

Gender * Grades 5.267 2 2.63 0.20 0.82 NS*

Group*Grades 9.867 2 4.93 0.37 0.70 NS

Group*Gender 8.533 1 8.53 0.63 0.43 NS

Group*Gender*Grades 22.46 2 11.23 0.83 0.44 NS

Error 646.60 48 13.47

*Non significant

Tables 4.43 shows that mutual interactions of group* gender F (1, 48) = 0.63, p=

0.43; group*grades F (2, 48) = 0.366, p= 0.70; gender*grades F (2, 48) = 0.20, p= 0.82;

and Group* Gender*Grades F (2, 48) = 0.83, P=0.44 on self-efficacy and effectiveness

of CBT on self-efficacy were not statistically significant. It indicates that the interaction

of independent variables with respect to the efficacy of CBT in enhancing self-efficacy

was not significant.

171

Figure 4.3: Mean scores on self-efficacy from pre-test to post-test session of

experimental and control group.

Figure 4.3 shows significant differences between pre and post assessments in

relation to self-efficacy in the experimental group. Graph shows that subjects in

experimental group had significant increase in self-efficacy in post-test (MD=6.33). On

the other hand, the differences between the pr-post tests scores in control group were not

considerable (MD=0.50).

Section VII: Effect of intervention on academic performance

Table 4.44

Pre-treatment, post treatment mean and SD scores on academic performance

Times

Groups

Pre-test Post-test

MD* M SD M SD

Experimental 13.46 0.59 15.51 0.71 2.05

Control 13.56 0.54 13.52 0.66 0.04

*Mean difference

In academic performance a significant change (improvement) was observed in

experimental group from pre-treatment to post-treatment. In pre-treatment the mean

score on academic performance of experimental group was 13.46 which was increased to

15.51 (MD= 2.05 in post-treatment session (table 4.44). Whereas the control group

showed reduce in academic performance from pre to post treatment (MD= 0.04).

19.03

25.36

19.6320.13

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Pre-test Post-test

Experimental

Control

172

Table 4.45 Results of repeated measure ANOVA for mean scores of pre and post treatment for academic

performance

Source of



Time 30.27 1 30.27 240.2 0.000*

Time*group 32.56 1 32.56 258.4 0.000*

Error 7.28 58 0.126


Intercept 23561.74 1 23561.74 25219.3 0.000*

Group 27.20 1 27.20 40.66 0.000*

Error 38.82 58 0.669

*p<0.001

Table 4.45 shows the effect of CBT on academic performance of subjects which was

statistically significant F (1, 58) =240.2, p<0.001. It indicates that the change from pre to

post assessment academic performance scores (MD= 2.05, table 4.44) which clearly

showed the efficacy of CBT in increasing academic performance. Further, the

comparison of time*group showed a significant effect in increasing academic

performance F (1, 58) =258.4, P<0.001).

Further, the between subject effects show that the effect of group in relation to the

efficacy of CBT interventions in increasing academic performance was statistically

significant F (1, 58) =40.66, P<0.001).

Table 4.46 Pre-treatment, post-treatment mean and SD scores on academic performance and gender in

experimental and control group

Groups Gender Time Academic performance

M SD MD*

Experimental





Control



Boys

Pre-treatment 13.54 0.51


*Mean difference

Table 4.46 shows that there was a difference observed between pre-treatment and

post-treatment mean score in academic performance. 1) For girls in the experimental

group academic performance score in pre-treatment was 13.46 which was increased to

173

15.66 in post-treatment assessment (MD= 2.20). 2) For boys in the experimental group

academic performance score in pre-treatment was 13.47 which was increased to 15.66 in

post-treatment assessment (MD= 1.89), indicating an improvement in subjects academic

performance scores after treatment. In control group academic performance score in pre-

treatment for girls was 13.58 which was reduced to 13.49 in post-treatment assessment

(MD= 0.09) and for boys academic stress pre-treatment score was 13.54 which was

reduced to 13.52 in post-treatment assessment (MD= 0.02) indicating no improvement.

Table 4.47

Results of repeated measure ANOVA on academic performance and gender

Source of



Time 24.08 1 24.08 47.14 0.000*

Time*gender 0.11 1 0.11 0.22 0.65**

Error 29.62 58 0.51


Intercept 23441.95 1 23441.95 16279.13 0.000*

Gender 2.07 1 2.07 1.81 0.18**

Error 66.35 58 1.14

*p<0.001; **Non significant

Table 4.47 shows, a significant difference (increase in academic performance

scores) was observed from pre to post assessment in relation to academic performance

irrespective of gender, F (1, 58) = 47.14, p< 0.001. When gender-wise comparison was

made (time*gender), the F value (1, 58) = 0.215, p= 0.645 shows no significant change

between boys and girls on self-efficacy in post assessment. Further, table 4.47 shows no

significant difference between girls and boys regarding to the effectiveness of CBT in

increasing academic performance F (1.58) =1.81, p=0.184.

Table 4.48 Pre-treatment, post-treatment mean and SD scores on academic performance and grade in

experimental and control group


M SD M SD

Experimental

10th 13.37 0.62 15.58 0.93 2.21

11th

13.70 0.59 15.71 0.68 2.01

12th

13.32 0.57 15.47 0.47 2.15

Total 13.46 0.71 15.59 0.69 2.12

Control

10st 13.50 0.54 13.55 0.64 0.05

11th

13.60 0.58 13.76 0.68 0.16

12th

13.58 0.51 13.36 0.47 0.22

Total 13.56 0.54 13.55 0.60 0.01

174

It is clear from the table 4.48 that the mean score and standard deviation of



in post-test was (M= 15.58; SD= 0.93) showing an increase of 2.21 score from pre to


Academic performance of 11th grade subjects in pre-test was (M=13.70; SD= 0.59) and

in post-test was (M= 15.71; SD= 0.68) followed by a change (increase) of 2.01 score

from pre to post treatment in experimental group. The mean score and standard deviation

of Academic performance of 12th

grade subjects in pre-test was (M=13.32; SD= 0.57)

and in post-test was (M= 15.47; SD= 0.47) indicating an increase of 2.15 score from pre

to post treatment in experimental group. Further, the mean and standard deviation for

control group has presented. Further, total change (increase in academic performance)

for all grades in experimental group was 2.15, whereas total change (increase in

academic performance) for all grades in control group was 0.01 from pre to post

treatment sessions indicating no change.

Table 4.49

Results of repeated measure ANOVA for academic performance and grades

Source of



Time 24.076 1 24.07 47.79 0.000*

Time*grades 1.018 2 0.509 1.01 0.37**

Error 28.711 57 0.504


Intercept 23441.94 1 23441.94 22759.2 0.000*

Grades 9.52 2 4.76 4.67 0.01***

Error 58.91 57 1.02

* p<0.001; **Non significant; ***significant at p<0.05

Table 4.49 shows, a significant difference (increase in academic performance

scores) was observed from pre to post assessment in relation to depression irrespective

of grades, F (1,57) = 47.79, p< 0.001. When grades-wise comparison was made

(time*grades), the F value (2, 57) = 1.01, p=0.370 showed no significant difference in

10th, 11th and 12th grades subjects on academic performance in post assessment. Further,

table 4.49 shows a significant difference between grades regarding to the effectiveness of

CBT on improvement the academic performance F (2, 57) =4.67, p< 0.05.

175

Figure 4.4: Pre-post treatment mean scores of academic performance in experimental

and control groups

Figure 4.4 shows significant change between pre-post tests in relation to

academic performance in the experimental group. Graph indicates that subjects in

experimental group had increase in academic performance in post-test. On the other

hand, no difference between the pre-post tests scores in control group was seen.

Effect size calculations

Cohen’s d was calculated to see effect size which indicates the magnitude of

change (improvement). Statistically significant difference may not reflect on the

significance of change and effect size is more informative than p-value in interpreting the

treatment - related response. Cohen’s (1998) classification schedule was used to evaluate

the magnitude of change based on the mean and standard deviation. Effect size ranges

from 0.20 to 0.49 (small), 0.50 to 0.79 (medium) and >0.80 (large).

Table 4.50 Effect sizes on different dependent variables

Variables groups Cohen’s d Effect size Interpretation

Academic stress

Experimental 2.83 0.82 Large

Control 0.17 0.08 Small

Between groups 2.42 0.77 Medium

Depression

Experimental 2.06 0.78 Medium


Between groups 1.43 -0.58 Medium

Self-efficacy

Experimental 2.52 0.78 Medium

Control -0.19 -0.09 Small

Between groups 1.92 0.87 Large

Academic

performance

Experimental 3.14 -0.84 Large


Between groups 2.90 0.83 Large

13.46

15.51

13.5613.52

12

12.5

13

13.5

14

14.5

15

15.5

16

Pre-test Post-test

Experimental

Control

176

Table 4.50 shows Effect size calculations for outcome variables using Cohen’s d.

Results indicate large effect size for the effect of CBT on academic stress (0.82), a

medium effect size for the effect of group (experimental and control) on academic stress

(0.77). In other words, 82 percent of change in academic stress is explained to the effect

of CBT interventions, and the group (experimental vs. control) explained 77 percent of

variance of academic stress. In control group the amount of effect size calculated to the

effect of CBT on academic stress was (0.08) indicating a weak effect size.

For depression Cohen’s d shows magnitude of change for experimental group

(0.78) which indicates that 78 percent of change in depression is explained due to the

CBT interventions and for between the groups magnitude of effect size was medium

(0.58).

For self-efficacy Cohen’s d shows magnitude of change for experimental group

(0.77) which indicates that 78 percent of change in self-efficacy is explained due to the

CBT interventions and for between the groups magnitude of effect size was large (0.87).

For academic performance Cohen’s d shows magnitude of change for

experimental group (0.84) which indicates that 84 percent of change in academic

performance is explained due to the CBT interventions and for between the groups

magnitude of effect size was large (0.83).

On the other hand the magnitude of effect size for control group in all dependent

variables was Small (table 4.48).

Summary

The data was analyzed with appropriate statistical methods. For analyzing the

demographic data statistical techniques such as frequencies, percentages, Contingency

coefficient and Cramer’s V coefficient was applied. For pre-testing randomization

Levens’ homogeneity of variances and independent t-test were used. For evaluating the

effect of CBT on dependent variables (E.G. academic stress, depression, self-efficacy,

and academic performance), mean, standard deviation, three ways analysis of variance

(repeated measure design) were used. Result showed that:

Analysis show association between experimental and control group in relation to

age, parent’s economical status, and parent’s literacy level are same.

177

There was no significant difference between two groups in relation to dependent

variables in pre-treatment.

The effect of CBT on academic stress, depression, and self-efficacy and academic

performance was statistically significant. In other words, subjects have shown reduction

in academic stress and depression and increase in self-efficacy and academic

performance in experimental group from pre to post assessment. Further, the difference

between two groups with regard to academic stress, depression, and self-efficacy and

academic performance was statistically significant. In other words, the experimental

group showed significant change (reduction in academic stress and depression, and

increase in self-efficacy and academic performance) after treatment whereas the control

group did not.

Through change was evident there was no significant difference between the boys

and girls in respect to the outcome variables from pre to post assessment.

However, there was a significant difference observed between the grades (10th

,

11th

, and 12th

) in respect to academic performance from pre to post assessment, but the

difference between grades in relation to academic stress, depression, and self-efficacy

was not significant, indicating pattern of change was same irrespective of the grade in

which students are studying.

introduction - a reservoir of indian theses @...

Documents