Testing the Effectiveness of Katatagan Resilience Program

Hechanova, Maria Regina M.Ramos, Pia Anna P.Martinez, Ivyjoy C.

PROGRAM FRAMEWORK/MODULE FLOW

(PAP, 2014)

Method for Data GatheringQuantitative

For learning per session objective – pretest, posttest, and follow-up

For overall program evaluation, in terms of: Facilitator, topics, relevance of session

QualitativeLearnings from the sessions and the most

helpful activity(ies)

MeasuresRatings used 5-point “smiling” scale ranging

from strongly disagree (lubos na di sumasang-ayon or a long sad face) to strongly agree (lubos na sumasang-ayon or a very happy face)

MeasuresModule 1: 7 items (rel =.78)

e.g., I can name my strengthsE.g., I can identify my sources of strength

Module 2: 10 items (rel =.84)I can identify what my concerns are.Of many concerns, I know which ones to prioritize.

Module 3: 5 items (.77)I can tell what situations make me feel stressed.I can describe what I can do when I start to feel

stressed.

Module 4: 6 items (.74)I can differentiate helpful thoughts from

unhelpful thoughts.Module 5: 3 items (.61)

I can differentiate between my helpful and unhelpful activities.

I can identify activities that I can do regularly.Module 6: 2 items (.64)

I have identified some goals that I want to achieve in the next 2-3 years.

Workshop evaluation:Effectiveness of facilitatorsAppropriateness of activitiesMeaningfulness of topicsLearning much from the sessionsKnowing that sessions were of value to them

ParticipantsData came from three municipalities in

Eastern Samar, which are as follows: Salcedo, Quinapondan, and Giporlos

163 out 0f 367 participants completed all modules

*Note: 6 participants with no indicated gender were not included in the tabulation.

Date of Intervention

Number of Participants TOTAL 

Salcedo Quinapondan Giporlos

Male Female Male Female Male Female

May 16-17, 2014

1 13 14

May 30-31, 2014

0 15 15

June 13-14, 2014

2 24 26

June 27-28, 2014

1 24 25

July 11-12, 2014

4 16 20

August 8-9, 2014

3 15 18

September 19-20, 2014

1 15 16

October 17-18, 2014

1 22 23

TOTAL 5 76 5 29 3 39 157

Overall Means

Module 1 Module 2 Module 3 Module 4 Module 5 Module 63.4

3.6

3.8

4

4.2

4.4

4.6

PretestPosttest

Overall Means

Module 1 Module 2 Module 3 Module 4 Module 5 Module 63.4

3.6

3.8

4

4.2

4.4

4.6

PretestPosttest

SIGNIFICANT SIGNIFICANT

SIGNIFICANT

SIGNIFICANT

SIGNIFICANT

SIGNIFICANT

Results: Follow-Up Assessment

Module 1 Module 2 Module 3 Module 4 Module 5 Module 60

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

5

PretestPosttestPosttest, Time 1

Results: Follow-Up Assessment

Module 1 Module 2 Module 3 Module 4 Module 5 Module 60

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

5

PretestPosttestPosttest, Time 1

Participants with follow up forms

Overall Mean Significant or Not Significant?

Module 1 Pre 4.01 Significant

Post 4.35

Module 2 Pre 3.93 Significant

Post 4.20

Module 3 Pre 3.97 Significant

Post 4.24

Module 4 Pre 4.00 Significant

Post 4.49

Module 5 Pre 4.21 Significant

Post 4.68

Module 6 Pre 3.83 Significant

Post 4.58

First posttest and follow upMean Overall Significant or Not

Significant?

Module 1 Post 1 4.35 Not Significant

Post 2 4.38

Module 2 Post 1 4.20 Not Significant

Post 2 4.33

Module 3 Post 1 4.25 Not Significant

Post 2 4.24

Module 4 Post 1 4.49 Significant

Post 2 4.20

Module 5 Post 1 4.68 Significant

Post 2 4.37

Module 6 Post 1 4.58 Significant

Post 2 4.21

ANOVAPair 1

Pair 2

Pair 3

Pair 4

Pair 5

Pair 6

F 1 F 2 F 3 F 4 F 5 F 6

Overall Mean difference

-.33 -.29 -.28 -.49 -.49 -.76 -.03 -.12 .01 .29 .34 .38

significance level

.00 .00 .02 .00 .00 .00 .71 .15 .96 .01 .00 .02

Pretest and Follow upMean Overall Significant or Not

Significant?

Module 1 Pre 4.02 Significant

F 4.37

Module 2 Pre 3.92 Significant

F 4.32

Module 3 Pre 3.97 Significant

F 4.24

Module 4 Pre 4.00 Not Significant

F 4.19

Module 5 Pre 4.22 Not Significant

F 4.36

Module 6 Pre 3.84 Significant

F 4.23

How efficient are the modules?There is an increase in the participants’

scores after the six modules were conducted.The participants were able to gain learnings

and insights during the implementation of the modules.

How efficient are the modules?The participants were able to learn each programs

objectives, which are as follows:Module 1: Identifying and cultivating strengthsModule 2: Identifying current concerns and seeking solutions and supportModule 3: Managing physical reactionsModule 4: Managing unhelpful thoughts and emotionsModule 5: Identifying regular and positive activitiesModule 6: Identifying goals and developing action plans to achieve goals

What do the results imply for post-disaster response?Teach participants to:

- take care of themselves- cultivate their inner strengths-

References