This article presents a format for the assessment, evaluation, and comparison of the impact of specifically described encounter groups. Based on the use of this format, the encounter group experience results in moderate changes in several dependent measures such as reduction in problem experience, and in no change in assertiveness. Group leaders need to determine the relative worth of a given approach, and use judgment as to the expected value of anticipated changes indicated by particular dependent measures. The format presented here can be used generally, and represents an attempt to measure changes in behavior and attitude resulting from specific group experiences.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Hartley, D., H.B. Roback, and S.I. Abramowitz (1976) "Deterioration effects in encounter groups." Amer. Psychologist31: 247-255.
2.
Kirk, R.E. (1968) Experimental Design: Procedures for the Behavioral Sciences. Belmont, CA: Brooks/Cole .
3.
Lieberman, M.A., I.D. Yalom, and M.B. Miles (1973) Encounter Groups: First Facts. New York: Basic Books.
4.
Maliver, B.L. (1973) The Encounter Game. New York : Stein and Day.
5.
Meltzer, H. (1980) "The impact of encounter groups: actualizing differences between a T-lab group and a humanistic psychology group." Small Group Behavior11, 1: 23-33.
6.
Mooney, R.L. and L.V. Gordon (1950) The Mooney Problem Check-List. New York: The Psychological Corp.
7.
Rathus, S.A. (1973) "A 30-item schedule for assessing assertive behavior." BehaviorTherapy4: 398-406.
8.
Rogers, C.R. (1970) On Encounter Groups. New York : Harper & Row.
9.
--- ( 1968) "Interpersonal relationships: year 2000. " J. of Applied Behavioral Sci.4: 265-280.
10.
Rowan, J. ( 1975) "Encounter group research: no joy?" J. of Humanistic Psychology15, 2: 19-28.
11.
Schutz, W. (1973) "Not encounter and certainly not facts." J. of Humanistic Psychology13, 2: 17-34.
12.
Smith, P.B. (1975) "Are there adverse effects of training?" J. of Humanistic Psychology15, 2: 29-47.
