| Literature DB >> 31931887 |
Mahya Torkaman1, Jamileh Farokhzadian2, Sakineh Miri3, Batool Pouraboli4.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The imprisoned women usually have low self-esteem and suffer from various physical and mental complaints; they may suffer from feelings of emptiness, isolation, and depression. Transactional analysis (TA) is part of a comprehensive system attributed to the individual and social psychiatry for personal development of self-esteem among the imprisoned women. Therefore, the present study aimed to investigate the effect of TA group-training on the self-esteem of imprisoned women.Entities:
Keywords: Group training; Imprisoned women; Self-esteem; Transactional analysis
Mesh:
Year: 2020 PMID: 31931887 PMCID: PMC6958781 DOI: 10.1186/s40359-019-0369-x
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Psychol ISSN: 2050-7283
Training program
| Session 1: | Establishing initial communication, Introducing members to each other, and clarifying the study purpose |
| Session 2: | Introducing the initial concepts of the structural analysis: “parent”, “adult “, and “child”. |
| Session 3: | Getting acquainted with the concept of mutual communication: direct transaction, crossed transaction, and ulterior transaction. |
| Session 4: | Strengthening the “adult” and controling the negative aspects of the “parent”, especially the “critical parent”. |
| Session 5: | Explaining about the personality illnesses, providing various examples, and considering the interpersonal exchanges. |
| Session 6: | Explaining time management using different methods. |
| Session 7: | Life minute analysis: Discussing the life formation process, omitting the undesirable events in life, and making decisions applying the “Adult”. |
| Session 8: | Making healthy relationships with others and adjustments to different situations. Increasing intimacy, adopting a healthy state of life, and having conscious control of the Ego states. Discussing and making conclusions about the subject. |
Comparison of the demographic information between the intervention and control groups
| Variables | Groups | Intervention | Control | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| n | ٪ | N | ٪ | ||||
| Occupation | Housekeeper | 35 | 100 | 41 | 92.70 | 2.66 | 0.446 |
| Self-employed | 0 | 0 | 1 | 2.40 | |||
| Clerk | 0 | 0 | 1 | 2.40 | |||
| Others | 0 | 0 | 1 | 2.40 | |||
| Age | ≤20 | 1 | 2.90 | 1 | 2.40 | 0.336 | 0.953 |
| 21–40 | 24 | 68.60 | 26 | 63.40 | |||
| 41–60 | 9 | 25.70 | 13 | 31.70 | |||
| > 60 | 1 | 2.90 | 1 | 2.40 | |||
| History of imprisonment | Once | 15 | 42.90 | 18 | 43.90 | 0.009 | 0.995 |
| Twice | 14 | 40 | 16 | 39 | |||
| ≥Three times | 6 | 17.10 | 7 | 17.10 | |||
| Place of residence | Native | 34 | 97.10 | 41 | 100 | 1.18 | 0.276 |
| non- Native | 1 | 2.90 | 0 | 0 | |||
| Education | Primary School | 2 | 5.70 | 0 | 0 | 4.95 | 0.175 |
| High School | 23 | 65.70 | 30 | 56.60 | |||
| Diploma | 8 | 22.90 | 11 | 26.80 | |||
| University Education | 2 | 5.70 | 0 | 0 | |||
| Marital status | Single | 1 | 2.90 | 0 | 0 | 2.51 | 0.473 |
| Married | 27 | 77.10 | 34 | 82.90 | |||
| Divorced | 4 | 11.40 | 2 | 4.90 | |||
| Widow | 3 | 8.60 | 5 | 12.20 | |||
| Prison term)Year) | 1–2 Years | 12 | 34.30 | 13 | 31.70 | 0.570 | 0.812 |
| ≥3 | 23 | 65.70 | 28 | 68.30 | |||
The pretest and posttest scores of the control and intervention groups
| Groups | Pre test | Post test | Statistic ta& p |
|---|---|---|---|
| M ± SD | M ± SD | ||
| Intervention | 11.8 ± 4.67 | 22.00 ± 2.52 | |
| Control | 7.97 ± 4.52 | 8.92 ± 4.04 | |
| Statistic | |||
aPaired-t-test, bindependent-t-test
Summary of covariance analysis for the control and intervention groups
| Variable | Type II sum of square | Df | Mean square | F | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Corrected model | 3543.22 | 2 | 1771.66 | 233.20 | < 0.001 |
| Intercept | 1600.57 | 1 | 1600.57 | 210.69 | < 0.001 |
| Pre-test | 316.21 | 1 | 316.21 | 41.62 | < 0.001 |
| Group | 2068.05 | 1 | 2068.05 | 272.22 | < 0.001 |
| Error | 554.56 | 73 | 7.59 | < 0.001 |