• Enright Forgiveness Inventory Manual Online
• Robert Enright Forgiveness Steps
• Enright Forgiveness Inventory Manual Pdf

Regret for the inconvenience: we are taking measures to prevent fraudulent form submissions by extractors and page crawlers. Spinal cord injuries (SCI) are among the most traumatic onset of disabilities to date. Due to the nature of spinal cord injury and how it affects the person’s life and psychosocial adjustment, there are a multitude of feelings, changes, persons, situations, and transgressions that need to be resolved and forgiven. In an effort to help persons with SCI do that, two interventions - Enright’s Forgiveness is a Choice intervention and Kennedy and Duff’s (2001) Coping Effectively with Spinal Cord Injury training – were facilitated on-line as part of a self-study treatment format among persons with spinal cord injury.

The interventions were examined to determine their ability to aid in the increase of forgiveness and changes in psychosocial reactions to disability. Findings from this study found that both interventions are applicable and helpful in assisting persons with SCI in forgiving and experiencing changes in psychosocial reactions to disability, but differences were found in long-term change.Keywords: forgiveness, psychosocial, adjustment, disability, spinal cord injury, psychosocial reactions, interventions, coping effectively Introduction. Spinal cord injury (SCI) is a disability that is immediate, drastic, and forever changes a person’s life and that of his or her loved ones.

Oftentimes, SCIs occur following the event of a major traumatic event such as motor vehicle accidents, falls, acts of violence (i.e., gunshot wounds) and recreational activities (i.e., swimming accidents).People who acquire a SCI find themselves faced with multiple personal and life changes. People must navigate the physical and functional changes because of the injury and learn how to effectively cope with these changes (i.e., decreased mobility and sensation, alterations in bowel and bladder functioning, changes in personal independence; Falvo, 2009).

Enright Forgiveness Inventory Manual Online

A number of factors or skills that aid with positive coping following disability have been discussed throughout the literature. Some factors are associated with actions and external changes such as increased levels of education or employment while others are related to emotional coping and psychological adjustment. Replicating the procedures used in previous intervention studies on forgiveness., participants were recruited and then randomly assigned to either the FC group or the CET group. All of the participants completed an 8-week, online intervention based on either Enright’s Forgiveness is a Choice: A Step-by-Step for Resolving anger and Restoring Hope or Kennedy and Duff’s (2001) Coping Effectively with Spinal Cord Injury. Having access to the designated books and manuals was essential as this study was delivered as an online, self-study treatment model rather than an online group format.

Participants were assigned a code and password to enable them to gain access to the study website, securely communicate with the researcher and submit weekly assignments, and make sure participants did not have access to other participants’ information. Enright Forgiveness InventoryThe Enright Forgiveness Inventory (EFI) is a 60-item self-report inventory used to measure a person’s level of interpersonal forgiveness. The EFI requires 40 minutes to complete and a minimum of a 5 th grade reading level. When calculating an overall total forgiveness score, low scores (i.e.,60) represent a low level of forgiveness and high scores (i.e., 360) indicate high levels of forgiveness. The EFI has strong support for both reliability and validity. Subkoviak et al.

Report internal consistency coefficients to range from 0.93 to 0.98. Enright et al.

Refer to the EFI’s test-retest reliability as ranging from 0.67 to 0.91. Furthermore, subscale correlations have been reported to range between 0.80 and 0.87. An examination of the pre-test scores in the present study found an internal consistency and reliability Chronbach Alpha value of 0.98 across the 60-items.Reaction to Illness and Disability InventoryThe Reaction to Illness and Disability Inventory (RIDI) is a 60-item instrument constructed to assess reactions to physical disability.

Ben 10 omniverse rise of heroes gameplay. Close to new.

The RIDI contains eight psychosocial reactions: Shock, Anxiety, Denial, Depression, Internalized Anger, Externalized Hostility, Acknowledgement, and Adjustment. Each scale contains items which can be rated from “1” to “4” with 1 being equivalent to “Never” and 4 being the same as “Often”., Previous research indicated Chronbach alphas of the eight psychosocial reactions (Shock= 0.79, Anxiety=0.83, Denial=0.64, Depression=0.88, Internalized Anger=0.81, Externalized Anger=0.84. Acknowledgment=0.78, and Adjustment =0.89. In the present study, an examination of the pre-test scores for internal consistency found the following Chronbach Alphas: Shock=0.68, Anxiety=0.84, Denial=0.48, Depression=0.74, Internalized Anger=0.81, Externalized Hostility=0.73, Acknowledgement=0.61, Adjustment=0.77.AnalysisData was analyzed by using sample t-tests to determine change in the mean scores of each intervention group. Means were calculated from pre-test to post-test as well as pre-test to follow-up, allowing for a focused comparison of how participants’ scores on the forgiveness and psychosocial reactions to disability changed between the two intervention groups.

Questions one and two used two-tailed independent sample t-tests to examine if changes in forgiveness and psychosocial reactions to disability were comparable between the two intervention groups from pre-test to post-test. Question three used group mean scores and analyzed data according to a paired sample t-test to explore long-term changes at follow-up for either intervention group. The first research question focused on within group differences in the Forgiveness Intervention (FC) group and the Coping Effectively with Spinal Cord Injury Training (CET) group on the Enright Forgiveness Inventory and Reaction to Illness and Disability Inventory from pre-test to post-test.

The groups were therefore first examined separately to determine effectiveness in promoting change in forgiveness and psychosocial reactions to disability scores from pre-test to post-test. Results indicated that the FC group improved their mean EFI forgiveness score by 82.1 points, from 148.33 to 230.44 points, and achieved statistical significance t (8)= - 5.086, p.05, Anxiety, a 1.05 point decrease, t(14)=.565, p.05, Denial, a 1.14 point difference, t(14)= 1.580, p.05, Depression, a 0.98 point decrease, t(14)=.622, p.05, Internalized Anger, a 4 point decrease, t(14)=1.835, p.05, and Externalized hostility, a 3.25 point difference, t(14)=1.948, p.05. Acknowledgment and Adjustment change scores were slightly higher in the CET group. Scores on Acknowledgement reflect a 0.68 point increase, t(14) =.361, p.05 and Adjustment, a 0.57 point increase, t (14)=.388, p.05 compared to the FC group. Overall, comparison of change scores from pre-test to post-test did not demonstrate a statistical significance between the two intervention groups, thus indicating that the FC intervention is comparable to the CET intervention in influencing alterations in psychosocial reactions to disability as well as forgiveness.

Table 3 Comparison in change scores between forgiveness group (FC) and coping effectively with spinal cord injury group (CET) from Pre-Test to Post-testNote.p.05.In regards to psychosocial reactions, long-term change from pre-test to follow-up showed varied results for both intervention groups. Holistically, both intervention groups showed statistically significant, long-term change in four psychosocial reactions.

The FC group demonstrated statistically significant change in Shock, a 4.17 point reduction, t(5)= 2.166, p. Overall, the results of the present study add evidence that forgiveness is important to the positive psychological adjustment following the onset of spinal cord injury (SCI). The first question wanted to know if either of the two interventions affected change in forgiveness from pre-test to post-test. Data derived from the study indicated that the first question was successfully met and achieved the desired results. Results from the FC group indicated that participants improved their forgiveness scores from pre-test to post-test by 82.11 points. This increase in forgiveness was found to be statistically significant.

The CET group increased its forgiveness scores by 40 points and was found to be statistically significant. Although the FC group had a larger increase in forgiveness from pre-test to post-test, changes in forgiveness scores were considered comparable to the CET group. Previous forgiveness studies among persons with spinal cord injury have found forgiveness to be beneficial to increase their quality of life and to possibly aid in the adjustment to disability process, but this is the first study to be conducted among this population utilizing Enright’s FC model.

Similarly, this is the first study to examine Kennedy and Duff’s (2001) CET intervention in relation to changes in forgiveness. Since this is the first study to examine change in forgiveness utilizing these two interventions and due to the small sample size, additional research is warranted and needed to further substantiate the findings.In addition to forgiveness, the present study examined whether the FC group or the CET group would effect change in psychosocial reactions to disability from pre-test to post-test. Findings from both groups provide partial support for this question.

Of particular interest is not only the psychosocial changes that occurred within each group, but the fact that each intervention led to different changes in psychosocial reactions to disability. More specifically, the FC group achieved statistical significance in reducing the negative psychosocial reactions to disability, which included reductions in Shock, Anxiety, Denial, Internalized Anger, and Externalized Hostility, however, did not reach statistical significance in alterations pertaining to Acknowledgment, and Adjustment.Considerations of these reactions are either new or related to other research conducted among persons with spinal cord injury. To date, this is the first research study to examine and find a significant relationship between Enright’s Forgiveness Intervention and a reduction in Shock, Denial, Internalized Anger, or Externalized Hostility among individuals with disabilities. The present study adds evidence that forgiveness can aid in the reduction of negative emotions among persons with spinal cord injury, but further research is suggested to strengthen and substantiate the findings.Another important finding is that the CET group did not demonstrate statistical significance in reducing Shock, Anxiety, Denial, Depression, Internalized Anger, Externalized Hostility, or Acknowledgement, but they did substantially increase on Adjustment. Findings from this group are somewhat surprising given the previous research studies that utilized CET among persons with spinal cord injury and found it to aid the reduction of anxiety and depression., To date, little is known about the effect of CET on adjustment to disability or psychosocial reactions to disability among persons with disabilities.

The studies conducted are by Duchnick et al. These scholars found that CET and an alternative treatment group did not significantly differ in regards to adjustment to disability at 3-month follow-up post-discharge. Besides the current study, research has not been conducted to determine changes psychosocial reactions to disability through the use of CET; thus, there are not any studies to compare these findings too.Also of interest are the findings of these two intervention groups compared.

Although both groups reported some change in different psychosocial reactions to disability, and despite the fact that statistical significance was not found in all eight areas, results suggest that both the FC group and the CET group were comparable in the changes reported; thus, suggesting that there were not any significant changes found between the groups.Question three examined differences in long-term changes from pre-test to follow-up in forgiveness and psychosocial reactions to disability. Thus, this question was explored to determine if the FG group or the CET group effected long-term change, 2 months following completion of the designated intervention. Both intervention groups demonstrated partial support for the maintenance and increase in forgiveness at follow-up. The FC group increased its gain score to 85 points and the CET increased its gain score by 25.03. Gains made by the FG group are slightly higher than reported at post-test and were found to be statistically significant. However, gains made by the CET group decreased from post-test and were not found to be statistically significant.

Despite this decrease, forgiveness scores were slightly higher than at the start of the study. Similar to question one, little is known about the effects of the FC intervention or the CET intervention in effecting long-term change in forgiveness among persons with spinal cord injury; thus, additional research is suggested to further substantiate these findings and to learn about the effect of these interventions on the promotion of forgiveness.Differences and variations in changes pertaining to psychosocial reactions to disability were found between the two intervention groups. More specifically, the FC group demonstrated significant changes in Shock, Denial, Internalized Anger, and Externalized Hostility. These findings indicate that prior changes reported at post-test were maintained in these areas. Significant changes were not found in Anxiety, Depression, Acknowledgement, or Adjustment; however, change scores from pre-test to follow-up indicate reductions in Anxiety and Depression and increases in Adjustment, which might support the possibility of a trend of change occurring. Participants in the CET group were found to have significant changes in Shock, Depression, Externalized Hostility, and Adjustment, but not in Anxiety, Denial, Internalized Anger, and Acknowledgement.

Findings from the CET demonstrate more activity and change in some of the negative emotional reactions from those first acquired at post-test. Reasons for these changes are not known but may be related to the possibility that over the 2-month break, participants had time to absorb, practice, and integrate the information and skills learned while completing the intervention phase of the study. Changes in Anxiety and Denial while not statistically significant were found to be more prevalent, based on mean change scores, at follow-up than reported at post-test; thus possibly suggesting a trend of change in some of the negative psychosocial reactions to disability. A number of limitations exist which may be considered as additional research is warranted. Similar to previous forgiveness intervention research, the first limitation is sample size and lack of cross-validation studies to compare the study to as it relates to persons with disabilities., To be sure, the results of the present study would be strengthened through further research among persons with spinal cord injury and the acquisition of larger sample sizes. Having a larger number of participants could be helpful in determining generalizability of results and comparison of interventions to this population.

For these reasons, the findings from this study should be considered preliminary and as a starting place for further exploration of these interventions among persons with spinal cord injury.The second limitation is the wide range of how long participants had a spinal cord injury, ranging from 1.5 to 29 years of age. While both intervention groups were relatively similar as far as mean and range of time since injury, it would be useful to examine if forgiveness is an intervention that is more appropriate earlier or later in adjustment process and were not found to be significantly different. Further study is needed to understand how time since injury correlates with forgiveness. The third limitation relates to the length of the study and the lack of knowledge known about whether or not the changes reported at follow-up were maintained long-term past the two month period of time. To date, intervention studies typically consist of a pre-test, post-test or a pre-test, post-test, follow-up design.

Studies that have a follow-up phase often occur 8 to 12 weeks after the completion of the post-test, but few studies exist that contain long-term data. Future research is warranted to help determine if changes that occur at post-test or follow-up are maintained a year later.The final limitation is the possibility of selection bias among participants. As previously indicated, the aforementioned study was conducted on-line rather than face-to-face. Research is beginning to emerge that support the viability and comparability of face-to-face versus online treatment studies (see Schoenberg et al., 2008), yet, for purposes of this study it is possible that some participants were specifically interested in it because it was on-line rather than face-to-face. For this reason, results may be the bi-product of selection bias that occurred among the participants interested in it.

Robert Enright Forgiveness Steps

Enright Forgiveness Inventory Manual Pdf

Interventions to increase a person’s coping abilities are needed to help individuals with SCI improve mental and emotional functioning. Two interventions - Enright’s Forgiveness is a Choice intervention and Kennedy and Duff’s (2001) Coping Effectively with Spinal Cord Injury training - were administered and explored among persons with SCI to help determine their effectiveness in creating positive changes in forgiveness and psychosocial reactions to disability. Results from this study show partial support for both interventions in increasing forgiveness and effecting change in some of the phases of psychosocial reactions to disability. Because few studies have been done to examine the effect of forgiveness or compare these two interventions as strategies to increase peoples’ forgiveness and/or psychosocial reactions to disability, further research is warranted to substantiate and expand these findings.