Analyses showed that across treatment groups family members’ ratings of the
to post-test, each with large effects as shown from the eta scores which were .46 and .35, respectively. For the FQ subscale measuring control, there was a significant increase from pre- to post-test with a large effect and an eta score of 0.56.
There were no intervention group X time interaction effects for in any of the subscales, suggesting the reduction in EE over time was unrelated to the condition to which they were assigned (intervention or wait-list control group). However, it can be seen that the majority of variance contributing to the significant trials effect in all instances was as a function of the change in the treatment group, pre- post scores (e.g., change in Frequency score of 21.38 for the treatment group, versus -1.94 for the wait-list control group, change in Bother score of 13.46 for the treatment group versus 0.34 for the wait- list control group, and change in Control score of -23.69 for the treatment group versus 1.4 for the wait-list control group).
Subgroup analyses showed that Treatment Group I significantly improved from pre- to post-test on the Frequency and Control scales. These were large effects as shown from the eta score (.69 and .51 respectively). By contrast, for Treatment Group II, there was a significant improvement pre-post test on the Bother and Control scale with large eta scores at .47 and .61 respectively.
When analysed by initial EE rating, it was found that there was an interaction effect for family members in the Control scale. This suggests that the increase in coping over time was impacted by whether they entered the study as high-EE or low-EE. The interaction effect reflected greater significant change after treatment for high-EE family members. However, the other two FQ variables (Frequency, Bother) showed significant change across time that was not a function of treatment condition (i.e., reflected in non-significant interactions and significant trials effects). Thus, participants across both high and low EE groups reflected beneficial changes on the FQ scale.
FOLLOW-UP
KASI
To assess maintenance of change or potential additional change, the nine month follow-up scores were compared initially with post-treatment scores collapsing across treatment groups.
As expected, gains in knowledge scores were maintained at follow-up with most people scoring the same exact Total score as their post-test score, or moving only one point in either direction. As confirmation, a Wilcoxon matched-pairs signed-ranks test showed no significance for post- to follow-up for the Total score and all subscales (p’s >.05), refer also to Table 1 for follow-up scores.
A further separate set of analyses were conducted to assess overall change from pre- treatment (i.e., pre-test1 scores) to follow-up on Total scores. A Wilcoxon test for KASI total scores was highly significant and demonstrated that family member’s gained in knowledge during the study from pre-test1 to follow-up (z =-4.389, p = .0005).
LEE
To assess maintenance of change or potential additional change, the nine month follow-up scores were compared initially with post-treatment scores collapsing across treatment groups.
As expected, reductions in EE levels were maintained at follow-up As confirmation, paired- samples t-tests showed no significance between post- and follow-up for family members or clients on both the Total scores and three of the four subscales (p’s >.05). The exception was the Intrusiveness subscale where both family members (t (27) = 2.25, p = 0.033) and clients (t (21) = 2.13, p = 0.045) showed a further significant effect. That is, these findings reflected a further decrease in EE on the Intrusiveness dimension across both family members and client groups. Refer also to Tables 3 and 4 for follow-up scores.
A further separate set of analyses were conducted to assess overall change from pre- treatment (i.e., pre-test1 scores) to follow-up on Total scores. Paired t-tests analyses showed significant decreases in EE for the LEE Total score for family members between pre-test1 and follow-up revealed a significant decrease in EE (t (27) = 5.36, p = 0.0005) as did the analysis of the LEE Total score for clients (t (21) = 2.88 , p = 0.009).
FQ
To assess maintenance of change or potential additional change, the nine month follow-up scores were compared initially with post-treatment scores collapsing across treatment groups.
As expected, changes in FQ indicators were maintained at follow-up As confirmation, paired-samples t-tests showed no significance between post- and follow-up on the Frequency. Bother and Control sub-scales (p’s >.05). Refer also to Table 8 for follow-up scores.
A further separate set of analyses were conducted to assess overall change from pre- treatment (i.e., pre-test1 scores) to follow-up on Total scores. Analysis of the Frequency score between pre-test and follow-up revealed a significant decrease (t (28) = 3.48, p = 0.002). Analysis of the Bother score between pre-test and follow-up revealed a significant decrease (t (27) = 4.42, p = 0.0005. Analysis of the Control score between pre-test and follow-up revealed a significant increase (t (27) = -4.994, p = 0.0005).
RELAPSE
At the 9-month follow-up, it was found that no clients had relapsed according to the criteria outlined in the Method section (i.e., no psychiatric hospitalisation during the post-test to 9- month follow-up interval as reported by clients and family members and confirmed by agency personnel).