This page summarises results for a number of projects.

Global Benchmark Report

Sample program results

Vancouver, B.C.

Data for our 3 groups totalling 34 participants point to the same impact trends as our other Now & Next programs (see Global Benchmark Report above), with high participants goal achievement and increases in Empowerment, Hope and Wellbeing. 

Post program outcomes

• Completion rate: very high in the disability sector and congruent with our Global Benchmark 

• Sense of Meaning:  Individual analyses following changes in meaning impact will support future program contents

• Happiness increase: a short term impact that we will follow over time

Goal analysis

Goal examples

• Skill development: Cooking meals 

• Health & fitness: Practice a sport

• Social/Friendships/Romantic relationships: Invite a potential partner on a date

• Education: Improve maths results in order to finish school

• Career: Get a job, check pay rate

• Leisure: Visit new places

Overview graph

Results follow our Global Benchmark Report trends. We are starting to reach significance for some comparisons. Other comparisons do not reach significant levels because of the small group size.

Reference: Luthans, F., & Avolio, B. J. (2014). Brief summary of psychological capital and introduction to the special issue. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 21(2), 125-129.

There is no specific data on Life Satisfaction scores for Canadian people with support needs. 

Using the same reporting scale, our participants start off at 6.9 before the program (same as the Canadian population average of  6.96) but end the program with an average of 7.3

Incorporating gamification into teaching is particularly effective during adolescence, and can leverage aspects of adolescent brain development:

• Reward Systems and the Dopamine Response: The adolescent brain is highly responsive to rewards due to the development of the reward system. Gamification often involves reward systems, such as earning points, badges, or progressing to higher levels. These elements can trigger the release of dopamine, a neurotransmitter associated with pleasure and motivation, making the learning experience more engaging and enjoyable.

• Intrinsic Motivation: Adolescents are driven by a growing sense of autonomy and the desire to make meaningful choices. Gamification allows for increased autonomy in learning, as students can often choose paths, activities, or challenges. This taps into their intrinsic motivation, fostering a sense of ownership and engagement in the learning process.

• Challenge and Risk-Taking: Adolescents are naturally inclined toward taking risks and seeking challenges. Gamification provides a structured environment where students can take risks in a safe and controlled manner. Challenges, quests, or problem-solving activities in a game-like setting can align with the adolescent brain's tendency to seek novelty and excitement.

• Social Interaction and Collaboration: The adolescent brain is highly attuned to social interactions. Gamification can incorporate social elements such as teamwork, competition, or collaborative problem-solving. Multiplayer or team-based games can facilitate peer interaction, encouraging communication and collaboration.

• Immediate Feedback: Adolescents benefit from immediate feedback, as their brains are still developing executive functions related to decision-making and self-regulation. Gamification often provides instant feedback on performance, helping students understand the consequences of their actions and promoting self-reflection. 

• Storytelling and Narrative Engagement: The adolescent brain is drawn to narratives and storytelling. Gamification often involves creating a storyline or narrative context for learning activities. This can enhance engagement by providing a meaningful context for the content being taught.

• Variety and Novelty: The adolescent brain craves variety and novelty. Gamification introduces diversity in learning experiences, keeping students interested and preventing monotony. This aligns with the adolescent brain's natural inclination to explore and seek out new experiences.

• Goal Setting and Achievement: Adolescents are often motivated by goals and achievements. Gamification allows for the setting of clear objectives and milestones, providing a sense of accomplishment when goals are met. This can contribute to a positive learning experience and the development of a growth mindset.

Researcher colleagues often ask us for the references of the survey tools that we recommend to measure intervention impact in peer support groups... here are some of our favourites:

1. Wellbeing PERMAH tool

Reference: Butler, J., & Kern, M. L. (2016). The PERMA-Profiler: A brief multidimensional measure of flourishing. International Journal of Wellbeing, 6(3). Tool: https://lnkd.in/gJ3Ypwvj

The PERMAH profiler is a 23-item measure specifically designed to assess PERMA (positive emotions, engagement, relationships, meaning, and accomplishment). The Profiler also includes items capturing negative emotions, physical health, loneliness, and overall wellbeing.

2. Psychological Empowerment Scale (PES) For families of children with disabilities #PsychologicalEmpowerment

Reference: Akey, T. M. ,Marquis, J. G., Ross, M. E. (2000).Validation of scores on the psychological empowerment scale: A measure of empowerment for parents of children with a disability. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 60(3), 419-438. Tool: https://lnkd.in/gwcG72_Y

Questions ask about feeling isolated from other parents, feeling a sense of community with other parents of children with disabilities, emotional support by other parents, and that there are other parents that can be counted for help when needed. Community support scores range from 0 (unsupported) to 10 (well supported).

3. Hope: Adult Hope Scale (AHS) tool- #hope

Reference: Snyder, C. R., Harris, C., Anderson, J. R., Holleran, S. A., Irving, L. M., Sigmon, S. T., et al.(1991). The will and the ways: Development and validation of an individual-differences measure of hope. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 570-585. Tool: https://lnkd.in/gigD6ceA

The AHS includes 12 items that assess pathways (planning to meet goals), agency (goal-directed energy), and overall hope. Items are measured on a scale from 0 (definitely false) to 8 (definitely true). Higher scores indicate higher levels of pathways, agency, and hope.

4. Partners in Change Outcome Measures (PCOM)

Reference: Duncan, B. & Reese, R.J. (2015). The Partners for Change Outcome Management System: The client’s frame of reference revisited. Psychotherapy: Theory, Research, Practice, Training, 52, 391–401. #2022virtualpeersupport

5. Cantril's Ladder for Life satisfaction

Reference: Cantril, H. (1965). The pattern of human concerns. Rutgers University Press.

Life satisfaction items capture community support, optimism, coping, feelings of struggle, competence, and confidence in supporting one’s own and others’ wellbeing. All items are measured on a scale from 0 (not at all) to 10 (completely). In most cases, higher scores indicate higher levels of wellbeing. Low scores on Negative emotions, loneliness, and struggle items indicate a higher level of wellbeing.

6. Peterson, C., & Seligman, M. E. (2004). Character strengths and virtues: A handbook and classification (Vol. 1). Oxford University Press.

In the early 2000s, Miller (2014) and his colleagues formed the Partners for Change Outcome Management System (PCOMS) in the United States of America (USA). PCOMS is often referred to as an evidence-based method or outcome measurement system, which provides a model for continuous monitoring and response in counselling services (Duncan, 2012a; Miller, Duncan, et al., 2005). PCOMS involves the use of two simple four-item visual analogue scales to collect client responses: The Outcome Rating Scale (ORS), used at the start of a treatment session; and the Session Rating Scale (SRS), used at the end (Miller, Duncan, et al., 2005).These data are used to enable Feedback-Informed Treatment (FIT), an approach that uses clients’ comments about the therapeutic relationship and outcomes to inform, adapt and improve services (PCOMS, 2014).

The Outcome Rating Scale (ORS) (Miller, Duncan, Brown, Sparks, & Claud, 2003) comprises four visual analogue scales. These require participants to indicate, on a 10 cm line, their progress in the previous week in four domains: “individual”, “interpersonal”, “social” and “overall”. The first three items measure wellbeing individually (personal wellbeing), interpersonally (family, close relationships) and socially (work, school, friendships), while the fourth item measures overall wellbeing (Miller & Bargmann, 2012; Miller, Duncan, et al., 2005).

The ORS was developed by Miller, Duncan, Brown, Sparks and Claud (2003) as a brief substitute for the much longer Outcome Questionnaire 45.2 (OQ-45.2); a validated and widely used scale (Lambert et al., 1996). In a preliminary study involving a clinical sample of 435 clients of a community family service in South Florida, USA and a nonclinical sample of 86 people working at that service (78 postgraduate students, and nine therapists and staff), the authors reported internal consistency (coefficient alpha .87 to .96), reliability (coefficient alpha .93) and a moderate level of concurrent validity (Pearson’s r .59) of the ORS Miller et al., 2003). Although its test-retest reliability was significantly lower than that of OQ-45.2, they concluded that the ORS offered “a balanced trade-off between the reliability and validity of the longer measures, and the feasibility of” a brief scale (Miller et al., 2003, p. 91). In a replication study also based in the USA, Bringhurst, Watson, Miller and Duncan (2006) used a nonclinical sample of 98 university students to confirm concurrent validity of the ORS though comparison with the OQ-45.2 using correlation statistics. Their findings showed that the ORS had high test-retest reliability, strong internal consistency and moderate concurrent validity.

A general sense of the participant’s wellbeing is derived by measuring, to the nearest centimetre, the length of each scale indicated by participants and then summing up the scores. The clinical cut-off for scores on the ORS is 25, and scores below this are suggestive of participant distress, although it is not uncommon for mandated clients’ initial scores to be higher (under these circumstances, it may be more useful to ask participants to complete the ORS from the perspective of their case manager or other referrer to the program). Repeat administration of the ORS also allows facilitators to track self-reported wellbeing over the course of a program, with changes in scores of 5 or more during treatment, in either direction, considered reliable.

References from here and Miller, S. D., Duncan, B. L., Brown, J., Sparks, J., & Claud, D. (2003). The outcome rating scale: A preliminary study of the reliability, validity, and feasibility of a brief visual analog measure. Journal of Brief Therapy, 2(2), 91-100.

Cantril's Ladder for Life satisfaction, also known as Cantril's Self-Anchoring Ladder of Life Satisfaction, or the Cantril Ladder of Life, measures life satisfaction by first asking the respondent to imagine their life in the best possible light and to describe their hopes and wishes for the future.