Homelessness, Youth
Conditions
Keywords
Identity Capital, Youth, Coach, Self-Efficacy, Self-Esteem, Control, Purpose, Socioeconomic Inclusion, Homelessness, Transition
Brief summary
The idea for this study came from the research team's current study called Transitioning Youth Out of Homelessness (TYOH) 2.0, which provides coaching and a leadership guide to youth transitioning out of homelessness. Based on feedback from youth and coaches involved in that study, the research team plans to make small changes to the leadership guide and see if it works better as an in-person, four-week leadership program. All participants in this study will be invited to attend an in-person, four-week leadership program. There will be two programs running at the same time: one in St. Catharines and one in Toronto. The goal is to have 15 participants in each program. The main purpose of the study is to learn what participants think of the program. The second purpose is to see if there are changes in identity capital (feeling a sense of purpose and confidence in achieving goals) and knowledge about things that are covered in the program, when the research team compares participants' answers at the beginning and at the end of the program.
Detailed description
This project builds on the research team's current community-based randomized clinical trial (Transitioning Youth Out of Homelessness 2.0) utilizing coaching and a co-designed leadership guide to target identity capital (purpose, control, self-efficacy, and self-esteem) for youth transitioning out of homelessness (all participants are also receiving rent subsidies). Based on preliminary feedback from study youth and coaches involved in the intervention arm, the research team will modify the leadership guide and pilot it in the form of an in-person, four-week leadership program (vs. independent learning in the current study). The overarching objective of this mixed methods pilot project is to co-develop and test a strengths-based leadership program targeting identity capital for youth (16-24 years of age) transitioning out of homelessness. Specifically, the objectives are to: 1. Modify the leadership guide being used in the research team's current study so it can be delivered as an in-person leadership program. 2. Co-develop and pilot a four-week, strengths-based leadership program for young people transitioning out of homelessness. 3. Determine the feasibility and acceptability of the leadership guide when delivered as a four-week, in-person program (as opposed to independent learning in the current study). 4. Examine whether self-reported measures of identity capital and knowledge of program material show improvement immediately post-program compared to baseline. 5. Explore whether there are differences in outcomes by sub-groups (e.g., gender, age, identification as 2SLGBTQ+, child welfare involvement) and/or program participation levels. If this modified delivery of the leadership guide shows promise, the research team plans to incorporate it into a national scale-up alongside rent subsidies and coaching.
Interventions
BEHAVIORALCo-Designed Strengths-Based Leadership Program
Please see arm description.
Sponsors
Covenant House Toronto
StepStones for Youth
Resource Association for Teens
Unity Health Toronto
Study design
Allocation
NA
Intervention model
SINGLE_GROUP
Primary purpose
TREATMENT
Masking
NONE
Eligibility
Sex/Gender
ALL
Age
16 Years to 24 Years
Healthy volunteers
Yes
Inclusion criteria
Eligible young people aged 16-24 years who have transitioned out of homelessness (e.g., no longer living in a shelter or couch surfing), defined as 3 consecutive months within the past 12 months, will be identified by community partners (note: for the purpose of this study, youth living in foster care will be considered homeless). This age mandate was chosen because this is the age group served by the community partners. The research team has chosen to target the first year of exiting homelessness because collective experience has shown that this can be a particularly precarious time for youth in terms of mental health challenges and risk of (re)experiencing homelessness (even if youth have attempted exits in the past). Inclusion Criteria: * Be able to provide free and informed consent. * Be able to understand English (leadership program and data collection will be conducted in English). * Have experienced homelessness (e.g., unstable housing arrangements including shelter stays, foster care, and couch surfing) for 3 consecutive months in the past 12 months. * Be able to consistently attend the four-week leadership program.
Exclusion criteria
* Enrolled in a program or study with similar features to the TYOH 2.5 leadership program.
Design outcomes
Primary
| Measure | Time frame | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Intervention Feasibility and Acceptability (Assessed by Recruitment/Enrolment/Completion Metrics) | Assessed at T0 (pre-intervention), T1 (first day of intervention) and T2 (last day of intervention). | Quantitative measures consisting of recruitment/enrolment/completion metrics will be utilized. The recruitment rate will be estimated as the proportion of contacted individuals who express interest in participating in the study (T0). The enrolment rate will be calculated as the proportion of recruited individuals who are eligible and consent to participate in the study (T0). Participants were considered to have completed the study if they attended the final program session and completed final data collection (T2). |
| Intervention Feasibility and Acceptability (Assessed by Program Attendance) | Assessed at T2 (last day of intervention). | Program attendance was calculated as the percentage of total possible leadership program sessions attended (maximum 8 sessions). |
| Intervention Feasibility and Acceptability (Assessed by Program Feedback Questionnaire) | Assessed at T2 (last day of intervention). | This 4-item anonymous questionnaire was developed for this study to collect information about participants' view of the leadership program, the impact of the program on them, and their view of the individuals running the program. |
| Intervention Feasibility and Acceptability (Informed by Focus Groups) | Assessed at T2 (last day of intervention). | Focus group discussions (at T2) with program participants primarily centered around intervention acceptability but also explored the impact of the intervention on identity capital (e.g., sense of purpose and control) and socioeconomic inclusion (e.g., connection to broader social networks). Qualitative data analysis was conducted using reflexive thematic analysis with a critical social theoretical lens. During analysis, focus group transcripts were coded and codes were organized in a code book, clustered into categories, and eventually synthesized into key themes and sub-themes. |
Secondary
| Measure | Time frame | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Pre-post Intervention Change in Identity Capital (Assessed by Multi-Measure Agentic Personality Scale) | Assessed at T1 (first day of intervention) and T2 (last day of intervention). | The Multi-Measure Agentic Personality Scale (MAPS20) is a 20-item validated self-report measure that explores domains related to identity capital. The MAPS20 contains the following sub-scales: Self-Esteem; Purpose in Life; Internal Locus of Control; Self-Efficacy/Ego Strength. Each subscale has a score range of 5-30, with higher scores indicating greater identity capital. |
| Pre-post Intervention Change in Knowledge of Program Material | Assessed at T1 (first day of intervention) and T2 (last day of intervention). | The composite knowledge assessment scale is 16-item self-report measure that was developed for this study and explores concepts from the program curriculum, such as: mindfulness; core values; purpose; goal setting; growth mindset; identity; and courage. Reported values represent the percentage of participants who answered the question correctly (i.e., agreeing with a correct statement or disagreeing with an incorrect statement). |
Countries
Canada
Participant flow
Participants by arm
| Arm | Count |
|---|---|
| Leadership Program Participants in this group participated in an in-person, four-week, strengths-based leadership program. The program was facilitated by professional coaches with youth advisors participating as paid leadership interns. The program consisted of eight 3-hour sessions and the curriculum aimed to improve identity capital (self-esteem, sense of purpose and control, self-efficacy). | 25 |
| Total | 25 |
Withdrawals & dropouts
| Period | Reason | FG000 |
|---|---|---|
| Overall Study | Lost to Follow-up | 5 |
| Overall Study | Removed by study team | 2 |
Baseline characteristics
| Characteristic | Leadership Program |
|---|---|
| Access Food Assistance Programs No | 12 Participants |
| Access Food Assistance Programs Yes | 13 Participants |
| Adult that Provides Guidance and Encouragement No | 8 Participants |
| Adult that Provides Guidance and Encouragement Yes | 17 Participants |
| Age, Customized Age 16-18 years | 6 Participants |
| Age, Customized Age 19-21 years | 10 Participants |
| Age, Customized Age 22-24 years | 9 Participants |
| Age First Homeless 10-12 years of age | 0 Participants |
| Age First Homeless 13-15 years of age | 7 Participants |
| Age First Homeless 16-18 years of age | 10 Participants |
| Age First Homeless 19-21 years of age | 6 Participants |
| Age First Homeless 22-25 years of age | 0 Participants |
| Age First Homeless Before the age of 10 | 2 Participants |
| Attempts to Live on Own After Being Homeless 1-2 | 12 Participants |
| Attempts to Live on Own After Being Homeless 3-4 | 11 Participants |
| Attempts to Live on Own After Being Homeless 5 or more | 2 Participants |
| Attending School (Secondary or Post-Secondary) Did not specify | 1 Participants |
| Attending School (Secondary or Post-Secondary) No | 13 Participants |
| Attending School (Secondary or Post-Secondary) Yes | 11 Participants |
| Child Welfare Involvement No | 9 Participants |
| Child Welfare Involvement Yes | 16 Participants |
| Employed in Past Month Did not specify | 1 Participants |
| Employed in Past Month No | 18 Participants |
| Employed in Past Month Yes | 6 Participants |
| Highest Education Level Completed high school | 7 Participants |
| Highest Education Level Completed post-secondary | 1 Participants |
| Highest Education Level Less than grade 9 | 1 Participants |
| Highest Education Level Some high school | 11 Participants |
| Highest Education Level Some post-secondary (e.g., college, university, or vocational training after high school) | 5 Participants |
| Hours Worked Per Week in Past Month 1-20 | 3 Participants |
| Hours Worked Per Week in Past Month 21-40 | 3 Participants |
| Hours Worked Per Week in Past Month Over 40 | 0 Participants |
| Immigration Status Canadian Citizen | 19 Participants |
| Immigration Status Permanent Resident | 5 Participants |
| Immigration Status Refugee | 1 Participants |
| Job is Meaningful No | 2 Participants |
| Job is Meaningful Yes | 4 Participants |
| Participating in Training/Trades Program Did not specify | 2 Participants |
| Participating in Training/Trades Program No | 20 Participants |
| Participating in Training/Trades Program Yes | 3 Participants |
| Race/Ethnicity, Customized Race/Ethnicity Black | 5 Participants |
| Race/Ethnicity, Customized Race/Ethnicity Mixed | 8 Participants |
| Race/Ethnicity, Customized Race/Ethnicity Other | 5 Participants |
| Race/Ethnicity, Customized Race/Ethnicity White | 7 Participants |
| Receiving Social Assistance No | 1 Participants |
| Receiving Social Assistance Yes | 24 Participants |
| Regular Contact with Adult Relative No | 12 Participants |
| Regular Contact with Adult Relative Yes | 13 Participants |
| Sex/Gender, Customized Gender Boy/Man | 7 Participants |
| Sex/Gender, Customized Gender Girl/Woman | 16 Participants |
| Sex/Gender, Customized Gender Non-binary | 2 Participants |
| Sexual Orientation Did not specify | 1 Participants |
| Sexual Orientation Queer/gay/lesbian/bisexual/pansexual/questioning | 9 Participants |
| Sexual Orientation Straight/heterosexual | 15 Participants |
Adverse events
| Event type | EG000 affected / at risk |
|---|---|
| deaths Total, all-cause mortality | 0 / 25 |
| other Total, other adverse events | 0 / 25 |
| serious Total, serious adverse events | 0 / 25 |
Outcome results
Primary
Intervention Feasibility and Acceptability (Assessed by Program Attendance)
Program attendance was calculated as the percentage of total possible leadership program sessions attended (maximum 8 sessions).
Time frame: Assessed at T2 (last day of intervention).
| Arm | Measure | Value (MEAN) | Dispersion |
|---|---|---|---|
| Leadership Program | Intervention Feasibility and Acceptability (Assessed by Program Attendance) | 75.5 Percent of sessions attended | Standard Deviation 20.9 |
Primary
Intervention Feasibility and Acceptability (Assessed by Program Feedback Questionnaire)
This 4-item anonymous questionnaire was developed for this study to collect information about participants' view of the leadership program, the impact of the program on them, and their view of the individuals running the program.
Time frame: Assessed at T2 (last day of intervention).
Population: Analysis population includes participants who completed the study (i.e., attended the final program session and completed T2 data collection).
| Arm | Measure | Group | Category | Value (COUNT_OF_PARTICIPANTS) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Leadership Program | Intervention Feasibility and Acceptability (Assessed by Program Feedback Questionnaire) | I would recommend this program to my friends or other youth I know with similar experiences. | Strongly disagree | 0 Participants |
| Leadership Program | Intervention Feasibility and Acceptability (Assessed by Program Feedback Questionnaire) | I would recommend this program to my friends or other youth I know with similar experiences. | Disagree | 0 Participants |
| Leadership Program | Intervention Feasibility and Acceptability (Assessed by Program Feedback Questionnaire) | I would recommend this program to my friends or other youth I know with similar experiences. | Agree | 8 Participants |
| Leadership Program | Intervention Feasibility and Acceptability (Assessed by Program Feedback Questionnaire) | Participating in this program has made a difference in my day-to-day life. | Slightly agree | 2 Participants |
| Leadership Program | Intervention Feasibility and Acceptability (Assessed by Program Feedback Questionnaire) | Participating in this program has made a difference in my day-to-day life. | Agree | 5 Participants |
| Leadership Program | Intervention Feasibility and Acceptability (Assessed by Program Feedback Questionnaire) | Participating in this program has made a difference in my day-to-day life. | Strongly agree | 10 Participants |
| Leadership Program | Intervention Feasibility and Acceptability (Assessed by Program Feedback Questionnaire) | I would recommend this program to my friends or other youth I know with similar experiences. | Slightly disagree | 0 Participants |
| Leadership Program | Intervention Feasibility and Acceptability (Assessed by Program Feedback Questionnaire) | I would recommend this program to my friends or other youth I know with similar experiences. | Slightly agree | 1 Participants |
| Leadership Program | Intervention Feasibility and Acceptability (Assessed by Program Feedback Questionnaire) | I would recommend this program to my friends or other youth I know with similar experiences. | Strongly agree | 9 Participants |
| Leadership Program | Intervention Feasibility and Acceptability (Assessed by Program Feedback Questionnaire) | The coaches and staff were knowledgeable about the program material. | Strongly disagree | 0 Participants |
| Leadership Program | Intervention Feasibility and Acceptability (Assessed by Program Feedback Questionnaire) | The coaches and staff were knowledgeable about the program material. | Disagree | 0 Participants |
| Leadership Program | Intervention Feasibility and Acceptability (Assessed by Program Feedback Questionnaire) | The coaches and staff were knowledgeable about the program material. | Slightly disagree | 0 Participants |
| Leadership Program | Intervention Feasibility and Acceptability (Assessed by Program Feedback Questionnaire) | The coaches and staff were knowledgeable about the program material. | Slightly agree | 0 Participants |
| Leadership Program | Intervention Feasibility and Acceptability (Assessed by Program Feedback Questionnaire) | The coaches and staff were knowledgeable about the program material. | Agree | 8 Participants |
| Leadership Program | Intervention Feasibility and Acceptability (Assessed by Program Feedback Questionnaire) | The coaches and staff were knowledgeable about the program material. | Strongly agree | 10 Participants |
| Leadership Program | Intervention Feasibility and Acceptability (Assessed by Program Feedback Questionnaire) | The coaches and staff were effective facilitators. | Strongly disagree | 0 Participants |
| Leadership Program | Intervention Feasibility and Acceptability (Assessed by Program Feedback Questionnaire) | The coaches and staff were effective facilitators. | Disagree | 0 Participants |
| Leadership Program | Intervention Feasibility and Acceptability (Assessed by Program Feedback Questionnaire) | The coaches and staff were effective facilitators. | Slightly disagree | 1 Participants |
| Leadership Program | Intervention Feasibility and Acceptability (Assessed by Program Feedback Questionnaire) | The coaches and staff were effective facilitators. | Slightly agree | 0 Participants |
| Leadership Program | Intervention Feasibility and Acceptability (Assessed by Program Feedback Questionnaire) | The coaches and staff were effective facilitators. | Agree | 7 Participants |
| Leadership Program | Intervention Feasibility and Acceptability (Assessed by Program Feedback Questionnaire) | The coaches and staff were effective facilitators. | Strongly agree | 10 Participants |
| Leadership Program | Intervention Feasibility and Acceptability (Assessed by Program Feedback Questionnaire) | Participating in this program has made a difference in my day-to-day life. | Strongly disagree | 0 Participants |
| Leadership Program | Intervention Feasibility and Acceptability (Assessed by Program Feedback Questionnaire) | Participating in this program has made a difference in my day-to-day life. | Disagree | 1 Participants |
| Leadership Program | Intervention Feasibility and Acceptability (Assessed by Program Feedback Questionnaire) | Participating in this program has made a difference in my day-to-day life. | Slightly disagree | 0 Participants |
Primary
Intervention Feasibility and Acceptability (Assessed by Recruitment/Enrolment/Completion Metrics)
Quantitative measures consisting of recruitment/enrolment/completion metrics will be utilized. The recruitment rate will be estimated as the proportion of contacted individuals who express interest in participating in the study (T0). The enrolment rate will be calculated as the proportion of recruited individuals who are eligible and consent to participate in the study (T0). Participants were considered to have completed the study if they attended the final program session and completed final data collection (T2).
Time frame: Assessed at T0 (pre-intervention), T1 (first day of intervention) and T2 (last day of intervention).
Population: Analysis population includes all participants screened for study eligibility.
| Arm | Measure | Group | Value (COUNT_OF_PARTICIPANTS) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Leadership Program | Intervention Feasibility and Acceptability (Assessed by Recruitment/Enrolment/Completion Metrics) | Screened | 35 Participants |
| Leadership Program | Intervention Feasibility and Acceptability (Assessed by Recruitment/Enrolment/Completion Metrics) | Enrolled | 25 Participants |
| Leadership Program | Intervention Feasibility and Acceptability (Assessed by Recruitment/Enrolment/Completion Metrics) | Completed Study | 18 Participants |
Primary
Intervention Feasibility and Acceptability (Informed by Focus Groups)
Focus group discussions (at T2) with program participants primarily centered around intervention acceptability but also explored the impact of the intervention on identity capital (e.g., sense of purpose and control) and socioeconomic inclusion (e.g., connection to broader social networks). Qualitative data analysis was conducted using reflexive thematic analysis with a critical social theoretical lens. During analysis, focus group transcripts were coded and codes were organized in a code book, clustered into categories, and eventually synthesized into key themes and sub-themes.
Time frame: Assessed at T2 (last day of intervention).
Population: Analysis population includes participants who completed the study (i.e., attended the final program session and completed T2 data collection).
| Arm | Measure | Group | Value (NUMBER) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Leadership Program | Intervention Feasibility and Acceptability (Informed by Focus Groups) | Key Themes | 3 Themes |
| Leadership Program | Intervention Feasibility and Acceptability (Informed by Focus Groups) | Sub-themes | 7 Themes |
Secondary
Pre-post Intervention Change in Identity Capital (Assessed by Multi-Measure Agentic Personality Scale)
The Multi-Measure Agentic Personality Scale (MAPS20) is a 20-item validated self-report measure that explores domains related to identity capital. The MAPS20 contains the following sub-scales: Self-Esteem; Purpose in Life; Internal Locus of Control; Self-Efficacy/Ego Strength. Each subscale has a score range of 5-30, with higher scores indicating greater identity capital.
Time frame: Assessed at T1 (first day of intervention) and T2 (last day of intervention).
Population: T2 analysis population includes participants who completed the study (i.e., attended the final program session and completed T2 data collection).
| Arm | Measure | Group | Value (MEAN) | Dispersion |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Leadership Program | Pre-post Intervention Change in Identity Capital (Assessed by Multi-Measure Agentic Personality Scale) | Self-Esteem (T1) | 20.3 Score on a Scale | Standard Deviation 4 |
| Leadership Program | Pre-post Intervention Change in Identity Capital (Assessed by Multi-Measure Agentic Personality Scale) | Purpose in Life (T1) | 18.8 Score on a Scale | Standard Deviation 4.8 |
| Leadership Program | Pre-post Intervention Change in Identity Capital (Assessed by Multi-Measure Agentic Personality Scale) | Locus of Control (T1) | 20.8 Score on a Scale | Standard Deviation 2.9 |
| Leadership Program | Pre-post Intervention Change in Identity Capital (Assessed by Multi-Measure Agentic Personality Scale) | Self-Efficacy (T1) | 20.6 Score on a Scale | Standard Deviation 4 |
| Leadership Program | Pre-post Intervention Change in Identity Capital (Assessed by Multi-Measure Agentic Personality Scale) | Self-Esteem (T2) | 21.9 Score on a Scale | Standard Deviation 4.4 |
| Leadership Program | Pre-post Intervention Change in Identity Capital (Assessed by Multi-Measure Agentic Personality Scale) | Purpose in Life (T2) | 20.2 Score on a Scale | Standard Deviation 5.4 |
| Leadership Program | Pre-post Intervention Change in Identity Capital (Assessed by Multi-Measure Agentic Personality Scale) | Locus of Control (T2) | 20.6 Score on a Scale | Standard Deviation 3.8 |
| Leadership Program | Pre-post Intervention Change in Identity Capital (Assessed by Multi-Measure Agentic Personality Scale) | Self-Efficacy (T2) | 19.0 Score on a Scale | Standard Deviation 4.2 |
Comparison: Paired t-tests were conducted to compare T1 and T2 Self-Esteem (MAPS20 subscale) scores. This analysis included participants who completed both T1 and T2 data collection (n = 18).p-value: 0.0011t-test, 2 sided
Comparison: Paired t-tests were conducted to compare T1 and T2 Purpose in Life (MAPS20 subscale) scores. This analysis included participants who completed both T1 and T2 data collection (n = 18).p-value: 0.0719t-test, 2 sided
Comparison: Paired t-tests were conducted to compare T1 and T2 Locus of Control (MAPS20 subscale) scores. This analysis included participants who completed both T1 and T2 data collection (n = 18).p-value: 0.7991t-test, 2 sided
Comparison: Paired t-tests were conducted to compare T1 and T2 Self-Efficacy (MAPS20 subscale) scores. This analysis included participants who completed both T1 and T2 data collection (n = 18).p-value: 0.2208t-test, 2 sided
Comparison: We conducted an exploratory, descriptive analysis investigating the relationship between leadership program attendance and identity capital at T2, accounting for T1 scores (MAPS20 subscale: Self-Esteem). This analysis included participants who completed both T1 and T2 data collection (n = 18). We calculated the Spearman correlation coefficient only. Power calculation does not apply for this analysis.
Comparison: We conducted an exploratory, descriptive analysis investigating the relationship between leadership program attendance and identity capital at T2, accounting for T1 scores (MAPS20 subscale: Purpose in Life). This analysis included participants who completed both T1 and T2 data collection (n = 18). We calculated the Spearman correlation coefficient only. Power calculation does not apply for this analysis.
Comparison: We conducted an exploratory, descriptive analysis investigating the relationship between leadership program attendance and identity capital at T2, accounting for T1 scores (MAPS20 subscale: Locus of Control). This analysis included participants who completed both T1 and T2 data collection (n = 18). We calculated the Spearman correlation coefficient only. Power calculation does not apply for this analysis.
Comparison: We conducted an exploratory, descriptive analysis investigating the relationship between leadership program attendance and identity capital at T2, accounting for T1 scores (MAPS20 subscale: Self-Efficacy). This analysis included participants who completed both T1 and T2 data collection (n = 18). We calculated the Spearman correlation coefficient only. Power calculation does not apply for this analysis.
Secondary
Pre-post Intervention Change in Knowledge of Program Material
The composite knowledge assessment scale is 16-item self-report measure that was developed for this study and explores concepts from the program curriculum, such as: mindfulness; core values; purpose; goal setting; growth mindset; identity; and courage. Reported values represent the percentage of participants who answered the question correctly (i.e., agreeing with a correct statement or disagreeing with an incorrect statement).
Time frame: Assessed at T1 (first day of intervention) and T2 (last day of intervention).
Population: T2 analysis population includes participants who completed the study (i.e., attended the final program session and completed T2 data collection).
| Arm | Measure | Group | Value (NUMBER) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Leadership Program | Pre-post Intervention Change in Knowledge of Program Material | I am confident about my ability to be in the driver's seat in my car of life. (T1) | 76.0 Percentage of participants |
| Leadership Program | Pre-post Intervention Change in Knowledge of Program Material | I can name at least one strategy that I consistently use to help me accomplish my daily tasks. (T1) | 88.0 Percentage of participants |
| Leadership Program | Pre-post Intervention Change in Knowledge of Program Material | It is more important to focus on what you want to achieve than who you wish to become. (T1) | 40.0 Percentage of participants |
| Leadership Program | Pre-post Intervention Change in Knowledge of Program Material | I have a good understanding of how my brain becomes anxious. (T1) | 87.5 Percentage of participants |
| Leadership Program | Pre-post Intervention Change in Knowledge of Program Material | I am confident in my purpose and why it is important in my life. (T1) | 80.0 Percentage of participants |
| Leadership Program | Pre-post Intervention Change in Knowledge of Program Material | People who believe they are worthy of love/belonging have an easier time showing vulnerability. (T1) | 100.0 Percentage of participants |
| Leadership Program | Pre-post Intervention Change in Knowledge of Program Material | I have a good understanding of how to create an environment that helps me achieve my goals. (T1) | 84.0 Percentage of participants |
| Leadership Program | Pre-post Intervention Change in Knowledge of Program Material | I have a hard time naming things around me that have contributed to my habits. (T1) | 56.0 Percentage of participants |
| Leadership Program | Pre-post Intervention Change in Knowledge of Program Material | I am confident that I have the knowledge/skills to speak back to feelings of shame. (T1) | 76.0 Percentage of participants |
| Leadership Program | Pre-post Intervention Change in Knowledge of Program Material | I can easily name my core values. (T1) | 84.0 Percentage of participants |
| Leadership Program | Pre-post Intervention Change in Knowledge of Program Material | When creating a new habit (e.g., exercising) it is important to stop while it still feels good. (T1) | 41.7 Percentage of participants |
| Leadership Program | Pre-post Intervention Change in Knowledge of Program Material | Your intelligence is something very basic about you that you can't change very much. (T1) | 72.0 Percentage of participants |
| Leadership Program | Pre-post Intervention Change in Knowledge of Program Material | It is more important to strive for excellence than perfection. (T1) | 84.0 Percentage of participants |
| Leadership Program | Pre-post Intervention Change in Knowledge of Program Material | You need to connect with others before you can connect with yourself. (T1) | 62.5 Percentage of participants |
| Leadership Program | Pre-post Intervention Change in Knowledge of Program Material | Interdependence is an important part of self-leadership. (T1) | 87.5 Percentage of participants |
| Leadership Program | Pre-post Intervention Change in Knowledge of Program Material | I am confident about my ability to be in the driver's seat in my car of life. (T2) | 83.3 Percentage of participants |
| Leadership Program | Pre-post Intervention Change in Knowledge of Program Material | I can name at least one strategy that I consistently use to help me accomplish my daily tasks. (T2) | 94.4 Percentage of participants |
| Leadership Program | Pre-post Intervention Change in Knowledge of Program Material | It is more important to focus on what you want to achieve than who you wish to become. (T2) | 29.4 Percentage of participants |
| Leadership Program | Pre-post Intervention Change in Knowledge of Program Material | I have a good understanding of how my brain becomes anxious. (T2) | 100.0 Percentage of participants |
| Leadership Program | Pre-post Intervention Change in Knowledge of Program Material | I am confident in my purpose and why it is important in my life. (T2) | 94.4 Percentage of participants |
| Leadership Program | Pre-post Intervention Change in Knowledge of Program Material | People who believe they are worthy of love/belonging have an easier time showing vulnerability. (T2) | 83.3 Percentage of participants |
| Leadership Program | Pre-post Intervention Change in Knowledge of Program Material | I am not very confident about knowing how to get my wise mind in control. (T2) | 55.6 Percentage of participants |
| Leadership Program | Pre-post Intervention Change in Knowledge of Program Material | I have a good understanding of how to create an environment that helps me achieve my goals. (T2) | 88.9 Percentage of participants |
| Leadership Program | Pre-post Intervention Change in Knowledge of Program Material | I have a hard time naming things around me that have contributed to my habits. (T2) | 83.3 Percentage of participants |
| Leadership Program | Pre-post Intervention Change in Knowledge of Program Material | I am confident that I have the knowledge/skills to speak back to feelings of shame. (T2) | 82.4 Percentage of participants |
| Leadership Program | Pre-post Intervention Change in Knowledge of Program Material | I can easily name my core values. (T2) | 100.0 Percentage of participants |
| Leadership Program | Pre-post Intervention Change in Knowledge of Program Material | Your intelligence is something very basic about you that you can't change very much. (T2) | 32.2 Percentage of participants |
| Leadership Program | Pre-post Intervention Change in Knowledge of Program Material | It is more important to strive for excellence than perfection. (T2) | 94.4 Percentage of participants |
| Leadership Program | Pre-post Intervention Change in Knowledge of Program Material | You need to connect with others before you can connect with yourself. (T2) | 77.8 Percentage of participants |
| Leadership Program | Pre-post Intervention Change in Knowledge of Program Material | Interdependence is an important part of self-leadership. (T2) | 88.9 Percentage of participants |
| Leadership Program | Pre-post Intervention Change in Knowledge of Program Material | I am not very confident about knowing how to get my wise mind in control. (T1) | 52.0 Percentage of participants |
| Leadership Program | Pre-post Intervention Change in Knowledge of Program Material | When creating a new habit (e.g., exercising) it is important to stop while it still feels good. (T2) | 72.2 Percentage of participants |