World Journal of AIDS, 2013, 3, 57-65
http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/wja.2013.31008 Published Online March 2013 (http://www.scirp.org/journal/wja)
57
The Analysis of an HIV and AIDS Empowering Group
Work Programme for Adolescents: A Quantitative
Evaluation
K. Olivier1, H. Strydom2
1Social Worker in Private Practice, Leeudoringstad, South Africa; 2Potchefstroom Campus of the North-West University, Potchef-
stroom, South Africa.
Received January 11th, 2013; revised February 21st, 2013; accepted February 28th, 2013
ABSTRACT
In this article an HIV and AIDS group work programme empowering adolescents to deal with the possible death of their
parents/caregivers will be evaluated in a quantitative fashion. The data were obtained by means of the Child Function-
ing Inventory High School (CFI-HIGH) developed by Perspective Training College and the Generalized Contentment
Scale (GCS) of Hudson (Bloom et al., 1999: 220). The guidelines for selection and inclusion of respondents in the com-
parison and experimental groups will be discussed, followed by information on the measuring instruments. The article
will conclude with conclusions and recommendations.
Keywords: Evaluation; HIV and AIDS; Empowering Group Work Programme; Adolescents
1. Introduction
The aim of this article is to evaluate and determine the
quantitative effect of a compiled group work programme
on adolescents from households infected with and af-
fected by HIV and AIDS. This programme is based on
the following theoretical assumption: adolescents can be
empowered to deal with the possible death of their par-
ents/caregivers by means of an HIV and AIDS group
work programme. The empowerment of adolescents th-
rough this programme includes aspects such as a heal-
thy lifestyle, identity and self-esteem, roles and relation-
ships, effective communication, assertiveness, and con-
flict management. Other aspects included are problem
solving, decision making and time management, coping
with stress and emotions, orientation to and implications
of AIDS, spirituality and death as a reality, bereavement,
financial security and planning for the future.
2. Problem Statement
Responses to adolescents affected by HIV and AIDS
should address their needs [1] and programme develop-
ment must be done in response to adolescents’ needs via
their active participation in the entire process [2]. The
exploration of these needs should form the foundation of
an effectively designed group work programme to act in
the best interest of the adolescent [2,3]. For adolescents
to reach their optimal potential as adults, it is important
that they should be guided through a programme em-
powering them with skills within their specific circum-
stances [4].
To determine whether the designed empowering group
work programme as a social intervention has produced
the intended results, it is necessary to evaluate it [5].
Programme evaluation includes the systematic collection
of information on programme activities, characteristics
and outcomes of the programme to make judgements
concerning the programme, improvement of programme
effectiveness and making suggestions regarding the fu-
ture use of the programme. In the evaluation of a pro-
gramme as a potential method, it should be borne in mind
that it should produce the information required to assess
the programme’s progress towards achieving its desired
outcomes [6].
3. Objective
The objective of this article was to evaluate the effec-
tiveness of the developed empowering group work pro-
gramme by way of standardised measuring instruments
in order to focus on the quantitative findings of this stu-
dy.
4. Research Methodology
The intervention research model (D & D) was utilised for
this study. D & D is a phase model consisting of six

The Analysis of an HIV and AIDS Empowering Group Work Programme for Adolescents: A Quantitative Evaluation
58
phases [7]. The fifth phase of this model, namely evalua-
tion and advanced development, was utilised. For the
experiment the comparison group pretest-posttest design
was utilized [8]. This design includes two groups, namely
the experimental group and the comparison group. Ac-
cording to this design only the experimental group re-
ceived the programme, with the same before and after
test for both groups, which were the Child Functioning
Inventory High School (CFI-HIGH) [9] and the General-
ized Contentment Scale (GCS) [10].
Although the assignment to the groups was done ran-
domly as with the classic experimental design [11], the
groups can never be exactly the same and therefore will
be regarded as an experimental and comparative group
[12]. The mentioned standardized measuring instruments
were utilized in the process of the evaluation of the group
work programme [13]. The aim of this experiment was to
determine whether the application of an empowering
group work programme had an influence on the adoles-
cent’s functioning as part of a household infected with or
affected by HIV and AIDS.
A total of 24 adolescents were selected by means of
accidental sampling [14]. Only 16 of these adolescents
were available after the initial sampling to conduct this
research. All of these 16 adolescents met the criteria for
inclusion in the experiment, being adolescents (12 to 18
years) showing willingness to participate in the total pro-
gramme and who are from households infected with or
affected by HIV and AIDS where all of them had a parent
or caretaker who is infected with HIV or is already ill
due to AIDS or those adolescents who have already lost a
parent(s) to AIDS. These 16 adolescents were then di-
vided into 2 groups with age and gender as main criteria
to have two as identical as possible groups. One group
was then selected randomly as the comparison group and
the other as the experi mental group.
As ethical consideration, the comparison group was
informed that they would be afforded the opportunity to
undergo the same group work programme as the experi-
mental group once the last-mentioned group had com-
pleted it. This is to give all participants equal access to an
empowering opportunity, namely that participation in a
research project should be a learning experience for all
concerned [15].
The quantitative data in this study was statistically
computed with SAS [16]. The results were interpreted,
inferences made and conclusions drawn. The practical
significance of results is not only important when results
of the population data are reported but also for com-
menting on the practical significance of a statistically
significant result [17].
5. Evaluation by Means of Child Functioning
Inventory High School (CFI-HIGH)
The Child Functioning Inventory High School (CFI-
HIGH) was administered in pre- and post-testing as part
of the quantitative evaluation. The CFI-HIGH is a stan-
dardized pen-and-paper self-reporting measuring instru-
ment that can be utilized to evaluate the general func-
tioning of children of high school age (adolescents) re-
garding various aspects. The following areas of personal
functioning are included: Positive functioning areas (in-
cluding perseverance, satisfaction, future perspective),
Self-perception (including anxiety, guilt feelings, lack of
self-worth, isolation, responsibility for others, lack of
assertiveness), Trauma dynamics (including memory loss,
frustration, helplessness, attitude towards adults, mistrust,
stigma, body image, personal boundaries, school prob-
lems), Relationships (including relationship with friends,
relationship with mother, relationship with father, rela-
tionship with family), Decision making skills (including
independency, responsibility).
5.1. Reliability of the CFI-HIGH
The Cronbach Alpha coefficient is a criterion to deter-
mine the internal consistency of a measuring instrument
[18]. The reliability of the CFI-HIGH of Perspective was
calculated with Cronbach Alfa coefficient. Huysamen [18]
points out that a reliability coefficient as low as 0.6 can
be considered acceptable for making decisions regarding
groups. Four of the constructs were found to be not reli-
able with reliability coefficients that were below 0.5. The
constructs of the CFI-HIGH measuring anxiety, respon-
sibility, relationships with friends and independency, can
thus not be accepted as reliable. The constructs of the
CFI-HIGH measuring perseverance, satisfaction, future
perspective, guilt feelings, lack of self-worth, isolation,
lack of assertiveness, memory loss, frustration, helpless-
ness, attitude towards adults, mistrust, stigma, body im-
age, personal boundaries, school problems, relationship
with mother, relationship with father, relationship with
family and responsibility were found to be reliable with
reliability coefficients that varied between 0.57 and 0.90.
5.2. Pre- and Post-Testing
Both the comparison and experimental groups were re-
quested to complete the CFI-HIGH one week before the
onset of the group work programme. After the pre-testing,
only the experimental group was exposed to the group
work programme consisting of 12 sessions presented
over a period of six weeks. The post-test was conducted
by requesting both the experimental and the comparison
group to complete the CFI-HIGH once again. This
post-testing took place one week after the experimental
group had completed the group work programme. Be-
cause of the small sample size, the tests might not have
had enough power to indicate statistical significance on a
5% level of significance, and effect sizes will be used as
an indication of the practical significance of differences.

The Analysis of an HIV and AIDS Empowering Group Work Programme for Adolescents: A Quantitative Evaluation
59
The results are expounded in Table 1.
5.3. Pre- and Post-Test Results
5.3.1. Res ults after Pre-Testing
After pre-testing, the p-value (P) of the grouping of the
experimental and comparison group regarding all the
constructs measured >0.05. P-values > 0.05 indicate that
the two groups did not differ statistically significantly on
a 5% significance level at this point with regard to these
constructs. The effect-size (D) of the test between groups
(after pre-testing) regarding future perspective, guilt
feelings, lack of self-worth, lack of assertiveness, mem-
ory loss, helplessness, mistrust, stigma, relationship with
father, relationship with family and responsibility were
found to be >0.4, which indicates a medium visible and
significant difference and an effect size >0.8 indicates
that there is a large visibly to practically significant dif-
ference between the two groups regarding these con-
structs before the experimental group was exposed to the
programme, with the experimental group being better.
The effect-size (D) of the test between groups (after pre-
testing) regarding isolation, frustration, attitude towards
adults, body image, personal boundaries, school prob-
lems and relationship with mother was found to be <0.4,
which indicates an insignificant difference between the
two groups regarding these constructs before the experi-
mental group was exposed to the programme.
5.3.2. Res ults after Post-Tes t i n g
 Within experimental group
After post-testing, the p-value (P) of the experimental
gr oup regarding the constructs of satisfaction, guilt feelings
Table 1. Results of pre- and post-testing of CFI-HIGH.
Experimental group Comparison grou p Ancova
Pre-Test Post-Test Test with
in group Pre-Test Post-Test Test with in group
Test between
groups
Average Standard
deviation Aveage Standard deviation P D Average Standard deviation Average Standard deviation P D P-value Effect-size
Perseverance 85.1 20.0 92.5 13.2 0.17050.3760.1 24.3 63.5 22.1 0.2849 0.14 0.0616−1.19
Satisfaction 74.3 17.9 87.4 12.3 0.00930.7357.9 20.6 55.O 19.6 0.2742 −0.14 0.00042.58
Future
perspective 70.6 19.9 74.3 11.0 0.55570.1950.1 18.5 46.9 15.5 0.3566 −0.17 0.00941.74
Guilt feelings 28.8 25.7 18.0 17.9 0.0176−0.4242.0 22.3 42.8 17.3 0.7416 0.04 <0.0001 3.28
Lack of
self-worth 19.1 15.9 9.9 9.6 0.0460−0.5836.3 22.1 34.5 24.4 0.5062 −0.08 0.06421.12
Isolation 43.6 20.5 40.1 15.5 0.3001−0.1741.3 20.1 41.4 22.2 0.9581 0.00 0.39830.45
Lack of
assertiveness 29.4 22.9 19.8 20.6 0.0705−0.4240.4 23.3 41.1 22.6 0.7043 0.03 0.02711.27
Memory loss 23.9 28.5 13.9 18.5 0.1460−0.3535.9 22.8 39.9 24.9 0.2524 0.18 0.01601.39
Frustration 28.1 26.7 14.9 11.1 0.2003−0.4938.8 29.8 39.3 33.1 0.8679 0.02 0.06970.97
Helplessness 33.9 26.5 21.0 13.8 0.1038−0.4946.4 19.9 46.8 23.9 0.8904 0.02 0.01901.34
Attitude
towards adults 23.5 26.6 15.3 12.6 0.2619−0.3133.6 21.8 35.4 19.2 0.4496 0.08 0.01051.48
Mistrust 45.4 12.7 32.5 7.1 0.0362−1.0253.4 7.4 51.0 9.5 0.1572 −0.32 0.00272.00
Stigma 44.5 26.6 31.6 18.5 0.0685−0.4857.8 17.1 60.5 15.7 0.2846 0.16 0.00211.95
Body image 26.3 29.2 14.4 18.9 0.0540−0.4132.4 25.6 33.1 25.9 0.1970 0.03 0.00581.66
Personal
boundaries 32.3 25.1 12.5 6.2 0.0495−0.7934.4 16.0 41.8 18.2 0.1464 0.46 0.00052.33
School
problems 27.9 27.9 11.4 13.5 0.0486−0.5928.9 24.5 33.2 27.1 0.1163 0.18 0.00461.61
Relationship
with mother 74.6 26.4 80.5 16.6 0.46450.2266.0 29.0 59.3 26.5 0.0412 −0.23 0.03791.17
Relationship
with father 58.5 25.4 63.1 28.2 0.27130.1840.9 23.6 41.0 23.0 0.9751 0.00 0.39300.48
Relationship
with family 77.4 17.0 85.0 18.5 0.10170.4550.8 27.6 48.8 27.2 0.3699 −0.07 0.06041.18
Responsibility 71.3 19.6 83.5 18.7 0.02490.6259.8 24.2 59.8 23.1 1.0000 0.00 0.01311.50

The Analysis of an HIV and AIDS Empowering Group Work Programme for Adolescents: A Quantitative Evaluation
60
mistrust and responsibility measured <0.05, which indi-
cates a statistically significant difference. The p-value (P)
after post-testing of the experimental group regarding
perseverance, future perspective, lack of self-worth, iso-
lation, lack of assertiveness, memory loss, frustration,
helplessness, attitude towards adults, stigma, body image,
personal boundaries, school problems, relationship with
mother, relationship with father and relationship with
family measured >0.05, which indicates that there is no
statistically significant difference on a 5% significance
level regarding these constructs in this group after their
exposure to the programme with regard to these con-
structs. The effect-size (D) of the experimental group
regarding guilt feelings, lack of self-worth, lack of asser-
tiveness, frustration, helplessness, stigma, body image,
school problems, relationship with family and responsi-
bility was found to be >0.5, which indicates a medium
visible improvement. The effect-size (D) of the experi-
mental group regarding satisfaction, mistrust and per-
sonal boundaries measured >0.7, which indicates that
there is a large practically significant improvement in the
experimental group after being exposed to the pro-
gramme. The effect-size (D) of experimental group re-
garding perseverance, future perspective, isolation, me-
mory loss, frustration, attitude towards adults, relation-
ship with mother and relationship with father is <0.4,
which indicates that there is no visibly significant differ-
ence in the experimental group after their exposure to the
programme regarding these constructs.
 Within comparison group
After post-testing, the only p-value (P) < 0.05 of the
comparison group is regarding relationship with mother
with the p-value = 0.04. It indicates a statistically sig-
nificant difference regarding this construct. All the other
constructs measured >0.05. P-values that are >0.05 indi-
cate that there is no statistically significant difference on
a 5% significance level in the comparison group after
post-testing. The effect-size (D) of the comparison group
regarding all constructs measured <0.5, which indicates
that there is no practical or significant improvement in
the comparison group after post-testing.
 Test between groups
After post-testing, the p-value (P) of the test between
groups (experimental and comparison groups) regarding
satisfaction, future perspective, guilt feelings, lack of
assertiveness, memory loss, helplessness, attitude to-
wards adults, mistrust, stigma, body image, personal
boundaries, school problems, relationship with mother
and responsibility measured <0.05, which indicates a
statistically significant difference regarding the AN-
COVA means (adjusted for pre-test counts) of these con-
structs between the two groups. All the other constructs,
including perseverance, lack of self-worth, isolation,
frustration, relationship with father and relationship with
family, measured p > 0.05. P-values that are >0.05 indi-
cate that there is no statistically significant difference
between these groups on a 5% significance level. The
effect-size (D) of the ANCOVA test between groups (ex-
perimental and control groups) regarding perseverance,
satisfaction, future perspective, guilt feelings, lack of
self-worth, lack of assertiveness, memory loss, frustra-
tion, helplessness, attitude towards adults, stigma, body
image, personal boundaries, school problems, relation-
ship with mother, relationship with family and responsi-
bility are all >0.8. An effect size >0.8 indicates that there
is a large practically significant difference between the
groups. The effect-size (D) of ANCOVA test between
groups regarding isolation and relationship with father is
0.45 and 0.48. An effect-size of 0.5 indicates that there is
a medium visibly significant difference on the test be-
tween the groups regarding these constructs. In all these
differences the experimental group was better than the
comparison group in the post-test.
5.3.3. Res ults of Constructs
The following aspects were observed regarding the re-
sults within the constructs of the CFI-HIGH:
 Perseverance
In both the experimental group and the comparison
group there was no statistically significant improvement
with regard to pre- and post-testing. In the test between
groups there was no statistically significant difference
between the groups with regard to perseverance. In the
post-testing there was a large practically significant im-
provement regarding perseverance.
 Satisfaction
With regard to satisfaction, the experimental group
showed a statistically significant improvement in the
group and the comparison group showed no statistically
significant improvement in the group. In the test b etween
groups there was a large practically significant difference
regarding satisfaction, where adjusted means of the ex-
perimental group were better than those of the compari-
son group.
 Future perspective
After pre-testing (before the experimental group was
exposed to the programme), the grouping of the experi-
mental and comparison groups showed no statistically
significant difference between the groups. In the group-
ing of the experimental and comparison groups there was
a large practically significant difference between the
groups. In both the experimental group and the com-
parison group there was no statistically significant im-
provement with regard to pre- and post-testing. There
was a large practically significant improvement in the
test between groups regarding future perspective, where
adjusted means of the experimental group were better
than those of the comparison group.

The Analysis of an HIV and AIDS Empowering Group Work Programme for Adolescents: A Quantitative Evaluation 61
 Guilt feelings
After pre-testing, the grouping of the experimental and
comparison groups showed no statistically significant
difference between the groups. In the grouping of the
experimental and comparison groups there was a me-
dium visibly significant improvement between the
groups after pre-testing. The experimental group showed
a statistically significant improvement with regard to
guilt feelings and the comparison group showed no sta-
tistically significant improvement in the group. In the test
between groups there was a large practically significant
improvement regarding guilt feelings, where adjusted
means of the experimental group were better than those
of the comparison group.
 Lack of self-worth
After pre-testing, the grouping of the experimental and
comparison groups showed no statistically significant
difference between the groups regarding lack of self-
worth. In the grouping of the experimental and compari-
son groups there was a large practically significant dif-
ference between the groups after pre-testing. The ex-
perimental group showed a statistically significant im-
provement in the group and the comparison group
showed no statistically significant improvement in the
group. In the test between groups there was a large prac-
tically significant improvement regarding lack of self-
worth, where adjusted means of the experimental group
were better than those of the comparison group.
 Isolation
After pre-testing, the grouping of the experimental and
comparison groups showed no statistically significant
difference between the groups. In the grouping of the
experimental and comparison groups there was no visi-
bly significant difference between the groups after pre-
testing. Neither the experimental group nor the compari-
son group showed any statistically significant improve-
ment in the groups with regard to pre- and post-testing.
In the test between groups there was no practically sig-
nificant improvement regarding isolation.
 Lack of assertiveness
After pre-testing, the grouping of the experimental and
comparison groups showed no statistically significant
difference between the groups. In the grouping of the
experimental and comparison groups there was no visi-
ble and significant difference between the groups after
pre-testing. Neither the experimental group nor the com-
parison group showed any statistically significant im-
provement in the groups with regard to pre- and post-
testing. In the test between groups there is a large practi-
cally significant improvement regarding lack of asser-
tiveness, where adjusted means of the experimental
group were better than those of the comparison group.
 Memory loss
After pre-testing, the grouping of the experimental and
comparison groups showed no statistically significant
difference between the groups. In the grouping of the
experimental and comparison groups there was no visi-
ble and significant difference between the groups after
pre-testing. Neither the experimental group nor the com-
parison group showed any statistically significant im-
provement in the groups with regard to pre- and post-
testing. In the test between groups there was a large prac-
tically significant improvement regarding memory loss,
where adjusted means of the experimental group were
better than those of the comparison group .
 Frustration
After pre-testing, the grouping of the experimental and
comparison groups showed no statistically significant
difference between the groups. The grouping of the ex-
perimental and comparison groups showed no visible
and significant difference between the groups after pre-
testing. Neither the experimental group nor the compari-
son group showed any statistically significant improve-
ment in the groups with regard to pre- and post-testing.
In the test between groups there was a large practically
significant improvement regarding frustration, where
adjusted means of the experimental group were better
than those of the comparison group.
 Helplessness
After pre-testing, the grouping of the experimental and
comparison groups showed no statistically significant
differences between the groups. In the grouping of the
experimental and comparison groups there was no visi-
bly significant difference between the groups after pre-
testing. Neither the experimental group nor the compari-
son group showed any statistically significant improve-
ment in the groups with regard to pre- and post-testing.
There was a large practically significant improvement
regarding helplessness in the test between groups, where
adjusted means of the experimental group were better
than those of the comparison group.
 Attitude towards adults
After pre-testing, the grouping of the experimental and
comparison groups showed no statistically significant
difference between the groups. In the grouping of the
experimental and comparison groups there was no visi-
ble and significant difference between the groups after
pre-testing. Neither the experimental group nor the com-
parison group showed any statistically significant im-
provement in the groups with regard to pre- and post-
testing. There was a large practically significant im-
provement regarding attitude towards adults in the test
between groups, where adjusted means of the experi-
mental group were better than those of the comparison
group.
 Mistrust
After pre-testing, the grouping of the experimental and
comparison groups showed no statistically significant

The Analysis of an HIV and AIDS Empowering Group Work Programme for Adolescents: A Quantitative Evaluation
62
difference between the groups. In the grouping of the
experimental and comparison groups there was a me-
dium visibly significant difference between the groups
after pre-testing. The experimental group showed a sta-
tistically significant improvement with regard to pre- and
post-testing and the comparison group showed no statis-
tically significant improvement in the groups with regard
to pre- and post-testing. In the test between groups there
was a large practically significant improvement regarding
mistrust, where adjusted means of the experimental
group were better than those of the comparison group.
 Stigma
After pre-testing, the grouping of the experimental and
comparison groups showed no statistically significant
difference between the groups. In the grouping of the
experimental and comparison groups there was a me-
dium visibly significant difference between the groups
after pre-testing. Neither the experimental group nor the
comparison group showed any statistically significant
improvement in the groups with regard to pre- and post-
testing. In the test between groups there was a large prac-
tically significant improvement regarding stigma, where
adjusted means of the experimental group were better
than those of the comparison group.
 Body image
After pre-testing, the grouping of the experimental and
comparison groups showed no statistically significant
difference between the groups. In the grouping of the
experimental and comparison groups there was no visi-
bly significant difference between the groups after pre-
testing. Neither the experimental group nor the compari-
son group showed any statistically significant improve-
ment with regard to pre- and post-testing. In the test be-
tween groups there was a large practically significant
difference regarding body image, where adjusted means
of the experimental group were better than those of the
comparison group.
 Personal boundaries
After pre-testing, the grouping of the experimental and
comparison groups showed no statistically significant
differrence between the groups. In the grouping of the
experimental and comparison groups there was no visi-
bly significant difference between the groups after pre-
testing. The experimental group showed a statistically
significant improvement and the comparison group
showed no statistically significant improvement with
regard to personal boundaries. In the test between groups
there was a large practically significant improvement
regarding personal boundaries, where adjusted means of
the experimental group were better than those of the
comparison group.
 School problems
After pre-testing, the grouping of the experimental and
comparison groups showed no statistically significant
difference between the groups. In the grouping of the
experimental and comparison groups there was no visi-
ble and significant difference between the groups after
pre-testing. The experimental group showed a statisti-
cally significant improvement in the group with regard to
school problems. The comparison group showed no sta-
tistically significant improvement in the group with re-
gard to school problems. In the test between groups there
was a large practically significant improvement regarding
school problems, where adjusted means of the experi-
mental group were better than those of the comparison
group.
 Relationship with mother
After pre-testing, the grouping of the experimental and
comparison groups showed no statistically significant
difference between the groups. In the grouping of the
experimental and comparison groups there was no visi-
bly significant difference between the groups after pre-
testing. The experimental and comparison groups both
showed statistically significant improvement with regard
to pre- and post-testing. In the test between groups there
was a large practically significant improvement regarding
relationship with mother, where adjusted means of the
experimental group were better than those of the com-
parison group.
 Relationship with father
After pre-testing, the grouping of the experimental and
comparison groups showed no statistically significant
difference between the groups. In the grouping of the
experimental and comparison groups there was a me-
dium visibly significant difference between the groups
after pre-testing. Neither the experimental group nor the
comparison group showed any statistically significant
improvement with regard to pre- and post-testing. In the
test between groups there was no visibly significant dif-
ference regarding relationship with father.
 Relationship with family
After pre-testing, the grouping of the experimental and
comparison groups showed no statistically significant
difference between the groups. In the grouping of the
experimental and comparison groups there was a me-
dium visibly significant difference between the groups
after pre-testing. Neither the experimental group nor the
comparison group showed any statistically significant
improvement with regard to pre- and post-testing. In the
test between groups there was a large practically signifi-
cant improvement regarding relationship with family,
where adjusted means of the experimental group were
better than those of the comparison group .
 Responsibility
After pre-testing, the grouping of the experimental and
comparison groups showed no statistically significant
difference between the groups. In the grouping of the
experimental and comparison groups there was no visi-

The Analysis of an HIV and AIDS Empowering Group Work Programme for Adolescents: A Quantitative Evaluation
63
bly significant difference between the groups after pre-
testing. The experimental group showed a statistically
significant improvement in the group with regard to re-
sponsibility. The comparison group showed no statisti-
cally significant improvement in the group with regard to
responsibility. In the test between groups there was a
large practically significant improvement regarding re-
sponsibility, where adjusted means of the experimental
group were better than those of the comparison group.
6. Evaluation by Means of Generalized
Contentment Scale (GCS)
The Generalized Contentment Scale (GCS) of Hudson
[10] was administered during pre- and post-testing. The
GCS is a standardized pen-and-paper self-reporting mea-
suring instrument designed to measure the way respon-
dents feel about their life and surroundings. In this ex-
periment, the aim of administering the GCS was to de-
termine the respondents’ general contentment with life.
Both the pre- and post-test data were utilized to deter-
mine a link between the respondents’ contentment with
life and the impact of an empowering group work pro-
gramme. The GCS scores range from 0 - 100 and the
following values were used to interpret the GCS scores:
 A score higher than 35 shows need for improvement.
 A score between 25 and 35 indicates warning area
that needs attention.
 A score below 25 is in the recommended range.
6.1. Reliability of the GCS
The Cronbach Alpha coefficient is a criterion to deter-
mine the internal consistency of a measuring instrument
[18]. The reliability of the GCS of Hudson was calcu-
lated with Cronbach Alpha coefficient and was 0.79.
Huysamen [18] points out that a reliability coefficient as
low as 0.6 is acceptable to make decisions regarding
groups. All the tests (constructs) of the GCS can be ac-
cepted as reliable.
6.2. Pre- and Post-Testing
Both the comparison group and the experimental group
were requested to complete the GCS one week before the
onset of the group work programme. After the pre-testing,
only the experimental group were exposed to the group
work programme which was presented over a period of
six weeks including 12 sessions. The post-test was con-
ducted by requesting both the experimental group and the
comparison group to complete the GCS once again. This
post-testing took place one week after the experimental
group had completed the group work programme. Be-
cause of the small sample size, the tests might not have
had enough power to indicate statistical significance on a
5% level of significance, and effect sizes were used as an
indication of the practical significance of differences.
The results are expounded in Table 2.
6.3. Pre- and Post-Test Results
6.3.1. Res ults after Pre-Testing
After pre-testing, the p-value (P) of the grouping of the
experimental and comparison groups measured 0.20.
This p-value is >0.05 and indicates that the two groups
did not significantly differ statistically on a 5% signifi-
cance level at this point. After pre-testing, the effect-size
(D) of the grouping of the experimental and comparison
groups was 0.84. The experimental group was better than
the comparison group.
6.3.2. Re su lts after Post-Tes t i n g
 Within experimental group
After the experimental group had been exposed to the
programme, a p-value of 0.004 was measured. A p-value
of <0.05 indicated that there is a statistically significant
difference in this group after their exposure to the pro-
gramme. The effect-size (D) of the experimental group
after their exposure to the programme was 1.45. An ef-
fect-size >0.8 indicates that there is a visibly and practi-
cally significant improvement in the group after their
exposure to the programme. The experimental group
improved regarding their generalized contentment after
their exposure to the programme.
 Within comparison group
After the post-testing of the comparison group, a
p-value of 0.0322 was measured. A p-value of <0.05 in-
dicates that there is a statistically significant difference in
this group after the exposure of the experimental group
to the programme. The effect-size (D) of the comparison
group after post-testing is 0.27. An effect-size <0.5 indi-
cates that there was a no visibly significant improvement
in this group after the post-testing.
Table 2. Results of pre- and post-testing of GCS.
Experimental group Comparison grou p Ancova
Pre-Test Post-Test Test
within groupPre-Test Post-Test Test within group Test between groups
Average Standard
deviation Average Standard deviation P D Average Standard deviation Average Standard deviation P D P-Value Effect-size
General
contentment 39.1 15.1 17.3 8.4 0.0041.4548.9 13.8 52.911.8 0.0322 0.29 < 0.00014.0

The Analysis of an HIV and AIDS Empowering Group Work Programme for Adolescents: A Quantitative Evaluation
64
 Test between groups
After the experimental group had been exposed to the
programme, the ANCOVA test between the groups (ex-
perimental and comparison groups) registered a p-value
of <0.0001. A p-value of <0.05 indicates that there is a
statistically significant difference regarding the AN-
COVA means (adjusted for pre-test counts) of this con-
struct between the two groups. The effect-size (D) of the
ANCOVA test between groups (experimental and com-
parison groups) after the experimental group had been
exposed to the programme, is 4.00. An effect-size >0.8
indicates that there is a visible and significant improve-
ment between the groups after post-testing. The experi-
mental group improved regarding their generalized con-
tentment, but the comparison group did not show any
visibly significant improvement.
7. Discussion
The reliability of the CFI-HIGH was calculated and 20 of
the 24 constructs were regarded as reliable. After the
pre-testing the grouping of the experimental and com-
parison groups showed no statistical differences. There
were visibly significant differences in more than half of
the constructs in the test between the groups before the
experimental group was exposed to the programme. After
the programme intervention, the experimental group
showed practically significant difference regarding guilt
feelings, lack of self-worth, lack of assertiveness, frustra-
tion, helplessness, stigma, body image, school problems,
relationship with family, responsibility, satisfaction, mis-
trust and personal boundaries.
Within the comparison group, in all the constructs but
one, relationship with mother, there was no statistically
significant difference. There are no visibly significant
differences in any of the constructs in the comparison
group after post-testing. In 14 of the 20 reliable con-
structs, a statistically significant difference in the test
between groups was measured. In all of the constructs,
excluding isolation and relationship with father, in the
test between groups, there was a practically significant
difference after the exp erimental group had been exposed
to the programme.
The experimental group improved in all but two of the
constructs, but with no visibly significant difference the
comparison group did not improve in any of the con-
structs. All the tests of the GCS were accepted as reliable.
After pre-testing the two groups showed no statistically
significant differences. There was a large practically sig-
nificant difference between the two groups after
pre-testing, with the experimental group being the better
of the two. After the experimental group had been ex-
posed to the programme, there was a statistically signifi-
cant difference in the group. There was a large practically
significant difference in this group after the programme
intervention.
In the comparison group there was a statistically sig-
nificant difference in the group after post-testing. There
was no visibly significant difference in the comparison
group after post-testing. There was a statistically signifi-
cant difference between the experimental and compari-
son groups after the programme intervention in the test
between groups. A large practically significant difference
was reported in the test between groups after programme
intervention. The experimental group improved regard-
ing their generalized contentment, but the comparison
group showed no visibly significant difference, which
indicates no improvement.
8. Recommendations
Based on the discussion of the results from this study and
the conclusion drawn, the following recommendations
can be made:
 This empowerment programme should be evaluated
with larger and more groups, like the Solomon-four
group design, so that the quantitative results of this
research can be confirmed or refuted.
 Respondents find it difficult to answer the CFI-HIGH
in English (for most respondents their second or third
language) and it was completed as a group with a
translator translating every statement from English to
Tswana. The CFI-HIGH can be more user-friendly
and accessible if the questionnaire and answering
sheets are translated in more languages such as
Tswana, isiXhosa and isiZulu.
 The understanding, perception and knowledge base of
an adolescent of 12 years and one of 18 years differ
considerably, based on their levels of development
and life experience. Much time was spent explaining
concepts to the younger members of the group and
the older adolescents felt obliged to take care and
help them with various activities during the pro-
gramme. It is recommended for future presentation of
the programme that the age distribution of the ado-
lescents should be closer, say 15 - 19 years.
9. Conclusion
The purpose of this study was to evaluate and determine
the effect of a compiled group work programme on ado-
lescents from households infected with and affected by
HIV and AIDS. Adolescents for inclusion in the experi-
mental and comparison groups were selected by means
of accidental sampling from a limited population. After
sampling, the adolescents were divided into two groups
randomly according to gender and age. For this experi-
ment the comparison group pretest-posttest design was
utilized and included two groups, namely an experimen-
tal group and a comparison group. For the aim of evalua-

The Analysis of an HIV and AIDS Empowering Group Work Programme for Adolescents: A Quantitative Evaluation 65
tion the two groups were quantitatively evaluated by
means of the CFI-HIGH of Perspective Training College
and the GCS of Hudson.
REFERENCES
[1] M. Ungar, “Handbook for Working with Children and
Youth: Pathways to Resilience across Cultures and Con-
text,” 2005.
[2] N. M. Kandasamy, “Guidelines for a Social Work Pro-
gramme for Adolescents in the North-West Province,”
M.A. Dissertation, Potchefstroom University for Chris-
tian Higher Education, Potchefstroom, 2002.
[3] H. E. Scholtz, “Guidelines for Social Group Work with
Adolescents from Problem Families,” M.A. Dissertation,
Potchefstroom University for Christian Higher Education,
Potchefstroom, 1998.
[4] L. Van Heerden, “The Development and Evaluation of a
Life Skills Programme to Enhance the Social Functioning
of the Early Black Adolescent,” M.A. Dissertation,
North-West University, Potchefstroom, 2001.
[5] C. B. Fouche and A. S. De Vos, “Problem Formulation,”
In: A. S. De Vos, Ed., Research at Grass Roots: For the
Social Sciences and Human Service Professions, 3rd Edi-
tion, Van Schaik, Pretoria, 2005, pp. 100-110.
[6] P. Rankin, M. L. Weyers and M. Williams, “The Use of
the Programme Logic Model (PLM) in Structured Social
Work Interventions: Theory and Practice,” The Social
Work Researcher-Practitioner, Vol. 20, No. 3, 2008, pp.
334-357.
[7] A. S. De Vos, “Intervention Research,” In: A. S. De Vos,
Ed., Research at Grass Roots: For the Social Sciences
and Human Service Professions, 3rd Edition, Van Schaik,
Pretoria, 2005, pp. 392-407.
[8] R. M. Grinnell, “Social Work Research and Evaluation,”
F.E. Peacock Publishers, New York, 2001.
[9] Perspective Training College, “Perspective and Walmyr
Assessment Scales,” Perspective Training College, Po-
tchefstroom, 2006.
[10] M. Bloom, J. Fischer and J. G. Orme, “Evaluating Prac-
tice: Guidelines for the Accountable Professional,” Allyn
& Bacon, Needham Heights, 1999.
[11] R. M. Grinnell and M. Williams, “Research in Social
Work: A Primer,” F.E. Peacock Publishers, New York,
1990.
[12] A. Rubin and E. R. Babbie, “Research Methods for Social
Work,” Thomson Brooks/Cole, London, 2005.
[13] C. S. L. Delport, “Quantitative Data-Collection Meth-
ods,” In: A. S. De Vos, Ed., Research at Grass Roots: For
the Social Sciences and Human Service Professions, 3rd
Edition, Van Schaik, Pretoria, 2005, pp. 159-191.
[14] H. Strydom, “Sampling and Sampling Methods,” In: A. S.
De Vos, Ed., Research at Grass Roots: For the Social
Sciences and Human Service Professions, 3rd Edition,
Van Schaik, Pretoria, 2005, pp. 192-204.
[15] H. Strydom, “Ethical Aspects of Research in the Social
Sciences and Human Service Professions,” In: A. S. De
Vos, Ed., Research at Grass Roots: For the Social Sci-
ences and Human Service Professions, 3rd Edition, Van
Schaik, Pretoria, 2005, pp. 56-70.
[16] SAS Institute Inc., “The SAS System for Windows Re-
lease 9.1 TS Level 1 M3,” SAS Institute Inc., Cary, 2003.
[17] S. M. Ellis and H. S. Steyn, “Practical Significance (Ef-
fect Sizes) Versus or in Combination with Statistical Sig-
nificance (P-Values),” Management Dynamics, Vol. 12,
No. 4, 2003, pp. 51-53.
[18] G. K. Huysamen, “Sielkundige Meting:’n Inleiding,” 2nd
Edition, Van Schaik, Pretoria, 1996.