Page 125 - JSOM Winter 2024

TABLE 2 Total Pre- and Post-Course General Self-efficacy Scale improvement in self-efficacy (t =2.449, P=.037, d=0.78 [95%
(8)
Scores Per Domain CI 0.031–0.77]). The pre- and post-course scores of each do-
42
Absolute main for Participant 3 are shown in Table 6.
Domain Pre-course Post-course difference
1 18 21 3 TABLE 6 Pre- and Post-Course General Self-efficacy Scale Scores Per
2 17 20 3 Domain for Participant 3
Absolute
3 18 24 6 Domain Pre-course Post-course difference
4 19 24 5
1 3 4 1
5 18 21 3
2 3 3 0
6 21 22 1
3 3 4 1
7 18 23 5
8 21 22 1 4 4 4 0
9 21 23 2 5 4 4 0
10 20 23 3 6 4 4 1
7 3 4 0
8 4 4 0
TABLE 3 Total Pre- and Post-Course Scores Per Participant
9 4 4 0
Absolute 10 3 4 1
Participant Pre-course Post-course difference
1 33 39 6 The sixth two-tailed paired t test compared pre- and post-
2 39 40 1 course GSES scores for Participant 4 per domain. The re-
34
3 35 39 4 sults (mean difference, 0.200 [SD 0.422]; SE 0.133) indicate a
4 32 34 2 clinically relevant overall improvement in self-efficacy without
5 18 34 16 statistical significance (t =1.500, p=.168, d=0.474 [95% CI
(8)
42
6 34 37 3 –0.1 to 0.5]). The pre- and post-course scores of each domain
for Participant 4 are shown in Table 7.
TABLE 4 Pre- and Post-Course General Self-efficacy Scale Scores Per
Domain for Participant 1 TABLE 7 Pre- and Post-Course General Self-efficacy Scale Scores Per
Domain for Participant 4
Absolute
Domain Pre-course Post-course difference Absolute
1 4 4 0 Domain Pre-course Post-course difference
2 3 4 1 1 3 3 0
3 3 4 1 2 3 3 0
4 3 4 1 3 3 4 1
5 3 4 1 4 3 4 1
5 3 3 0
6 4 4 0
6 3 3 0
7 3 4 1
7 3 3 0
8 3 3 0
8 4 4 0
9 3 4 1
10 4 4 0 9 4 4 0
10 3 3 0
TABLE 5 Pre- and Post-Course General Self-efficacy Scale Scores Per
Domain for Participant 2 The seventh two-tailed paired t-test compared pre- and post-
34
Absolute course GSES scores for Participant 5 per domain. The re-
Domain Pre-course Post-course difference sults (mean difference, 1.600 [SD 0.699]; SE 0.221) indicate a
1 4 4 0 clinically relevant and statistically significant overall improve-
2 3 4 1 ment in self-efficacy (t =7.236, P<.001, d=2.29 [95% CI 1.1–
(8)
32.1]). The pre- and post-course scores of each domain for
42
3 4 4 0 Participant 5 are shown in Table 8.
4 4 4 0
5 4 4 0 The eighth two-tailed paired t test compared pre- and post-
6 4 4 0 course GSES scores for Participant 6 per domain. The re-
34
7 4 4 0 sults (mean difference, 0.300 [SD 0.483]; SE 0.153) indicate a
8 4 4 0 clinically relevant overall improvement in self-efficacy without
9 4 4 0 statistical significance (t =1.964, P=.081, d=0.62 [95% CI
(8)
42
10 4 4 0 –0.046 to 0.65]). The pre- and post-course scores of each
domain for Participant 6 are shown in Table 9.
The fifth two-tailed paired t test was to compare pre- and Although neither the pretest nor the post-test results were part
34
post-course GSES scores for Participant 3 per domain. The of this EBP pilot study, the results were known to the project
results (mean difference, 0.400 [SD 0.516]; SE 0.163) indi- leader once the identities of the participants were blinded, and
cate a clinically relevant and statistically significant overall the data were correlated to each participant using the random

Improving Self-efficacy in FNPs for Law Enforcement Roles | 123