Effect of Blended Rational Emotive Occupational Health Coaching on Job-Stress among Teachers of Children with Autism
Last registered on February 18, 2020

Pre-Trial

Trial Information
General Information
Title
Effect of Blended Rational Emotive Occupational Health Coaching on Job-Stress among Teachers of Children with Autism
RCT ID
AEARCTR-0005471
Initial registration date
February 18, 2020
Last updated
February 18, 2020 2:20 PM EST
Location(s)
Region
Primary Investigator
Affiliation
University of Johannesburg
Other Primary Investigator(s)
Additional Trial Information
Status
Completed
Start date
2018-09-18
End date
2019-08-13
Secondary IDs
Abstract
Abstract
This study examined the effect of blended Rational Emotive Occupational Health Coaching (bREOHC on job-stress among teachers of children with ASD in Enugu state, Nigeria. Participants (N= 83) included teachers of children with ASD. bREOHC group participated in a 2 hours intersession face-to-face and online REOHC program weekly for a period of 12 weeks. Data were collected using Single Item Stress Questionnaire (SISQ), Teachers’ Stress Inventory and Participants’ Satisfaction questionnaire (PSQ). Data collected at baseline; post-test as well as follow-up 1 and 2 evaluations were analyzed using mean, standard deviation, t-test statistics, repeated measures ANOVA and bar charts. Results revealed that the mean perceived stress, stress symptoms and the total teachers’ stress score of the bREOHC group at post-test and follow up assessments reduced significantly, compared to the waitlisted group. Participants also reported a high level of satisfaction with the therapy and procedures. Therefore bREOHC is valuable in Managing job-stress
External Link(s)
Registration Citation
Citation
Onyishi, Charity. 2020. "Effect of Blended Rational Emotive Occupational Health Coaching on Job-Stress among Teachers of Children with Autism." AEA RCT Registry. February 18. https://doi.org/10.1257/rct.5471-1.0.
Experimental Details
Interventions
Intervention(s)
A rational-emotive occupational health coaching program manual (Ogbuanya, et al., 2017) used in Onyishi, et al., (2020) was adapted and blended with online module and used in the study. The adapted modules utilized the “ABCDE” model (Activating event, Beliefs, Consequences, Disputing, and Effective new philosophy) to change dysfunctional and irrational beliefs associated with work experiences. The major aim of bREOHC was to use ABCDE face-to-face group therapeutic model combined with online module in “disputing” – challenging and questioning employees’ work-related irrational and dysfunctional beliefs and replacing them with rather helpful and functional beliefs (Ogbuanya, Eseadi, Orji, Ohanu, Bakare, & Ede, 2017; Ogbuanya, Eseadi, Orji, Ede, Ohanu, & Bakare, 2017).
The researcher adopted the ABCDE model in explaining the relationships existing between activating (A) events associated with teaching children with ASD, dysfunctional thoughts, beliefs or cognitions arising from those events (B); the emotional and behavioral consequences of the beliefs (C) (DiGiuseppe, Doyle, Dryden, & Backx, 2014). Activating event (A) in teaching children with autism could be a challenging situation associated with learning difficulties of the children, behavioural problems, extra work-load and teachers’ personal experiences; the belief (B) is the interpretation and cognitive imagery formed due to “A”. Such cognition about the event (B) elicits a consequence/effect (C) for the teacher, which may be adaptive or maladaptive. Maladaptive consequence may include anxiety, depression and stress symptomatology. Then, disputation techniques (D) are used to eliminate the maladaptive, dysfunctional and self-limiting beliefs and cognitions (David, 2015; David, & Szentagotai, 2006; DiGiuseppe, Doyle, Dryden, & Backx, 2014). Disputation involves challenging and comparing the maladaptive thoughts with more adaptive ones. According to Ellis (1959), the best way to counter irrational beliefs is by considering realistic and logical ones. Hence as participants become aware of and counteract their dysfunctional beliefs, they come up with more effective world-views (E). This ABCDE model as used in earlier study by the first author formed the basis of activities throughout the intervention (See table 1).
Intervention Start Date
2018-10-28
Intervention End Date
2019-08-13
Primary Outcomes
Primary Outcomes (end points)
Results revealed that the mean perceived stress, stress symptoms and the total teachers’ stress score of the bREOHC group at post-test and follow up assessments reduced significantly, compared to the waitlisted group.
Primary Outcomes (explanation)
Secondary Outcomes
Secondary Outcomes (end points)
Secondary Outcomes (explanation)
Experimental Design
Experimental Design
The current study adopted a group-randomized waitlist control trial design with pretest, post-test and follow-up assessments (Desveaux et al, 2016). This design guided the researcher to assess the effectiveness of bREOHC intervention on job-stress. Participants were randomized into bREOHC and wait-list groups. Baseline data were analyzed using t-test statistics.
Experimental Design Details
The current study adopted a group-randomized waitlist control trial design with pretest, post-test and follow-up assessments (Desveaux et al, 2016). This design guided the researcher to assess the effectiveness of bREOHC intervention on job-stress. Participants were randomized into bREOHC and wait-list groups. Baseline data were analyzed using t-test statistics.
Randomization Method
Participants were randomized into bREOHC and wait-list groups. Baseline data were analyzed using t-test statistics.
Randomization Unit
Individual randomization
Was the treatment clustered?
No
Experiment Characteristics
Sample size: planned number of clusters
87 teachers of children with autism
Sample size: planned number of observations
87 teachers
Sample size (or number of clusters) by treatment arms
44 participants in experimental group, 43 participants in wait-list control group
Minimum detectable effect size for main outcomes (accounting for sample design and clustering)
F (1, 84) = 77.22, p = .000, ŋ2 = .47
IRB
INSTITUTIONAL REVIEW BOARDS (IRBs)
IRB Name
IRB Approval Date
IRB Approval Number
Post-Trial
Post Trial Information
Study Withdrawal
Intervention
Is the intervention completed?
No
Is data collection complete?
Data Publication
Data Publication
Is public data available?
No
Program Files
Program Files
Reports and Papers
Preliminary Reports
Relevant Papers