1 / 39

Magdalena Perez July 25, 2006

The Efficacy of Video Feedback on Self-Evaluation of Performance and Treatment of Bilingual Participants: A Linguistically and Culturally Sensitive Intervention for Public Speaking Anxiety. Magdalena Perez July 25, 2006. Introduction (Cont.). Purpose of Study

hada
Download Presentation

Magdalena Perez July 25, 2006

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. The Efficacy of Video Feedback on Self-Evaluation of Performance and Treatment of Bilingual Participants: A Linguistically and Culturally Sensitive Intervention for Public Speaking Anxiety Magdalena Perez July 25, 2006

  2. Introduction (Cont.) Purpose of Study • The primary objective of the current study was to examine the combined impact that treatment-type (bilingual-video feedback vs. monolingual- video feedback) and audience-race/ethnicity (Latino vs. White) had on the treatment outcome of bilingual speech anxious participants.

  3. Introduction (Cont.) Studies Supporting the Video Feedback Intervention: • “Pure” Video Feedback: • Speech performances are rated more positively (Rapee & Hayman, 1996). • Cognitive Preparation + Video Feedback: • Speech performances are rated • more positively (Harvey et al., 2002; Kim,et al. 2002) • more accurately (Harvey et al., 2002) • less anxiety provoking (Kim et al., 2003; Smits, 2004)

  4. Introduction (Cont.) • Why should we even consider applying video feedback in a bilingual fashion? • Bilinguals experience different levels of anxiety according to the language which they are speaking (Stein et al., 1998) • Why should we even consider manipulating the race/ethnicity of audience members? • Minority bilinguals are susceptible to stereotype threat (Stein et al., 1998).

  5. Language Specific: H1:Participants were expected to experience differential levels of anxiety when performing in English versus Spanish at pre-treatment. H2: Participants were expected to evaluate their English behavioral speech performance differently than their Spanish behavioral speech performance at pre-treatment. Within-Group Difference Video Feedback: H3: Participants were expected to experience a greater reduction on a state measure of public speaking anxiety at post-treatment and follow-up. H4: Participants were expected to rate their behavioral speech performances more positively at post-treatment and follow-up. H5: Participants were expected to rate their behavioral speech performances more accurately at post-treatment and follow-up. Hypotheses

  6. Public Speaking Measures EQ1: The present study would attempt to identify the combination of treatment-type and audience-race/ethnicity (Treatment x Ethnicity) that would show the greatest degree of improvement on public speaking outcome measures. Social Anxiety Measures EQ 2: The present study would attempt to identify the combination of treatment-type and audience-race/ethnicity (Treatment x Ethnicity) that would show the greatest degree of improvement on social anxiety outcome measures. Exploratory Questions on Between-Group Differences

  7. Observers’ Ratings EQ3: The present study would attempt to identify the combination of treatment-type and audience-race/ethnicity (Treatment x Ethnicity) that showed the greatest degree of improvement based on observers’ ratings of participants’ speech performance and anxiety. Observer—Participant Discrepancy Scores: EQ4: The present study would attempt to determine the combination of treatment-type and audience-race/ethnicity (Treatment x Ethnicity) that had participants rate their speech performance and anxiety scores more similarly to those ratings of independent observers. Exploratory Questions on Between-Group Differences (Cont.)

  8. Methods Participants • Criteria • Mexican descent • Bilingual • ≥9 LSAS-SR public speaking fear subscale • ≥ 50 SUDS ratings for each baseline speech • Recruitment • 301 Psychology subject pool & pre-screening website

  9. Methods (Cont.) 1st Session 2nd Session 3rd Session

  10. Public Speaking State Measures: Appraisal of Social Concerns Scale (ASC; Lucas, 1993) Subjective Units of Distress (SUDS) Speech Evaluation Questionnaire (SEQ; Harvey, et al., 2000) Public Speaking Trait Measures: Liebowitz Social Anxiety Self-Report Scale-Public Speaking Subscale (LSAS-PS; Watson & Friend, 1969) Speech Anxiety Thoughts Inventory (SATI; Cho, Smits, & Telch, 2004) Methods (Cont.) Measurements

  11. Social Anxiety Constructs: Liebowitz Social Anxiety Scale-Self Report (LSAS-SR; Liewbowitz, 1987) Fear of Negative Evaluation (FNE; Watson & Friend, 1969) Methods (Cont.) Measurements General Psychological Measure: • Brief Symptoms Inventory (BSI; Derogatis, 1993)

  12. Treatment Expectancy: Reaction to Treatment Questionnaire (RTQ; Borkovec & Nau, 1972) Cultural Characteristics: Woodcock-Munoz Language Survey (WMLS; Woodcock & Munoz, 2001) Acculturation Rating Scale for Mexican Americans-II (ARSMA-II; Cuellar, Arnold, & Maldonaldo, 1995) Family Attitude Scale-Revised (FAS-R; Carrasco, 1990) Multidemensional Acculturaive Stress Inventory (MASI; Rodriguez et al., 2002) Methods (Cont.) Measurements

  13. Methods Assessor Ratings • Two assessors • Blind to the purpose of the experimental design of the study • Rated all the pre-treatment, post-treatment, and follow-up speech performance using the SEQ & SUDS.

  14. Statistical Analyses • Baseline differences: • Language Specific Outcome Variables • 2 (Treatment) x 2 (Audience) x 2 (Language) ANOVA • Non-language Specific Outcome Variables • 2 (Treatment) x 2 (Audience) ANOVA • Covariates: • If correlation ≥ .70 between change scores and the variable being examined as a potential covariate then it was decided to that this variable would be entered in as a covariate. • General Treatment Outcome: • All outcome analyses were intent-to-treat where the last observation was carried forward. • Within-group: Repeated Measures MANOVA • Between-group: Depending on the measure: • 2 (Treatment) x 2 (Audience) x 2 (Language) ANCOVA • 2 (Treatment) x 2 (Audience) ANCOVA

  15. Results Sample Characteristics • Total of 46 participants were randomly assigned to one of the conditions • Bilingual Video Feedback White Audience: 9 • Bilingual Video Feedback Latino Audience: 14 • English Video Feedback White Audience: 10 • English Video Feedback Latino Audience: 13 • Mean age = 21.9 • Cultural Identity: Slightly oriented Anglo American bicultural identity • Family Values: Bicultural family values with a slight orientation toward White European values • Language Proficiency: • English: Average range • Spanish: Borderline range • Socioeconomic Status:$35,000 to $45,000 parent’s household annual income

  16. Result (Cont.) • Drop outs: • Before end of treatment: 1 EVW; 3 EVL; 3 BVW; 3 BVL • After post-assessment: 1 BVW & 1 BVL • Drop outs rates did not vary across the conditions. • No differences on the baseline measures between the completers and non-completers • Four conditions did not vary on any of the outcome measures at pre-treatment. • UT and SEU did not vary on any of the outcome measures at pre-treatment. • No covariates were identified

  17. H1: Differential Levels of Anxiety Paired sample t-test: E-SUDS vs. S-SUDS Participants on average reported higher SUDS levels when giving their pre-treatment speech in Spanish (M = 77.17, SE = 2.41) than English (M = 71.17, SE = 2.38), t (45) = -2.34, p < .05. H2: Differential Levels of Performance Ratings: Paired sample t-test: E-SEQ vs. S-SEQ Participants rated their baseline Spanish speech performance more poorly (M = 90.67, SE = 5.51) than their English speech performance (M = 101.96, SE = 6.13), t (45) = 2.20, p < .05. Results (Cont.)

  18. H3: W/in Grp Diff. on Video Feedback on SUDS MANOVA Participants in all the conditions experienced a significant decline at post-treatment and follow-up on their English-SUDS and Spanish-SUDS scores (ps < .05). H4: W/in Grp Diff. on Video Feedback on SEQ MANOVA Participants in all the conditions rated their English and Spanish speeches more positively at post-treatment and follow-up than they had at pre-treatment (ps < .05). Results (Cont.)

  19. Results (Cont.) H5: W/in Grp Diff on SEQ Accuracy Ratings • MANOVA • Participants in all the conditions rated their English speech performance more accurately at post-treatment and follow-up (ps < .05). • Only participants in the BVL and EVL conditions rated their Spanish speeches more accurately at post-treatment and follow-up (ps < .05). • Participants in the EVW condition only rated their Spanish speech more accurately at follow-up (p < .05), but not at post-treatment. • Participants in the BVW condition did not rate their Spanish speeches more accurately at post-treatment or follow-up (ps > .05).

  20. Pre to Post-treatment Treatment x Audience X Language ANCOVA Concerns About Giving Speech (ASC): (F (1, 40) = 1.28, p > .05) Peak Anxiety Level (SUDS): (F (1, 40) = 0.64, p > .05) Self-Performance Ratings (SEQ): (F (1,40) = 1.22, p >.05) Pre-treatment to Follow-up Treatment x Audience x Language ANCOVA Concerns About Giving Speech (ASC): (F (1, 40) = 1.87, p > .05) Peak Anxiety Level (SUDS): (F (1, 40) = 0.89, p > .05) Self-Performance Ratings (SEQ): (F (1, 40) = 2.71, p > .05) Results (Cont.) EQ1: Public Speaking State Outcome Measures:

  21. Pre to Post-treatment Treatment x Audience: (F (1, 41) = 5.92, p < .05) Pre-treatment to Follow-up Treatment x Audience: F (1, 41) = 3.76, p > .05 25 Bilingual Treatment English Treatment 21.56 21.01 21.67 20 LSAS-PS (0-30) 16.2 15 10 5 0 White Audience (EVW/BVW) Latino Audience (EVL/BVL) Results (Cont.) EQ1: Public Speaking Trait Outcome Measure: Public Speaking Anxiety (LSAS-PS)

  22. Pre to Post-treatment Treatment x Audience x Language ANCOVA: (F (1, 40) = 0.62, p > .05) Audience X Language (F (1, 40) = 4.11, p < .05) Pre-treatment to Follow-up Treatment x Audience x Language: F (1, 40) = 0.55. p > .05 Audience x Language: F (1, 40) = 3.02, p > .05 84 SATI-English SATI-Spanish 82.31 82 80 78 77.51 SATI (0-115) 76 74 72 71.49 70.3 70 68 66 64 White Audience (EWA/BWA) Latino Audience (EVL/BVL) Results (Cont.) EQ1: Public Speaking Trait Outcome Measure: Speech Anxious Thoughts (SATI)

  23. Pre- to Post-treatment Treatment x Audience: F (1, 41) = 2.93, p > .05 Audience: F (1, 41) = 4.42, p < .05 Pre- to Follow-up Treatment x Audience: F (1, 41) = 3.43, p > .05 Audience: F (1, 41) = 4.33, p < .05 Results (Cont.) EQ2: Social Anxiety Outcome Measures:Fear of Negative Evaluation(FNES)

  24. Pre- to Post-treatment Treatment x Audience: F (1, 41) = 4.44, p < .05 80 80 Bilingual Treatment Bilingual Treatment English Treatment English Treatment 72.89 71.86 71.17 70 70 68.47 70.1 67.27 60 60 LSAS-Total (0-144) LSAS-Total (0-144) 50 50 50.46 44.93 40 40 30 30 20 20 10 10 0 0 White Audience Conditions (BVW/EVW) Latino Audience Conditions (BVL/EVL) White Audience Conditions (BVW//EVW) Latino Audience Conditions (BVL/EVL) Results (Cont.) EQ2: Social Anxiety Outcome Measures: General Social Anxiety (LSAS-Total) Pre-treatment to Follow-up • Treatment x Audience: F (1, 41) = 5.15, p < .05

  25. Results (Cont.) Preliminary Analyses with Observers Ratings • Only 72% of pre-treatment, post-treatment, and follow-up speeches were evaluated by the observers. • Reliability of observers ratings on performance (SEQ) and anxiety ratings (SUDS) was good (ranged .71 to .81) • Baseline Difference Across Four Groups • Treatment x Audience x Language: non-significant for performance and anxiety ratings • Audience x Language: significant for performance ratings • Participants in front of a White audience were rated more poorly on English performance than those in front of a Latino audience.

  26. Pre- to Post-treatment Treatment x Audience x Language: F (1, 15) = 0.04, p > .05 Results (Cont.) EQ3: Observer Ratings: Peak Anxiety Ratings (SUDS) Pre-treatment to Follow-up • Treatment x Audience x Language: F (1, 13) = 5.01, p < .05 • Insufficient power in model

  27. Pre- to Post-treatment Treatment x Audience x Language: F (1, 15) = 0.35, p > .05 Results (Cont.) EQ3: Observer Ratings: Performance Ratings (SEQ) Pre-treatment to Follow-up • Treatment x Audience x Language: F (1, 13) = 6.5, p < .05 • Insufficient power in model

  28. Results (Cont.) Preliminary Analyses with Observer-Participants Discrepancy Scores • Peak anxiety (SUDS) and performance (SEQ) deviation scores • Observers’ mean score — participant’s score • Baseline Difference Across Four Groups • Treatment x Audience x Language: non-significant for anxiety and performance ratings

  29. Pre- to Post-treatment Treatment x Audience x Language: F (1, 15) =.001, p > .05 Results (Cont.) EQ4: Observer-Participants Discrepancy Scores: Peak Anxiety Ratings (SUDS) Pre-treatment to Follow-up • Treatment x Audience x Language: F (1, 12) = 0.57, p > .05

  30. Pre- to Post-treatment Treatment x Audience x Language: F (1, 15) = 1.37, p > .05 Results (Cont.) EQ4: Observer-Participants Discrepancy Scores: Performance Ratings (SEQ) Pre-treatment to Follow-up • Treatment x Audience x Language: F (1, 12) = 4.77, p < .05 • Insufficient power in model

  31. Observers’ Ratings English vs. Spanish Observers did not differentially rate participants’ English-SUDS scores from their Spanish- SUDS scores at pre-treatment. Observers rated their Spanish speech performance more poorly on the SEQ measure than their English speech performance at pre-treatment. Accuracy of Participants Ratings Participants were equally accurate at rating their English and Spanish speeches at pre-treatment on peak anxiety (SUDS) and performance (SEQ) measures. Post-hoc Analyses

  32. Eight Exposure Speeches 2 x 2 ANOVA: ASC (F (7, 36) = 1.08, p > .05) SUDS (F (7, 36) = 1.84, p > .05 SEQ (F (7, 36) = 1.32, p >.05) Family Values & Cultural Identities Regressional analyses indicated that the degree of identification with Mexican American family values and cultural identity type were not predictive of treatment outcome. Regressional analyses indicated that family values and cultural identity orientation were not related to the degree to which participants accurately perceived their speeches. Post-hoc Analyses (Cont.)

  33. Discussion • Participants reported language specific anxieties and self-performance ratings at pre-treatment. • Participants were equally accurate at evaluating their English and Spanish speeches at pre-treatment. • Their degree of accurately evaluating their speeches is not related to their orientation on family values or cultural identity.

  34. Discussion (Cont.) • Consistent with previous findings (Kim et al., 2002; Smits, 2004; Rapee & Hayman, 1996), participants in the present study experienced a reduction on heightened anxiety levels and tended to rate their speeches more positively following treatment. • Contrary to previous findings (Harvey et al., 2000; Rapee & Hayman 1996) not all participants were able to rate their speeches more accurately over time following the intervention.

  35. Discussion (Cont.) • Bilingual treatment did not show any advantageous gain above and beyond the English-only treatment. • Lack of language-specific inaccurate perceptions • Participants may not have had pre-determined perceptions of their Spanish public speaking abilities given their present cultural environment.

  36. Discussion (Cont.) • White audience conditions contributed substantially to some of the findings. • Did participants in the White audience conditions benefit from stereotype threat? • Did participants in the White audience conditions benefit from how closely the exposure task resembled their actual fear structure?

  37. Clinical Implications • Consistent with the recommendations purposed by the APA’s Multicultural Psychotherapy Guidelines (APA, 2002), the findings of this study emphasize the importance of focusing on the client within his or her cultural context. • Cognitive and Cultural Flex Theory (Ramirez, 1999) states that individual belonging to more than one culture have the potential to “flex” culturally and cognitively to adjust to their cultural environments. • The key is to identify if the participants are having difficulty “flexing” to one of their cultural environments and structuring the exposure accordingly (match vs. mismatch environment).

  38. Clinical Implications (Cont.) • Findings also address another recommendation made by APA’s Multicultural Psychotherapy Guidelines (APA, 2002): identifying cultural-specific strategies for interventions • Do bilinguals have language specific inaccurate perceptions? • Do bilinguals’ level of anxiety vary according to the ethnic composition of the audience members?

  39. Limitations • The present study was underpowered because of the modest cell sizes. • Generalizability of findings is limited. • The range of family values and cultural identities was restricted. • Language proficiency of sample was restricted. • The study failed to collect data on whether or not participants were a) consciously aware of the racial/ethnic composition of their audience members and b) how this may have influenced their treatment.

More Related