Testing the Effectiveness

of Katatagan Resilience
Program
Hechanova, Maria Regina M.
Ramos, Pia Anna P.
Martinez, Ivyjoy C.

PROGRAM FRAMEWORK/MODULE FLOW

(PAP, 2014)

Method for Data

Gathering
Quantitative
For learning per session objective pretest,
posttest, and follow-up
For overall program evaluation, in terms of:

Facilitator, topics, relevance of session

Qualitative
Learnings from the sessions and the most
helpful activity(ies)

Measures
Ratings used 5-point smiling scale ranging

from strongly disagree (lubos na di sumasangayon or a long sad face) to strongly agree
(lubos na sumasang-ayon or a very happy
face)

Measures
Module 1: 7 items (rel =.78)
e.g., I can name my strengths
E.g., I can identify my sources of strength
Module 2: 10 items (rel =.84)
I can identify what my concerns are.
Of many concerns, I know which ones to prioritize.

Module 3: 5 items (.77)

I can tell what situations make me feel stressed.
I can describe what I can do when I start to feel
stressed.

Module 4: 6 items (.74)

I can differentiate helpful thoughts from
unhelpful thoughts.
Module 5: 3 items (.61)
I can differentiate between my helpful and

unhelpful activities.
I can identify activities that I can do regularly.

Module 6: 2 items (.64)

I have identified some goals that I want to
achieve in the next 2-3 years.

Workshop evaluation:
Effectiveness of facilitators
Appropriateness of activities
Meaningfulness of topics
Learning much from the sessions
Knowing that sessions were of value to them

Participants
Data came from three municipalities in

Eastern Samar, which are as follows: Salcedo,

Quinapondan, and Giporlos
163 out 0f 367 participants completed all
modules

*Note: 6 participants with no indicated gender

were not included in the tabulation.
Date of
Intervention

Number of Participants
Salcedo
Male

Quinapondan
Female

May 16-17,
2014
May 30-31,
2014

Giporlos

Male

Female

13

15
24

24
16

20

15

18

September
19-20, 2014

October 1718, 2014

22

TOTAL

76

26
25

4
3

Female
14

July 11-12,
2014
August 8-9,
2014

Male

15

June 13-14,
2014
June 27-28,
2014

TOTAL

15

16
23

29

39

157

Overall Means
4.6

4.4

4.2

Pretest

Posttest
3.8

3.6

3.4
Module 1

Module 2

Module 3

Module 4

Module 5

Module 6

Overall Means
4.6

4.4

4.2

4
Pretest
Posttest
3.8

3.6

3.4
Module 1

SIGNIFICANT

Module 2

SIGNIFICANT

Module 3

SIGNIFICAN
T

Module 4

SIGNIFICAN
T

Module 5

SIGNIFICAN
T

Module 6

SIGNIFICAN
T

Results: Follow-Up
Assessment
5
4.5
4
3.5
3
Pretest

2.5

Posttest
Posttest, Time 1

2
1.5
1
0.5
0
Module 1

Module 2

Module 3

Module 4

Module 5

Module 6

Results: Follow-Up
Assessment
5
4.5
4
3.5
3
Pretest

2.5

Posttest
Posttest, Time 1

2
1.5
1
0.5
0
Module 1

Module 2

Module 3

Module 4

Module 5

Module 6

Participants with follow up forms

Overall
Module 1

Module 2

Module 3

Module 4

Module 5

Module 6

Mean

Significant or Not
Significant?

Pre

4.01

Significant

Post

4.35

Pre

3.93

Post

4.20

Pre

3.97

Post

4.24

Pre

4.00

Post

4.49

Pre

4.21

Post

4.68

Pre

3.83

Post

4.58

Significant

Significant

Significant

Significant

Significant

First posttest and follow

up
Mean
Module 1

Module 2

Module 3

Module 4

Module 5

Module 6

Overall

Significant or Not
Significant?

Post 1

4.35

Not Significant

Post 2

4.38

Post 1

4.20

Post 2

4.33

Post 1

4.25

Post 2

4.24

Post 1

4.49

Post 2

4.20

Post 1

4.68

Post 2

4.37

Post 1

4.58

Post 2

4.21

Not Significant

Not Significant

Significant

Significant

Significant

ANOVA
Overall

Pai
r1

Pai
r2

Pai
r3

Pai
r4

Pai
r5

Pai
r6

F1

F2

F3

F4

F5

F6

Mean
difference

-.33

-.29

-.28

-.49

-.49

-.76

-.03

-.12

.01

.29

.34

.38

significan
ce level

.00

.00

.02

.00

.00

.00

.71

.15

.96

.01

.00

.02

Pretest and Follow up

Mean
Module 1

Module 2

Module 3

Module 4

Module 5

Module 6

Overall

Significant or Not
Significant?

Pre

4.02

Significant

4.37

Pre

3.92

4.32

Pre

3.97

4.24

Pre

4.00

4.19

Pre

4.22

4.36

Pre

3.84

4.23

Significant

Significant

Not Significant

Not Significant

Significant

How efficient are the

modules?
There is an increase in the participants

scores after the six modules were conducted.

The participants were able to gain learnings
and insights during the implementation of the
modules.

How efficient are the

modules?
The participants were able to learn each programs

objectives, which are as follows:

Module 1: Identifying and cultivating strengths
Module 2: Identifying current concerns and seeking
solutions and support
Module 3: Managing physical reactions
Module 4: Managing unhelpful thoughts and
emotions
Module 5: Identifying regular and positive activities
Module 6: Identifying goals and developing action
plans to achieve goals

What do the results imply for postdisaster response?

Teach participants to:
- take care of themselves
- cultivate their inner strengths
-

References