{"id":532,"date":"2012-09-05T21:22:00","date_gmt":"2012-09-05T21:22:00","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/nipspeersupport.org\/?page_id=532"},"modified":"2014-07-09T13:27:24","modified_gmt":"2014-07-09T13:27:24","slug":"evaluations-of-vets4vets","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/nipspeersupport.org\/?page_id=532","title":{"rendered":"Evaluations of Vets4Vets"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

The following hyperlink connects you to a very positive evaluation by faculty at Arizona State University of the NIPS residential weekend workshops attended by 2500 returning U.S. veterans from Iraq and Afghanistan.<\/p>\n

http:\/\/nipspeersupport.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2012\/09\/ASU-Evaluation-of-Vets4Vets-110427.pdf<\/p>\n

The peer-reviewed version of the study is presented below. It uses the same data, but controlling for the influence of a number of variables. Significant positive outcomes were still observed. The citation is : <\/em><\/p>\n

Ann MacEachron and Nora Gustavsson.\u00a0<\/em>Peer Support, Self-efficacy, and Combat-related Trauma Symptoms among Returning OIF\/OEF Veterans. ADVANCES IN SOCIAL WORK, Fall 2012, 13(3) ,<\/p>\n

Key Words:\u00a0 Veterans, peer support, PTSD, social support, self-help, self-efficacy, general self-efficacy<\/p>\n

Abstract<\/strong><\/p>\n

Peer support, self-efficacy, and combat-related trauma symptoms among returning <\/strong>OIF\/OEF veterans<\/strong><\/p>\n

The incidence of PTSD and other combat-related trauma symptoms among veterans returning from the Iraq and Afghanistan wars suggests that many will experience psychological challenges in adjusting to civilian life.\u00a0 We evaluated a national program called, Vets4Vets, whose mission is to improve the psychological well-being of returning Iraq and Afghanistan veterans.\u00a0 \u00a0The study included veterans (n = 216) attending one of 17 Vets4Vets peer support weekend retreats.\u00a0 Using hierarchical regression analysis of post-test change, we found that increased perceived peer support, self-efficacy and general self-efficacy reduced PTSD symptoms.\u00a0 Both situation-specific self-efficacy and general self-efficacy mediated the relationship between peer support and PTSD symptoms.\u00a0 Implications for social work are discussed.<\/p>\n

Peer support, self-efficacy, and PTSD symptoms <\/strong><\/p>\n

among returning OIF\/OEF<\/strong> veterans<\/strong><\/p>\n

After more than a decade of war in Iraq (OIF, Operation Iraqi Freedom) and Afghanistan (OEF, Operation Enduring Freedom) and with over 2.6 million troops deployed, a continuing challenge is taking care of veterans who have endured these wars.\u00a0 While it is known that veterans may experience multiple physical challenges, recognition is growing in regards to the psychological and social consequences of deployment, extended or multiple tours of duty, and combat (Burnam, Tanielian, & Jaycox, 2009; Eibner, 2008; Institute of Medicine, 2010).\u00a0 Reviews of the literature (Schell & Tanielian, 2011; Tanielian & Jaycox\u2019s 2008) indicate that the prevalence of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) ranges from about 5 to 15 percent for returning OIF\/OEF veterans.\u00a0 Recurrent PTSD symptoms often interfere if not impair functioning in personal, social, and work realms.\u00a0 Another recently publicized risk is the increasing prevalence of suicide among both soldiers and veterans.\u00a0 The Center for New American Security (2011) recently estimated that a veteran dies from suicide about every 80 minutes.<\/p>\n

Peer support is increasingly recognized as an important component of mental health services for improving psychological well-being among veterans because of its congruence with veterans\u2019 common experience of military culture and its high value placed on camaraderie and unit cohesion (Barber, Rosenheck, Armstrong, & Resnick, 2008; Center for New American Security, 2011; Poole, 2010; Schell & Tanielian, 2011; Seligman, 2011; Tanielian & Jaycox, 2008).\u00a0 \u00a0<\/strong>From a social cognitive perspective, the effectiveness of peer support is explained in terms of an individual\u2019s improved self-efficacy <\/strong>due to peer learning about how to cope and manage a stressful environment (Benight & Bandura, 2004).\u00a0\u00a0 The focus of our study is evaluating a national, grassroots peer support veterans program, called Vets4Vets.\u00a0 \u00a0Founded in 2004, Vets4Vets is among the 50 outstanding nonprofits to receive an award through the 2006 Iraq-Afghanistan Deployment Impact Fund (NBC Nightly News Weekend Edition, 2009).\u00a0 The award was for using intensive peer support weekend retreats to help veterans \u201cheal from the psychological injuries of war\u201d (Vets4Vets, 2011).\u00a0 In this pretest-posttest study OIF\/OEF veterans who participated in the Vets4Vets weekend peer support program, the research questions are: a) do PTSD symptoms lessen with increased peer support and self-efficacy, and b) does self-efficacy mediate or explain the possible relationship between peer support and PTSD \u00a0symptoms?<\/p>\n

Peer support <\/strong><\/p>\n

Kurtz (1997) defined a self-help group as \u201ca supportive, educational, usually change-oriented mutual-aid group that addresses a single life problem or condition shared by all members\u201d (p. 4). \u00a0\u00a0The condition shared among peer support groups is often traumatic experiences.\u00a0\u00a0 Mead, Hilton, & Curtis (2001) define peer support as \u201ca system of giving and receiving help founded on key principles of respect, shared responsibility, and mutual agreement of what is helpful\u2026It is about understanding another\u2019s situation emphatically through the shared experience of emotional and psychological pain\u201d (p. 135). \u00a0\u00a0Brown & Lucksted (2010) suggest that there are multiple, overlapping dimensions to peer support.\u00a0 It is not just a common experience but also a healing and empowering process.<\/p>\n

Generally speaking, the peer group process offers the opportunity to learn from the coping competency of others.\u00a0 Peers \u201cmodel coping attitudes and skills, provide incentives for engagement in beneficial activities, and motivate others by showing that difficulties are surmountable by perseverant effort\u201d (Benight & Bandura, 2004, p. 1134).\u00a0 Peers not only model and demonstrate coping and adaptive skills but also offer contextual wisdom through personal stories of recovery or adaptive coping (Solomon, 2004). \u00a0The experiential principle is key to peer support because it creates a relationship based on a shared life experience to foster understanding, trustworthiness and safety in helping relationships (Hegelson & Gottlieb, 2000; Mead , Hilton, & Curtis, 2001; Solomon, 2004).<\/p>\n

Overall, peer support is a well-established pathway to reduce vulnerability to stress and depression by emphasizing strengths and coping resilience to overcome trauma and rebuild one\u2019s life (Bandura, 1997;Calhoun & Tedeschi, 2006; Saleeby, 2006; Schwarzer, 2001; Seligman, 2011).\u00a0 A meta-analysis of PTSD predictors by Ozer, Best, Lipsey, & Weiss (2008) revealed a significant inverse relationship between social support and PTSD symptoms that was strongest in studies of combat trauma among American veterans of the Vietnam War and the Persian Gulf War. In this pretest-posttest study of OIF\/OEF veterans, our first hypothesis is that increased peer support experienced in theVets4Vets weekend peer support program reduces perceived PTSD symptoms.<\/p>\n

Self-efficacy<\/strong><\/p>\n

Self-efficacy has been conceptualized in two distinct ways by Bandura (1997) and by Schwarzer & Jerusalem (1995).\u00a0 From Bandura\u2019s perspective, perceived self-efficacy in coping is the \u201ccore belief that one has the power to produce desired effects by one\u2019s actions\u201d and \u201cplays a key role in stress reactions and quality of coping in threatening situations\u201d (Benight & Bandura, 2004, p. 1131).\u00a0\u00a0 Self-efficacy reduces the effect of a stressor by enabling individuals to use proactive coping strategies. \u00a0Individuals with high self-efficacy see challenges as mastery tasks, focus on strengths, and recover more quickly from setbacks.\u00a0 Individuals with low self-efficacy see challenges as areas of personal failure, focus on their failings, and have low confidence in themselves. \u00a0Self-efficacy is thus a key component of resilience to trauma (Bandura, 1994). \u00a0Combat traumatization, as discussed by Benight & Bandura (2004), has received limited attention in the research literature.\u00a0 Among the very few available studies reviewed by Benight & Bandura (2004), findings indicate that the lower the perceived self-efficacy of soldiers, the more trauma symptoms experienced. Our second hypothesis is that increased situation-specific self-efficacy reduces perceived PTSD symptoms.<\/p>\n

Self-efficacy as defined by Bandura (1997) is situation-specific, that is, depends on the particular context and activity.\u00a0 It focuses on an adaptive functioning relative to the surrounding circumstances, context and goals.\u00a0 An alternative conceptualization is that of an omnibus or general self-efficacy.\u00a0 General self-efficacy is an optimistic \u201cself-belief that one can perform \u2026 difficult tasks or cope with adversity \u2013 in various domains of human functioning\u201d (Schwarzer & Jerusalem, 1995, p. 1).\u00a0\u00a0 It is a stable adaptive strategy if not trait based on an optimism regarding one\u2019s coping ability (Schwarzer, 1994).\u00a0 Vernon, Dillon, & Steiner (2009), found general self-efficacy to be one of several proactive coping factors in reducing PTSD symptoms among undergraduate women with trauma backgrounds. \u00a0\u00a0This conceptualization suggests that \u00a0people higher in general self-efficacy are more likely to have less intense trauma symptoms, set higher goals, persist towards their goals despite obstacles, and create opportunities for personal growth.\u00a0 Our third hypothesis is that increased general self-efficacy reduces perceived PTSD symptoms.<\/p>\n

From a social cognitive perspective, individuals are proactive both in adapting to the multi-causality inherent to environmental challenges and risks and in developing competencies and regulating their actions (Bandura, 1997).\u00a0 Resilience to adversity is viewed as relying \u201cmore on personal enablement than on environmental protectiveness\u201d or on proactivity rather than reactivity (Benight & Bandura, 2004, p. 1133).\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 To the extent that peer support enables learning of adaptive knowledge and coping skills within a multi-causal context, it fosters what Bandura calls self-efficacy.\u00a0 Peer supporters provide a social learning context in which they model a variety of coping skills across multiple situations as well as encourage perseverance in achieving mastery over trauma-related symptoms or other goals.\u00a0 The explanatory link between support and reduced trauma-related symptoms is self-efficacy. \u00a0Self-efficacy requires a proactive approach to find, maintain and learn from peers.\u00a0 \u00a0Benight & Bandura\u2019s 2004 review of the literature discussed the important mediating role played by self-efficacy: \u00a0\u201csocial support produces beneficial outcomes only to the extent that it raises perceived self-efficacy to manage environmental demands\u201d (p. 1134).<\/p>\n

As Benight & Bandura noted, much more research is needed to evaluate self-efficacy as a mediator especially in regards to explaining the relationship between social support and combat-related trauma.\u00a0 Our fourth hypothesis is that Bandura\u2019s situation-specific self-efficacy will play a mediator role in explaining the relationship between peer support and perceived PTSD symptoms at posttest.\u00a0 Our fifth hypothesis, in parallel fashion, is that Schwarzer\u2019s concept of general self-efficacy will also play a mediator role in explaining the relationship between peer support and perceived PTSD symptoms at posttest.<\/p>\n

Vets4Vets Program<\/strong><\/p>\n

Since World War II, peer support and peer services have grown exponentially (Brown & Lucksted, 2010; Campbell, 2005; Clay, 2005; Davidson et al., 1999).\u00a0 This growth is especially evident in the mental health and addictions field with many Anonymous programs for alcohol, drugs, gambling and other issues (Solomon, 2004).\u00a0 Since the 1970s, peer support has been a component of the Community Support System in mental health as well as other mental health services (Goldstrom et al., 2006; Solomon, 2004).\u00a0 Peer support in mental health services is also expanding in the Veteran\u2019s Administration (Barber et al., 2008; Resnick & Rosenheck, 2008).\u00a0\u00a0 There is substantial variation in the purpose, format and setting for peer support, for example, one-on-one sessions, small to larger groups, face-to-face versus online, therapeutic or personal growth, and short-term intensive retreats versus ongoing sessions \u00a0(Hirschhorn & Gilmore, 2004; Liteman et al., 2006; \u00a0Martone, 2010; Orloff, Armstrong, & Remke, 2009; Rains & Young, 2009).<\/p>\n

The Vets4Vets is a national grassroots organization that works with OIF\/OEF veterans to develop local peer support groups and to coordinate these groups to become a national network.\u00a0 One part of their peer support program is to hold regional intensive weekend retreats.\u00a0 The residential retreats start on Friday afternoon and end on Sunday noon.\u00a0 The schedule and content of each hour is manualized for leaders.\u00a0 The leaders themselves are OIF\/OEF veterans who have been trained through co-leading at previous retreats.\u00a0 Each retreat emphasizes peer support through engagement in multiple group sessions throughout the weekend.\u00a0 The groups encourage members to talk openly about and re-evaluate their military experiences, to use active listening skills, to re-experience camaraderie or social connectedness of peers, discuss challenges to reentry to civilian life, and recognize common issues for advocacy within their veteran communities.<\/p>\n

Methods<\/strong><\/p>\n

Sample\u00a0 <\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

A total of 325 of 466 OIF\/OEF (70%) veterans completed either a pretest or posttest while attending one of 17 Vets4Vets weekend retreats between January 2010 and January 2011.\u00a0\u00a0 Given veteran reluctance to share information about combat-related trauma (e.g., Schell & Tanielian, 2011), anonymous identifiers were chosen by participants to self-identify each test.\u00a0 Using these identifiers, a total of 216 participants (46% response rate) completed both the pretest and posttest.<\/p>\n

\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 <\/em>To maintain the anonymity of participants, the only background information collected was for age, gender, and race\/ethnicity.\u00a0 Participants were 37 years old on average (sd = 11).\u00a0\u00a0 About 40% of participants were married and 60% were single.\u00a0\u00a0 The majority were males (70%).\u00a0 \u00a0Most participants were white (58%), and then Hispanic American (14%), African American (13%), Native American (3%), Asian American (less than 1%), or others who did not define their race or ethnicity (9%).\u00a0 There was no significant difference on background characteristics for participants who either completed both tests or just one test.<\/p>\n

Research Design<\/em><\/strong><\/strong><\/p>\n

Vets4Vets followed a pretest-post one group design (Rubin & Babbie, 2010).\u00a0\u00a0 A pretest was given to participants during the first evening (Friday) of the weekend retreat and a posttest the following Sunday at the end of the retreat.\u00a0\u00a0 Vets4Vets staff designed the survey and collected the pretest-posttest data, but the authors coded the data.\u00a0 The university IRB reviewed and approved use of this secondary data for this study.<\/p>\n

Measures<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

Peer Support.<\/em>\u00a0 A key theme of peer support is the feeling of social connectedness, a theme that we measured in this study by the Social Connectedness Scale <\/em>(SC).\u00a0 SC is based on Kohut\u2019s (1984) concept of belongingness or closeness with others in contrast to social isolation or \u201cemotional distance between self and others\u201d (Lee & Robbins, 1995, p. 236).\u00a0\u00a0 The SC scale is the average of 8 items such as, \u201cI have little sense of togetherness with my peers.\u201d\u00a0 Each item is assessed by reverse scoring of a 6-point scale ranging from 1= \u201cStrongly Agree\u201d to 6 = \u201cStrongly Disagree.\u201d\u00a0 A higher score represents higher perceived social connectedness.\u00a0 Cronbach\u2019s alpha of reliability is .96 in the pretest and .95 in the posttest.\u00a0 These reliabilities are consistent with the high reliabilities of .91 reported in Lee & Robbins (1995) and .94 reported in Lee, Draper & Lee (2001).<\/p>\n

\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 General self-efficacy.<\/em>\u00a0 <\/strong>\u00a0The General Efficacy Scale (GSE) measures an individual\u2019s general sense of self-efficacy in coping with daily hassles and adapting to stress across domains of human functioning (Schwarzer & Jerusalem, 1995; Schwarzer & Fuchs, 1996).\u00a0\u00a0 The GSE is the average of ten items such as \u201cI can always manage to solve difficult problems if I try hard enough.\u201d \u00a0Each item is rated on a 4-point scale ranging from 1= \u201cNot at all true\u201d to 4 = \u201cExactly true.\u201d \u00a0A higher score represents a higher perceived general self-efficacy.\u00a0 Cronbach\u2019s alpha of reliability is .92 for both the pretest and posttest and is thus consistent with previously reported reliabilities in the high .80s (Schwarzer & Jerusalem, 1995, 1996).<\/p>\n

Situation-specific self-efficacy.<\/em>\u00a0 The situation-specific self-efficacy (SE) measure is the average of four items developed by the Vets4Vets staff to tap coping with combat-related trauma.\u00a0\u00a0 An example is: \u201cI feel confident that I can manage any PTSD and related symptoms, or any effects of military service \u2013 such as sometimes feeling bad or guilty about my military service, getting angry easily, feeling isolated.\u201d \u00a0Each item is measured on a 6-point scale ranging from 1 = \u201cStrongly disagree\u201d to 6 = \u201cStrongly agree.\u201d\u00a0 A higher score represents higher perceived situation-specific self-efficacy.\u00a0 The Cronbach\u2019s alpha is .82 for the pretest and .84 for the posttest. \u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n

\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 <\/strong>PTSD.<\/em>\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0Perceived PTSD is measured by the global screening instrument called SPRINT (Davidson & Colket, 1997; Connor & Davidson, 2001). \u00a0SPRINT contains 8 items such as, \u201cHow much have you been bothered by unwanted memories, nightmares, or reminders of the event.\u201d \u00a0Each item is measured on a 4-point scale ranging from 1 = \u201dNot at all\u201d to\u00a0 4 = \u201cQuite a bit.\u201d\u00a0 A higher average score represents a higher perceived risk of experiencing PTSD symptoms. The SPRINT has been reported as responsive to change over time and has high diagnostic accuracy and internal consistency. \u00a0\u00a0In this study, the Cronbach\u2019s alpha of reliability is .93 for the pretest and .94 for the posttest.<\/p>\n

Control variables.\u00a0 <\/em>Previous research has found that age, gender, and marital status may influence perceived PTSD symptoms (e.g., Carter-Visscher, Pulusny, Murdoch, Thruas, Erbes, & Kehle, 2010; Worthen, 2011), self-efficacy (e.g., Bandura, 1997), and\/or social support from peers (e.g., Brown & Lucksted, 2010).\u00a0 Thus, our analyses control for gender (0 = male, 1 = female), age, and marital status (0 = not married, 1 = married).<\/p>\n

The measurement of change requires adjusting posttest scores for pretest differences.\u00a0 Dimitrov & Rumrill (2003) recommend using ANCOVA with a pretest-posttest design that regresses each posttest on its pretest covariate.\u00a0 Thus, in addition to the control variables of gender, age and marital status, we entered pretests scores as covariates in regression analyses before evaluating posttest change for peer support, GSE, SE, and PTSD symptoms.<\/p>\n

Statistical Analysis<\/em><\/p>\n

PASW Statistics 20<\/em> was used for all statistical analyses.\u00a0\u00a0 For descriptive purposes, Pearson correlations evaluated the strength and significance of bivariate relationships between all measures, while paired t-tests evaluated pretest-posttest mean differences of each independent and dependent variable.<\/p>\n

We used hierarchical regression to test our hypotheses.\u00a0 Model 1 of each hierarchical regression analysis is the dependent variable posttest regressed on the control variables (e.g., age, gender, marital status, and the covariate pretests for the dependent and independent variables).\u00a0 Model 2 is the posttest dependent variable regressed on the posttest independent variable.\u00a0 R2<\/sup> for each regression equation is the amount of variance explained in the adjusted posttest dependent variable.\u00a0 Change in R2<\/sup> (DR2) between Model 1 and Model 2 is our measure of effect size, or the strength of association between the posttest independent and dependent variables when holding control and covariate variables constant.<\/p>\n

There are multiple criteria to test for mediation of the relationship between an\u00a0 independent variable (peer support) and dependent variable (perceived PTSD symptoms) by mediator variables (SE and GSE) (Kenny, Kashy, & Bolger, 1998). To demonstrate partial mediation, a) the independent variable and dependent variable must be significantly related, b) the mediator variable and dependent variable must be significantly related, and c) the independent variable and mediator variable must be significantly related. \u00a0\u00a0To demonstrate complete mediation, an additional criterion is that after controlling for the mediator, the independent variable has no significant effect on the dependent variable.<\/p>\n

Results<\/strong><\/p>\n

The means, standard deviations, and sample size for each measure and their bivariate inter-correlations are reported in Table 1. \u00a0\u00a0Descriptive bivariate statistics show that there are significant (p < .001) and strong, positive pretest-posttest correlations for peer support (r = .73), GSE (r = .65), SE (r = .60), and perceived PTSD symptoms (r = .87).\u00a0 The paired t-tests for each<\/p>\n

pretest-posttest mean difference are significant (p < .001) for peer support (t = 5.15), GSE (t = 5.31), SE (t = 7.18), and perceived PTSD symptoms (t = -5.19).\u00a0 Higher pretest scores for peer support, general self-efficacy, and situation-specific self-efficacy predict higher scores on their respective posttests, whereas for perceived PTSD symptoms, a higher pretest score predicts a<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

 <\/p>\n

\n

Table 1:\u00a0 Means, standard deviations, sample sizes, and Pearson inter-correlations<\/p>\n

Variable\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Mean\u00a0 SD\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 N \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a01\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0 2 \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a03\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 4\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 5\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 6\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 7\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 8\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 9\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0 10<\/p>\n

Pretest (1)<\/p>\n

    \n
  1. Support-1\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 3.6\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 1.4\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 211 \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0—<\/li>\n
  2. GES-1\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 3.1\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 .6 \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 211\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0 .51**\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0 —<\/li>\n
  3. SE-1\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 4.1\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 1.2 \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 208\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0 .55**\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0 .52**\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0 —<\/li>\n
  4. PTSD-1\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 3.0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 .8 \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 182\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 – .60**\u00a0\u00a0 – .53**\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 – .68**\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0 —<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    Posttest (2)<\/p>\n

      \n
    1. Support-2\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 4.0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 1.3 \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 212\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0 .73**\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0 .34**\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0 .41**\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 – .48**\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0 —<\/li>\n
    2. GES-2\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 3.2\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 .5 \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 211\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0 .42**\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0 .65**\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0 .40**\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 – .37**\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0 .51**\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0 —<\/li>\n
    3. SE-2 \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 4.7\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 1.0 \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 185\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0 .45**\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0 .54**\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0 .60**\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 – .52**\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0 .56**\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0 .59**\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0 —<\/li>\n
    4. PTSD-2\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 2.7\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0.8 \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 185\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 – .55**\u00a0\u00a0 – .44**\u00a0\u00a0 – .64**\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0 .87**\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 – .51**\u00a0 – .38**\u00a0\u00a0 – .56**\u00a0\u00a0 —<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

      Background<\/p>\n

        \n
      1. Age \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 36.9\u00a0 11.2\u00a0 212\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0 .08\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0 .01\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0 .11\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0 .00\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 .04\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 – .03\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0 .06\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 .02\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0 —<\/li>\n
      2. Gender\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0.3\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 .5 \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 212\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0 .04\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 – .03\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 – .04\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0 .03\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 .11*\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0 .06\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0 .08\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 – .02\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 – .12*\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0 —<\/li>\n
      3. Married\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0 .4\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 .5 \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 208\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0 .21*\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0 .12*\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0 .21**\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 – .12*\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 .16*\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0 .11\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0 .19**\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 – .14\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0 .27**\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 – .25**<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

        ———————————-<\/p>\n

        * p < .05;\u00a0 *** p < .01<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

         <\/p>\n

        \n

        lower posttest score.\u00a0 These findings offer support that change occurred in these measures over the course of weekend retreats.<\/p>\n

        Table 2 shows the hierarchical regression analyses for evaluating the influence of peer support on perceived PTSD symptoms, GSE, and SE.\u00a0 Tables 3 and 4 show the hierarchical regression analyses for evaluating the influence of SE and GSE on PTSD symptoms.\u00a0\u00a0 In Tables 2 through 4, Model 1 for each analysis regresses the dependent variable only on the control and covariate variables.\u00a0 Note that, unlike previous studies, the control variables of age, gender, and marital status are consistently insignificant in predicting PTSD symptoms, GSE, or SE. \u00a0Model 2 for each analysis regresses the dependent variable on the independent variable in addition to the control and covariate variables.<\/p>\n

        Hypothesis 1 is that increased peer support reduces perceived PTSD symptoms.\u00a0 As shown in Table 2 \u2013 Part A, the amount of change in variance explained is very small but significant (DR2<\/sup> = .01, p < .05) in comparing Model 1 (R1<\/sub>2<\/sup> = .79) and Model 2 (R2<\/sub>2<\/sup> = .80) where posttest peer support is added to the regression equation with the control and covariate variables.\u00a0 The standardized coefficient (Beta = -.15, p < .001) shows that one standard deviation increase in posttest peer support is necessary to reduce posttest PTSD symptoms by only .15 standard deviations when holding control and covariate variables constant. These finding supports the hypothesis.<\/p>\n

        Hypothesis 2 is that increased situation-specific self-efficacy reduces perceived PTSD.\u00a0 As shown in Table 3, the amount of change in variance explained is very small but significant (DR2<\/sup> = .01, p < .01) in comparing Model 1 (R1<\/sub>2<\/sup> = .80) with Model 2 (R2<\/sub>2<\/sup> = .81) where SE is added to the regression equation with the control and covariate variables.\u00a0 The significant standardized coefficient (Beta = -.14, p < .01) indicates that a one standard deviation increase in<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

        \n

        Table 2:\u00a0 Hierarchical regressions with posttest peer support as the independent variable<\/p>\n

        \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Betas\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 _____ __\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 <\/span>\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0R2<\/sup> for Model 1 and Model 2 with<\/p>\n

        Pretest \u00a0 Pretest\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0Posttest\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0change in R2<\/sup> from Model 1 to 2\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 <\/span><\/p>\n

        Dependent Variable (DV)\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 <\/span>\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0DV\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 <\/span>\u00a0\u00a0Support<\/span> Age<\/span>\u00a0\u00a0 Gender<\/span>\u00a0 Married<\/span>\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0 Support <\/span>\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0R1<\/sub>2<\/sup> <\/span>\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0R2<\/sub>2 <\/sup>\u00a0<\/span>\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 D<\/span>R2 <\/sup><\/span>\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/span><\/sup>D<\/span>F\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 <\/span><\/p>\n

          \n
        1. Posttest PTSD<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

          Model 1: Controls\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 .86***\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0 – .03\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 .01\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 – .02\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0 – .07\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0 .79***\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 125.26<\/p>\n

          Model 2: Add posttest support\u00a0 .85**\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 .08\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 .01\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 .00\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 – .05\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 – .15**\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0 .80***\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 .01*\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 7.31<\/p>\n

            \n
          1. Posttest general self-efficacy<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

            Model 1: Controls\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 .59***\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 .12\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0 – .07\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 .05\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 .06\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 .45***\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a032.36<\/p>\n

            Model 2: Add posttest support\u00a0 .61***\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0 – .23**\u00a0 – .05\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0 .00\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 .04\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 .48***\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0 .55***\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 .10***\u00a0 \u00a0 43.70<\/p>\n

              \n
            1. Posttest self-efficacy<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

              Model 1: Controls\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 .50***\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 .14\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0 – .03\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0 .11\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0.03\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 .38***\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a019.19<\/p>\n

              Model 2: Add posttest support\u00a0 .51***\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0 – .20*\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 – .03\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 .04\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 .01\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 .47***\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 .48*** \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 .10***\u00a0 \u00a0 31.94<\/p>\n

               <\/p>\n

               <\/p>\n

              ——————————————————-<\/p>\n

              *\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0p < .05;\u00a0 ** p < .01;\u00a0 *** p < .001<\/p>\n

              Table 3:\u00a0 Hierarchical regressions with posttest \u201csituation-specific\u201d self-efficacy as the independent variable<\/p>\n

              \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Betas\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 _______\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 <\/span>\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0R2<\/sup> for Model 1 and Model 2 wit<\/p>\n

              Pretest \u00a0 Pretest\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0Posttest\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 change in R2<\/sup> from Model 1 to 2<\/span><\/p>\n

              Dependent Variable (DV)\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 <\/span>\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0PTSD <\/span>\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0SE\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 <\/span>\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0Age<\/span>\u00a0\u00a0 Gender<\/span>\u00a0 Married<\/span>\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0SE\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 <\/span>\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0R1<\/sub>2<\/sup> <\/span>\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0R2<\/sub>2 <\/sup>\u00a0<\/span>\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0D<\/span>R2 <\/sup><\/span>\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/span><\/sup>D<\/span>F\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 <\/span><\/p>\n

              Posttest PTSD<\/p>\n

              Model 1: Controls\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 .73***\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0 – .20***\u00a0\u00a0 .04\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 – .03\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 – .04\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 .80***\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 109.46<\/p>\n

              Model 2: Add posttest self-efficacy\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 .72***\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0 – .12*\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 .04\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 – .01\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 – .03\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 – .14**\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 .81***\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 .01**\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 7.45<\/p>\n

               <\/p>\n

               <\/p>\n

              —————————————————————-<\/p>\n

               <\/p>\n

              *\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 p < .05;\u00a0 ** p < .01;\u00a0 *** p < .001<\/p>\n

              Table 4:\u00a0 Hierarchical regressions with posttest general self-efficacy (GES) as the independent variable (IV)<\/p>\n

              \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Betas\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 _______\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 <\/span>\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0R2<\/sup> for Model 1 and Model 2 wit<\/p>\n

              Pretest \u00a0 Pretest\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0Posttest\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0change in R2<\/sup> from Model 1 to 2<\/span><\/p>\n

              Dependent Variable (DV)\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 <\/span>\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0DV\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 <\/span>\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0GSE \u00a0\u00a0 <\/span>\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0Age<\/span>\u00a0\u00a0 Gender<\/span>\u00a0 Married<\/span>\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0GSE\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 <\/span>\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0R1<\/sub>2<\/sup> <\/span>\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0R2<\/sub>2 <\/sup>\u00a0<\/span>\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0D<\/span>R2 <\/sup><\/span>\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/span><\/sup>D<\/span>F\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 <\/span><\/p>\n

              Posttest PTSD<\/p>\n

              Model 1: Controls\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 .86***\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0 – .03\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 .01\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 – .02\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0 – .07\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 .78***\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 125.18<\/p>\n

              Model 2: Add posttest GES\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 .86***\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 .05\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 .01\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 – .02\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 – .06\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 – .12**\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 .79***\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 .01**\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 5.56<\/p>\n

              ——————————————————-<\/p>\n

              * p < .05; ** p < .01;\u00a0 *** p < .001<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

              (Apologies: The\u00a0 data table is too wide for this format. We are trying to correct it. Please contact us at JimDriscoll@NIPSPeerSupport.org directly and not the author for a more readable format.)<\/p>\n

              posttest GSE reduces perceived posttest PTSD symptoms by only .14 standard deviations when holding other control and covariate variables constant. These findings support the hypothesis.<\/p>\n

              Hypothesis 3 is that increased general self-efficacy reduces perceived PTSD symptoms.\u00a0 As shown in Table 4, the amount of change in variance explained is very small but significant (DR2<\/sup> = .01, p < .01) in comparing Model 1 (R1<\/sub>2<\/sup> = .78) with Model 2 (R2<\/sub>2<\/sup> = .79) where GSE is added to the regression equation with the control and covariate variables.\u00a0 The significant standardized coefficient (Beta = -.12, p < .01) indicates that a one standard deviation increase in posttest GSE reduces perceived posttest PTSD symptoms by only .12 standard deviations when holding other control and covariate variables constant.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0These findings support the hypothesis.<\/p>\n

              The last two hypotheses are that situation-specific self-efficacy (Hypothesis 4) and general self-efficacy (Hypothesis 5) will play a mediator role in explaining the relationship between peer support and perceived PTSD symptoms.\u00a0 Kenny, Kasher, & Bolger (1998) defined the criteria for demonstrating mediation.\u00a0 The first criterion is the same as the supported Hypothesis 1, namely that the independent variable of posttest peer support reduces perceived PTDS symptoms.\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0The second criterion is the same as the supported Hypothesis 2 and Hypothesis 3, namely that the mediator variable of SE and GSE respectively reduces perceived PTSD symptoms.\u00a0 The third criterion is that the relationship is significant between the independent variable of posttest peer support and the mediator variables of SE and GSE respectively.\u00a0 As shown in Table 2-Part B and Part C, this criterion is supported by the strong significant relationship of peer support to both SE (Beta = .47, p < .001) and GSE (Beta = .48, p < .001).\u00a0 A one standard deviation increase in posttest peer support increases SE or GSE respectively by .47 or .48 standard deviations when holding other control and covariate variables constant.\u00a0\u00a0 A fourth criterion is necessary to demonstrate full mediation, namely that the relationship between posttest peer support and perceived PTSD symptoms must be reduced to insignificance when controlling for posttest SE or GSE respectively.\u00a0 This criterion is satisfied when controlling for the control variables for posttest SE (Beta = -.07, p > .05) and posttest GSE (Beta = -.12, p > .05) respectively.\u00a0 The findings for all four criteria together support Hypotheses 4 and 5.<\/p>\n

              Discussion\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 <\/strong><\/p>\n

              This study contributes to empirical knowledge about the effectiveness of peer support for veterans who have returned to civilian life, especially in regards to OIF\/OEF veterans (Ozer et al., 2008).\u00a0 Perceived increases in peer support foster a significant but small reduction of perceived PTSD symptoms, as do increases in situation-specific self-efficacy and general self-efficacy.\u00a0\u00a0 As Benight & Bandura (2004) report, little is known about the role of self-efficacy as a mediator variable between combat-related trauma and peer support.\u00a0 The strong, significant relationship between peer support and self-efficacy here suggests that peer support as change-oriented process provides an enabling environment that promotes self-efficacy beliefs regarding proactive, adaptive coping with PTSD symptoms.\u00a0 This mediator role was played by both situation-specific self-efficacy and \u00a0the more future-oriented, optimistic concept of general self-efficacy.<\/p>\n

              These findings must be balanced with a number of study limitations.\u00a0 Although all hypotheses are supported, the strength of relationship is small between reduced PTSD symptoms, peer support, and self-efficacy.\u00a0 This change in PTSD symptoms may have resulted for reasons other than increased peer support or self-efficacy.\u00a0 For example, it may be that an intense weekend retreat created a positive \u2018bounce\u2019 effect in self-evaluation that will shortly diminish. \u00a0The literature does suggest, however, that the effect of peer support for veterans is cumulative over time (Ozer, et al., 2008).\u00a0 \u00a0Longitudinal, follow-up studies are needed to compare the initial and cumulative effects of different peer support formats. \u00a0Another study limitation, perhaps best corrected by randomization to different groups when possible, is selection bias of participants in terms of attending a weekend retreat.\u00a0 Measurement could be improved by, for example, a) additional peer support measures to enhance understanding of the emotional, cognitive and social meanings of peer support, and b) increasing the range of outcomes to include more about the management of combat-related trauma and pain, social relationships, and instrumental needs such as use of veteran benefits, education, and employment to indicate how peer support is most helpful.<\/p>\n

              Implications for social work<\/strong><\/p>\n

              Recognizing the behavioral health needs of veterans is an essential first step in the design of services.\u00a0 The recognition needs to be followed with referral for appropriate services.\u00a0 Social workers need to advocate on behalf of veterans to ensure they receive the benefits they and their families are entitled to. This requires assessing support systems and resources. Encouraging agencies to develop peer support programs that are sensitive to the needs of veterans can be a proactive strategy. Peer support plays a role in well-being and is consistent with the bio-psycho-social model and client-centered practice.\u00a0 This model assumes the client possesses strengths such as self-efficacy and resources that can be used to ameliorate current challenges in the fit between person and environment.\u00a0 Veterans face serious challenges as they integrate into civilian life after exposure to the multiple traumas associated with combat.\u00a0 Reliance on peer support, a core component of military culture and camaraderie, can play a critical role in re-integration.\u00a0 Using the resources they had in civilian life as well as the acquired coping skills such as self-efficacy that they developed during their military service, they can now go about the seemingly daunting task of returning to civilian life.\u00a0 The behavioral health needs of the increasing number of returning veterans may strain services at the community level. Engagement in the political process can ensure that the funding for these services is available.\u00a0 Augmenting professional services by using such cost effective strategies as peer support groups that rely on the strengths of the veterans should be pursued.<\/p>\n

              More broadly speaking, social workers are likely to meet veterans and their families in a variety of settings.\u00a0 A family focus, therefore, can facilitate recognizing the potential impact of untreated behavioral health problems of veterans on all family members.\u00a0 For example, school social workers may see students with a parent trying to deal with the hyper-vigilance that can characterize PTSD.\u00a0 This symptom can be confusing to children who do not see threats in their environments. Or, a child welfare worker may interview families in which one parent is experiencing the emotional numbness that can result from exposure to violence. \u00a0This behavior can be upsetting to family members who view the veteran as rejecting or uncaring. \u00a0Families may not be aware that these are symptoms of trauma and that treatment is available.\u00a0 By using \u00a0the broader context of the family perspective, the social worker can both educate family members about veteran benefits and make appropriate referrals to supportive veterans\u2019 services such as peer support groups.<\/p>\n

              Lastly, the weekend retreat potentially has much to offer the social service community.\u00a0 As time pressures of family, work and other responsibilities increase, the weekend can be the time most easily available for intervention.\u00a0 This may be especially true if spouses and partners are included in the intervention.\u00a0 From an agency perspective, use of weekend retreats may be a way to efficiently extend services to a wider clientele such as veterans.\u00a0 From the perspective of peer support and veteran camaraderie in this study, use of weekend retreats would seem to be a conceptually congruent method since retreats allow for spending an extensive amount of bonding time.<\/p>\n

              References<\/strong><\/p>\n

              Bandura, A.\u00a0 (1994).\u00a0 Self-efficacy.\u00a0 In R. J. Corsini (Ed.), Encyclopedia of psychology<\/em> (2nd<\/sup> ed.),<\/p>\n

              3, pp. 368-369.<\/p>\n

              Bandura, A. (1997).\u00a0 Self-efficacy<\/em>.\u00a0 New York: W.H. Freeman and Company.<\/p>\n

              Barber, J.A., Rosenheck, R. A., Armstrong, M., Resnick, S. G.\u00a0 (2008).\u00a0 Monitoring the<\/p>\n

              dissemination of peer support in the VA health care system.\u00a0 Community Mental Health Journal<\/em>, 44, 433-441.<\/p>\n

              Benight, C. C., & Bandura, A.\u00a0 (2004).\u00a0 Social cognitive theory of posttraumatic recovery: the<\/p>\n

              role of perceived self-efficacy.\u00a0 Behavioral Research and Therapy<\/em>, 42, 1129-1148.<\/p>\n

              Brown, L.D., & Lucksted, A.\u00a0 (2010).\u00a0 Theoretical foundations of mental health self-help.\u00a0\u00a0 In L.<\/p>\n

              D. Brown & S. Wituk (Eds.), Mental health self-help: consumer and family initiatives<\/em> (pp. 19-38).\u00a0 New York: Springer.<\/p>\n

              Burnam, M.A., Tanielian, T., & Jaycox, L.H.\u00a0 (2009).\u00a0 Mental health care for Iraq and<\/p>\n

              Afghanistan war veterans, Health Affairs, 28, 3, 771-782.<\/p>\n

              Calhoun, L. G., & Tedeschi, R G. (2006).\u00a0 The foundations of posttraumatic growth: An<\/p>\n

              expanded framework.\u00a0 In L. G. Calhoun & R. G. Tedeschi (Eds.), Handbook of posttraumatic growth<\/em> (pp. 1-23).\u00a0 Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.<\/p>\n

              Campbell, J.\u00a0 (2005).\u00a0 The historical and philosophical development of peer-run support<\/p>\n

              programs.\u00a0 In S. Clay, B. Schell, P. Corrigan, & R. Ralph (Eds.).\u00a0 On our own, together: Peer programs for people with mental illness.\u00a0 Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt University Press.<\/p>\n

              Carter-Visscher, R., Polusny, M., Murdoch, M., Thuras, Pl, Erbes, C., & Kehle, S.\u00a0 (2010).<\/p>\n

              Pre-deployment gender differences in stressors and mental health among U.S. National Guard troops poised for Operation Iraqi Freedom deployment.\u00a0 Journal of Traumatic Stress Disorder, <\/em>\u00a023 (1), 78-85.<\/p>\n

              Center for a New American Security.\u00a0 (2011).\u00a0 Losing the battle: The challenge of military <\/em><\/p>\n

              suicide.<\/em>\u00a0 Washington, D.C.: Center for a New American Security.\u00a0 Retrieved at http:\/\/www.cnas.org\/files\/documents\/publications\/CNAS_LosingTheBattle_HarrellBerglass.pdf<\/a><\/p>\n

              Clay, S.\u00a0 (2005).\u00a0\u00a0 About us: What we have in common.\u00a0 In S. Clay (Ed.), On our own, together: <\/em><\/p>\n

              Peer programs for people with mental illness<\/em>.\u00a0 Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt University Press.<\/p>\n

              Connor, K., & Davidson, J.\u00a0 (2001).\u00a0 SPRINT: A brief global assessment of post-traumatic stress<\/p>\n

              disorder.\u00a0 International Clinical Psychopharmacology<\/em>, 16, 279-284.<\/p>\n

              Davidson, J. & Colket, J. (1997). The eight-item treatment outcome post-traumatic stress<\/p>\n

              disorder scale: A brief measure to assess treatment outcome in post-traumatic stress disorder.\u00a0 International Clinical Psychopharmacology<\/em> ,\u00a0 12, 41-45<\/p>\n

              Davidson, L., Chinman, M., Kloos, B., Weingarten, R., Stayner, D., & Tebes, J.K.\u00a0 (1999).<\/p>\n

              Peer support among individuals with severe mental illness: A review of the evidence.\u00a0 Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice<\/em>, 6(2), 165-187.<\/p>\n

              Dimitrov, D. M., & Rumrill, P. D. Jr.\u00a0 (2003).\u00a0 Pretest-posttest designs and measurement of<\/p>\n

              change.\u00a0 Work<\/em>, 20, 159-165.<\/p>\n

              Eibner, C.\u00a0 (2008).\u00a0 \u00a0Invisible Wounds of War: Quantifying the Societal Costs of Psychological <\/em><\/p>\n

              and Cognitive Injuries<\/em>, Santa Monica, Calif.: RAND Corporation, CT-309, 2008.\u00a0 As of June 1, 2011:\u00a0 http:\/\/www.rand.org\/pubs\/testimonies\/CT309\/<\/a><\/p>\n

              Goldstrom, I. D., Campbell, J., Rogers, J. A., Lambert, D. B., Blacklow, B., Henderson, M. J., et<\/p>\n

              al. (2006).\u00a0 \u00a0National estimates for mental health mutual support groups, self-help organization, and consumer-operated services.\u00a0 Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research<\/em>, 33, 92-103.<\/p>\n

              Helgeson, V.S., & Gottlieb, B.H.\u00a0 (2000).\u00a0 Support groups.\u00a0 In S. Cohen, L.G. Underwood &<\/p>\n

              B.H. Gottlieb (Eds.), Social Support measurement and intervention: A guide for health and social scientists<\/em> (pp. 221-245).\u00a0\u00a0 Oxford: Oxford University Press.<\/p>\n

              Hirschhorn, L., & Gilmore, T. N. \u00a0(2004). Working in retreats: Learning from the group relations<\/p>\n

              tradition.\u00a0 In Laurence J. Gould, Lionel F. Stapley, and Mark Stein (Eds.), Experiential learning in organizations: Applications of the Tavistock Group Relations Approach<\/em>.\u00a0 London: Karnac Books.<\/p>\n

              Institute of Medicine.\u00a0 (2010).\u00a0 Returning home from Iraq and Afghanistan: Preliminary<\/p>\n

              assessment of readjustment needs of veterans, service members, and their families.\u00a0 Washington, D.C.: The National Academies Press.\u00a0 Retrieved from http:\/\/www.nap.edu\/catalog\/12812.html<\/a>.<\/p>\n

              Kenny, D. A., Kashy, D. A., & Bolger, N.\u00a0 (1998).\u00a0 Data analysis in social psychology.<\/p>\n

              In D. T. Gilber, S. T. Fiske, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology: Vol. 1 <\/em>(pp. 223-265)).\u00a0 Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill.<\/p>\n

              Kohut., H.\u00a0 (1984).\u00a0 How does\u00a0 analysis cure?\u00a0 New York: International Universities Press.<\/p>\n

              Kurtz, L. F.\u00a0 (1997).\u00a0 Self-help and support groups: A handbook for practitioners.<\/em> Thousand \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Oaks, CA: Sage.<\/p>\n

               <\/p>\n

               <\/p>\n

              Lee, R.M., Draper, M., & Lee, S.\u00a0 (2001).\u00a0 Social connectedness, dysfunctional interpersonal<\/p>\n

              behaviors, and psychological distress: Testing a mediator model.\u00a0 Journal of Consulting Psychology<\/em>, 48 (3), 310-318.<\/p>\n

              Lee, R. M., & Robbins, S. B.\u00a0 (1995).\u00a0 Measuring belongingness: The social connectedness and<\/p>\n

              the social assurance scales.\u00a0 Journal of Counseling Psychology<\/em>, 42 (2), 232-241.<\/p>\n

              Liteman, M., Campbell, S., Liteman, J.\u00a0 (2006).\u00a0 Retreats that work, expanded edition<\/em>.\u00a0 New<\/p>\n

              York: John Wiley & Sons.<\/p>\n

              Martone, K.\u00a0 (2010).\u00a0\u00a0 Retreats for personal growth.\u00a0 In Steven Walfish (Ed.),\u00a0 Earning a living <\/em><\/p>\n

              outside of managed mental health care<\/em>.\u00a0 Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.<\/p>\n

              Mead, S., Hilton, D., & Curtis, L.\u00a0 (2001).\u00a0 Peer support: A theoretical perspective.\u00a0 \u00a0Psychiatric <\/em><\/p>\n

              Rehabilitation Journal<\/em>, 25, 134-141.<\/p>\n

              NBC Nightly News Weekend Edition ( June 2, 2009)<\/em>.\u00a0 Retrieved from<\/p>\n

              http:\/\/www.youtube.com\/watch?v=bo3y0Oa8fog<\/a><\/p>\n

              Ozer, E. J., Best, S. R., Lipsey, T. L., & Weiss, D. S.\u00a0 (2003).\u00a0 Predictors of Posttraumatic Stress<\/p>\n

              Disorder and symptoms in adults: A meta-analysis.\u00a0 Psychological Bulletin<\/em>, 129, 52-74.<\/p>\n

              Poole, R. M.\u00a0 (2010).\u00a0 Pathway House.\u00a0 Smithsonian<\/em>, September, 68-71.<\/p>\n

              Rains, S. A., & Young, V.\u00a0 (2009).\u00a0 A meta-analysis of research on formal computer-mediated<\/p>\n

              support groups: Examining group characteristics and health outcomes.\u00a0 Human Communication Research<\/em>, 35(3), 309-336.<\/p>\n

              Resnick, S.G., & Rosenheck, R.A.\u00a0 (2008).\u00a0 Integrating peer-provided services: A quasi-<\/p>\n

              experimental study of recovery orientation, confidence, and empowerment.\u00a0 Psychiatric Services<\/em>, 59(11), 1307-1314.<\/p>\n

              Rubin, A., & Babbie, E.R.\u00a0 (2010).\u00a0 Research methods for social work, 7th<\/sup> ed. New York: Brooks<\/p>\n

              Cole.<\/p>\n

              Saleebey, D.\u00a0 (2006).\u00a0 Strengths perspective in social work practice<\/em>, 4th<\/sup> ed.\u00a0 Boston: Allyn &<\/p>\n

              Bacon.<\/p>\n

              Schell, T. L., & Tanielian, T.\u00a0 (Eds.).\u00a0 (2011).\u00a0 A needs assessment of New York State veterans<\/em>.<\/p>\n

              Santa Monica, CA.: RAND Corporation.\u00a0 As of June 1, 2011: http:\/\/www.rand.org\/pubs\/technical_reports\/TR920.html<\/a><\/p>\n

              Schwarzer, R., & Jerusalem, M.\u00a0 (1995). Generalized Self-Efficacy scale.\u00a0 In J. Weinman, S.<\/p>\n

              Wright, & M. Johnston.\u00a0 Measures in health psychology: A user\u2019s portfolio<\/em>.\u00a0 Causal and control beliefs, pp. 35-37.\u00a0 Windsor, England: NFER-NELSON.<\/p>\n

              Schwarzer, R., & Fuchs, R.\u00a0 (1996). Self-efficacy and health behaviors.\u00a0 In M. Conner & P.<\/p>\n

              Norman (Eds.).\u00a0 Predicting health behavior: Research and practice with social cognition models,<\/em> pp. 163-196.\u00a0 Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.<\/p>\n

              Seligman, M.E.P.\u00a0 (2011). Flourish: A visionary new understanding of happiness and well-being<\/em>.<\/p>\n

              New York: Free Press.<\/p>\n

              Solomon, P.\u00a0 (2004).\u00a0\u00a0 Peer support\/peer provided services underlying processes, benefits, and<\/p>\n

              critical ingredients.\u00a0 Psychiatric Rehabilitation Journal<\/em>, 27(4), 392-401.<\/p>\n

              Tanielian, T., & Jaycox, L.\u00a0 (2008).\u00a0 Invisible wounds of war: Psychological and cognitive <\/em><\/p>\n

              injuries, their consequences, and services to assist recovery<\/em>.\u00a0 Santa Monica, CA.: RAND Corporation.\u00a0 As of June 2011: http:\/\/www.rand.org\/pubs\/monographs\/MG720.html<\/a>.<\/p>\n

              Vernon, L.L., Dillon, J. M., & Steiner, A. R. W. \u00a0(2009).\u00a0 Proactive coping, gratitude, and posttraumatic stress disorder in college women.\u00a0 Anxiety, Stress & Coping<\/em>, 22:1, 117-127.<\/p>\n

              Vets4Vets (2011). \u00a0About Vets4Vets. \u00a0\u00a0Vets4Vets <\/em>website.\u00a0\u00a0 Retrieved from<\/p>\n

              http:\/\/www.vets4vets.us<\/a>.<\/p>\n

              White, W. L.\u00a0 (2010). Nonclinical addiction recovery support services: History, rationale,models, potentials, and pitfalls.\u00a0 Alcoholism Treatment Quarterly<\/em>, 28, 256-272.<\/p>\n

              Worthen, M. (2011).\u00a0 The relations between traumatic exposures, Posttraumatic Stress Disorder,and anger in male and female veterans.\u00a0 Journal of Feminist Family Therapy<\/em>, 23: 188-<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

              The following hyperlink connects you to a very positive evaluation by faculty at Arizona State University of the NIPS residential weekend workshops attended by 2500 returning U.S. veterans from Iraq and Afghanistan. http:\/\/nipspeersupport.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2012\/09\/ASU-Evaluation-of-Vets4Vets-110427.pdf The peer-reviewed version of the study is presented below. It uses the same data, but controlling for the influence of a number … <\/p>\n

              Read more “Evaluations of Vets4Vets”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"parent":0,"menu_order":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","template":"","meta":{"footnotes":""},"class_list":["post-532","page","type-page","status-publish","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/nipspeersupport.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/pages\/532","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/nipspeersupport.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/pages"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/nipspeersupport.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/page"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/nipspeersupport.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/nipspeersupport.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=532"}],"version-history":[{"count":8,"href":"https:\/\/nipspeersupport.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/pages\/532\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":539,"href":"https:\/\/nipspeersupport.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/pages\/532\/revisions\/539"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/nipspeersupport.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=532"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}