Evaluation of an assertiveness training based on the social learning theory for occupational health, safety and environment practitioners

sus ainabili y A icle E alua ion o an Asse i eness T aining based on he Social Lea ning Theo y o Occupa ional Heal h, Sa e y and En i onmen P ac i ione s F ancisco J. Can e o-Sánchez , JoséM. León-Rubio , Raquel Vázquez-Mo ejón and JoséM. León-Pé ez *   Ci a ion: Can e o-Sánchez, F.J.; León-Rubio, J.M.; Vázquez-Mo ejón, R.; León-Pé ez, J.M. E alua ion o an Asse i eness T aining based on he Social Lea ning Theo y o Occupa ional Heal h, Sa e y and En i onmen P ac i ione s. Sus ainabili y 2021,13, 11504. h ps:// doi.o g/10.3390/su132011504 Academic Edi o : Hyo-sun Jung Recei ed: 20 Augus 2021 Accep ed: 14 Oc obe 2021 Published: 18 Oc obe 2021 Publishe ’s No e: MDPI s ays neu al wi h ega d o ju isdic ional claims in published maps and ins i u ional a il- ia ions. Copy igh : © 2021 by he au ho s. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Swi ze land. This a icle is an open access a icle dis ibu ed unde he e ms and condi ions o he C ea i e Commons A ibu ion (CC BY) license (h ps:// c ea i ecommons.o g/licenses/by/ 4.0/). Cá mides Resea ch G oup, Depa men o Social Psychology, Uni e sidad de Se illa, 41018 Se illa, Spain; [email p o ec ed] (F.J.C.-S.); [email p o ec ed] (J.M.L.-R.); [email p o ec ed] (R.V.-M.) *Co espondence: leonpe [email p o ec ed]; Tel.: +34-955420075 Abs ac : Asse i eness is a undamen al ype o beha io o he c ea ion and main enance o posi i e ela ionships a wo k and he acili a ion o eam unc ioning. The e o e, he p omo ion o asse i eness con ibu es o imp o ing wo k pe o mance, p e en ing ha assmen a wo k, acili a ing he adop ion o sa e beha io s and making c i ical decisions in e ms o occupa ional heal h and sa e y. Howe e , ew s udies ha e e alua ed he e ec i eness o asse i e aining o ain occupa ional heal h, sa e y and en i onmen (OHSE) echnicians o acili a e hei wo k as agen s o change in he a i udes and beha io s o o he wo ke s. The e o e, an asse i e aining was ca ied ou o inc ease asse i eness and dec ease social anxie y in his ype o p o essional. The aining e ec i eness was e alua ed ollowing a p e es –pos es g oup design. The esul s om bo h a pilo s udy in a sample o 328 unde g adua e s uden s and a s udy in a sample o 155 OHSE echnicians indica ed ha he aining was e ec i e in achie ing bo h objec i es. Mo eo e , Cohen’s d s a is ics sugges ha he e ec size was in e media e. These esul s a e discussed wi h espec o hei ole in con ibu ing o occupa ional heal h sa e y and en i onmen p ac ices as well as o he o ganiza ions’ sus ainabili y. Keywo ds: asse i eness aining; social anxie y; occupa ional heal h and sa e y; sus ainabili y; social skills 1. In oduc ion Social skills and asse i eness aining can con ibu e o one o he mos s imula ing challenges ha he Eu opean Commission (EC) has o ace on i s way o achie ing he Uni ed Na ions Sus ainable De elopmen Goals o 2030: ensu ing a socially jus ansi ion o a sus ainable economy [1]. To mee his challenge, he EC p io i izes social in es men , one o he uses o which is an in es men in human capi al unde he slogan “p epa e a he han epai ”; in o he wo ds, o p e en he consequences o he new social isks a ising om he pos -indus ial socie y, which can be summa ized as a lack o income and se ices [ 2 ]. Indeed, p eca ious employmen , long- e m unemploymen , and he impossibili y o balancing wo k and amily a e sou ces o po e y and social exclusion [ 3 – 5 ], so i is necessa y o ac be o e his happens; be o e people become ulne able, i is necessa y o in es in he de elopmen o hei skills and he e icien use o hem, so ha hey can cope wi h ma ke ans o ma ions and ha e be e oppo uni ies o pa icipa e in socie y and he labo ma ke [6]. In his ega d, in May 2018, he Council o he Eu opean Union e ised he 2006 Recommenda ion on key compe ences o li elong lea ning, in ending o “iden i y and de ine he key compe ences necessa y o employabili y, pe sonal ul ilmen and heal h, ac i e and esponsible ci izenship and social inclusion” [ 7 ] (p. 7) and p o ing a Eu opean e e ence amewo k o suppo e o s aimed a os e ing he de elopmen o compe ences om a li elong lea ning pe spec i e. This e e ence amewo k es ablished eigh key compe ences. Social skills and as- se i eness aining play a pi o al ole in lea ning and de eloping such compe ences Sus ainabili y 2021,13, 11504. h ps://doi.o g/10.3390/su132011504 h ps://www.mdpi.com/jou nal/sus ainabili y Sus ainabili y 2021,13, 11504 2 o 14 because hey equi e basic social skills such as in e pe sonal communica ion skills, eam- wo k, p oblem-sol ing, o planning and o ganiza ion [ 8 ]. In o ganiza ional con ex s, hese key compe ences a e acqui ed h ough aining. Indeed, he a ailabili y o a skilled wo k o ce is c ucial in he Eu opean social and economic model. Employee aining has innume able ad an ages, bo h pe sonal and social. On he one hand, i con ibu es o hei well-being in e ms o heal h, li e sa is ac ion, and sel - con idence, inc easing hei chances o emaining and p og essing in employmen , as well as be e adjus ing o changes in he labo ma ke , i necessa y [ 9 ]. On he o he hand, aining is an incen i e i sel , and employee mo i a ion con ibu es o gene a ing a good wo king en i onmen [ 10 ] and close commi men s o he objec i es o he business o ganiza ion o which hey wo k [ 11 ], so ha companies and socie y in gene al also bene i . F om his pe spec i e, he aim is o s eng hen key ac o s in o de o con on new social isks and con ibu e o he sus ainabili y o he wel a e s a e. Among hese ac o s, wo s and ou : (a) inc easing p oduc i i y and e iciency in many a eas h ough aining, ans e o esea ch esul s and he applica ion o new echnologies, and (b) c ea ing esponsible companies om a social and en i onmen al pe spec i e. Based on he idea ha asse i e messages a e mo e pe suasi e in p omo ing heal hy and sus ainable beha io s, his s udy aims o e alua e he e ec i eness o asse i eness aining o occupa ional heal h, sa e y and en i onmen (OHSE) p o essionals, who a e agen s o change in he a i udes and beha io s o o he wo ke s [ 12 ]. In doing so, we ollow Albe Bandu a’s Social Lea ning Theo y [ 13 , 14 ], whose undamen al p emises a e ha people lea n new beha io s h ough he obse a ion o socially ele an models and, wi h he p ac ice o hese new beha io s, hey de elop sel -e icacy o con idence in hei abili y o achie e he in ended esul s. OHSE P o essionals: Linking Asse i eness and Sus ainable Beha io s Asse i eness is de ined as he skill o s and up o you in e es s in a posi i e way, by espec ing o he s’ igh s and pe spec i es. The e o e, i is no su p ising ha being asse i e has been ela ed o job pe o mance in o ganiza ional se ings, mainly because asse i eness is a c i ical skill in he c ea ion and main enance o posi i e in e pe sonal ela ionships a wo k and e ec i e eam unc ioning [15–17]. In ha sense, asse i eness aining has an ex ensi e backg ound and his o y, pa icu- la ly since he g oundb eaking wo k o Wolpe [ 18 ]. E idence sugges s ha asse i eness aining, which is he co e o any aining in social skills, is s ill p esen nowadays due o i s e ec i eness in se e al se ings, om he apy and he ea men o se e e men al illness such as schizoph enia [ 19 ] o educa ion and he imp o emen o social ela ions and he p e en ion o bullying [20,21]. In o ganiza ional con ex s, asse i eness aining is also a powe ul ool o p omo e eam unc ioning and p e en communica ion e o s ha may ha e a al consequences o pa ien s’ o cus ome s’ sa e y in bo h heal hca e and a ia ion indus ies [ 22 – 24 ]. Indeed, so skills aining has been associa ed wi h wo k pe o mance a ed by supe iso s [ 25 ] and can con ibu e o he de elopmen o social co po a e esponsibili y [26]. Howe e , he e is a lack o s udies assessing asse i eness, communica ion, and social skills aining in he ield o occupa ional heal h, sa e y and en i onmen (OHSE), a ield o special ele ance o o ganiza ions’ sus ainabili y gi en ha : (1) OHSE p ac i ione s pe o m a key ole o con ince o he employees o adop heal hie and mo e sus ainable beha io s. Indeed, hei ins uc ions a e undamen al o making wo ke s unde s and and align wi h o ganiza ional goals and a oid po en ial con lic s and ambigui y in he wo k o ce when o ganiza ions y o p omo e en i onmen al and sus ainable ou comes [ 12 , 27 ]; and (2) asse i eness, om a communica ion poin o iew, plays a key ole o pe suade people and he e o e is a undamen al social skill o leade s and manage s, pa icula ly when hey need o con ince, mo i a e and engage ollowe s o do ce ain job asks and adop mo e sus ainable beha io s [ 17 , 28 , 29 ]. Fu he mo e, a ecen s udy has shown ha posi i e language, when exp essed asse i ely, is pe cei ed as encou aging op imism Sus ainabili y 2021,13, 11504 3 o 14 and sel -e icacy, which acili a es he p omo ion o heal hie , sa e , and mo e sus ainable beha io s [25,30]. The e o e, connec ing he li e a u e on asse i eness and social skills aining a wo k wi h he e idence o asse i e messages being mo e pe suasi e o p omo e heal hy and sus ainable beha io s, his s udy assesses he e ec i eness o an asse i eness aining o OHSE p ac i ione s, who a e agen s o change in he a i udes and beha io s o o he wo ke s. Ou esul s may ha e in e es ing implica ions o achie ing he o ganiza ion’s sus ainabili y goals. In assessing he e ec i eness o ou aining, we es whe he OHSE p ac i ione s epo being mo e asse i e and expe iencing lowe le els o anxie y in social in e ac ions a e he aining, which can be syn hesized in he ollowing hypo heses: Hypo hesis 1 (H1). A e he aining, pa icipan s will epo a signi ican imp o emen in hei asse i eness sco es. Hypo hesis 2 (H2). A e he aining, pa icipan s will epo a signi ican imp o emen in hei social anxie y sco es. 2. Ma e ials and Me hods As his s udy epo s he esul s o a aining aimed a imp o ing asse i eness, we i s explain he a ionale and con en o he aining; hen, we desc ibe he ins umen s (scales) used o e alua e he e ec i eness o he aining; and inally, we desc ibe he p ocedu e and pa icipan s en olled in bo h he pilo s udy and he main s udy. We conduc ed a one-g oup p e–pos aining design in bo h cases (pilo and main s udies). 2.1. T aining Ra ionale and Con en We conduc ed an asse i eness aining ha consis ed o 4 sessions o 2 h each and a one-hou ollow-up session (9 h in o al). We i s es ed ou aining in a pilo s udy wi h unde g adua e s uden s o check ha all planned sessions and exe cises we e well unde s ood, ob ain some eedback abou po en ial ailu es and de elop ou esea ch p o- ocol among aine s. Then, he aining was implemen ed in ou a ge sample: OHSE p o essionals. In conduc ing he aining, we ollowed he p inciples o he Social Lea ning Theo y [ 13 , 14 ], and he e o e, each session comp ised he ollowing s eps: (1) Ins uc ions— In his i s s ep, he ins uc ions we e communica ed and explained o pa icipan s, and he aine o e ed some examples and esol ed doub s when necessa y; (2) Modeling— A e ins uc ions, a ole model success ully execu ing he echniques o be p ac iced was p o ided o pa icipan s. We c ea ed some ideos o suppo ou aining ac i i ies and p o ided di e en ole models ( o example, o di e en ia ing asse i eness om o he communica ion s yles: h ps:// .us.es/es ilos-de-comunicacion-in e pe sonal-en e is a- de-seleccionde-pe sonal-i; accessed on 10 Oc obe 2021); (3) P ac ice—Pa icipan s pe - o med ole-play ac i i ies p e iously p epa ed by he au ho s. The main aim o his s ep was o apply in a p ac ical way wha was lea ned in he p e ious s eps (ins uc ions and modeling). Mos o hese ac i i ies we e coope a i e in na u e and equi ed being pe o med in small subg oups o h ee o ou membe s; (4) Feedback—This s ep is c ucial o le pa icipan s know i hey a e achie ing he in ended ou comes (i.e., imp o ing hei le el o asse i eness). Feedback was gi en o he ainees o pa icipan s, ocusing bo h on pa icipan s’ s eng hs when pe o ming ole-playing ac i i ies and hei weaknesses and elemen s ha need o be imp o ed; and (5) Gene aliza ion—This s ep was no ca ied ou wi hin he class oom, and i consis ed o applying he con en o he aining and he lea ned echniques o he pa icipan s’ job asks. In each session, pa icipan s lea ned speci ic opics and echniques [ 8 , 31 – 33 ]. In he i s session, he p e-in e en ion da a collec ion was ca ied ou (al hough mos pa ici- pan s illed ou he ques ionnai es some days be o e when hey ecei ed an email explaining he s udy and asking o hei w i en in o med consen ). Then, aine s o e ed he heo e - ical a ionale o he aining and explained wha asse i eness is and why i is an e ec i e Sus ainabili y 2021,13, 11504 4 o 14 communica ion s yle. Finally, ollowing he s eps men ioned abo e, pa icipan s conduc ed wo ac i i ies: di e en ia ing communica ion s yles (i.e., asse i eness e sus passi e and agg essi e s yles) and applying such s yles o se e al communica ion expe iences ha hey ha e aced in hei jobs; and communica ing asse i ely by ollowing h ee key s eps o be asse i e: lis en ac i ely and wi h empa hy, exp ess you needs and opinions and exp ess you desi ed ou comes. The second session ocused on he p ac ice o asse i e communica ion and how o asse i ely e use a eques (asse i e opposi ion o how o say ‘no’) h ough echniques such as empa hic asse ion (i.e., y o unde s and ano he pe son’s eelings, needs, o in e es s) o he b oken eco d echnique (i.e., epea he same message in di e en ways as o en as necessa y, in a calm elaxed manne ). Then, he hi d session e ol ed a ound he abili y o ace and ecei e c i icism and asse i ely eques beha io change. In his hi d session, we included ac i i ies and echniques such as posi i e/nega i e inqui y (i.e., a way o deal wi h posi i e eedback o nega i e exchanges, espec i ely), o mula ing iable al e na i es, o asse ion o nega i e eelings (i.e., ying o con ol nega i e eelings owa ds ano he pe son o si ua ion). In he ou h session, pa icipan s p ac iced how o deal wi h complex and agg essi e si ua ions h ough echniques such as posi i e inne dialogues (i.e., o change nega i e p edisposi ion in o a mo e posi i e one ha helps you con on a si ua ion), o ogging (i.e., ag eeing wi h some s a emen s o he pe son who is being agg essi e o is ying o manipula e you, bu main aining he in eg i y and you poin o iew). In his inal session, he p e ious s eps we e also summa ized and b ie ly e iewed. Finally, he e was a ollow-up session one week la e o check whe he pa icipan s had e icien ly used wha hey lea ned in class in hei ac ual jobs. A he beginning o his session, pos -in e en ion da a we e collec ed, and hen pa icipan s discussed in he g oup po en ial limi a ions and ba ie s in ex apola ing he in-class knowledge o hei jobs, and hey sha ed hei own expe iences abou how o o e come such limi a ions and ba ie s. 2.2. Ins umen s and Measu es We measu ed he ollowing a iables bo h be o e (p e) and a e (pos ) he aining: Social anxie y o le el o discom o and dis ess in social in e ac ions was measu ed wi h he Asse ion In en o y [ 34 ]. This in en o y is a 40-i em sel - epo scale ha pe mi s pa icipan s o epo he deg ee o discom o ha hey expe ience in he social si ua ions desc ibed in each i em (e.g., “Tu n down a eques o a mee ing o da e”; “Ask o cons uc i e c i icism”). Responses ollow a Like scale anging om 1 (none) o 5 ( e y much). The in en o y o e s a o al sco e anging om 40 o 200, whe e highe sco es ep esen a highe deg ee o discom o in social si ua ions (i.e., highe social anxie y). The eliabili y o he scale acco ding o he C onbach’s alpha ( α anging om 0.92 o 0.94) was adequa e in bo h samples. Asse i e esponse was also measu ed wi h he Asse ion In en o y [ 34 ] in which esponden s s a e he p obabili y ha hey would engage in an asse i e beha io in he gi en social si ua ions (e.g., “Discuss openly wi h he pe son his/he c i icism o you beha io ”; “Exp ess an opinion ha di e s om ha o he pe son”). In his case, he in en o y ollows a Like -scale anging om 1 (always do i ) o 5 (ne e do i ), and he e o e, he o al sco e anges om 40 o 200, whe e highe sco es ep esen a lowe p obabili y o displaying an asse i e beha io in social si ua ions (i.e., lowe asse i eness o asse i e esponse). The eliabili y o he scale acco ding o he C onbach’s alpha ( α anging om 0.86 o 0.92) was adequa e in bo h samples. O e all asse i eness. We complemen ed he measu e o asse i eness wi h he Gene al Asse i eness Scale [ 35 ]. This sel - epo ed scale consis s o 20 i ems in a Like scale anging om 1 ( e y o en) o 4 (almos ne e ) whe e esponden s no e o each i em how o en hey beha e asse i ely (e.g., “When I need some hing, I ask o i di ec ly and wi h ankness”; “I someone ea s me wi h con emp o condescension, I de end mysel ankly wi hou eso ing o agg essi eness”). The scale p o ides a o al sco e ( om 20 o 80), whe e Sus ainabili y 2021,13, 11504 5 o 14 highe sco es ep esen lowe o e all asse i eness. The eliabili y o he scale acco ding o he C onbach’s alpha (α anging om 0.76 o 0.83) was adequa e in bo h samples. All analyses we e pe o med using IBM SPSS® e sion 26. 2.3. Pa icipan s and P ocedu e The p ocedu e o bo h he pilo and he main s udy was he same. Pa icipa ion was olun a y and w i en in o med consen was equi ed acco ding o he e hical p inciples o he Spanish Associa ion o Psychology. In line wi h he Eu opean gene al da a p o ec ion egula ion (GDPR), pa icipan s’ names and emails we e associa ed wi h a code in a da ase . When hei esponses o p e- and pos - aining es s we e ma ched wi h such code, he da ase con aining hei names and emails was dele ed. In ha sense, o encou age pa icipa ion and main ain anonymi y and con iden iali y, no o he pe sonal da a we e asked excep hei sex. Da a we e collec ed in 2019 in wo con enience samples. Rega ding he pilo s udy, pa icipan s we e i s -yea s uden s en olled in he cou se ‘Social Psychology’ in he School o Psychology a he Uni e si y o Se ille. In o al, 328 s uden s ag eed o pa icipa e (76% women). These s uden s we e g ouped in o 2 main g oups, each one wi h a aine (A and B), and hen subdi ided in o se e al small g oups anging be ween 15 and 25 s uden s o implemen ing he aining, which was conduc ed as pa o hei in-class ac i i ies du ing h ee consecu i e weeks. In his pilo s udy, he aining was comp essed in o h ee sessions o wo hou s each (6 h in o al). A e emo ing in alid esponses and ma ching p e and pos aining measu es, we ob ained 254 alid esponses (149 comple ed he social anxie y and asse i e esponses scales, and 249 on he o e all asse i eness scale). The pa icipan s in he main s udy we e 155 Occupa ional Heal h, Sa e y and En i- onmen p ac i ione s (OHSE) ha ecei ed he aining as pa o a capaci a ion p og am o e ed by hei p o essional associa ion. Pa icipan s we e di ided in o i e g oups ang- ing om 30 o 40 membe s each (50.4% women). In his s udy, he e we e h ee aine s ( he same wo om he p e ious s udy and ano he one: A, B, and C). The aining was conduc ed du ing i e consecu i e weeks in an ou -o -wo k schedule (e enings om 7.00 o 9.00 pm). A e ma ching p e- and pos - aining measu es, we ob ained 143 alid esponses (all scales comple ed). 3. Resul s This sec ion is di ided o desc ibe he esul s o bo h he pilo s udy and he main s udy. In bo h s udies, we i s checked he assump ions o no mali y and a iance homogenei y among g oups. Mo eo e , we es ed o di e ences in main a iables depending on pa icipan s’ sex (0 = men s. 1 = women) and aine (A s. B s. C), and we calcula ed desc ip i e s a is ics and bi a ia e co ela ions be ween he main a iables. Finally, we es ed he hypo heses. 3.1. Resul s o he Pilo S udy We pe o med a Kolmogo o –Smi no es , and he esul s e ealed ha ou a iables o social anxie y and asse i e esponse we e no mally dis ibu ed. Howe e , he sco es in he a iable o o e all asse i eness we e non-no mally dis ibu ed (K-S = 0.07, p< 0.01). Rega ding homogenei y, Le ene’s es e ealed ha ou a iables me he assump ion o equal a iance (all p alues highe han 0.05). In addi ion, one- ac o ANOVA analyses showed signi ican di e ences in he p e- aining measu es by he aine , bu no by sex. In ha sense, pa icipan s in aine A’s g oup epo ed highe sco es o social anxie y ( M = 111.43 ; SD = 18.34) han hei colleagues in aine B’s g oup (M = 100.11; SD = 23.28; F(1,147) = 6.93, p< 0.01). Table 1p esen s desc ip i e s a is ics and bi a ia e co ela ions o ou main a iables. Sus ainabili y 2021,13, 11504 6 o 14 Table 1. Means, s anda d de ia ions, and bi a ia e co ela ions among he main a iables o he s udy (n= 149 o social anxie y and asse i e esponse; 259 o o e all asse i eness). Va iable Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 1. Sex a0.24 - - 2. Social anxie y p e 102.77 22.68 −0.11 - 3. Asse i e esponse p e b108.61 18.95 0.01 0.65 ** - 4. O e all asse i eness p e b37.17 6.46 −0.09 0.58 ** 0.52 ** - 5. Social anxie y pos 88.45 21.74 −0.12 0.63 ** 0.40 ** 0.41 ** - 6. Asse i e esponse pos b101.31 20.02 −0.05 0.38 ** 0.52 ** 0.39 ** 0.57 ** - 7. O e all asse i eness pos b34.09 7.00 −0.09 0.41 ** 0.37 ** 0.67 ** 0.56 ** 0.58 ** No e: ape cen age o men (24%); bhighe sco es ep esen lowe asse i eness; ** p< 0.01. In e alua ing hese esul s all oge he , we op ed o es ing he hypo heses wi h bo h pa ame ic (pai ed-samples - es s) and non-pa ame ic es s (Wilcoxon). Ou esul s showed ha pa icipan s signi ican ly educed hei social anxie y (Mdi = 14.32; SD = 19.18 ; 95% CI (11.22; 17.43); (148) = 9.12, p< 0.01) and inc eased hei asse i e esponses ( Mdi = 7.30 ;SD = 19.04; 95% CI (4.22; 10.38); (148) = 4.68, p< 0.01). Mo eo e , we used an online calcula o o es ima e he e ec size in epea ed measu es designs [ 36 ] by aking in o conside a ion he co ela ion be ween measu emen poin s [ 37 ]. The e ec size es ima e e ealed a pooled d= 0.749 (95% CI = 0.499; 0.969) o social anxie y and a pooled d= 0.382 (95% CI = 0.164; 0.622) o asse i e esponse. These esul s sugges ha he aining was e ec i e and had a small o in e media e e ec size. Fu he mo e, Wilcoxon signed- ank es s e ealed ha o e all asse i eness was inc eased a e he aining (Z= 8.42, p< 0.01; 163 nega i e anks wi h an a e age o 120.33 s. 54 posi i e anks wi h an a e age o 74.81). In his case, we ollowed F i z and colleagues’ ecommenda ions o calcula ing e ec sizes o nonpa ame ic da a [ 38 ]. Thus, a e di iding he z alue (8.42) by he squa ed oo o he numbe o obse a ions o e he wo ime poin s (149 × 2 = 298), we ob ained an e ec size es ima e o = 0.487. In o he wo ds, he aining had an in e media e e ec size. The e ec size is he amoun o gain measu ed in s anda d de ia ions; howe e , o a one-g oup wi h epea ed measu es design, how people change om one o ano he h esh- old o unc ioning can be mo e in o ma i e o he aining’s p ac ical signi icance. In ha sense, we used he ca ego ies sugges ed by Gamb ill and Richey [ 34 ]. Thus, pa icipan s wi h sco es highe han 96 in social anxie y a e conside ed o expe ience high anxie y in social si ua ions compa ed o low social anxie y pa icipan s, who sco e equal o o lowe han 96. Simila ly, pa icipan s sco ing highe han 104 in asse i e esponse can be labeled as low asse i e pa icipan s compa ed o high asse i e pa icipan s, who sco e equal o o lowe han 104. Acco ding o such cu -o sco es, we can c ea e ou ca ego ies: asse i e (low anxie y and high asse i e esponse), anxious asse i eness (high anxie y and high asse i e esponse), ca eless o social si ua ions (low anxie y and low asse i eness), and unasse i e (high anxie y and low asse i eness). As can be seen in Table 2, chi-squa e es s showed ha he e was a change in bo h social anxie y (x 2 (1,149) = 35.24; p< 0.01) and asse i e esponse (x 2 (1,149) = 38.21; p< 0.01) sco es a e he aining: 27.5% o he pa icipan s mo ed om he high anxie y o he low anxie y ca ego y, sugges ing ha he aining had a posi i e e ec on hem. On he o he hand, 2.7% o he pa icipan s mo ed on he o he way, om low o high anxie y, sugges ing he aining had a nega i e e ec on hem. Mos o he pa icipan s (69.8%) emained in he same ca ego y a e aining. Simila ly, 24.2% mo ed om low o high asse i eness a e aining ( s. 3.7% om high o low, and 72% emained equal). Fu he mo e, he chi-squa e es e ealed ha pa icipan s changed in hei asse i eness ca ego ies a e he aining (x 2 (9,149) = 88.22; p< 0.01): 23.5% o he pa icipan s imp o ed hei asse i eness le el compa ed o 4% ha diminished hei asse i eness le el and 72.5% ha main ained he same asse i eness le el a e he aining (see Table 3). Sus ainabili y 2021,13, 11504 7 o 14 Table 2. Con ingency able on social anxie y and asse i e esponse o e ime (n= 161). Va iable Social Anxie y Pos Asse i e Response Pos Low High (To al) Low High (To al) Social anxie y p e//Asse i e esponse p e Low 56 (37.6%) 4 (2.7%) 60 (40.3%) 56 (37.6%) 35 (23.5%) 91 (61.1%) High 41 (27.5%) 48 (32.2%) 89 (59.7%) 6 (4%) 52 (34.9%) 58 (38.9%) (To al) 97 (65.1%) 52 (34.9%) 149 (100%) 62 (41.6%) 87 (58.4%) 149 (100%) Table 3. Con ingency ables on asse i eness ca ego ies acco ding o he Asse ion In en o y (n= 161) and he Gene al Asse i eness Scale (n= 279). Asse ion In en o y Ca ego ies Pos -T aining Asse i e Anxious Ca eless Unasse i e (To al) P e- aining Asse i e 36 (24.2%) 2 (1.3%) 2 (1.3%) 1 (0.7%) 41 (27.5%) Anxious Asse i eness 6 (4%) 8 (5.4%) 1 (0.7%) 2 (1.3%) 17 (11.4%) Ca eless 6 (4%) 0 (0%) 12 (8.1%) 1 (0.7%) 19 (12.8%) Unasse i e 20 (13.4%) 9 (6%) 14 (9.4%) 29 (19.5%) 72 (48.3%) (To al) 68 (45.6%) 19 (12.8%) 29 (19.5%) 33 (22.1%) 149 (100%) Gene al Asse i enes Ca ego ies Pos - aining High High-Mode a e Mode a e Low (To al) P e- aining High Asse i eness 4 (1.6%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 4 (1.6%) High-Mode a e Asse i eness 16 (6.4%) 73 (29.3%) 12 (4.8%) 0 (0%) 101 (40.6%) Mode a e Asse i eness 4 (1.6%) 50 (20.1%) 79 (31.7%) 4 (1.6%) 137 (55%) Low Asse i eness 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 4 (1.6%) 3 (1.2%) 7 (2.8%) (To al) 24 (9.6%) 123 (49.4%) 95 (38.2%) 7 (2.8%) 249 (100%) In a simila ein, o e all asse i eness sco es can be ansla ed in o ou ca ego ies [ 35 ]: 20–25 = high asse i eness; 25–35 = high-mode a e asse i eness; 35–50 = mode a e as- se i eness; 50–80 = low asse i eness. Acco dingly, ou esul s indica e ha pa icipan s changed in hei asse i eness ca ego ies a e he aining (x 2 (9,249) = 142.78; p< 0.01): 36.8% o he pa icipan s mo ed o a highe le el o asse i eness ca ego y, 6% mo ed o a lowe ca ego y and 57.2% emained in he same ca ego y a e aining (see Table 3). 3.2. Resul s o he Main S udy Fi s , we assessed he no mali y and a iance homogenei y assump ions o con- duc ing pa ame ic es s. In his sample, he esul s o he Kolmogo o –Smi no es indica ed ha he sco es o social anxie y we e non-no mally dis ibu ed (K-S es = 0.11 o p e- aining measu e, p< 0.001; and K-S es = 0.08 o pos - aining measu e, p< 0.05). Sus ainabili y 2021,13, 11504 8 o 14 Howe e , Le ene’s es e ealed ha ou a iables me he assump ion o equal a iance o homogenei y (all p alues highe han 0.05). Taking hese esul s oge he , we op ed o es ing he hypo heses wi h bo h pa ame ic (pai ed-samples - es s) and non-pa ame ic es s (Wilcoxon signed- ank es s). In addi ion, one- ac o ANOVA analyses showed no signi ican di e ences in he p e- aining measu es nei he by sex no by he aine . Means, s anda d de ia ions, and bi a ia e co ela ions among he main a iables o he s udy a e p esen ed in Table 4. Table 4. Means, s anda d de ia ions, and bi a ia e co ela ions among he main a iables o he s udy (n= 143). Va iable Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 1. Sex a0.496 - - 2. Social anxie y p e 97.19 23.36 −0.07 - 3. Asse i e esponse p e b109.41 16.14 −0.03 0.32 ** - 4. O e all asse i eness p e b36.87 6.92 −0.09 0.40 ** 0.32 ** - 5. Social anxie y pos 82.50 20.09 −0.09 0.60 ** 0.30 ** 0.21 * - 6. Asse i e esponse pos b98.01 19.81 −0.01 0.34 ** 0.65 ** 0.19 * 0.55 ** - 7. O e all asse i eness pos b32.60 6.15 −0.16 0.35 ** 0.25 ** 0.58 ** 0.40 ** 0.33 ** No e: ape cen age o men (49.6%); bhighe sco es ep esen lowe asse i eness; * p< 0.05; ** p< 0.01. Rega ding he e ec i eness, Wilcoxon signed- ank es s e ealed ha social anxie y was educed a e he aining (Z= 7.95, p< 0.01; 111 nega i e anks wi h an a e age o 72.99 s. 23 posi i e anks wi h an a e age o 41.01). In addi ion, esul s om pai ed-samples - es s showed ha pa icipan s signi ican ly inc eased bo h hei asse i e esponses ( Mdi = 11.41 ; SD = 15.31; 95% CI (8.87; 13.93); (1,142) = 8.91, p< 0.01) and hei o e all asse i eness (Mdi = 4.26; SD = 6.01; 95% CI (3.27; 5.26); (1,142) = 8.49, p< 0.01) a e he aining. These esul s sugges ha he aining was e ec i e (see Figu es 1and 2). Sus ainabili y 2021, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 8 o 14 0.01): 36.8% o he pa icipan s mo ed o a highe le el o asse i eness ca ego y, 6% mo ed o a lowe ca ego y and 57.2% emained in he same ca ego y a e aining (see Table 3). 3.2. Resul s o he Main S udy Fi s , we assessed he no mali y and a iance homogenei y assump ions o conduc - ing pa ame ic es s. In his sample, he esul s o he Kolmogo o −Smi no es indica ed ha he sco es o social anxie y we e non-no mally dis ibu ed (K-S es = 0.11 o p e- aining measu e, p < 0.001; and K-S es = 0.08 o pos - aining measu e, p < 0.05). How- e e , Le ene’s es e ealed ha ou a iables me he assump ion o equal a iance o homogenei y (all p alues highe han 0.05). Taking hese esul s oge he , we op ed o es ing he hypo heses wi h bo h pa ame ic (pai ed-samples - es s) and non-pa ame ic es s (Wilcoxon signed- ank es s). In addi ion, one- ac o ANOVA analyses showed no signi ican di e ences in he p e- aining measu es nei he by sex no by he aine . Means, s anda d de ia ions, and bi a ia e co ela ions among he main a iables o he s udy a e p esen ed in Table 4. Table 4. Means, s anda d de ia ions, and bi a ia e co ela ions among he main a iables o he s udy (n = 143). Va iable Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 1. Sex a 0.496 - - 2. Social anxie y p e 97.19 23.36 −0.07 - 3. Asse i e esponse p e b 109.41 16.14 −0.03 0.32 ** - 4. O e all asse i eness p e b 36.87 6.92 −0.09 0.40 ** 0.32 ** - 5. Social anxie y pos 82.50 20.09 −0.09 0.60 ** 0.30 ** 0.21 * - 6. Asse i e esponse pos b 98.01 19.81 −0.01 0.34 ** 0.65 ** 0.19 * 0.55 ** - 7. O e all asse i eness pos b 32.60 6.15 −0.16 0.35 ** 0.25 ** 0.58 ** 0.40 ** 0.33 ** No e: a pe cen age o men (49.6%); b highe sco es ep esen lowe asse i eness; * p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01. Rega ding he e ec i eness, Wilcoxon signed- ank es s e ealed ha social anxie y was educed a e he aining (Z = 7.95, p < 0.01; 111 nega i e anks wi h an a e age o 72.99 s. 23 posi i e anks wi h an a e age o 41.01). In addi ion, esul s om pai ed-sam- ples - es s showed ha pa icipan s signi ican ly inc eased bo h hei asse i e esponses (Mdi = 11.41; SD = 15.31; 95% CI (8.87; 13.93); (1,142) = 8.91, p < 0.01) and hei o e all asse i eness (Mdi = 4.26; SD = 6.01; 95% CI (3.27; 5.26); (1,142) = 8.49, p < 0.01) a e he aining. These esul s sugges ha he aining was e ec i e (see Figu es 1 and 2). Figu e 1. Sco es in social anxie y and asse i e esponse be o e and a e he aining. We used an online calcula o o es ima e he e ec size [ 36 ]. In he case o pa ame ic es s, he e ec size es ima e in epea ed measu es design was used [ 37 ], which e ealed a pooled d= 0.754 (95% CI = 0.602; 1.086) o asse i e esponses, and a pooled d= 0.712 (95% CI = 0.435; 0.912) o o e all asse i eness. On he o he hand, we ollowed F i z and colleagues’ ecommenda ions o calcula ing e ec sizes o nonpa ame ic da a [ 38 ]. Thus, a e di iding he z alue (7.95) by he squa ed oo o he numbe o obse a ions o e he wo ime poin s (143 × 2 = 286), we ob ained an e ec size es ima e o = 0.47. In o he wo ds, he aining had a mode a e o in e media e e ec size. Sus ainabili y 2021,13, 11504 9 o 14 Sus ainabili y 2021, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 9 o 14 Figu e 1. Sco es in social anxie y and asse i e esponse be o e and a e he aining. Figu e 2. Sco es in o e all asse i eness be o e and a e he aining. We used an online calcula o o es ima e he e ec size [36]. In he case o pa ame ic es s, he e ec size es ima e in epea ed measu es design was used [37], which e ealed a pooled d = 0.754 (95% CI = 0.602; 1.086) o asse i e esponses, and a pooled d = 0.712 (95% CI = 0.435; 0.912) o o e all asse i eness. On he o he hand, we ollowed F i z and colleagues’ ecommenda ions o calcula ing e ec sizes o nonpa ame ic da a [38]. Thus, a e di iding he z alue (7.95) by he squa ed oo o he numbe o obse a ions o e he wo ime poin s (143 x 2 = 286), we ob ained an e ec size es ima e o = 0.47. In o he wo ds, he aining had a mode a e o in e media e e ec size. Finally, acco ding o he ca ego ies sugges ed by he au ho s o he scales, we con- duc ed chi-squa e es s and concluded ha he e was a change in social anxie y (x2(1,142) = 19.77; p < 0.01) and asse i e esponse (x2(1,142) = 17.82; p < 0.01): 28% o he pa icipan s mo ed om he high anxie y o he low anxie y ca ego y, sugges ing ha he aining had a posi i e e ec on hem (see Table 5). On he o he hand, 4.2% o he pa icipan s mo ed on he o he way, om low o high anxie y, sugges ing he aining had a nega i e e ec on hem. Mos o he pa icipan s (67.8%) emained in he same ca ego y a e aining. Simila ly, 34.3% mo ed om low o high asse i eness a e aining ( s. 4.2% om high o low, and 61.6% emained equal). Fu he mo e, he chi-squa e es e ealed ha pa ic- ipan s changed in hei asse i eness ca ego ies a e he aining (x2(9,143) = 50.93; p < 0.01): 50.4% o he pa icipan s imp o ed hei asse i eness le el compa ed o 6.3% ha diminished hei asse i eness le el, and 57.9% ha main ained he same asse i eness le el a e he aining (see Table 6). In a simila ein, pa icipan s changed in hei o e all asse i eness ca ego ies a e he aining (x2(9,143) = 43.16; p < 0.01): 37.1% o he pa ici- pan s mo ed o a highe le el o asse i eness ca ego y, 4.9% mo ed o a lowe ca ego y and 58% emained in he same ca ego y a e aining (see Table 6). Table 5. Con ingency able on social anxie y and asse i e esponse o e ime (n = 143). Va iable Social Anxie y Pos Asse i e Response Pos Low High (To al) Low High (To al) Social anxie y p e//Asse i e esponse p e Low 72 (50.3%) 6 (4.2%) 78 (54.5%) 45 (31.5%) 49 (34.3%) 94 (65.7%) High 40 (28%) 25 (17.5%) 65 (45.5%) 6 (4.2%) 43 (30.1%) 49 (34.3%) (To al) 112 31 143 51 92 143 Figu e 2. Sco es in o e all asse i eness be o e and a e he aining. Finally, acco ding o he ca ego ies sugges ed by he au ho s o he scales, we conduc ed chi-squa e es s and concluded ha he e was a change in social anxie y ( x2(1,142) = 19.77 ; p< 0.01 ) and asse i e esponse (x 2 (1,142) = 17.82; p< 0.01): 28% o he pa icipan s mo ed om he high anxie y o he low anxie y ca ego y, sugges ing ha he aining had a posi i e e ec on hem (see Table 5). On he o he hand, 4.2% o he pa icipan s mo ed on he o he way, om low o high anxie y, sugges ing he aining had a nega i e e ec on hem. Mos o he pa icipan s (67.8%) emained in he same ca ego y a e aining. Simila ly, 34.3% mo ed om low o high asse i eness a e aining ( s. 4.2% om high o low, and 61.6% emained equal). Fu he mo e, he chi-squa e es e ealed ha pa icipan s changed in hei asse i eness ca ego ies a e he aining (x 2 (9,143) = 50.93; p< 0.01): 50.4% o he pa icipan s imp o ed hei asse i eness le el compa ed o 6.3% ha diminished hei asse i eness le el, and 57.9% ha main ained he same asse i eness le el a e he aining (see Table 6). In a simila ein, pa icipan s changed in hei o e all asse i eness ca ego ies a e he aining (x 2 (9,143) = 43.16; p< 0.01): 37.1% o he pa icipan s mo ed o a highe le el o asse i eness ca ego y, 4.9% mo ed o a lowe ca ego y and 58% emained in he same ca ego y a e aining (see Table 6). Table 5. Con ingency able on social anxie y and asse i e esponse o e ime (n= 143). Va iable Social Anxie y Pos Asse i e Response Pos Low High (To al) Low High (To al) Social anxie y p e//Asse i e esponse p e Low 72 (50.3%) 6 (4.2%) 78 (54.5%) 45 (31.5%) 49 (34.3%) 94 (65.7%) High 40 (28%) 25 (17.5%) 65 (45.5%) 6 (4.2%) 43 (30.1%) 49 (34.3%) (To al) 112 (78.3%) 31 (21.7%) 143 (100%) 51 (35.7%) 92 (64.3%) 143 (100%)