Skip Navigation
Skip to contents

J Korean Acad Nurs : Journal of Korean Academy of Nursing

Search
Advanced Search
OPEN ACCESS
mobile search button mobile menu button

Articles

Page Path
HOME > J Korean Acad Nurs > Volume 39(1); 2009 > Article
Original Article
Development and Evaluation of a School-based Anger Management Program (SAMP) for Adolescents
Young-Joo Park1, Ho-Sihn Ryu1, Keum-Sun Han1, Jung Hye Kwon2, HanKyeom Kim3, Yoon Jung Cho4, Hyun-Cheol Kang5, Suk-Hee Cheon6, Ji-Won Yoon7
Journal of Korean Academy of Nursing 2009;39(1):145-156.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.4040/jkan.2009.39.1.145
Published online: February 17, 2009

1Professor, College of Nursing, Korea University

2Professor, Department of Psychology, Korea University

3Professor, Department of Pathology, Korea University

4Professor, Department of Laboratory Medicine, Korea University, Seoul

5Associate Professor, Department of Informational Statistics, Hoseo University, Cheonan

6Full-time Instructor, Department of Nursing, Sangji University, Wonju

7Part-time Instructor, College of Nursing, Korea University, Seoul, Korea

1Professor, College of Nursing, Korea University

2Professor, Department of Psychology, Korea University

3Professor, Department of Pathology, Korea University

4Professor, Department of Laboratory Medicine, Korea University, Seoul

5Associate Professor, Department of Informational Statistics, Hoseo University, Cheonan

6Full-time Instructor, Department of Nursing, Sangji University, Wonju

7Part-time Instructor, College of Nursing, Korea University, Seoul, Korea

Address reprint requests to : Yoon, Ji-Won, College of Nursing, Korea University, 126-1 Anam-dong 5-ga, Seongbuk-gu, Seoul 136-705, Korea, Tel: 82-2-3290-4910 Fax: 82-2-927-4676 E-mail: dumom@hanmail.net
• Received: October 17, 2008   • Revised: October 17, 2008   • Accepted: January 31, 2009

Copyright © 2009 Korean Society of Nursing Science

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

  • 19 Views
  • 0 Download
  • 1 Scopus
prev
Full Article

Download PDF Download PDF

  • Purpose:
    This study was done to develop a school-based anger management program (SAMP) of 4 sessions and examine its effects on the anger, anger expression, psychosomatic responses, psychosocial responses, and immunologic responses in adolescents.
  • Methods:
    A quasi-experimental study using a nonequivalent control group, pre-post design with repeated measures was used. Chi-square test, t-test, paired t-test, and Fisher’s exact test were used to analyze the data.
  • Results:
    There were no differences between the experimental and control groups in outcome variables except for lymphocytes. However, following additional analyses, statistically significant differences by time point were observed for pain sensitivity, T cell, Helper T (Th) cell, Suppressor (Ts) cell and Natural Killer (NK) cell post-treatment, entrapment and psychosomatic symptoms at the 4-week follow-up, and resilience at the 10-week follow-up for the experimental group.
  • Conclusion:
    Although some modifications in contents and administration will be required to increase the effectiveness of the program for anger management, SAMP can be used to promote anger management ability in adolescents.
  • Keywords: Anger; Adolescent; School
Figure 1.
Research design.
jkan-39-145f1.jpg

Exp.=experimental group; Cont.=control group; X=SAMP (school-based anger management program); O1=general characteristics, anger, anger expression psychosomatic response (psychosomatic symptom, pain sensitivity), psychosocial response, immunologic response; O2= anger, anger expression psychosomatic response (psychosomatic symptom, pain sensitivity), psychosocial response, immunologic response; O3, O4=anger, anger expression, psychosomatic response (psychosomatic symptom), psychosocial response.

Table 1.
General Characteristics and Homogeneity between Experimental and Control Group (N=55)
Variables Exp. (n=32) Cont. (n=23) 2/t p
n (%) M±SD n (%) M±SD
Age 15.8±0.42 16.1±0.94 −1.61* .11
Number of siblings 2.6±1.77 2.7±2.13 −0.28* .78
Parental economic status (1,000 won) (n=32) 0.25 � 1.00
Below 1,000 6 (28.5) 3 (27.3)
1,000-3,000 13 (61.9) 7 (36.6)
Above 3,000 2 (9.5) 1 (9.1)
Live with (n=54) 0.12 .72
Both parents 19 (61.3) 13 (56.5)
Single parent or no parents 12 (38.7) 10 (43.5)
Educational level of Father (n=43) 0.01 1.00
Below high school 8 (32.0) 6 (33.3)
High school or above 17 (68.0) 12 (66.7)
Educational level of Mother (n=44) 0.54 .53
Below high school 10 (38.5) 5 (27.8)
High school or above 16 (61.5) 13 (72.2)
Smoking 2.17 .14
Yes 13 (40.7) 5 (21.7)
No 19 (59.3) 18 (78.3)
Drinking 1.95 .16
Yes 11 (34.5) 4 (17.4)
No 21 (65.6) 19 (82.6)
Height 166.5±29.10 166.34±34.69 0.02* .98
Weight 69.0±17.48 64.8±17.64 0.88* .38

*t-test; �Fisher’s exact test.

Exp.=experimental group; Cont.=control group.

Table 2.
Homogeneity of Outcome Variables between Experimental and Control Group (N=55)
Variables Exp. (n=32) Cont. (n=23) t p
M±SD M±SD
Trait anger 23.1±4.32 20.8±4.82 1.77 .08
State anger 13.5±4.38 13.8±4.83 −0.24 .81
Anger expression 32.9±9.66 31.1±7.71 0.71 .48
Anger-in 17.4±3.33 17.2±3.23 0.15 .88
Anger-out 16.8±4.47 15.6±3.63 1.02 .31
Anger-control 17.9±5.12 18.5±5.65 −0.35 .73
Psychosomatic response
Psychosomatic symptoms 27.0±8.29 29.8±8.73 −1.18 .24
Pain sensitivity 5.5±1.58 4.2±0.79 3.85 .00**
Psychosocial response
Depression 37.4±9.14 41.1±13.29 −1.20 .24
Entrapment 42.4±12.85 41.2±18.47 0.27 .79
Outer entrapment 27.1±8.35 25.5±10.99 0.57 .57
Inner entrapment 15.3±5.27 15.7±7.55 −0.22 .83
Resilience 43.8±7.77 45.5±8.05 −0.77 .45
Social competence 21.8±3.73 23.0±4.17 −1.03 .31
Autonomy and sense of self 14.3±2.95 15.0±3.32 −0.84 .40
Sense of meaning and purpose 7.8±2.35 7.5±2.47 0.42 .68
Immunologic response
WBC 6,470.3±1,744.50 6,089.6±1,522.10 0.84 .40
Lymphocytes 32.5±7.72 34.7±8.85 −1.08 .28
B cell 14.7±4.18 15.0±4.50 −0.23 .82
T cell 63.6±6.94 66.0±6.44 −1.31 .20
Th cell 28.1±6.83 32.0±5.58 −2.26 .03*
Ts cell 28.8±5.67 28.6±5.78 0.11 .91
NK cell 18.4±8.15 16.6±6.90 0.90 .37

*p<.05; **p<.01; Th cell=helper T cell; Ts cell=suppressor T cell; NK cell=natural killer cell; Exp.=experimental group; Cont.=control group.

Table 3.
Effects of SAMP on Outcome Variables (N=55)
Variables Time 2 Time 3 Time 4
M±SD t p M±SD t p M±SD t p
Trait anger Exp. 23.1±3.97 2.09 .04* 21.6±6.28 0.43 .67 21.6±6.60 1.20 .24
Cont. 20.8±4.17 20.9±5.48 19.7±4.66
State anger Exp. 12.9±4.60 −1.00 .33 14.5±6.70 −0.10 .92 12.7±5.24 −0.75 .46
Cont. 14.1±4.34 14.7±7.09 13.7±4.68
Anger expression Exp. 32.4±6.64 1.12 .27 32.7±7.04 0.85 .40 31.1±8.17 0.20 .84
Cont. 30.1±7.26 31.0±7.26 30.7±6.66
Anger-control Exp. 18.0±4.66 −0.93 .36 19.8±5.00 0.86 .39 18.1±5.42 −0.35 .73
Cont. 19.4±6.15 18.5±5.48 18.6±5.17
Anger-in Exp. 17.2±3.24 −0.26 .80 18.5±4.47 0.85 .40 16.9±4.56 −0.62 .53
Cont. 17.4±4.26 17.5±3.84 17.6±3.89
Anger-out Exp. 16.7±3.82 1.51 .14 17.7±5.00 1.42 .16 16.3±4.35 0.58 .57
Cont. 15.1±3.42 16.0±3.14 15.7±3.47
Psychosomatic symptoms Exp. 26.7±11.19 0.27 .79 23.3±11.39 −0.82 .41 24.3±10.41 0.16 .88
Cont. 25.9±8.86 26.2±12.81 23.9±10.95
Pain sensitivity Exp. 4.7±1.04 −1.36 .18
Cont. 5.1±1.15
Depression Exp. 40.9±9.55 0.29 .78 37.8±9.10 −0.54 .59 36.8±9.83 −0.55 .59
Cont. 40.0±12.30 39.2±10.98 38.3±8.68
Entrapment Exp. 37.5±13.42 −1.22 .23 34.3±16.70 −1.04 .30 39.5±17.21 0.51 .61
Cont. 42.6±17.00 39.5±20.04 37.1±7.11
External entrapment Exp. 23.9±8.51 −0.84 .40 21.7±10.53 −0.70 .49 24.9±11.32 0.39 .70
Cont. 26.1±10.52 23.9±12.58 23.7±10.69
Internal entrapment Exp. 13.6±5.46 −1.66 .10 12.6±6.74 −1.51 .14 14.6±6.56 0.48 .63
Cont. 16.4±7.00 15.6±7.78 13.7±6.57
Resilience Exp. 45.0±11.09 −1.10 .92 45.1±11.49 −1.16 .25 47.5±8.25 0.65 .52
Cont. 45.2±8.96 48.4±7.97 45.9±9.44
Social competence Exp. 21.8±5.72 −0.88 .38 22.7±5.59 −0.94 .35 23.2±4.82 0.15 .88
Cont. 23.0±3.64 24.0±4.30 23.0±4.77
Autonomy and sense of self Exp. 14.4±4.09 −0.47 .64 15.0±4.17 −1.01 .32 15.9±3.12 0.93 .35
Cont. 14.9±3.82 16.1±3.08 15.1±3.48
Sense of meaning and purpose Exp. 7.6±2.73 0.38 .71 7.4±2.85 −1.33 .19 8.7±2.63 1.29 .20
Cont. 7.3±2.51 8.3±2.39 7.7±2.65
WBC Exp. 6,297.5±1,079.3 3 0.78 .44
Cont. 6,000.0±1,763.0 0
Lymphocytes Exp. 31.6±6.84 2.03 .04*
Cont. 27.5±8.11
B cell Exp. 14.6±3.96 −1.18 .24
Cont. 15.9±4.73
T cell Exp. 67.1±6.76 0.56 .58
Cont. 66.0±6.78
Th cell Exp. 31.6±7.06 −0.76 .45
Cont. 32.9±5.14
Ts cell Exp. 29.6±5.58 1.19 .24
Cont. 27.8±5.73
NK cell Exp. 15.9±7.17 −0.17 .86
Cont. 16.3±6.87

*p<.05; SAMP=school-based anger management program; Time 2=1 week after Intervention; Time 3=4-week follow-up; Time 4=10-week follow-up; Th cell=helper T cell; Ts cell=suppressor T cell; NK cel=natural killer cell.

Table 4.
Effects of SAMP for the Experimental Group (N=32)
Variables Time 1-Time 2 Time 1-Time 3 Time 1-Time 4
M±SD t p M±SD t p M±SD t p
Trait anger 0.2±2.74 0.28 .78 1.7±5.98 1.51 .14 1.6±5.73 1.44 .16
State anger 0.7±2.67 1.44 .16 −0.6±5.73 −0.61 .55 0.7±4.24 0.86 .40
Anger expression 1.5±7.56 0.97 .62 0.1±9.00 0.04 .96 1.9±6.85 1.49 .15
Anger-control −0.5±4.01 −0.62 .53 −2.3±6.60 −1.86 .07 −0.2±4.20 −0.31 .76
Anger-in 0.3±4.25 0.39 .70 −1.2±3.48 −1.82 .08 0.6±4.72 0.73 .47
Anger-out 0.2±3.86 0.28 .34 −0.9±5.02 −1.02 .32 0.6±3.64 0.94 .46
Psychosomatic symptoms 1.0±10.25 0.51 .62 4.3±8.94 2.58 .02* 2.8±8.48 1.80 .08
Pain sensitivity 0.8±1.55 3.02 .00**
Resilience −1.2±9.93 −0.57 .58 −3.2±9.84 −1.70 .10 −1.9±7.86 −1.22 .23
Social competence −2.0±5.49 0.10 .92 −0.8±6.21 −0.69 .49 −0.9±5.30 −0.93 .36
Autonomy and sense of self 0.1±4.11 0.14 .89 −1.2±4.17 −1.45 .15 −1.2±2.90 −2.13 .04*
Sense of meaning and purpose 0.2±2.82 0.46 .65 0.2±2.40 0.46 .65 −0.7±2.63 −1.41 .17
Depression −3.6±7.27 −2.62 .01* −0.4±7.91 −0.23 .82 0.3±10.91 0.15 .88
Entrapment 4.8±13.34 1.99 .06 8.0±15.63 2.85 .00** 2.1±15.56 0.75 .46
External entrapment 3.1±8.38 2.04 .05 5.2±10.67 2.71 .01* 1.6±11.15 0.77 .45
Internal entrapment 1.7±5.97 1.63 .11 2.7±5.74 2.68 .01* 0.7±5.76 0.62 .54
WBC 172.8±1,738.8 0.56 .58
Lymphocytes 0.9±7.75 0.62 .54
B cell 0.2±2.49 0.40 .69
T cell −3.5±3.73 −5.28 <.0001**
Th cell −3.5±3.11 −6.31 <.0001**
Ts cell −0.9±1.57 −3.15 .00**
NK cell 2.5±4.20 3.38 .00**

*p<.05; **p<.01; SAMP=school-based anger management program; Time 1=1 week before Intervention; Time 2=1 week after Intervention; Time 3=4-week follow-up; Time 4=10-week follow-up; Th cell=helper T cell; Ts cell=suppressor T cell; NK cell=natural killer cell.

  • Adelson J., Doehrman M. J.. 1980.The psychodynamic approach to adolescence. In: Adelson J., editor. Handbook of Adolescency psychology. p. 99–116. New York, NY: Wiley.
  • Beck R., Fernandedz E.. 1998;Cognitive-behavioral therapy in the treatment of anger: A meta-analysis. Cognitive Therapy and Research. 22:63–74.
  • Berk L. S., Felten D. L., Tan S. A., Bittman B. B., Westengard J.. 2001;Modulation of neuroimmune parameters during the eustress of humor-associated mirthful laughter. Alternative Therapies in Health & Medicine. 7:62–76.
  • Boergers J., Spirito A., Donaldson D.. 1998;Reasons for adolescent suicide attempts: Associations with psychological functioning. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry. 37:1287–1293.
  • Bruehl S., Burns J. W., Chung O. Y., Ward P., Johnson B.. 2002;Anger and pain sensitivity in chronic low back pain patients and pain-free controls: The role of endogenous opioids. Pain. 99:223–233.ArticlePubMed
  • Choi C. J.. 2006.The effects of meditation programs in the reduction of school life maladjustment and anger of junior high school students. Unpublished master’s thesis. Chungang University; Seoul.
  • Chon K. K., Hahn D. U., Lee J. O., Spielberg C. D.. 1997;Korean adaptation of the state-trait anger expression inventory: anger and blood pressure. Korean Journal of Health Psychology. 2:60–78.
  • Chon K. K., Lee M. K.. 1992;Preliminary development of Korean version of CES-D. Korean Journal of Clinical Psychology. 11:65–75.
  • Crockenberg S. B.. 1981;Infant irritability, mother responsiveness, and social support influences on the security of infant-moth-erattachment. Child Development. 52:857–865.ArticlePubMed
  • Gilbert P., Allan S.. 1998;The role of defeat and entrapment (arrested flight) in depression: An exploration of an evolutionary view. Psychological Medicine. 28:585–598.PubMed
  • Gilbert P., Gilbert J., Irons C.. 2004;Life events, entrapments and arrested anger in depression. Journal of Affective Disorders. 79:149–160.PubMed
  • Hong Y. S.. 2004.The effects of the stress and psychosocial resources for adolescent suicidal behaviors.. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Yonsei University; Seoul.
  • Ishihara S., Makita S., Imai M., Hashimoto T., Nohara R.. 2003;Relationship between natural killer activity and anger expression in patients with coronary heart disease. Heart and Vessels. 18:85–92.ArticlePubMedPDF
  • Ju J. Y.. 2005.The study on the relationship among anger expression mode, depression, and aggression in high school students.. Unpublished master’s thesis. Seoul Women’s University; Seoul.
  • Kadner K. D.. 1989;Resilience. Responding to adversity. Journal of Psychological Nursing and Mental Health Services. 27(7):20–59.
  • Kim H. S., Kim H. S.. 1999;Development of instrument for measuring personality factor related to juvenile delinquency. Journal of Korean Academy of Psychiatric and Mental Health Nursing. 8:190–201.
  • Lazarus R. S., Kranner A. D., Folkman S.. 1980;An etiological assessment of emotion. Plutchik R., Kellerman H.. In: Emotion: Theory, research and experience. 1:198–201. New York, NY, Academic Press.
  • Lutgendorf S. K., Sood A. K., Anderson B., McGinn S., Maiseri H., Dao M., et al. 2005;Social support, psychological distress, and natural killer cell activity in ovarian cancer. Journal of Clinical Oncology. 23:7105–7113.PubMed
  • Na S. I., Ma S. J.. 2005;Discriminating variables between vocational high school students and academic high school students. Journal of Agricultural Education and Human Resource Development. 37:61–80.
  • Park E. S., Park Y. J., Ryu H. S., Han K. S., Hwang R. I., Im Y. J., et al. 2006;A nationwide survey on current conditions of school health education. Journal of Korean Academy of Nursing. 36:381–388.ArticlePubMedPDF
  • Park H. S.. 2004.The effect of emotion expression technique and cognitive relaxation by anger expression.. Unpublished master’s thesis. Pusan University; Busan.
  • Park Y. J., Baik S. I., Shin H. J., Yoon J. W., Cheon S. H., Moon S. H.. 2006;Anger, cardiovascular health and depression in middle-aged Korean men: The mediating effect of social support. Journal of Korean Academy of Nursing. 36:863–871.PubMed
  • Park Y. J., Han K. S., Shin H. J., Kang H. C., Chun S. H., Moon S. H., et al. 2004;Prediction on the negative outcomes of anger in female adolescents. Journal of Korean Academy of Nursing. 34:172–181.PubMed
  • Piko B.. 2001;Gender differences and similarities in adolescents’ ways of coping. The Psychological Record. 51:223–235.ArticlePDF
  • Seo S. G.. 2002.Cognitive factors related to anger and their therapeu-ticimplications.. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Seoul Nation-alUniversity; Seoul.
  • Spielberg C. D.. 1988.Professional manual for the State-Trait Anger Expression Inventory (STAXI).. Tampa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources, Inc..
  • Suh J. Y.. 2002.A study on the influence of parental divorce on children’s adaptation: Focusing on resilience.. Unpublished master’s thesis. Yonsei University; Seoul.
  • Suk M. H.. 2001.Effects of guided imagery on psychological resources and stress responses of adolescents.. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Yonsei University; Seoul.
  • Williams J. E., Paton C. C., Siegler I. C., Eigenbrodt M. L., Nieto F. J., Tyroler H. A.. 2000;Anger proneness coronary heart disease risk: Perspective analysis from the atherosclerosis risk in communities(ARIC) study. Circulation. 101:2034–2039.PubMed
  • Yarcheski A., Mahon N. E., Yarcheski T. J.. 2002;Anger in early adolescent boys and girls with health manifestations. Nursing Research. 51:229–236.PubMed

Figure & Data

REFERENCES

    Citations

    Citations to this article as recorded by  

      • Cite
        CITE
        export Copy Download
        Close
        Download Citation
        Download a citation file in RIS format that can be imported by all major citation management software, including EndNote, ProCite, RefWorks, and Reference Manager.
        Format:
        • RIS — For EndNote, ProCite, RefWorks, and most other reference management software
        • BibTeX — For JabRef, BibDesk, and other BibTeX-specific software
        Include:
        • Citation for the content below
        Development and Evaluation of a School-based Anger Management Program (SAMP) for Adolescents
        J Korean Acad Nurs. 2009;39(1):145-156.   Published online February 17, 2009
        DOI: https://doi.org/10.4040/jkan.2009.39.1.145
        Close
      • XML DownloadXML Download
      Figure
      • 0
      We recommend
      Related articles
      Development and Evaluation of a School-based Anger Management Program (SAMP) for Adolescents
      Image
      Figure 1. Research design.

      Figure 1.

      Development and Evaluation of a School-based Anger Management Program (SAMP) for Adolescents

      General Characteristics and Homogeneity between Experimental and Control Group (N=55)

      Variables Exp. (n=32) Cont. (n=23) 2/t p
      n (%) M±SD n (%) M±SD
      Age 15.8±0.42 16.1±0.94 −1.61* .11
      Number of siblings 2.6±1.77 2.7±2.13 −0.28* .78
      Parental economic status (1,000 won) (n=32) 0.25 � 1.00
      Below 1,000 6 (28.5) 3 (27.3)
      1,000-3,000 13 (61.9) 7 (36.6)
      Above 3,000 2 (9.5) 1 (9.1)
      Live with (n=54) 0.12 .72
      Both parents 19 (61.3) 13 (56.5)
      Single parent or no parents 12 (38.7) 10 (43.5)
      Educational level of Father (n=43) 0.01 1.00
      Below high school 8 (32.0) 6 (33.3)
      High school or above 17 (68.0) 12 (66.7)
      Educational level of Mother (n=44) 0.54 .53
      Below high school 10 (38.5) 5 (27.8)
      High school or above 16 (61.5) 13 (72.2)
      Smoking 2.17 .14
      Yes 13 (40.7) 5 (21.7)
      No 19 (59.3) 18 (78.3)
      Drinking 1.95 .16
      Yes 11 (34.5) 4 (17.4)
      No 21 (65.6) 19 (82.6)
      Height 166.5±29.10 166.34±34.69 0.02* .98
      Weight 69.0±17.48 64.8±17.64 0.88* .38

      *t-test; �Fisher’s exact test.

      Exp.=experimental group; Cont.=control group.

      Homogeneity of Outcome Variables between Experimental and Control Group (N=55)

      Variables Exp. (n=32) Cont. (n=23) t p
      M±SD M±SD
      Trait anger 23.1±4.32 20.8±4.82 1.77 .08
      State anger 13.5±4.38 13.8±4.83 −0.24 .81
      Anger expression 32.9±9.66 31.1±7.71 0.71 .48
      Anger-in 17.4±3.33 17.2±3.23 0.15 .88
      Anger-out 16.8±4.47 15.6±3.63 1.02 .31
      Anger-control 17.9±5.12 18.5±5.65 −0.35 .73
      Psychosomatic response
      Psychosomatic symptoms 27.0±8.29 29.8±8.73 −1.18 .24
      Pain sensitivity 5.5±1.58 4.2±0.79 3.85 .00**
      Psychosocial response
      Depression 37.4±9.14 41.1±13.29 −1.20 .24
      Entrapment 42.4±12.85 41.2±18.47 0.27 .79
      Outer entrapment 27.1±8.35 25.5±10.99 0.57 .57
      Inner entrapment 15.3±5.27 15.7±7.55 −0.22 .83
      Resilience 43.8±7.77 45.5±8.05 −0.77 .45
      Social competence 21.8±3.73 23.0±4.17 −1.03 .31
      Autonomy and sense of self 14.3±2.95 15.0±3.32 −0.84 .40
      Sense of meaning and purpose 7.8±2.35 7.5±2.47 0.42 .68
      Immunologic response
      WBC 6,470.3±1,744.50 6,089.6±1,522.10 0.84 .40
      Lymphocytes 32.5±7.72 34.7±8.85 −1.08 .28
      B cell 14.7±4.18 15.0±4.50 −0.23 .82
      T cell 63.6±6.94 66.0±6.44 −1.31 .20
      Th cell 28.1±6.83 32.0±5.58 −2.26 .03*
      Ts cell 28.8±5.67 28.6±5.78 0.11 .91
      NK cell 18.4±8.15 16.6±6.90 0.90 .37

      *p<.05; **p<.01; Th cell=helper T cell; Ts cell=suppressor T cell; NK cell=natural killer cell; Exp.=experimental group; Cont.=control group.

      Effects of SAMP on Outcome Variables (N=55)

      Variables Time 2 Time 3 Time 4
      M±SD t p M±SD t p M±SD t p
      Trait anger Exp. 23.1±3.97 2.09 .04* 21.6±6.28 0.43 .67 21.6±6.60 1.20 .24
      Cont. 20.8±4.17 20.9±5.48 19.7±4.66
      State anger Exp. 12.9±4.60 −1.00 .33 14.5±6.70 −0.10 .92 12.7±5.24 −0.75 .46
      Cont. 14.1±4.34 14.7±7.09 13.7±4.68
      Anger expression Exp. 32.4±6.64 1.12 .27 32.7±7.04 0.85 .40 31.1±8.17 0.20 .84
      Cont. 30.1±7.26 31.0±7.26 30.7±6.66
      Anger-control Exp. 18.0±4.66 −0.93 .36 19.8±5.00 0.86 .39 18.1±5.42 −0.35 .73
      Cont. 19.4±6.15 18.5±5.48 18.6±5.17
      Anger-in Exp. 17.2±3.24 −0.26 .80 18.5±4.47 0.85 .40 16.9±4.56 −0.62 .53
      Cont. 17.4±4.26 17.5±3.84 17.6±3.89
      Anger-out Exp. 16.7±3.82 1.51 .14 17.7±5.00 1.42 .16 16.3±4.35 0.58 .57
      Cont. 15.1±3.42 16.0±3.14 15.7±3.47
      Psychosomatic symptoms Exp. 26.7±11.19 0.27 .79 23.3±11.39 −0.82 .41 24.3±10.41 0.16 .88
      Cont. 25.9±8.86 26.2±12.81 23.9±10.95
      Pain sensitivity Exp. 4.7±1.04 −1.36 .18
      Cont. 5.1±1.15
      Depression Exp. 40.9±9.55 0.29 .78 37.8±9.10 −0.54 .59 36.8±9.83 −0.55 .59
      Cont. 40.0±12.30 39.2±10.98 38.3±8.68
      Entrapment Exp. 37.5±13.42 −1.22 .23 34.3±16.70 −1.04 .30 39.5±17.21 0.51 .61
      Cont. 42.6±17.00 39.5±20.04 37.1±7.11
      External entrapment Exp. 23.9±8.51 −0.84 .40 21.7±10.53 −0.70 .49 24.9±11.32 0.39 .70
      Cont. 26.1±10.52 23.9±12.58 23.7±10.69
      Internal entrapment Exp. 13.6±5.46 −1.66 .10 12.6±6.74 −1.51 .14 14.6±6.56 0.48 .63
      Cont. 16.4±7.00 15.6±7.78 13.7±6.57
      Resilience Exp. 45.0±11.09 −1.10 .92 45.1±11.49 −1.16 .25 47.5±8.25 0.65 .52
      Cont. 45.2±8.96 48.4±7.97 45.9±9.44
      Social competence Exp. 21.8±5.72 −0.88 .38 22.7±5.59 −0.94 .35 23.2±4.82 0.15 .88
      Cont. 23.0±3.64 24.0±4.30 23.0±4.77
      Autonomy and sense of self Exp. 14.4±4.09 −0.47 .64 15.0±4.17 −1.01 .32 15.9±3.12 0.93 .35
      Cont. 14.9±3.82 16.1±3.08 15.1±3.48
      Sense of meaning and purpose Exp. 7.6±2.73 0.38 .71 7.4±2.85 −1.33 .19 8.7±2.63 1.29 .20
      Cont. 7.3±2.51 8.3±2.39 7.7±2.65
      WBC Exp. 6,297.5±1,079.3 3 0.78 .44
      Cont. 6,000.0±1,763.0 0
      Lymphocytes Exp. 31.6±6.84 2.03 .04*
      Cont. 27.5±8.11
      B cell Exp. 14.6±3.96 −1.18 .24
      Cont. 15.9±4.73
      T cell Exp. 67.1±6.76 0.56 .58
      Cont. 66.0±6.78
      Th cell Exp. 31.6±7.06 −0.76 .45
      Cont. 32.9±5.14
      Ts cell Exp. 29.6±5.58 1.19 .24
      Cont. 27.8±5.73
      NK cell Exp. 15.9±7.17 −0.17 .86
      Cont. 16.3±6.87

      *p<.05; SAMP=school-based anger management program; Time 2=1 week after Intervention; Time 3=4-week follow-up; Time 4=10-week follow-up; Th cell=helper T cell; Ts cell=suppressor T cell; NK cel=natural killer cell.

      Effects of SAMP for the Experimental Group (N=32)

      Variables Time 1-Time 2 Time 1-Time 3 Time 1-Time 4
      M±SD t p M±SD t p M±SD t p
      Trait anger 0.2±2.74 0.28 .78 1.7±5.98 1.51 .14 1.6±5.73 1.44 .16
      State anger 0.7±2.67 1.44 .16 −0.6±5.73 −0.61 .55 0.7±4.24 0.86 .40
      Anger expression 1.5±7.56 0.97 .62 0.1±9.00 0.04 .96 1.9±6.85 1.49 .15
      Anger-control −0.5±4.01 −0.62 .53 −2.3±6.60 −1.86 .07 −0.2±4.20 −0.31 .76
      Anger-in 0.3±4.25 0.39 .70 −1.2±3.48 −1.82 .08 0.6±4.72 0.73 .47
      Anger-out 0.2±3.86 0.28 .34 −0.9±5.02 −1.02 .32 0.6±3.64 0.94 .46
      Psychosomatic symptoms 1.0±10.25 0.51 .62 4.3±8.94 2.58 .02* 2.8±8.48 1.80 .08
      Pain sensitivity 0.8±1.55 3.02 .00**
      Resilience −1.2±9.93 −0.57 .58 −3.2±9.84 −1.70 .10 −1.9±7.86 −1.22 .23
      Social competence −2.0±5.49 0.10 .92 −0.8±6.21 −0.69 .49 −0.9±5.30 −0.93 .36
      Autonomy and sense of self 0.1±4.11 0.14 .89 −1.2±4.17 −1.45 .15 −1.2±2.90 −2.13 .04*
      Sense of meaning and purpose 0.2±2.82 0.46 .65 0.2±2.40 0.46 .65 −0.7±2.63 −1.41 .17
      Depression −3.6±7.27 −2.62 .01* −0.4±7.91 −0.23 .82 0.3±10.91 0.15 .88
      Entrapment 4.8±13.34 1.99 .06 8.0±15.63 2.85 .00** 2.1±15.56 0.75 .46
      External entrapment 3.1±8.38 2.04 .05 5.2±10.67 2.71 .01* 1.6±11.15 0.77 .45
      Internal entrapment 1.7±5.97 1.63 .11 2.7±5.74 2.68 .01* 0.7±5.76 0.62 .54
      WBC 172.8±1,738.8 0.56 .58
      Lymphocytes 0.9±7.75 0.62 .54
      B cell 0.2±2.49 0.40 .69
      T cell −3.5±3.73 −5.28 <.0001**
      Th cell −3.5±3.11 −6.31 <.0001**
      Ts cell −0.9±1.57 −3.15 .00**
      NK cell 2.5±4.20 3.38 .00**

      *p<.05; **p<.01; SAMP=school-based anger management program; Time 1=1 week before Intervention; Time 2=1 week after Intervention; Time 3=4-week follow-up; Time 4=10-week follow-up; Th cell=helper T cell; Ts cell=suppressor T cell; NK cell=natural killer cell.
      Table 1. General Characteristics and Homogeneity between Experimental and Control Group (N=55)

      *t-test; �Fisher’s exact test.

      Exp.=experimental group; Cont.=control group.

      Table 2. Homogeneity of Outcome Variables between Experimental and Control Group (N=55)

      *p<.05; **p<.01; Th cell=helper T cell; Ts cell=suppressor T cell; NK cell=natural killer cell; Exp.=experimental group; Cont.=control group.

      Table 3. Effects of SAMP on Outcome Variables (N=55)

      *p<.05; SAMP=school-based anger management program; Time 2=1 week after Intervention; Time 3=4-week follow-up; Time 4=10-week follow-up; Th cell=helper T cell; Ts cell=suppressor T cell; NK cel=natural killer cell.

      Table 4. Effects of SAMP for the Experimental Group (N=32)

      *p<.05; **p<.01; SAMP=school-based anger management program; Time 1=1 week before Intervention; Time 2=1 week after Intervention; Time 3=4-week follow-up; Time 4=10-week follow-up; Th cell=helper T cell; Ts cell=suppressor T cell; NK cell=natural killer cell.

      Table 1.

      Table 2.

      Table 3.

      Table 4.

      J Korean Acad Nurs : Journal of Korean Academy of Nursing
      © Korean Society of Nursing Science.
      Close layer
      TOP