Studies

Study #1 - Doctoral Dissertation – Validation of the Belief Systems Theory – Summer 1988

Summary: The development of the behavioral model began in the early 1980’S by Dr. Gary F. Russell, after evaluating the teaching methods he developed while training teachers and sports coaches.  As part of the research for his doctoral dissertation, Dr. Russell questioned if the Focus Model® training, as it’s called today, affected or caused movement in a positive direction in the population. The training was designed to shift the population’s thinking or “coaching attention” to a “receiver/player-centered” focus.  Seymour Epstein’s constructive thinking inventory was used to bear out the Focus Model® as a valid and reliable model in and of itself.


Study #2 - Focus®:  An Explanation of the Human Behavioral System – Fall 1991

Summary: Since first being researched in 1988, the Focus Model® continued to grow and develop.  In and of itself, it became more defined as more participants shared their positive outcomes.  Therefore, it was decided to conduct a next body of research.  Independent researchers and universities were brought on for good design and objective reading of the accumulated data.  Focus®, at this time, was defined as a theory that “explains the human behavioral system and a model for that system.”  Simply put, we felt that the interaction during teaching and training the “Focus®” way affected one’s thoughts, feelings and actions. This was demonstrated through use of the CBA process, whereby participants were able to examine their thoughts, feelings and actions in a systematic progression.  This research included both quantitative and qualitative analysis.  Measurement was done on self-concept, personal burnout and personal teaching efficacy.  We introduced a pre-test and then again tested the participants after using the Focus Model®.  This was done to see if use of the Focus Model® could increase/decrease one’s self-concept, and to prove this we administered a post testing analysis.  Following are the theories we measured in over 600 participants and the results:

  1. The efficacy of the model would indicate that the positive effects were not due to one charismatic instructor, and this was found to be true.
  2. One’s burnout, self and teaching efficacy and self concept would be statistically decreased or increased if people were exposed to more than one instruction time period.

In other words, the scores would continue to decrease for burnout, increase for self and teaching efficacy and self-concept.  Results showed statistically true with burnout and efficacy, both teaching and personal, and there was no statistical movement on self-concept.  This study began to show the power/efficacy of the model.  It also began to demonstrate that this model could be used to consistently replicate outcomes through all means of teaching other human beings.  Qualitative analysis was made with the same participants that supported the quantitative data in terms of how one’s thinking (perceptions), feelings and actions were affected and altered positively.


Study #3 - Interactive Perceptual Psychology – The Human Psychology that Mirrors the Naturalness of Human Behavior – Summer 1992

Summary: As the research and literature was analyzed, it became evident that a) we were developing a new Psychology called Interactive Perceptual Psychology© (IPP), and b) the previous study was found to be exciting in terms of its results, but replication had to be done to rule out the possibility of chance.  A replica study was created and conducted with a different group of constituents.  The goal was to replicate and strengthen the results of the fall 1991 study.  The results of this study were even more encouraging than the first.  Efficacy, both personally and professionally, increased with the exposure of the Focus Model® in a linear fashion.  This means that the longer you were exposed, the stronger and more positive the results became.  In regards to burnout, the same was true.  The more exposure, the more burnout decreased in a linear fashion.  The one difference in this study was that self-concept did statistically improve positively, whereas in the first study it was not measurable.  All qualitative evidence that was collected at this time resulted in the same as the 1991 study to support the quantitative numbers.


Study #4 - The Effects of the Focus Model® on Teacher Perceptional Efficacy and Application to the Classroom – Fall 1992

Summary: Since there were two significant studies done on the interactive nature of the trainer/trainee relationship, it was concluded that the Focus Model® was definitely having the effects that were hypothesized.  The goal of this particular study was to find out what outcomes were developing from this positive interaction.  Fifteen at random participants from the Focus® workshops were chosen to be involved in a longitudinal study over three months.  These people had various lengths of exposure with the Focus® process, which allowed for a significant cross-section of people.  The striking results showed that with the participants having a fairly good working knowledge of the model could increase their self-efficacy through continued application of Focus®.  This demonstrates that the interaction was reciprocal; the more the receiver was activated, the more the energy came back to the sender.  In fact, what the study concluded was that the participant’s statements demonstrated perceptual alterations of their confidence, as a direct result of the Focus Model®.  This increased their capability of employing the model thereby increasing their own teaching efficacy.  The Focus process began to interact their concepts (C-thoughts), thus increasing their validity belief (B, beliefs or feelings), which, in turn, increased their ability to apply their knowledge (A to Achieve) in the classroom.  This demonstrated the validity of the Focus® processes of CBA vs. ABC, which was the first stated hypothesis.


Study #5 - The Change in Personal and Teaching Efficacy Levels – Summer 1994

Summary: This study was conducted with 68 individuals to take a closer look at the specific scores on self and teacher/trainer efficacy.  It was found that the lower the scores were in personal efficacy, the greater the gain was in their trainer efficacy, thus ultimately and more strongly impacting their constituents. This suggests that their exposure to the model increased their content proficiency, and also their feelings of the power of their efficacy of their own efforts with the people they were training.  This result is a basic premise of the Focus Model® that emphasizes the receiver (the trainee) and his/her internal properties, which, when learned or grasped, increases one’s ability to motivate or activate that person to learn, which verifies the second stated hypothesis.  Thus, if you are training someone, you must teach the person as well as the content.  If you do, you increase the chances of someone performing at a higher level.


Study #6 - Changes in the Personal and Teaching Efficacy levels of Teachers Exposed to the Focus Model® – Spring 1998

Summary: The purpose of this published article was to take a valid model, Focus®, and analyze and evaluate the results of the personal and teaching efficacy levels of trainers exposed to the Focus Model®.  Further observations were made by these authors to examine the power of the interaction between the model and participants.  It’s been long surmised that there is power within interactive teaching models and through the studies of Drs. John Fraas and Isadore Newman; they found strong confidence in Russell’s findings.


STUDY #7 - The Use of the Johnson-Neyman Confidence Bands and Multiple Regression Models To Investigate Interaction Effects; Important Tools For Educational Researchers And Program Evaluators – Spring 1999

Summary: The purpose of this published paper was to take the validated Focus Model® and further analyze some of its findings.  The goal was to increase program evaluators to understand the results in this study on interaction effects that are present in the data.  Does the interaction effect actively occur and what is the nature of that effect.  This analysis revealed that most participants benefited greatly due to the interaction.