Those who satisfied above criteria were included; others were excluded. The inclusion criteria with cofacilitators focused on the diversity in their age and on their experience with SBSGs. Also on those who were enthusiastic about group and those who had reservations. Data saturation was reached when no new information was obtained.
2. What type of sampling design is this? Is the sampling design a probability or non-probability technique? This is a non-probability sampling design. This was a convenience sample in that it was readily available. There was little control/ limit over participants aside from assuring that they represented/ included certain criteria.
3. What was the sample size? Is this size adequate for the type of study (qualitative or quantitative)? What was the setting for the study? This was a qualitative study, which, generally, can have a smaller sample than a quantitative study. It, generally, tries to gather a sufficient number in order to achieve richness and depth. Its sample size here was 21 participants (7 males and 14 females). Sufficient for this type of study. The setting was two different high schools in a Midwest suburban area that featured students from middle and lower socio-economic backgrounds.
administrators, school administrators, group cofacilitators, and participants (2) Participant observations that were conducted weekly at two high schools in the school district over one semester. (3) A focus group evaluation that was conducted at the conclusion of a support group held at one of the two high schools. (4) Written evaluations that were obtained at the final group session at both sites.
The process: Initial interviews represented pertinent forms and documents being surveyed (for instance, the program manual, a set of minutes from a school counselor’s meeting, and group evaluations from one counselor.) Participants were observed for 4 hours. Observations included 5