Unlocking potential? The impact of a soccer intervention on social-educational outcomes in a German prison

Figures & data

Table 1. Items of group cohesion.

Item (1 = totally disagree ; 9 = totally agree)	M	SD	Cronbach´s α
Attraction to the group – social (ATG-S) subindex	5.47	2.19	0.953
This training group is an important reference group for me.	4.92	2.39
I enjoy the conversations and interactions in this training.	6.42	1.66
I like meeting the people who come to this training group.	5.25	2.23
I would miss the contact with the other participants if this training program ended.	4.39	2.55
When it comes to group experiences in my life, this training group is very important to me.	6.03	2.30
The conversations and interactions within this training group are important to me.	5.81	2.35
Attraction to the group – task (ATG-T) subindex	7.61	1.54	0.911
I like the amount of activity I get in this training.	7.39	1.85
This training group provides me with the opportunity to improve the areas of my fitness that are important to me.	7.97	1.34
I feel comfortable with the intensity of the exercises in this workout.	7.58	1.52
I like the exercise content in this training.	7.31	1.69
I like the new exercises that are done in this training.	7.17	1.59
I have the opportunity to improve my personal fitness in this workout.	8.25	1.23
Group integration – social (GIS) subindex	5.71	2.15	0.916
Our group members are in contact with each other during the training.	6.81	1.53
Even after the training is over, participants in our group would enjoy continuing to spend time together.	4.94	2.33
Our group members sometimes do things together outside of the training.	5.83	2.37
We also spend time together before and after our training.	5.25	2.37
Group integration – task (GI-T) subindex	6.57	1.50	0.923
When it comes to the benefits of the exercises in this training, our training group is united.	5.92	1.40
Our group is of one opinion regarding the content that should be offered in this course.	5.92	1.66
Our group members are satisfied with the intensity of the exercises in this course.	6.69	1.56
Our group members are happy to help out when equipment has to be fetched and set up for exercises.	7.22	1.35
We support each other so that everyone can get the most out of the training.	7.08	1.54

Table 2. Items of social integration.

Item (1= totally disagree; 6 = totally agree)	M	SD	Cronbach´s α
Social integration index	4.57	1.02	0.768
I can do whatever I want, somehow, I don’t get through to my fellow inmates.^a	5.39	0.71
No matter how good an idea I have, the others in the prison don’t listen to me anyway.^a	4.84	1.08
I am quite popular by my fellow inmates.	3.64	1.04
I think that I am one of the most popular inmates in the prison.	3.29	1.15
I sometimes feel like an outsider in the prison.^a	4.90	1.33
When others do something together in their free time, I am often ignored.^a	5.36	0.82

Note. ^aitem is reverse-coded (1 = totally agree; 6 = totally disagree).

Table 3. Items of social self-efficacy expectations.

Item (1 = totally disagree; 6 = totally agree)	M	SD	Cronbach´s α
Social self-efficacy expectation index	4.55	1.13	0.886
Contact subindex	4.33	1.28	0.862
I can also get into conversation quickly with people I don’t know yet.	4.41	1.39
When I want to get to know other people, I succeed, even if the others are rather reserved.	4.36	1.25
When I am with other people, I know what I have to do to be accepted.	4.24	1.19
Conflict subindex	4.75	1.06	0.783
I can also find a solution to difficult conflicts with fellow inmates.	4.63	1.07
I manage to get along well even with difficult fellow inmates.	4.44	1.21
If I have a dispute with my friends, I can find a solution.	5.17	0.90
Assertion subindex	4.56	1.02	0.773
I am able to say what I think in the prison, even if everyone else doesn’t agree with me.	5.17	0.95
I'm good at convincing other inmates of my opinion.	3.96	1.09

Figure 1. Social integration for both groups from pre-test to post-test.

Note. Error bars represent standard errors.

Table 4. Social integration (M ± SD) before and after the intervention.

group	pre-test	post-test	F	p	${\eta }_p^2$
intervention	4.68 ± 0.51	5.09 ± 0.61	21.568	<0.001***	0.683
control	4.52 ± 0.70	4.40 ± 0.70	0.266	0.619	0.029

Note. N = 21 (intervention: n = 11, control: n = 10).

*** p < 0.001.

Table 5. Social self-efficacy expectations (M ± SD) before and after the intervention.

dimension	group	pre-test	post-test	F	p	${\eta }_p^2$
contact	intervention	4.49 ± 0.94	4.45 ± 1.38	0.022	0.884	0.002
	control	4.20 ± 1.04	4.73 ± 0.95	3.273	0.104	0.267
conflict	intervention	5.03 ± 0.81	4.55 ± 1.07	2.813	0.124	0.220
	control	4.77 ± 1.12	4.83 ± 0.81	0.028	0.871	0.003
assertion	intervention	4.50 ± 1.02	4.64 ± 0.78	0.254	0.625	0.025
	control	4.65 ± 0.67	4.75 ± 0.75	0.130	0.726	0.014
overall	intervention	4.69 ± 0.80	4.55 ± 0.97	0.906	0.364	0.083
	control	4.53 ± 0.85	4.77 ± 0.73	0.861	0.378	0.087

Note. N = 21 (intervention, n = 11; control, n = 10).

Table 6. Group cohesion (means ± SD) before and after the intervention.

dimension	pre-test	post-test	F	p	${\eta }_p^2$
ATG-S	6.09 ± 1.87	5.42 ± 2.49	1.186	0.302	0.106
ATG-T	8.00 ± 0.92	7.94 ± 1.13	0.057	0.817	0.006
GI-S	5.30 ± 2.28	5.85 ± 2.53	6.328	0.031*	0.388
GI-T	6.65 ± 1.24	7.05 ± 1.52	0.518	0.488	0.049

Note. N = 11; ATG-S: attract to the group – social; ATG-T: attraction to the group – task; GI-S: group integration – social; GI-T: group integration – task.

* p < 0.05.

Data availability statement

The participants of this study did not provide written consent for their data to be shared publicly; therefore, so due to the sensitive nature of the research supporting data is not available.