The impact of the financial education and personal development industry assessed for the first time by a world

class scientific pilot study!

THE LONG-TERM IMPACT OF A 4-DAY 21ST CENTURY EDUCATION SEMINAR

The Melbourne Pilot Study
McIntyre, J and Dirani, M (PhD)

The Long-term Impact of a 4-day 21st Century Education Seminar

The Melbourne Pilot Study
McIntyre, J1 and Dirani, M (PhD)2

Correspondence address: Mr Jamie McIntyre 21st Century Education, Level 9, 222 Kingsway, South Melbourne, VIC 3205, Australia Email: Jamie@21stca.com.au Twitter: @MoDirani1 Keywords: education, financial knowledge, mindset, survey

Abstract
Objective: To examine the impact of a 21st Century Education 4-day Seminar on the participants mindset and overall personal development using a survey based on follow-up research study. Methods: Eligible attendees (English speaking and had not previously attended a 4day education seminar) were invited to participate in the current study. Each individual completed the 10-item questionnaire at baseline (day 1 of seminar at registration), follow up time point 1 (end of day 4 of seminar) and follow up time point 2 (60 days post seminar completion). Results: A total of 106 attendees, 73 (68.9%) males and 33 (31.1%) females, with a mean age of 35.48 years (range: 12 to 66 years), were included in the analysis of this study. A total of 71 attendees (67%), 47 males (66.2%) and 24 females (33.8%), with a mean age of 36.3 years (range: 12 to 66 years) completed the questionnaire at follow up 1, and 56 (39 males and 17 females), with a mean age of 34.13 years (range = 12 to 66 years) at follow up 2. There was no significant difference for all demographics between those who completed the questionnaire at baseline compared to those who were recruited at follow up 1 or 2. For each item in the questionnaire, there was a statistically significant improvement (p<0.05) at follow up 1 and 2, with exception to item 2 at follow up 1, and items for 4 and 5 for follow up 2. An improvement by one scale in at least one question was reported in almost all cases (97%). Most participants (60% to 85%) sustained their results at the 60 day follow up and no significant differences in improvements at follow up 1 and 2 were found for all items. Conclusion: To our knowledge, this is the first research study in the world to assess the long-term impact of a 4-day educational seminar on attendees overall personal development. The results from this study indicate that the 21st Century educational seminar is beneficial for the majority of its attendees, with almost all reporting at least one positive change and up to 85% sustaining their improvement 60 days after the completion of the seminar.

Background
In early 2000, Mr. Jamie McIntyre founded the company 21st Century Education, with his primary objective being to substitute the outdated 19th century education system using carefully tailored financial and motivational materials. Since its establishment, 21st Century education has reached over 450,000 people worldwide and assisted thousands in achieving their goals of financial abundance and longterm success. The mission of 21st Century education, alongside its multiple organisational divisions is to make their clients richer at a personal and financial level. We are dedicated to providing a real-life, accessible 21st Century Education that inspires, educates and empowers people through our network of services and industry leading coaches. To date, measures of client satisfaction and positive change as a consequence of 21st Century educational seminars has been assessed using testimonials, evaluation forms and positive feedback through social media and other communicative channels. However, there has been no survey based follow-up study to assess the long-term impact of a 21st Century educational seminar over time using measurable outcomes targeting a larger audience attending such seminars. 21st Century Education is supportive of scientific research, with the aim to assist in better catering for their clients individual needs and steering away from a one-sizefits-all model.

Introduction
We intend to use a scientific approach in determining the real impact of this type of intensive educational seminar. In brief, to assess the impact of a behavioral or medical intervention, it is common for scientists to administer a carefully designed questionnaire/survey to investigate any positive or negative changes over a specific timeline, typically before and after (one or more time points) the intervention. The outcomes of the participants responses are then used to determine whether the intervention should be remodeled, dismissed or accepted. With all study questionnaires, whether they are obtaining information on simple demographics, quality of life, or intelligence they are highly valued when determining the most appropriate and effective intervention. In this study, we intend to assess, for the first time, the long-term impact of 21st Century Education 4-day Seminar (intervention) has on the attendees overall mindset and personal development using a comprehensive questionnaire at 2 time points, at the completion of the seminar (4th day) and 60 days after.

Methods
Recruitment Individuals who attended the registration on the first day of the 21st Century Education 4-day Seminar between the times of 8am and 9am were invited to participate in the current study. After they completed their registration, which involved completing a simple form, receiving a name badge and a show bag, they were asked to see the project coordinator of the current study. The project coordinator provided each registered attendee an overview of the study and if eligible obtained their informed consent. After consent for this study was obtained, participants were instructed to complete the 10-item questionnaire, and at completion each participant was provided with a golden star participation sticker to later identify them for follow up 1 (completion of the seminar). Inclusion Criteria To be included in the main analysis of the current study, participants were expected to be English-speaking, and not have attended a 4-day seminar in the last 5 years. No monetary incentive was provided to any participant. Questionnaire Each participant was provided with a unique study number, to ensure anonymity of the study participants. The 10-item questionnaire consisted of 2-parts, with the first obtaining information on demographics, such as age, gender, educational attainment, socio-economic status, relationship status and employment. The second part consisted of 9 questions relating to personal development, mindset, financial knowledge, risk appetite and life balance, and one qualitative open-ended question, which will be assessed in a separate article. For items 1, 2, 5 and 8 we implemented a 6-scale scoring system, with excellent being the coded as 1 and very poor being coded as 6 . Items 3 and 9 consisted of 5 responses, from very confident (coded 1) to not confident (coded 5). Responses for risk appetite for item 4 were measured using a 5 scale system, ascending from very high (coded 1) to very low (coded 5). Mindset was quantified also using a 5 scale system, with very strong (coded 1) being the highest and very poor (coded 5) being the lowest rating. Item 10 was an open ended question, asking participants to make any additional comments, and item six used a binary response (YES/NO) asking whether they achieved their ultimate financial goals, if they did not, they were given 6 options or reason, where one or more response was acceptable.

Follow up The same questionnaire was then administered at the completion of the 4 day seminar, where participants were expected to complete the questionnaire in the auditorium. They were given plenty of time to complete the questionnaire, and the study team collected the completed questionnaires. For those who were missed at the final day of the seminar (<15%), they were called the day after and the questionnaire was administered through a telephone interview by the study coordinator. At follow up 2 (60 days after the seminar completion), participants were mailed out a questionnaire for completion, and reminder calls and interviews were also conducted. Statistical Analysis We report the baseline characteristics including age, gender, educational attainment, marital status and income for the total study population (n=106) and for the participation in the follow-up 1 (n=71) and follow up 2 (n=56) studies using descriptive statistics including frequency distribution for categorical and mean, and standard deviation for continuous variables. The differences between rating scales for each of the questions for participants who attended both at follow-up and baseline were computed and defined as 1 scale improvement if someone reported, for example 2 at baseline (very good) and 1 (excellent) at follow-up for each of the questions. The improvement in knowledge, attitude and confidence related variables were obtained by subtracting the baseline scores from the follow-up. The mean difference was compared with zero, using the hypothesis that there was no improvement due to the training/seminar. One sample t-test was used to compare the mean difference with zero and concluded a significant improvement with significant negative mean outcome due to the category rating being 1 with excellent. The percentage of attendees with at least one or two rating improvement was computed using the frequency table of the difference between baseline and followup. Sustainability in results was considered if the significant improvement was observed in both the 4 day and 60 day follow-up measured through the same methodology/survey. Significance was assumed for p<0.05 and the statistical analyses were performed by using statistical software SPSS version 19.0.1 (SPSS Inc, Chicago).

Results
Recruitment Rate Out of 250 registrations on the first day of the seminar between 8am and 9am, 152 (60.8%) attendees were recruited to participate in this study. Of the 152, only 24 (15.8%) did not complete and/or return their baseline questionnaire, and 22 (17.2%) of those who completed the questionnaire had already attended an intensive financial education seminar, and therefore were excluded from the main analysis. A total of 106 attendees, 73 (68.9%) males and 33 (31.1%) females, with a mean age of 35.48 years (range: 12 to 66 years), were included in the analysis of this study, and will be referred to as the baseline participants. Over the course of the 4 days, there was a reported 450 registrations, with our sample almost representing onequarter of the total sample size (106/450, 23.6%). A total of 71 attendees (67%), 47 males (66.2%) and 24 females (33.8%), with a mean age of 36.3 years (range: 12 to 66 years) completed the questionnaire at follow up 1 (at the end of day 4 of the seminar). Moreover, at the 60-day follow up, 56 attendees (52.8%), 39 (69.6%) males and 17 females (30.4%) aged between 12 to 66 years (mean age = 34.1 years) were recruited and included in the analysis. Baseline Characteristics: Baseline Participants For all participants, the reported mean number of years of education was14.31 years (range: 10-19 years), with almost 85% falling into the first 6 categories of income (equal distribution for each category). Of these participants, 63.2% were reported to be in a relationship (either married, de facto, engaged or in a relationship), with 30.2% being single and the remaining (6.6%) were either widowed or divorced. More than half of the participants (57/106, 53.8%) were employed, with 3 (2.8%) reporting to be employed and self-employed. A further 34% (36/106) were self-employed, 5.7% (6/106) were unemployed and 1 person reported to be retired. Baseline Characteristics: Participants at follow up 1 Of those who completed the questionnaire at follow up 1, the mean number of years of education was 14.54 years (range: 10-19 years), with almost 90% being categorised into the first 6 income brackets (equal distribution for each category). Of these participants, 62.0% were in a relationship (either married, de facto, engaged or in a relationship), 31.0% (22/71) were reported to be single and the remaining were either widowed or divorced. Over half (39/71, 54.9%) were employed, with 1 (1.4%) attendee being both employed and self-employed. Approximately one-third (25/71, 35.2%) reported to be self-employed, only 5.6% (4/71) were unemployed and 1 (1.4%) was retired. There was no statistically significant difference between baseline participants and those who were followed up (follow up 1), for all demographic characteristics (p > 0.05).

Baseline Characteristics: Participants at follow up 2 At follow up 2, the mean number of years of education was 14.56 years (range = 10-19 years), with almost 90% (87.4%) falling into the first 6 income categories. Over half these participants were in a relationship (either married, de facto, engaged or in a relationship), 39.3% were single, and the remaining were either widowed or divorced. Approximately one-third (25/71, 35.2%) reported to be self-employed, only 5.6% (4/71) were unemployed and 1 (1.4%) was retired. More than 90% of participants reported to be employed, with 26.8% being self-employed and only 3 (4/56) were unemployed and 1 (1.8%) was retired. For all demographic characteristics there was no statistically significant difference between baseline participants and those who were followed up (follow up 1 and 2), p > 0.05. Questionnaire: comparing responses from baseline to follow up 1 and 2 For each of the eight quantitative items in the questionnaire, missing data was as low as 5%. Question 6 of the questionnaire was removed from the analysis, as it is only applicable for our second follow (60 days after the completion of the seminar). For each item in the questionnaire, there was a statistically significant improvement (p<0.05) in follow up one, with exception to item 2. Similarly, with exception to question 4 and 5, a significant improvement was seen for all other items from baseline to the 60-day follow up, p <0.05. No significant change (p >0.05) was noted for all items from the 4 day follow up to the 60 day follow up, indicating that all improvements gained at the completion of the seminar were sustained after 60 days. Question 1: Currently, my overall financial knowledge is? A significant proportion of attendees (65.7%) reported at least 1 scale improvement in financial knowledge, p = 0.000, with less than one-third (28.6%) showing no change, and only 5.7% dropping by 1 scale. Similarly at the 60 day follow up, 60.7% demonstrated at least a one scale improvement (p<0.05), 35.7% remaining the same, and only 2 showing a drop of one scale in financial knowledge. Of those who showed improvement after the 4 days follow up, we found that almost 80% (79.4%) of them maintained their improvement after 60 days. Question 2: How would you rate your current job satisfaction? Although we would not expect an improvement in job satisfaction over only a 4-day period, more than one-quarter (27.1%) reported at least a 1 scale improvement, however this was not statistically significant (p = 0.68). Almost half (48.6%) remained the same, and interestingly almost one-quarter (24.3%) showed a one-scale drop in job satisfaction. Of those who showed no improvement (n = 33), 22 (67%) were male, 42% were reported to be single and over half (52%) were employed. Interestingly, at the 60-day follow up, 50% showed improvement in job satisfaction, with the results being statistically significant (p = 0.01), 30.4% remained the same

and 16.1 (n = 9 participants) showed a one scale drop in job satisfaction. Furthermore, over 70% of those who reported an improvement after 4 days sustained their results after 60 days. Question 3: How confident are you with your current negotiating skills? A cumulative proportion of 41.2% of attendees became more confident with their negotiating skills, with this being a statistically significant improvement, p = 0.000. Almost half reported no change after the 4 day seminar (48.5%), and only 7 (10.3%) reported a drop in confidence with negotiating skills. At the 60-day follow up, 50% reported more confidence in their negotiating skills, with this improvement being statistically significant, p < 0.05. Only 5 participants (8.9%) reported a drop at the 60day follow up. More than 80% (84.2%) sustained their results even after 60 days from the completion of the seminar (follow up 1). Question 4: My current risk appetite is? A significant improvement in risk appetite was found after the completion of the 4-day seminar, 35.7%, p = 0.003. Half (35, 50%) of the attended showed no change, and only 10 (14.3%) attendees reported a drop of 1 scale in risk appetite. Although 41.1% reported an improvement in risk appetite at the 60-day follow up, this was not statistically significant, p = 0.10. However, 75% sustained their improvements from the 4 day to the 60 day follow up, with only 4 attendees not sustaining their improvement after 60 days. Question 5: How would you rate your current life balance? After the 4-day seminar, life balance improved in 32.9% of the attendees, with this increase being statistically significant, p = 0.015. Exactly half (35, 50%) of the attendees did not report a change in life balance, and 12 (17.1%) reported a drop by one scale for this item. Similarly, at the 60-day follow up, 37.5% of the attendees reported an improvement in life balance (p = 0.14 NS), with 42.9% remaining the same, and 19.7% dropping by at least 1 scale. Nonetheless, improvements were maintained in 64.3% after the 60 day follow up from the completion of the 4-day seminar (follow up 1). Question 7. How strong is your current mindset? Almost half of the attendees (24, 40%) reported a significant improvement in their mindset by at least a 1 scale increase, p = 0.001, with 48.6% showing upholding their own mindset throughout the 4 day seminar and only 11.4% reporting a drop in their mindset by one scale. Moreover, from baseline, a high of 52.7% reported a significant improvement in their mindset at the 60 day follow up, p < 0.05, with more than one-third remaining the same (38.2%) and 8.9% showing a decrease. Eighty two percent of attendees sustained their 4-day improvement at the 60-day follow up.

Question 8: My current level of personal development is? Improvement in personal development was seen in 38.0% of the attendees, with this being statistically significant, p = 0.002. Less than half of the participants remained the same, 47.9% and only 10 (14.1%) reported a drop in their personal development. A significant proportion also demonstrated an improvement in personal development at the 60-day follow up (p <0.05), with 34.55% remaining the same and only 6 participants dropping by one scale. Furthermore, at least 80% sustained their 4day results at the 60-day follow up. Question 9: How confident are you in assisting someone else with financial growth and personal development? More than half (52.5%) showed at least a one scale increase in their confidence to assist others, p < 0.000. One-third 34.8% reported no change in their confidence to assist others after the 4-day seminar, and only 9 (13.0%) demonstrating a decrease in their confidence. A significant proportion of attendees (46.3%, p < 0.05) reported an improvement at the 60-day follow up, with only 4 showing a drop in confidence to assist others. After 60 days from the 4 day seminar, almost 65% (62.5%) sustained their confidence to assist others with finances and personal development. Summary Results Overall, an improvement by one scale in at least one question was reported in almost all cases (97%), with one-third of participants reporting an improvement by at one scale in four items of the questionnaire. Moreover, a two scale increase for at least one item in the questionnaire was found in 24% of cases. At the 60 day follow up, improvements reported after the 4-day seminar were sustained for each item, with proportions ranging from 60% to almost 85%. Moreover, significant improvements were seen for all items after the 60-day follow-up assessment, with exception to item 4 and 5.

Discussion
We set out to assess the long-term impact of a 21st Century Education 4-day Seminar that took place in Melbourne (May, 2012), using a survey based research pilot study. To our knowledge this is the first study of its kind in the world to quantify the changes reported by attendees from baseline (before commencement of the seminar) to follow up 1 (at the completion of the seminar) and follow up 2 (60 days after the seminar completion). The response rate was excellent, with over 60% being recruited into the study; however this figure is likely to be deflated due to methodological issues, namely inadequate man power. All participants were recruited by only one study coordinator, with a considerable number of attendees missing the opportunity to partake in the study. Further evidence to support the underestimated response rate come from the modified methodology with follow up 1, where questionnaires were administered in the seminar auditorium with the project coordinator capturing all attendees attention by presenting the study on stage. Nonetheless, we were able to obtain a representative sample of the total number of attendees (approximately 25%) and a follow up of 67% of those who completed the questionnaire at baseline. The follow up rate could have been higher, as the last day fell on a working day, where a drop in attendees was expected. We were able to recruit a total of 56 attendees at follow up 2 (52.8%). The lower follow up rate may be explained by the change in the interview methodology, where we relied on attendees returning the completed questionnaires by mail and/or conducting telephone interviews. Nonetheless, we found improvement for all items at the 60 day follow up, with up to 80% of those who reported improvements at the 4day follow up sustaining their results 60 days later. Moreover, there were no statistically significant differences in between improvements reported at the 4-day and 60-day follow up, indicating results were similar between the two time points and that improvement were sustained at time point 2. At follow up 1, almost all participants showed a one-scale improvement in at least one question, with the greatest improvement observed for item one (financial knowledge), 65.7% and the lowest being reported for item 2 (job satisfaction), 27.1%. At follow up 2, similar improvements were found for all items, with only items 4 and 5 not being statistically significant, however this may be explained by the small sample size at follow 2 (n = 56 attendees). It was evident that some items were more relevant at the 60-day follow up, including item 2 How would you rate your current job satisfaction? item 5 How would you rate your current life balance? and 8 My current level of personal development is? where any substantial change would be expected at the 60 day follow up. For instance, for item 2, it can be postulated that an improvement in job satisfaction

would not be expected for several reasons. Firstly, a proportion of participants were self-employed and unemployed. Secondly, no change would be expected over the course of the seminar being only 4 days (2 days being over the weekend) and thirdly a proportion of attendees were already satisfied with their jobs and attended the seminar for other reasons. To support reason two, significant improvements were found for job satisfaction at the 60 day follow up, with 50% reporting an improvement. The high improvement rate in item 1 correlates with the follow-up outcome for item 9 (How confident are you in assisting someone else with financial growth and personal development?), with more than half reporting greater confidence in assisting someone else with their finances. The latter results would be expected with a greater knowledge of finances achieved through the 4-day seminar. Interestingly, significant improvements were maintained at the 60-day follow up, with similar results indicated at the 4-day follow up, suggesting that participants upheld their financial knowledge obtained at the seminar and/or continued studying the topic. In all questions, there were a proportion of participants (<25.0%) who reported a decline in one or more of the items at follow up 1 and 2, however at a closer look this is not necessarily a negative outcome of the 4-day education seminar. For instance, 10 participants reported a drop in their risk appetite after the completion of the seminar. It can be argued that perhaps they arrived to the seminar with a moderately high risk appetite and only after they were educated on the strategies of assessing risk, they realised that perhaps they need to reassess their own approach with taking risks. This is beneficial as 21st Century Education provides followers with a broad range of avenues for investment and highly recommends that all assess their own individual needs and capabilities before encroaching on low, moderate or high risk projects. Another example where negative results is not necessarily reflecting poorly on the material contained in the seminar stems from item 5, where 12 participants reported a decline with their current life balance. 21st Century Education advocates a balance in life, where work, leisure, health and family have equal weighting. Therefore, it may be hypothesised that a number attendees only released at the completion of the seminar that they must focus more on their life balance to achieve their immediate and/or future goals. Overall, although we can speculate the potential reasons for the decline reported by attendees, we must not deny the potential that a small proportion of attendees are not suited for this type of education seminar, and perhaps should seek other alternatives. Moreover, it may be postulated that to gain even greater results from the 4-day seminar, reshuffling of the program material and the agenda may assist in better catering for all. As with most pilot studies, changes in methodology and questionnaire development are expected outcomes. In this study, we found that item 6 Have you achieved your

ultimate financial goals? would only be relevant after an extended period of time, that is, beyond the 60 day follow-up. Therefore it was removed from the current analysis. There are several strengths of the current study, namely the high follow up rate, the diverse items used in the questionnaire and its longitudinal component. However, this study is not spared from flaws, such as the small sample size, particularly at follow up 2. Also, the items in the questionnaire were not validated. The results of the current study are not representative of the general population, and merely represent a proportion of the attendees of the 21st Century Education 4-day seminar. Controlling these study limitations was difficult due to the size of the seminar (a total of only 450 participants), and the inadequate man power and resources at hand. Nonetheless, these parameters will be addressed in future studies conducted on large sample populations. In conclusion, this is the first study in the world to assess the impact of a 4-day educational seminar on attendees overall personal development. The results from this study indicate that the 21st Century educational seminar is beneficial for the majority of its attendees, with almost all reporting at least one positive change and the majority sustaining their results 60 days after the seminar. We aim to use this pilot study to guide us through larger research studies in different states in Australia. The modified study design and protocol we will create may be used as a template for similar organisations, locally and internationally, to assess the real impact of their educational material on their attendees mindset and personal development. Perhaps, not all are seeking to become millionaires, but rather achieve substantial changes in line with their own individual goals, therefore we conclude by suggesting that such educational programs should focus on individual needs and discard the long-held notion of one-size fits all. This pilot study stresses the need for collaboration between scientific research and education services/companies, to maximise the long-term benefits for all clients.

Acknowledgements
We would like to acknowledge Georgina Mack and the study team at 21st Century Education for their assistance in the design, data collection and coordination of the study. We would like to acknowledge Dr Amirul Islam for conducting the statistical analysis on our data, very much appreciated. We would also like to acknowledge all attendees who participated in this study, their input is invaluable. Finally, we would like to thank 21st Century Education for allowing this independent research study to be conducted on their seminar participants.