PH.D. Tutorials

Note : The Following notes were initially included in the appendix of Home Cell Explosion. However, the editor decided not to include them. The Multiplication Questionnaire is provided in my book Home Cell Group Explosion, and the questionnaire also appears in my dissertation.

The primary motivation for this questionnaire was to discover essential variables associated with cell group multiplication. Because the questionnaire was administered specifically to cell leaders, most of the findings relate to leadership patterns.

Administration of the Questionnaire

Before administering the questionnaires, I obtained permission from those in authority. Normally, the cell leaders would fill out the questionnaires while I was present (e.g., in a cell leadership training meeting). [i] I tried to make the anonymity issue very clear to the respondents, telling them that there was no place for them to write their name. I urged them to answer the questions as honestly as possible. I tried to make the questionnaire clear and easy to follow, knowing the educational level of some of my respondents. While they were filling out the questionnaires, I made myself available to answer their questions.

Limitations of the Questionnaire

I purposely tried to disguise the dependent variables (cell multiplication questions) by placing them at the end of the questionnaire and by not announcing the importance of these questions. However, this proved to be a limitation for two reasons. First, those respondents who took more time felt pressured at the end, due to lack of time, and thus some respondents skipped over the last questions. [ii] Another reason for the missing data was that these questions were harder and required more thinking, and thus some decided to leave them blank. If I were to do it over again, I would explain these dependent variables more clearly and placed them near the beginning of the questionnaire.

Description of the Questionnaire Respondents

I received a total of 521 questionnaires that I was able to use in my analysis. Table 7 gives some descriptive background of these leaders.

Results of the Questionnaire

The key questions (dependent variables) are questions twenty-seven (whether the group had multiplied), twenty-eight (length of time for a cell to multiply) and twenty-nine (number of times the cell had multiplied). All of the other questions (independent variables) will be analyzed according to their correlation with these three questions. I did not consider a correlation significant unless the probability level was .05 or lower.

COUNTRY RESPONSE	Colombia-59 Ecuador-125 Perú-54 Honduras-72 El Salvador-80 Korea-55 Singapore-76
GENDER	51% male (268) 49% female (253)
CIVIL STATUS	50% married 43 % single
SOCIAL CLASS	10 % identified themselves as poor 31.% identified themselves as middle lower class 50 % identified themselves as middle class 9 % identified themselves as middle upper class
AGE	33 years old (average age)
EDUCATION	10% elementary 47% high school 30% university 7% graduate level
LENGTH OF TIME AS BELIEVER	4 % six months 7 % one year 11% two years 9 % three years 70 % over three years
DEVOTIONAL TIME	42% spent between one half hour and one hour in daily devotions 14% spent more than 1 hours in daily devotions
PRAYER FOR GROUP	64% prayed daily for their cell group
CONTACT	23% contacted members of their group eight or more times per month
ASSISTANTS	21% did not have an assistant 35% had one assistant 29% had three or more assistants

Question Twenty-seven: Whether the Group Had Multiplied

This was a very straightforward question, “Has your group multiplied yet?” There were only two responses, yes or no. Out of the 521 respondents, 398 said yes (sixty-three percent), 193 said no (thirty-seven percent).

The next step was to try to determine the significant patterns related to those who said yes versus those who said no. First, there was no significant relation between country, gender, social class, age, civil status, education, salvation, number of outside meetings, gifting, personality, or homogeneity and whether the leader had multiplied the cell group.

On the other hand, the statistics did show that there was significant correlation between cell multiplication and the number of assistants in the group, number of visitors in the group, and the cell leader’s devotional life, prayer life, visitation, and goal orientation. Table 8 outlines those relationships.

ASSISTANTS No. 8	More assistant leaders, higher rate of multiplication, r = -.11, p< .036< />>
DEVOTIONAL LIFE No. 11	More devotional life, higher rate of multiplication, r = -.16, p< .001< />>
PRAYER No. 12	More prayer, higher rate of multiplication, r = .11, p< .019< />>
LESSON PREPARATION No. 13	More lesson preparation, higher rate of multiplication, r = -.13, p< .009< />>
CONTACTING MEMBERS No. 14	More contact with members of cell group, higher rate of multiplication, r = -.13, p< .007< />>
VISITATION OF NEW PEOPLE No. 16	More visitation of new people, higher rate of multiplication, r = -.19, p< .001< />>
EXHORTATION TO INVITE PEOPLE No. 17	More exhortation to invite new people, higher rate of multiplication, r = .16, p< .001< />>
NEW VISITORS IN GROUP No. 18	More new visitors in the group, higher rate of multiplication, r = -.18, p< .001< />>
MULTIPLICATION GOALS No. 19	More clear multiplication goals, higher rate of multiplication, r = .23, p< .001< />>

According to these findings, it is imperative that cell leaders prepare themselves spiritually and intellectually, engage in visitation, instill an outreach orientation in the group, and have specific goals for cell multiplication. It is not possible to say that one of these aspects is more important than the other. However, taken together, they provide the cell leader with needed information about how to successfully multiply the group.

Question Twenty-eight: Length of Time to Multiply

This correlation is based on question twenty-eight which asked the cell leaders how long it took to multiply their cell group. There was a significant relationship between the length of multiplication time and the particular country, F (4,203) = 4.33, p< .0001. for example, in honduras it took an average of thirty-seven weeks to multiply the group (mean="18.1" ± 22.0), whereas el salvador only twenty-one 26.5) and colombia sixteen 18.3). table 37 adds clarity.< />>

AVERAGE LENGTH OF CELL GROUP IN EACH COUNTRY	Ecuador Colombia Singapore El Salvador Perú Honduras Korea	43 weeks 53 weeks 54 weeks 61 weeks 68 weeks 95 weeks 130 weeks
AVERAGE LENGTH OF CELL GROUP AMONG ALL SEVEN COUNTRIES: 68 weeks (1 year and 3 months)
AVERAGE TIME TO MULTIPLY CELL GROUP IN EACH COUNTRY	Colombia El Salvador Ecuador Peru Honduras Singapore Korea	16 weeks 21 weeks 22 weeks 25 weeks 37 weeks 73 weeks 82 weeks
LENGTH OF TIME TO MULTIPLY CELL GROUP: 36 weeks (8 months)

Just as important as what this question did say was what it did not say. For example, the statistics showed no correlation between time that it took to multiply a group and gender, civil status, age, occupation, personality, or gifting.

The statistics did indicate that educational levels were significantly related to multiplication length, F (4,199) = 3.03, p< .0187. among the latin american churches, an elementary educated leader took forty weeks to multiply his group (mean="22.3" ± 43.8) versus twenty-two for a high school 19.0).< />>

The study showed multiplication length was significantly related to the number of times the group met outside the normal cell meeting, F (4,197) = 3.58, p<.007. those leaders who did not meet with their group outside the regular meeting took significantly longer to multiply than gathered occasionally for activity. it is interesting that colombia rated higher any of other countries regard number meetings, f (4, 14.2)="21.5," p< 0.000.< />>

Homogeneity was also significantly related to the time it took to multiply a cell group, F (4,162) = 7.67 p< .0001. those leaders who said that there was a medium level of homogeneity in the group (mean="11.0" ± 24.1) took significantly longer to multiply their indicated high 11.6).< />>

The study also indicated that newer Christians tended to multiply their groups faster than those who had been believers for a longer period, F (4,201) = 1.99, p< .094. those who were believers for more than three years (mean="5.8" ± 28.9) took an average of twenty-nine weeks to multiply the group versus six months 2.8) and only weeks.< />>

ASSISTANTS No. 8	More assistants, higher the frequency of multiplication, r = .28, p< .001< />>
TRAINING No. 10	More knowledge/training, higher the frequency of multiplication, r = .21, p< .001.< />>
DEVOTIONAL LIFE No. 11	More time spent by a leader in devotions, higher the frequency of multiplication, r = .25, p< .001.< />>
LESSON PREPARATION No. 13	More time spent in lesson preparation, higher the frequency of multiplication, r = .11, p< ..038.< />>
CONTACTING MEMBERS No. 14	More times the leader contacted the members of the group, higher the frequency of multiplication, r = .21, p< .001.< />>
OUTSIDE MEETINGS No. 15	More times that the leader met with the group outside the regular cell meeting, higher the frequency of multiplication, r = .17, p< .001.< />>
VISITATION OF NEW PEOPLE No. 16	More that the cell leader visited new people, higher the frequency of multiplication, r = .24, p< .001.< />>
EXHORTATION TO INVITE PEOPLE No. 17	More the leaders exhorted the group to invite new people, higher the frequency of multiplication, r = -.14, p < .007.< />>
NEW VISITORS IN GROUP No. 18	More visitors in the cell group, higher the frequency of multiplication, r = .21, p< .000.< />>
MULTIPLICATION GOALS No. 19	More clarity about multiplication goal, higher the frequency of multiplication, r = .-17, p< .001.< />>

Question Twenty-nine: Number of Times That Group Multiplied

Question twenty-nine asked the cell leaders how many times that they had multiplied their group since becoming the leader. Thirty-five percent (172) said that they had not multiplied their group, twenty-eight percent indicated that the group had multiplied one time (137), fourteen percent indicated they had multiplied two times (sixty-seven), eleven percent indicated that had multiplied three times (fifty-four), while twelve percent (fifty-nine) said that their group had multiplied four or more times. This question is important because it goes beyond whether or not the group had multiplied to determine what factors were significant for those leaders who continually multiplied their group. Table 38 highlights these multiplication factors.

The correlations coincide exactly with what was discovered under question twenty-seven in the following areas: number of assistants, training, devotional life, lesson preparation, contacting members and newcomers, exhorting group to invite friends, number of visitors in the cell group, and goals for cell multiplication. This question did show a positive correlation between salvation and cell multiplication and the number of outside meetings and cell multiplication while question twenty-seven did not.

Conclusion

This statistical study has demonstrated a consistent statistical relationship between a cell leader’s success in multiplying his or her group and the time spent in training, devotions, preparation, and visitation (members and newcomers). It also clearly showed that the number of assistants, the goal orientation of the leader, and the number of visitors that the leader is able to attract to his cell group, all play a significant role in whether or not that leader will successfully multiply the group.

APPENDIX C: ORGANIZING THE DATA INTO CATEGORIES

The following statistical comments are based on 521 questionnaires quite equally divided among the seven churches:

Country	NumberVis
Colombia	59 ( 11.3%)
Ecuador	125 ( 24.0%)
Peru	54 ( 10.4%)
Honduras	72 ( 13.8%)
El Salvador	80 ( 15.4%)
Korea	55 ( 10.6%)
Singapore	76 ( 14.6%)

RELAX YOU DON’T NEED TO BE A SUPERSTAR

Social Standing

There was no correlation between gender, social class, age, civil status, or education. You don’t have to be someone that you’re not.

Personality

Nor did a particular personality type help a leader multiply his or her group. Introverted as well as extroverted leaders multiplied their cell groups.

Leadership Giftedness

This finding was the most surprising to me. Many, including David Yonggi Cho, teach that only leaders with the gift of evangelism are able to multiply cell groups. In my study, I found that there was no correlation between cell multiplication and spiritual gifts. Those with the gift of teaching, pastoring, mercy, leadership, and evangelism equally multiplied their cell group.

THE LEADER’S IMPACT

The Devotional Life

The statistics pointed to a direct correlation between time spent in devotions and cell multiplication. Those who spent 1 ý hours or more in devotions multiplied their groups twice as much as those who spent less than ý hour. As time with the Lord increased, so did the leaders capacity to multiply his or her cell.

GOAL ORIENTATION

If you fail to set goals that your members clearly remember, you have little more than a 50-50 chance of multiplying your cell. But if you do set goals, you chance of multiplying increases to three out of four.

Cell leader who knew when their groups would give birth consistently multiplied their group more often than goal-less leaders.

TRAINING

When the cell leader felt better trained than the average cell member the group multiplied more rapidly. However, when compared with the leaders devotional life and goal orientation, this point was not as important.

PREPARATION

Statistics seemed to show it’s more important to prepare the heart through prayer and time with God than to prepare the lesson.

Important: When analyzing the following sequential or hierarchical analysis, it’s important to remember that all of the variables showed significance in and of themselves. But when compared to each other, some lose statistical significance.

	Effect size					Significance
Devotions	e =	. 15	.02	1c	11.53c	< .005< />d>
Goals	e =	. 20	.04	2c	21.72c	< .0005< />d>
Training	e =	.04	.00	1c	.70c	n. s.
Preparation	e =	.02	.00	1c	.28c	n. s.

• It seems that clear-cut goals helped a leader multiply his or her group. However, regular devotional time was a close second.

	Effect size						Significance
Goals	R =	.18	31.36	2	15.68	9.16	< .0005< />d>
Devotions	r =	.21	42.14	1	42.14	24.61	< .0001< />d>
Training	r =	.08	5.53	1	5.53	3.23	.07
Preparation	r =	.00	.00	1	.00	.00	n. s.

• Again, devotions and goals are more important than training or preparation. Effective cell leadership is more of a Spirit-led adventure than a Bible study attitude.

REACHING OUT

Visitation of New People

• There was a direct correlation between how often the cell leader contacted new people and his or her success in multiplying the group. If the leader contacted 5-7 new people per month there was an 80% chance that he or she would multiply the cell group. When the leader only visited 1 to 3 people per month the chances dropped to 60%.
• Those leaders who visited 8 or more new people per month multiplied their group twice as much as those who visited 1 or 2 new people.

Exhortation In Cell Group To Invite Friends

• Those leaders who consistently encouraged cell members to bring friends multiplied their groups significantly more than those leaders who only occasionally did so.
• Those cell leaders who weekly encouraged the cell members to invite visitors multiplied their group twice as much as those who did so occasionally or not at all.

Growing Cell Groups Consistently Receive Visitors

• I discovered that there is a direct relationship between number of visitors in the group and the number of times a leader was able to multiply his or her group.

	Effect Size					Significance
Visit New Ones	E =	.21	.04	1c	22.13c	< .0001< />d>
Exhortation	E =	.21	.04	1c	22.12c	< .0001< />d>
Visitors	E =	.06	.00	1c	1.91c	.16

• Visitation and exhortation are equally important in the multiplication process. Interestingly enough, it seems that the flow of visitors is secondary. Perhaps this tells us that just having visitors in the cell doesn’t guarantee that they’ll come back. The way the cell leader cares for the group tells more about visitor retention.

	Effect Size						Significance
Visit New Ones	R =	.26	65.06	1	65.06	38.99	< .0001< />d>
Exhortation	R =	-.17	28.41	1	28.41	17.02	< .0005< />d>
Visitors	R =	.07	4.68	1	4.68	2.80	.09

• Visiting new people come out on top in this hierarchical analysis, but mobilizing the cell members to invite their friends is a close second.

REACHING IN

Prayer for Group Members

• The statistics showed that those cell leaders who prayed daily for their cell members were more likely to multiply the cell groups than those who only prayed once in a while.

Outside Meetings

• Those who had 6 or more social meetings per month multiplied their group twice as much as those who did not have social meetings or those who might have only had one social meeting per month.

Assistants/interns In Group

• Those who managed to gather a team together doubled their capacity to multiply the cell group

Pastoring Those In The Group

• My study discovered that regular visitation of those within the group help consolidate the group and thus prepare the group to give birth. But as we’ll see, in a comparative sense, there are other more important factors to consider.

	Effect Size					Significance
Assistants	E =	.12	.02	1c	7.86c	< .01 < />d>
Socialmeeting	E =	.05	.00	1c	1.56c	.2
Contacting	E =	.05	.00	1c	1.51c	.2
Prayer	E =	.20	.04	1c	20.50c	< .0001< />d>

• The data indicates that prayer for group member is the most important work of the cell leader in unifying and strengthening the quality of his or her group. Building a team is a close second.

	Effect Size						Significance
Assistants	R =	.21	40.41	1	40.41	23.87	< .0001< />d>
Prayer	R =	-.13	17.16	1	17.16	10.14	< .005< />d>
Socialmeeting	R =	.16	25.58	1	25.58	15.11	< .0005< />d>
Contacting	R =	.07	4.21	1	4.21	2.48	.11

Those leaders who multiplied their groups built a leadership team, established a strong social atmosphere in the group, and prayed for cell members consistently. Regular visitation of each cell members doesn’t seem to be as important.

HIERARHICAL FOR ALL SIGNIFICANT VARIABLES

#27–MULTIPLICATION YET?

	Effect Size					Significance
Prayer	e =	.18	.03	1c	16.51c	< .0005< />d>
*Not exhortation	e =	.15	.02	1c	11.81c	< .005< />d>
Goals	e =	.14	.02	2c	9.69c	< .01< />d>
*visit new ones	e =	.13	.02	1c	9.01c	< .005< />d>
*Assistants	e =	.12	.02	1c	7.86c	< .01< />d>
*Devotions	e =	.12	.01	1c	6.99c	< .01< />d>
Training	e =	.08	.01	1c	3.27c	.07
Preparation	e =	.06	.00	1c	1.86c	.2
Visitors	e =	.05	.00	1c	1.36c	.2
Contacting	e =	.01	.00	1c	.08c	n. s.
socialmeeting	e =	.01	.00	1c	.10c	n. s.

#29 MULTIPLICATION TIMES

	Effect Size						Significance
*Assistants	r =	.21	40.41	1	40.41	25.69	< .0001< />d>
*Devotions	r =	.18	32.66	1	32.66	20.76	< .0001< />d>
*visit new ones	r =	.15	22.73	1	22.73	14.45	< .0005< />d>
Training	r =	.13	15.44	1	15.44	9.82	< .005< />d>
socialmeeting	r =	.13	15.71	1	15.71	9.99	< .005< />d>
*Not exhortation	r =	-.12	14.41	1	14.41	9.16	< .005< />d>
Prayer	r =	-.08	5.95	1	5.95	3.78	.05
Goals	R =	.09	7.48	2	3.74	2.38	.09
Preparation	r =	.03	.62	1	.62	.40	n. s.
Contacting	r =	.06	3.36	1	3.36	2.14	.14
Visitors	r =	.05	2.76	1	2.76	1.75	.2

• I gather from the analysis that essential features of multiplying groups are leadership devotions (chapter 2), leadership outreach (chapter 3), group outreach (chapter 3), and building a team (chapter 4).
• Praying for team members and setting goals are essential in order to multiply the cell at least once, but they don’t necessarily help a leader to multiply his or her group several times
• Leadership Training and holding social meetings are necessary for continuous multiplication.

ENDNOTES

[i] The exception was Perú, where the head pastor distributed the questionnaires to those cell leaders who were present at one of the Sunday morning worship services.

[ii] Three hundred thirteen people (seventy-three percent) filled out question twenty-five (length of cell) and 111 did not; 397 people (ninety-three percent) responded to question twenty-seven (multiplication-yes/no) and twenty-seven did not; 336 people (seventy-nine percent) responded to question twenty-eight (length of time for group multiplication) and eighty-eight did not; 356 people (eighty-four percent) responded to question twenty-nine (number of times of multiplication) while sixty-eight did not.