The authors investigated the effectiveness and specificity of the Penn Resiliency Program (PRP; J. E. Gillham, L. H. Jaycox, K. J. Reivich, M. E. P. Seligman, & T. Silver, 1990), a cognitivebehavioral depression prevention program. Children (N = 697) from 3 middle schools were randomly assigned to PRP, Control (CON), or the Penn Enhancement Program (PEP; K. J. Reivich, 1996; A. J. Shatté, 1997), an alternate intervention that controls for nonspecific intervention ingredients. Children's depressive symptoms were assessed through 3 years of follow-up. There was no intervention effect on average levels of depressive symptoms in the full sample. Findings varied by school. In 2 schools, PRP significantly reduced depressive symptoms across the follow-up relative to both CON and PEP. In the 3rd school, PRP did not prevent depressive symptoms. The authors discuss the findings in relation to previous research on PRP and the dissemination of prevention programs. Keywordsdepression; prevention; children; adolescence Several cognitive-behavioral interventions show promise in preventing depressive symptoms in youths (for recent reviews, see Horowitz & Garber, 2006;Merry, McDowell, Hetrick, Bir, & Muller, 2004). Among these are the Coping with Stress Course (Clarke & Lewinsohn, 1995), the Resourceful Adolescent Program (RAP; Shochet, Whitefield, & Holland, 1997), the LISA-T Program (Pössel, Horn, Groen, & Hautzinger, 2004), and the Penn Resiliency Program 1 (PRP; Gillham, Jaycox, Reivich, Seligman, & Silver, 1990). Despite this promise, however, depression prevention programs that demonstrate positive effects are rarely incorporated into school or clinical settings, and little is known about the effectiveness of most programs when delivered by the individuals who work in these settings.In addition, when these programs do work, it is usually unclear whether the cognitivebehavioral therapy skills or other nonspecific factors (e.g., time spent in a structured afterschool activity, attention from an adult, support from peers) are responsible. The majority of depression prevention studies compare cognitive-behavioral interventions with a nointervention control. Only a few studies have compared prevention programs with attention control groups or alternate interventions. Pattison and Lynd-Stevenson (2001) found that PRP did not significantly reduce or prevent depressive symptoms relative to both nointervention and attention control groups. The small sample size (N = 63) may have limited power to detect effects, however. Merry, McDowell, Wild, Bir, and Cunliffe (2004) compared RAP with a placebo control group consisting primarily of group arts and crafts activities and found some support for the efficacy of RAP relative to placebo, but the effect size was small, and effects were not found across different measures of depressive symptoms. The placebo condition used by Merry et al. controlled for several factors that are 1 PRP materials are available for use in research. Requests for the curriculum should be made to info@pennp...

No abstract

Dictionary definitions of optimism encompass two related concepts.The first is a hopeful disposition or a conviction that good will ultimately prevail. The second broader conception refers to the belief, or the inclination to believe, that the world is the "best of all possible worlds.'' In psychological research, optimism has referred to hopeful expectations in a given situation (Scheier & Carver, 1988) and recently has referred to general expectancies that are positive (Scheier & Carver, 1993). This more generalized expectancy, or dispositional optimism, is related to a variety of indices of psychological and physical health. Individuals who score high on measures of dispositional optimism report fewer depressive symptoms, greater use of effective coping strategies, and fewer physical symptoms than do pessimistic individuals (for reviews, see Scheier & Carver, 1992, 1993.Perhaps consistent with the second, broader definition of optimism, the terms optimism and pessimism have recently been applied to the ways in which people routinely explain events in their lives (Seligman, 1991).

This section called "Changing Practice, Changing Schools" will feature reviews of either intervention or training programs that reflect innovative, psychologically based, empirically supported approaches to solving problems of practice. We envision this section as one that considers more systemic methods for meeting the needs of children, families, schools and communities and one that clearly communicates the variety of skills and expertise that school psychologists bring to their settings.

Objective:To examine whether resilience has a protective effect in difficult work environments.Methods:A survey of 2063 individuals measured individual resilience, stress, burnout, sleep problems, likelihood of depression, job satisfaction, intent to quit, absences, and productivity. It also measured work characteristics: job demands, job influence, and social support. Multivariate and logistic regression models examined the main effects and interactions of resilience and job characteristics.Results:High strain work environments (high demand, low influence, and low support) have an unfavorable effect on all outcomes. Resilience has a protective effect on all outcomes. For stress, burnout, and sleep, higher resilience has a more protective effect under low-strain conditions. For depression, absence and productivity, resilience has a more protective effect when job strain is high.Conclusions:Workers with high resilience have better outcomes in difficult work environments.