Correlational findings

Study Mitchell et al. (2009): study AU 2007

Participants in a strength training and controls, Australia, 2009
Survey name
Unnamed study
N = 160
Non Response
69% at T2; 83% at T3
Interview: Computer Assisted Personal Interview (CAPI)
T1: demographic survey and 5 mental-health and well-being questionnaires; T2: 3 groups: 2 groups filled in questionnaires after the intervention sessions that, including homework, took 3 weeks, the placebo group filled in an abreviated version of the problem solving intervention without utilizing the interactive web features, and were not asked to apply the acquired information to a real life problem.T3: After 3 months respondents were sent an e-mail request to complete the 5 mental-health and well-being questionnaires for a final time. Only respondents who completed the whole online intervention were prompted to proceed to nthe post- and follow-up phases of the study.


Authors's Label
Psychological strength and problem solving training
Our Classification
1a: n = 48 (analyzed T2 n = 17, T3 n = 11)
1b: n = 58 (analyzed T2 n = 9, T3 n = 5)
0:   n = 54 (analyzed T2 n = 23, T3 n = 11)
Related specification variables
Respondents were randomly assigned to 3 groups: strength intervention, problem solving intervention and a placebo-control group.

    1st session: participants identified and priorised their strengths from a list of 24 signature strengths: appreciation of beauty and excellence, bravery, citizenship, creativity, curiosity, fairness, forgiveness and mercy, gratitude, hope, humor, integrity, judgement, kindness, leadership, love, love of learning, modesty and humility, persistence, perspective, prudence, self-regulation, social intelligence, spirituality and zest.
  2nd session: participants provided feedback on their progress with the previous sessions's offline activity and then selcted 3 of their top 10 strengths to develop further in their daily life by practicing their strengths during the week and were provided examples and an online, downloadable diary to record their progress.
   3rd session: Review of participant's progress, summarised the the information provided to date, and directed participants to post-intervention questionnaires.
3 months later participants completed the follow-up questionnaires.

1st session: participants were introduced to 3 steps of a 6-step approach to problem-solving. The 6 steps are: indentification of the problem, generate possible solutions, evvaluate the alternatives, decide on a solution, implement the solution, and evaluate and review the progress.
At the end of the 1st session participants were assigned an off-line activity asking them to share what they had learnt about problem solving with a friend/family member.
2 nd session: Participants were sked to provide feedback on their progress with the off-line activity from the previous session.. Next, the participants were introduced to steps 4 and 5 of the problem solving model and to apply thios informtion to a real life problem. They were asked to practice using their problem solving skills during the week and were provided an online downloadable diary to help them record their progress.
  3rd session: Participants were sked to provide feedback on their offline activity, were introduced to step 6 in the model, given a summary of the whole 6-step model, and then directed to the post-intervention questionnaires.

0. PLACEBO CONTROL GROUP: An abbreviated version of the problem-solving intervention, but without utilizing any of the interactive web-features. Unlike the problem-solving group, participants were not asked to apply the problem solving information to a real life problem, nor to complete offline tasks.

Observed Relation with Happiness

Happiness Measure Statistics Elaboration / Remarks A-BW-c-mq-v-5-c DM = +/- ns               T1     T2     T3     T2-T1 T3-T1
Strength      19,85  20,23  20,62  +0,38 +0,77
Prob.solving  17,62  17,53  17,64  -0,09 +0,02
Controls      18,24  18,96  18,20  +0,72 -0,04

Difference compared to controls    T2-T1 T3-T1
Strength                           -0,34 +0,81
Problem solving                    -0,81 +0,06
A-BW-c-mq-v-5-c D%sr = +/- ns                                    T2-T1 T3-T1
Strength                           +0,5% +1,0%
Prob.solving                       -0,1% +0,0%
Controls                           +0,9% -0,0%

Difference compared to controls    T2-T1  T3-T1
Strength                           -0,4% +1,0%
Problem solving                    -1,0% +0,1%

T1 Pretest
T2 Post test
T3 Follow-up after 3 months

AFFECT Balance computed by WDH-team from separate reports on Positive and Negative Affect
A-BW-c-mq-v-5-c AoV = ns