- 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 (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
- Respondents were randomly assigned to 3 groups: strength intervention, problem solving intervention and a placebo-control group.
a STRENGTH INTERVENTION 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.
b PROBLEM SOLVING INTERVENTION GROUP:
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.
c 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
Strength 19,85 20,23 20,62 +0,38 +0,77
Prob.solving 17,38 17,52 16,59 +0,14 -0,79
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 -0,58 -0,75
T2 Post test
T3 Follow-up after 3 months
AFFECT Balance computed by WDH-team from separate reports on Positive and Negative Affect