The Effects of a Self-Determination Intervention on
Youth Explanatory Style and Depressive Features
David G. Bruno
University College of the Fraser Valley
Self-Determination As a Skill
The self-determination model developed by Field and Hoffman (1996a) has a primary focus on helping young people learn to make more effective choices in their lives. In the model, self-determination is postulated as a critical life skill and is defined as a person’s “ability to identify and achieve goals based on a foundation of knowing and valuing oneself”. The model specifies a reciprocal relationship between the following five psychological and behavioral components: know yourself, value yourself, plan, act, and experience outcomes/learn. A description of the five component self-determination model is as follows: 1) know yourself - to possess self-awareness of cognitive concepts such as knowledge of one’s strengths, weaknesses, options, and ability to dream; 2) value yourself - the awareness of one’s affective nature such as self-acceptance, self-esteem, and the person’s understanding of their rights and responsibilities; 3) plan- one’s skill in setting goals, the ability to anticipate results of the set goal, and to mentally rehearse a planned goal; 4) action- involves a person’s ability to take risks, to effectively communicate, and be persistent in achieving one’s goals; and, 5) experience outcome/learn- skill in comparing one’s outcomes to expected outcomes, realize success, and make appropriate adjustments to attain one’s set goals (Hoffman & Field, 1995).
The Field and Hoffman model of self-determination intervention uses the Steps to Self-Determination curriculum which has specific instructions for each of the 16-sessions (Field & Hoffman, 1992; 1996b). This self-determination curriculum is a blend of classroom learning and homework that focuses on teaching students the steps for planning realistic short-term and long-terms goals, making informed decisions, and to anticipate possible consequences while learning more about themselves in the process.
This self-determination curriculum also focuses on the following social and communication skills: assertive communication; conflict resolution; role-play exercises; active listening; and, problem-solving. In this curriculum, in addition to the 16-sessions, there is also one workshop session that involves both the student and a parent (or an adult family member or a supportive, somewhat older friend). This parent or friend is intended to provide relational support, and to be a sounding board to the student throughout the 16-session learning experience.
In this model the individual must have both intrapersonal awareness, and the ability to act on this internal psychological foundation to be self-determined. For example, a young person could have a great deal of self-awareness but she or he may not possess the skills needed to act in a school environment (deficit in the skill of action). Or vice-versa, the youth may have the skill to act in a school situation, but she or he may have difficulty in the internal process of self-awareness (deficit in know yourself construct). Hence according to this model, a highly self-determined person would have a sense of congruence between their internal psychological processes and their behavior.
Self-determination research has provided evidence as an effective intervention for helping young people in our schools learn to make positive choices in their lives (Hoffman & Field, 1995). The model’s basic focus on enabling students to make sound choices based on the components of knowing, valuing, planning, action, and experience outcome/learning is unique in its approach. Although this goal-setting intervention has shown promising evidence for students in the five components that make up self-determination, more research is needed to assess how young people would respond to this intervention who are experiencing psychosocial difficulties. One such area for young persons is the subject of youth depression, and youth depression is an important variable in this study.
Youth Depressive Features-Prevalence and Risk
Depression is the most prevalent and pervasive form of psychopathology in children and adolescents (Reynolds, 1992). Although psychological researchers have not all agreed on the exact percentage of depressed youth, most of the current evidence has pointed to a high prevalence of depression in prepubertal children and adolescents. Reynolds (1992) estimated the range from roughly 4% to 12% in teenagers while the occurrence of depression is slightly lower in children. Elliott & Smiga (2003) in their discussion on major depression in the United States mentioned a 2% rate for school-age children and 5% rate for adolescents. Lewinsohn, Hops, Roberts, Seeley & Andrews (1993) pointed out that as many as 20% of children will experience an episode of major depression by the time they complete high school. Nolen-Hoeksema, Girgus, & Seligman (1992) indicated that at any given time, approximately 10% to 15% of children in the general population will report moderate to severe depressive symptoms. Roberts, Andrews, Lewinsohn, & Hops (1990) presented data that between 12%, and 31% of the general adolescent population could be considered to have elevated depressive symptomatology.
In addition to the high prevalence of depressive features in youth, there is evidence that indicates that young people with a high level of depressive symptoms are also at-risk for future episodes of depression. For example, Gotlib, Lewinsohn, and Seeley (1995) suggested that adolescents with elevated depressive symptomatology also have an increased chance for developing a clinical affective disorder in the future, and Lewinsohn et al. (1993) found in their research with depressed youth a relapse rate of 18.42% for teenagers previously diagnosed with unipolar depression. Poznanski and Mokros (1994) reviewed two different longitudinal studies of prepubertal children with depressive features, and found that once the initial episode of depression was experienced, this greatly increased the risk for new episodes of depressive symptoms to occur in the future. Hence, there is evidence that a high level of depressive features in a young person places that child at-risk for future depressive episodes.
Youth Explanatory Style and Depressive Features
Research in youth explanatory style, a measure of cognitive attribution, provides reasonable evidence that prepubertal children, and adolescents who display depressogenic attribution (also called pessimistic explanatory style) are more vulnerable to depressive features. For example, Seligman, Peterson, Kaslow, Tanenbaum, Alloy, and Abramson (1984) examined whether depressive symptoms in youth were associated with a depressogenic explanatory style. Results indicated that youth explanatory style, as measured by the CASQ, significantly correlated with depressive symptoms. Explanatory style-composite measure for bad events (CN) covaried with CDI scores (composite rs = 0.51, 0.40, ps < .001); a significant correlation with explanatory style-composite measure for good events (CP) covaried with CDI scores was found, but in the expected, reversed direction (composite rs = -0.53, -0.54, ps < .001).
In another study that compared type of explanatory style and depressive features, Quiggle, Garber, Panek and Dodge (1992) investigated cognitive patterns in depressed and aggressive youngsters (N =220). Results from MANOVA found depressed children were significantly more likely than nondepressed children to attribute negative events to the combination of internal, stable, and global causes (composite negative score on CASQ), F (1, 216) = 13.03, p < .001.
Nolen-Hoeksema, Girgus and Seligman (1986) in a 12-month longitudinal study examined the relationship between depressogenic explanatory style, and depressive features (N = 168). Results found that a depressogenic explanatory style was significantly associated with higher concurrent levels of depressive features at a subsequent testing period, and the explanatory style-overall composite measure (CPCN) was more highly correlated with the CDI than either the explanatory style for bad events-composite negative (CN) or explanatory style for good events-composite positive (CP). Nolen-Hoeksema, Girgus and Seligman (1992) in a five-year longitudinal study investigated the relationship between explanatory style, negative life events, and depressive features. Measurements were taken every six months for a five-year duration. Results showed a significant correlation between depressogenic explanatory style and depressive features.
In a review by Joiner and Wagner (1995) of 27 studies with prepubertal children, and adolescents concerning the reformulated learned helplessness model of depression: thirteen studies found a significant relationship between depressogenic explanatory style (CPCN) and self-report depression/clinical depression; the remaining studies indicated strong (although nonsignificant) relationships between depressogenic explanatory style and self-reported depression/clinical depression. Thus, there is reasonable research evidence that a more pessimistic or depressogenic explanatory style in youth is associated with depressive features.
Purpose
Self-determination research has provided evidence as an effective positive intervention for youth in our schools (Hoffman & Field, 1995). The model has a unique focus on helping young people make healthy choices based on self-knowledge, self-values, planning, action, and their experiencing outcomes/learning. Hence, the primary purpose of this research project is to assess the effect of the self-determination intervention on youth depressogenic explanatory style and depressive features. In addition, this study will explore whether a self-determination intervention can increase the level of student self-determination.
Research Questions and Hypotheses
Research Hypothesis 1, 2, and 3: The student treatment group involved in a 16-session in-school self-determination intervention will display an increase in optimistic explanatory style, higher levels of self-determination, and a decrease in the level of depressive features than the student control group at the posttest measure.
Research Hypothesis 4, 5, and 6: The student treatment group involved in the 16-session in-school self-determination intervention will display an increase in optimistic explanatory style, higher levels of self-determination, and a decrease in the level of depressive features at the posttest measure than at the pretest measure.
METHODOLOGY
Research Design
This study used the nonequivalent control group design (Campbell & Stanley, 1963; Gay, 1992). In this design, the school counselor was randomly assigned to the treatment condition classrooms (two classrooms), and a control condition classroom (one classroom). Students remained as an intact group in their classroom, they did not undergo random assignment.
Variables
Hypotheses One, Two, and Three: The independent variable in hypotheses one, two, and three was group membership. Group membership consisted of a treatment group and a control group. There were three dependent variables for the MANCOVA: posttest score on explanatory style, depressive features, and, self-determination. Also, there were three covariate measures used in the MANCOVA procedure: pretest score on explanatory style, depressive features, and, self-determination.
Hypotheses Four, Five, and Six: The independent variable for hypotheses four, five, and six was the time at which the test was taken (pretest and posttest) by the treatment group. The three dependent variables were treatment group pretest and posttest scores: explanatory style-CASQ (Kaslow, Tanenbaum, Seligman, Abramson, & Alloy, 1995); depressive features-CDI (Kovacs, 1992); and, self-determination-SDSS (Hoffman, Field, & Sawilowsky, 1995).
This research project made use of the following three severity levels for depressive features: a) severe-CDI score equal to or greater than 20; b) moderate-CDI score from 12 to 19; and, c) normal-CDI score equal to or less than 11 (Kovacs, 1992).
Instrumentation
Self-Determination Student Scale (SDSS): The Self-Determination Student Scale (Hoffman, et al., 1995) is a 92-item self-report test that measures both the cognitive and affective aspects of the authors' model of self-determination. The SDSS has four main subscales: a) general positive (GP); b) general negative (GN); c) specific positive (SP); and, d) specific negative (SN). The positive subscales point out self-determination in areas of psychological strength, while the negative subscales indicate self-determination in areas of psychological weakness. Psychometric information on the SDSS was taken from total sample of 416 students: 139 (33.4%) students received the Steps to Self-Determination curriculum (Field & Hoffman, 1992), and the remaining 277 (66.6%) represented the control group. SDSS internal consistency reliability using Cronbach alpha was 0.77 for composite subscales (Field, Hoffman, & Sawilowsky, 1995).
Children's Attribution Style Questionnaire (CASQ): The CASQ (Kaslow et al.,1995; Seligman et al., 1984) assesses the explanatory style of children along three bipolar dimensions of causality: internal-external; 2) stable-unstable; and, 3) global-specific (Abramson, Seligman, & Teasdale, 1978). Seligman et al. (1984) found an internal consistency reliability Cronbach alpha was fairly consistent: CP of 0.71 (p< 0.001); CN of 0.66 (p < 0.001); and, CPCN of 0.73 (p < 0.01) (Seligman & Peterson, 1986; Seligman et al., 1984). Nolen-Hoeksema et al. (1986) found test-retest correlations for the explanatory style (CPCN) that were consistent and statistically significant across the five testing periods (all ps < 0.001). Two studies provide evidence of concurrent and predictive validity for a depressogenic explanatory style on the CASQ to be associated with depressive features on the CDI (Nolen-Hoeksema et al., 1986; Nolen-Hoeksema, et al., 1992).
Children's Depression Inventory (CDI): The Children's Depression Inventory (Kovac, 1992) is one of the most widely used assessment instruments of depression for children and adolescents (Carey, Faulstich, Gresham, Ruggiero & Enyart, 1987; Reynolds, 1994). Kovacs (1985) found an internal consistency reliability-Cronbach alpha of 0.87. Saylor, Finch, Spirito et al. (1984) indicate resultant split-half reliability (K-R test) alpha coefficients of 0.94 for the latter normal subjects and 0.80 for the emotionally disturbed subjects. Saylor, Finch, Spirito et al. (1984) found a test-retest reliability correlation for a one-week interval to be r = 0.87, p < 0.001 and for a 6-week interval to be r = 0.59, p < 0.006. Content validity for the CDI was assessed as having strong congruence with DSM-III (Lobovits & Handal, 1985) and DSM-III-R (Ponterotto et al., 1989) items for symptoms of depression.
Setting & Particants
A suburban public elementary school in southeastern Michigan, approximately 40-miles from the city of Detroit. The number of students that attend the school is 700. Students: Sixth-grade public elementary school students. Sixth-grade students whose parents did not object to their child’s participation in the study were included. School Counselor: The school counselor was the implementor of the self-determination curriculum for the sixth-grade students. He has been a school counselor (and teacher) for approximately the past twenty-three years. He received an orientation to the self-determination model by one of the authors of the self-determination model, Alan Hoffman, Ed.D.. The school counselor followed the specific guidelines and procedures in the Steps to Self-Determination Curriculum (1996b), which is the manual which describes in detail each of the sessions.
Procedures
Following approval from the Behavioral Investigation Committee, the researcher contacted the principal and school counselor to determine dates for beginning the study. Prior to collecting data from the students, the researcher sent a letter, a consent form, and a short demographic survey to parents of the students who met the criteria for inclusion in the study. The letter explained the purpose of the study and provided assurance of confidentiality to all respondents, the voluntary nature of participation, and information on withdrawing from the study. Sixth-grade students whose parents did not object to their participation were included in the study.
Treatment Procedures: The school counselor was the only implementor for the student participants in this self-determination research project. The school counselor was orientated to implement and collect the data for the following: a) pretest measurements; b) the 16-session self-determination intervention; c) one Saturday workshop that includes both the student and one parent (or an adult family member or an older friend of the student’s, and d) posttest measurements. The counselor did implement the 16-session self-determination intervention at the rate of one session per week. The classroom teacher also remained in the classroom to provide occasional guidance to the students.
The school counselor, as part of his meeting with Dr. Hoffman, did receive an orientation concerning the implementation of the one-day Saturday self-determination workshop. This workshop was to involve both the student and a parent (or an adult family member or an older close friend of the student). The student was free to pick the latter person. However, due to low parental turn-out the Saturday workshop was cancelled.
Data Analysis
The data collected from the instruments will be entered into a computer file using SPSS. All inferential statistical analyses will use an alpha level of 0.05. The criteria for acceptance was that the data show results at the level of significance for one-tail directional hypotheses.
To determine whether there was a difference on explanatory style, depressive features, and the self-determination measures between the treatment group and the control group following the completion of the 16-session in-school self-determination intervention, a MANCOVA simultaneously analyzed hypotheses one, two, and three. MANCOVA was performed to guard against risk of an inflated Type I error due to multiple ANCOVAs. In addition, the pretest scores on explanatory style, depressive features, and self-determination for hypotheses one, two, and three were used as the covariate to adjust for pretest differences among the students included in the study.
To determine if the student treatment group made a significant change from the time of the pretest measurement to the time of the posttest measurement, a General Linear Model repeated measures-MANOVA was conducted. The repeated measures-MANOVA simultaneously analyzed hypotheses four, five, and six; this analysis was performed to guard against risk of inflated Type I error due to aggregated ANOVAs.
RESULTS
Descriptive Summary of Demographic Data
The parent(s) of each of the six-grade students were asked to complete a demographic survey; there was a 70 percent completion rate.
Pre-Intervention Treatment and Control Group Differences
Demographic assessment of age was examined, no significant differences were found: treatment group mean age was 11.90 years (sd = 0.44); control group mean age was 11.96 years (sd = 0.50); t = -0.58, df = 71. In addition, there were no significant treatment and control group differences in the age of their parents.
Pre-intervention family demographic characteristics between treatment and control groups were examined using a chi-square analysis on the following variables: adult household composition; education of the parents; the number of persons in the home; occupational level of the parents; the number of children in the family; gender; birth order of child participant; and, ethnicity. The results indicated no significant difference between treatment and control group family characteristics.
Pretest evaluation of the CDI level of depressive features between treatment and control groups were assessed and no significant differences were found. The results of this chi-square analysis are presented in Table 1 (see appendix).
Analysis of the Hypotheses
Six research hypotheses were developed for this study. Hypotheses one, two and three postulated that the student treatment group involved in a 16-session in-school self-determination intervention would display: an increase in optimistic explanatory style, a greater self-determination score, and a lower level of depressive features than the student control group at the posttest measure. Hypotheses one, two, and three were tested simultaneously using multiple analysis of covariance (MANCOVA). All hypotheses were tested at the 0.05 level of significance using directional, one-tailed, tests of probability.
The results of this posttest analysis are presented in Table 2 (see appendix). Omnibus MANCOVA results produced an F ratio of 0.97 which indicated that there were no significant differences between the explanatory style (CPCN), self-determination (GP, GN, SP, SN), and, depressive features (CDI) measures of the treatment group when compared to the control group at posttest, after controlling for pretest scores on these same variables. Univariate ANCOVA test was also used to examine each subscale for hypotheses one, two, and three which found resultant Children’s Depressive Inventory (CDI) obtained significance test for the F ratio to have a p of 0.089, which was not statistically significant. (Although Aron & Aron (1994) would classify this p value as a near-significant trend.) The CDI posttest treatment group mean was 8.38 (sd = 4.93) and the posttest control group mean was 10.54 (sd = 5.00). Hence, the treatment group mean for the grade six children was found to have a lower level of depressive features when compared to the control group mean at posttest, although not statistically significant.
Children with moderate and severe symptoms of depression at pretest time were considered at-risk (Poznanski & Mokros, 1994). At-risk pretest to posttest treatment and control group differences were assessed in a post hoc manner by comparing the distribution of scores on the moderate and severe levels for CDI depressive symptoms using a nonparametric analysis. An exact Wilcoxon-test was conducted and the obtained statistic was 2.0 (standardized = -2.489), which yielded an exact p value of 0.0238 using StatXact 3.0. This result showed that the at-risk pretest to posttest treatment group distribution was significantly different than the at-risk pretest to posttest measure for the control group, indicating the self-determination intervention was effective in reducing depressive symptoms for at-risk treatment group children. For example, the at-risk pretest treatment group had 16 children at moderate and severe levels for depressive features. These 16 children represented 39.02% of the total treatment group (N = 41) in the research project. At posttest, the number of at-risk treatment group children decreased from 16 to only nine on the CDI. Hence, this statistically significant result represents a 17.06% decrease from pretest to posttest, in the number of at-risk treatment group children displaying depressive symptoms. The at-risk control group students were found to have no significant pretest to posttest change.
Hypotheses four, five, and six examined whether student explanatory style, self-determination, and depressive features of the treatment group involved in a 16-session self-determination intervention would be significantly different at the posttest measure when compared to the pretest measure. Hypotheses four, five, and six were tested simultaneously using a General Linear Model repeated-measures MANOVA. The results of this analysis are presented in Table 3 (see appendix). The obtained significance test for the F ratio was 0.087 and not significant for the omnibus MANOVA for hypotheses four, five, and six, although Aron & Aron (1994) would consider this p value a near-significant trend.
Further, univariate ANOVA tests were used to examine each subscale, and these results are compiled in Table 4 (see appendix). Explanatory style (CPCN) univariant ANOVA obtained significance test of the F ratio was statistically significant with a p value of 0.02. This result indicated a statistically significant difference between the pretest and posttest CPCN explanatory style of the student treatment group. The treatment group pretest CPCN explanatory style mean was 5.23 (sd = 5.70) and the posttest mean was 6.97 (sd = 5.70). This result showed a significant increase in the level of optimistic explanatory style from pretest to posttest.
The self-determination-general positive (GP) subscale was statistically significant with a p value of 0.02.The resultant F ratio of 3.99 on the self-determination-specific negative (SN) subscale was also statistically significant with a p value of 0.03. These scores showed a statistically significant increase in the level of self-determination from pretest to posttest in both self-determination subscales GP and SN.
Depressive features (CDI) univariant ANOVA obtained significance test for the F ratio was statistically significant with a p value of 0.03. This finding demonstrated a significant difference between the pretest and posttest levels of depressive features in the student treatment group. Pretest treatment group mean was 10.77 (sd = 9.26) and the posttest mean was 8.80 (sd = 7.73). This result indicated a significant decrease in the level of depressive features from pretest to posttest in the treatment group.
DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The primary purpose of this study was to assess the effect of a self-determination intervention on children’s explanatory style, self-determination, and depressive features. The question that the study attempted to answer was whether a self-determination intervention could make positive changes for grade six students in the areas of explanatory style, self-determination, and depressive features.
Resultant omnibus MANCOVA treatment and control group posttest comparisons for explanatory style, self-determination, and depressive symptoms were not significant. However, the posttest treatment group means for depressive features (Children’s Depression Inventory) displayed beneficial results when compared to the posttest control group mean, but not significant. Hence, the self-determination intervention was effective in lowering the level of depressive symptoms, but this positive change was not statistically significant.
One explanation for this nonsignificant MANCOVA finding on the CDI is the possibility that the 16-session self-determination intervention may not be a cogent method for decreasing depressive features. However, this writer believes that this latter explanation may be premature. First, previous self-determination research has provided evidence which indicated that the students involved in the 16-session intervention experienced significant positive effects in their behaviors associated with self-determination (Field & Hoffman, 1996c). Second, many of the skills involved in the self-determination intervention, such as problem-solving, communication skills, and goal-setting have been used successfully in other similar interventions aimed at effectively reducing depressive symptoms in adults as well as young people (Beck, 1987; Marchione, 1985; Peterson & Bossio, 1991; Seligman et al., 1995). Third, in the present study, CDI posttest measure for the treatment group mean was more than two points lower in depressive symptoms than the mean for the posttest control group. Fourth, and most importantly, in the present study the post hoc statistical analysis found that when only the at-risk for depression students were assessed, the at-risk treatment group students had a statistically significant decrease in the number of children who were depressed by the time of the posttest measure while the at-risk control group students were found to have no significant pretest to posttest change.
The omnibus MANCOVA demonstrated that there was no statistically significant difference between the treatment and control group posttest scores in self-determination. This result does not support previous research for the self-determination model which found a significant treatment group improvement in the level of self-determination when compared to the control group at posttest (Field & Hoffman, 1996c).
Field and Hoffman (1996b) in their previous research found two key factors that affected the success of the self-determination intervention: a) the “degree to which teachers understood the overall curriculum scope and sequence, and b) the type of classroom climate that was established during curriculum implementation” (p. vii). In retrospect, because this researcher was not able to directly observe how the self-determination intervention was given by the school counselor to the children in the classroom, this researcher can not offer an opinion based on direct observation. However, this researcher will state that the school counselor who implemented the self-determination curriculum had over 20-years of teaching-related experience and spent most of his career working with latency age children. Nevertheless, it is still plausible to state that to the extent that the latter two factors were not met during this experiment, offer two possible reasons for the nonsignificant omnibus MANCOVA results concerning this hypothesis.
A second explanation for the lack of statistical significance for the omnibus MANCOVA self-determination posttest results may be related to certain developmental issues indicative of sixth-grade students. For instance, although the self-determination test has a fifth-grade reading level (Hoffman & Field, 1995), and albeit the school counselor did make some age-appropriate accommodations in his presentation to the sixth-grade students, the self-determination curriculum was originally designed for adolescent students ninth-grade and higher. Piaget’s theory of cognitive development would explain that the grade six child is functioning at the concrete-operational level, and Piaget would argue that the latency age child will begin solving problems in an earthbound, practical manner that is very close to the physical reality in front of him or her; the concrete-operational child can be effective with the real/concrete world but has trouble with the abstract world of the possible (Flavell, 1985; Miller, 1993). Hence, there may be important developmental differences between how six-graders and ninth-graders understand the model of self-determination.
Remarkably, Doll, Sands, Wehmeyer, and Palmer (1996) have indicated that there is very little empirical research available to describe the developmental aspects of self-determination. Doll et al. were able to delineate a self-determination developmental outline by extrapolating from the existing literature.
One area that these researchers’ were able to find age differences for self-determination skills was in decision-making. According to their literature review, older teens (12-18 years old) were generally superior to the late elementary level students (9-11 years) in the following decision-making skills: 1) their strategies to generate options; 2) their anticipation of the consequences of decisions; and, 3) their evaluation of the credibility of the information (Ormond, Luszcz, Mann, & Beswick, 1991). Doll et al. (1996) also reported that late elementary-age students were not always able to verbalize a clear rationale for their decisions, and that these students lacked the ability to systematically analyze the consequences of the various options from which they choose. Hence, due to the limited amount of research concerning the developmental aspects of self-determination, it is difficult for this researcher to speculate on what changes (if any) might be needed in order for grade six children to optimally benefit from the self-determination intervention.
A third explanation for the lack of statistical significance for the omnibus self-determination posttest results may be related to the issue of social context. For example, perhaps sixth-grade and high school students have similar levels of self-determination. However, due to social/cultural constraints that deny sixth-grade children the ability to be self-determined, the eleven-year-old students in the present study would be socially conditioned to display a lower level of self-determined responses (Doll et al., 1996).
Resultant General Linear Model repeated-measures MANOVA, which assessed the amount of pretest to posttest change for the treatment group, found no statistically significant difference for explanatory style, self-determination, and depressive features. However, the univariant ANOVA conducted for depressive features (CDI), explanatory style (CPCN) and self-determination subscales general positive (GP) and specific negative (SN) results were statistically significant. This meant that children receiving the self-determination intervention significantly: improved their level of optimistic explanatory style; became more self-determined (GP and SN subscales); and, decreased their level of depressive symptoms from pretest to posttest.
Limitations of the Study
-
This study is limited in the use of self-report measures of depressive symptoms. Gillham, Reivich, Jaycox, & Seligman (1995) pointed out that several researchers have been critical of self-report measures of depressive symptoms because self-report measurements are not always accurate in their ability to distinguish clinically depressed children from other children who have depressed symptoms.
-
Grade six children from a single school may not adequately represent the overall population of children in this age group.
Recommendations
-
Doll et al. (1996) indicated a general lack of empirical research in the area of the developmental aspects of self-determination. This researcher recommends conducting a two-year longitudinal study which would follow the students from late elementary school to middle school in order to assess self-determinations skills.
-
In future self-determination research projects, it is recommended that the self-determination facilitator at each school research site receive the comprehensive in-service workshop as specified by the authors’ in their research article (Field & Hoffman, 1996c). It is also recommended by this writer, that the facilitator receive a (pre-determined) successful score on the Self-Determination Student Scale (or the Self-Determination Knowledge Scale), in order to reliably measure the level of self-determination of the facilitator, and to reduce the potential for extraneous variables to occur in the research project (Field, Hoffman, & Sawilowsky, 1995).
-
Additional research in self-determination is recommended in order to assess how the self-determination model influences explanatory style and depressive features in children. There are two primary reasons for continuing this research: first, although Powers et al. (1996) postulated a theoretical relationship between self-determination and the optimism contained in explanatory style theory, empirical evidence is still needed to confirm (or deny) this argument; second, because the present study found a significant decrease in the number of treatment group children at-risk for depression on the post hoc analysis, additional research is needed with children specifically selected for at-risk depression.
References
Abramson, L. Y., Seligman, M. E. P. & Teasdale, J. D. (1978). Learned Helplessness in Humans: Critique and Reformulation.
Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 87, 49-74.
Aron, A. & Aron, E. N. (1994). Statistics for Psychology. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.
Beck, A. T. (1987). Cognitive Models of Depression. Journal of Cognitive Psychotherapy, An International Quarterly, 1
(1), 5-37.
Campbell, D. T. & Stanley, J. C. (1963). Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Designs for Research. Chicago: Rand McNally
College Publishing Company.
Carey, M. P., Faulstich, M. E., Gresham, F. M., Ruggiero, L. & Enyart, P. (1987). Children's Depression Inventory: Construct
and Discriminant Validity Across Clinical and Nonreferred (Control) Populations. Special Issue: Eating Disorders.
Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 55, (5) , 755-76.
Doll, B., Sands, D. J., Wehmeyer, M. L., & Palmer, S. (1996). Promoting the Development and Acquisition of
Self-Determined Behavior. In D. J. Sands and M. L. Wehmeyer ( Eds. ),
Self-Determination Across the Life Span: Independence and Choice for People with Disabilities (65-90).
Baltimore, Maryland: Paul H. Brooks Publishing Co.
Elliott, G. R., & Smiga, S. (2003). Depression in the Child and Adolescent. Pediatric Clinics of North America, 50, (5):
1093-1106.
Field, S. & Hoffman, A. (1992). Steps to Self-Determination (Field Test Version). Detroit, MI: Wayne State University.
Field, S. & Hoffman, A. (1996a). Promoting Self-Determination in School Reform, Individualized Planning, and Curriculum
Efforts. In D. J. Sands and M. L. Wehmeyer ( Eds. ),
Self-Determination Across the Life Span: Independence and Choice for People with Disabilities (197-213). Baltimore,
Maryland: Paul H. Brooks Publishing Co.
Field, S. & Hoffman, A. (1996b). Steps to Self-Determination: A Curriculum to Help Adolescents Learn to Achieve Their Goals
(Instructor’s Guide). Austin, Texas: PRO-ED, Inc.
Field, S. & Hoffman, A. (1996c). Increasing the Ability of Educators to Support Youth Self-Determination. In L. E. Powers,
G.H.S. Singer, and J.Sowers (Eds.), On the Road to Autonomy: Promoting Self-Competence in Children and Youth with
Disabilities (171-187). Baltimore, Maryland: Paul H. Brookes Publishing Co.
Field, S., Hoffman, A., & Sawilowsky, S. (1995). Research in Self-Determination, Detroit, MI: Wayne State University.
Flavell, J. H. (1985). Cognitive Development. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.
Gay, L. R. (1992). Educational Research: Competencies for Analysis and Application. New York, New York: Macmillan
Publishing Company.
Gillham, J. E., Reivich, K. J., Jaycox, L. H. & Seligman, M. E. P. (1995). Prevention of Depression Symptoms in Schoolchildren:
Two-Year Follow-Up. Psychological Science, 6, (6) , 343- 351.
Gotlib, I. H., Lewinsohn, P. M. & Seeley, J. R. (1995). Symptoms Versus a Diagnosis of Depression: Differences in
Psychosocial Function. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 63, (1) , 90-100.
Hoffman, A., & Field, S. (1995). Promoting Self-Determination Through Effective Curriculum Development. Intervention In
School and Clinic, 30, (3), 134-141.
Hoffman, A., Field, S., & Sawilowsky, S. (1995). Self-Determination Assessment Battery User’s Guide, Detroit, MI: Wayne
State University.
Joiner, T. E. & Wagner, K. D. (1995). Attributional Style and Depression in Children and Adolescents: A Meta-Analytic
Review. Clinical Psychology Review, 15, (8) , 777-798.
Kaslow, N. J., Tanenbaum, R. L., Seligman, M. E. P., Abramson, L. Y. & Alloy, L. B. (1995). The KASTAN: A Children's
Attributional Styles Questionnaire. Unpublished Manuscript, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: University of Pennsylvania.
Kovacs, M. (1985). The Children's Depression Inventory (CDI). Psychopharmacology Bulletin, 21, 995-1024.
Kovacs, M. (1992). The Children's Depression Inventory (CDI). Toronto, Ontario, Canada: Multi-Health Systems, Inc.
Lewinsohn, P. M., Hops, H., Roberts, R. E., Seeley, J. R., & Andrews, J. A. (1993). Adolescent Psychopathology: I.
Prevalence and Incidence of Depression and Other DSM-III-R Disorders in High School Students. Journal of Abnormal
Psychology, 102, 133-144.
Lobovits, D. A. & Handal, P. J. (1985). Childhood Depression: Prevalence Using DSM-III Criteria and Validity of Parent
and Child Depression Scales. Journal of Pediatric Psychology, 10, (1) , 45-54.
Marchione, K. (1985). Problem Solving Training. In A. S. Bellack and M. Hersen (Eds.) Dictionary of Behavior Therapy
Techniques. Elmsford, New York: Pergamon Press, Incorporated.
Miller, P. H. (1993). Theories of Developmental Psychology. New York, New York: W. H. Freeman and Company,
Publishers.
Nolen-Hoeksema, S., Girgus, J. S. & Seligman, M. E. P. (1986). Learned Helplessness in Children: A Longitudinal Study
of Depression, Achievement, and Explanatory Style. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 435-442.
Nolen-Hoeksema, S., Girgus, J. S. & Seligman, M. E. P. (1992). Predictors and Consequences of Childhood Depressive
Symptoms: A Five-Year Longitudinal Study. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 101, 405-422.
Ormond, C., Luszcz, M. A., Mann, L., & Beswick, G. (1991). A Metacognitive Analysis of Decision Making in Adolescence.
Journal of Adolescence, 14, 275-291.
Peterson, C. & Bossio, L. M. (1991). Health and Optimism. N.Y., N.Y.: The Free Press, A Division of Macmillan, Inc.
Ponterotto, J. G., Pace, T. M. & Kavan, M. G. (1989). A Counselor's Guide to the Assessment of Depression. Journal of
Counseling and Development, 67, (5), 301-309.
Powers, L. E., Wilson, R., Matuszewski, J., Phillips, A., Rein, C., Schumacher, D., & Gensert, J. (1996). Facilitating
Adolescent Self-Determination. In D. J. Sands and M. L. Wehmeyer ( Eds. ), Self-Determination Across the Life
Span: Independence and Choice for People with Disabilities (257-284). Baltimore, Maryland: Paul H. Brooks
Publishing Co.
Poznanski, E. O. & Mokros, H. B. (1994). Phenomenology and Epidemiology of Mood Disorders In Children and Adolescents.
In W. M. Reynolds & H. F. Johnston ( Eds. ) Handbook of Depression in Children and Adolescents, (pp. 19-39). New
York, New York: Plenum Press.
Quiggle, N. L., Garber, J., Panak, W. F. & Dodge, K. A. (1992). Social Information Processing in Aggressive and Depressed
Children. Child Development, 63, pp. 1305-1320.
Reynolds, W. M. (1992). Depression in Children and Adolescents. In W. M. Reynolds ( Ed. ) Internalizing Disorders in
Children and Adolescents (pp. 149-253). New York: Wiley.
Reynolds, W. M. (1994). Assessment of Depression in Children and Adolescents by Self-Report Questionnaires. In W. M.
Reynolds & H. F. Johnston ( Eds. ), Handbook of Depression in Children and Adolescents (pp. 209-234). New York:
Plenum Press.
Roberts, R. E., Andrews, J. A., Lewinsohn, P. M. & Hops, H. (1990). Psychosocial Correlates of Depressive Symptomatology
Among High School Students. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 19, (3) , 211-220.
Saylor, C.F., Finch, A. J., Spirito, A. & Bennett, B. (1984). The Children's Depression Inventory: A Systematic Evaluation of
Psychometric Properties. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, Vol. 52, (6) , 955-967.
Seligman, M. E. P., Peterson, C., Kaslow, N. J., Tanenbaum, R. L., Alloy, L. B. & Abramson, L. Y. (1984). Attributional
Style and Depressive Symptoms Among Children. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 93, (2) , 235-238.
Seligman, M. E. P., Reivich, K., Jaycox, L., & Gillham, J. (1995). The Optimistic Child. New York, New York: Houghton
Mifflin Company.
Author: Dr. Bruno received a Doctor of Philosophy in Counseling from Wayne State University. He also holds a Master of Social Work and a Master of Art in Marriage and Family Psychology.
Dr. Bruno has practiced as a clinical social worker for 17 years working with individuals, children, and families. His area of expertise is in clinical social work theory and practice. He is also a member of the Ontario College of Social Workers and Social Service Workers in Canada. He is a social work instructor
at University College of the Fraser Valley in British Columbia, Canada.
Appendix
Table 1
Pretest CDI Level of Depressive Features Between Treatment and Control Groups*
* Note. Percentages do not always add up to 100% due to rounding. Information on
demographic variables was not available for all subjects.
Table 2
Posttest Measure-MANCOVA-Explanation Style, Depressive Features , and
Self-Determination by Group Membership
Table 3
GLM Repeated-Measures MANOVA-
Explanatory Style, Depressive Features, and Self-Determination by Pretest/Posttest Time
Table 4
Repeated-Measures ANOVA Explanatory Style, Depressive Features, and
Self-Determination by Pretest/Posttest Time
*Note. significant at the 0.05 level (1-tailed)
|
