Increasing Elementary School Students' Subjective

Increasing Elementary School Students’ Subjective Well-Being Through a Classwide Positive Psychology Intervention: Results of a Pilot Study Shannon M. Suldo, Brittany V. Hearon, Bryan Bander, Mollie McCullough, Jeffrey Garofano, Rachel A. Roth & Sim Yin Tan Contemporary School Psychology The Official Journal of the California Association of School Psychologists ISSN 2159-2020 Contemp School Psychol DOI 10.1007/s40688-015-0061-y

1 23

Your article is protected by copyright and all rights are held exclusively by California Association of School Psychologists. This eoffprint is for personal use only and shall not be self-archived in electronic repositories. If you wish to self-archive your article, please use the accepted manuscript version for posting on your own website. You may further deposit the accepted manuscript version in any repository, provided it is only made publicly available 12 months after official publication or later and provided acknowledgement is given to the original source of publication and a link is inserted to the published article on Springer's website. The link must be accompanied by the following text: "The final publication is available at link.springer.com”.

1 23

Author's personal copy Contemp School Psychol DOI 10.1007/s40688-015-0061-y

Increasing Elementary School Students’ Subjective Well-Being Through a Classwide Positive Psychology Intervention: Results of a Pilot Study Shannon M. Suldo 1 & Brittany V. Hearon 1 & Bryan Bander 1 & Mollie McCullough 1 & Jeffrey Garofano 1 & Rachel A. Roth 1 & Sim Yin Tan 1

# California Association of School Psychologists 2015

Abstract There is growing interest in school-based programs to promote students’ subjective well-being (SWB). Students with greater SWB tend to have stronger relationships with their teachers and classmates, as well as behave in more positive ways. Drawing from theory and research pertinent to promoting children’s SWB, we developed an 11-session classwide positive psychology intervention that targeted elementary school students’ novel use of character strengths, gratitude, kindness, and relationships in the classroom. Throughout a pilot study, children in fourth grade experienced clinically meaningful lasting gains in multiple indicators of SWB, particularly positive affect and satisfaction with self, but no changes in distal indicators of behavioral student engagement (attendance, office disciplinary referrals). This initial application by school psychologists partnering with a classroom teacher provides evidence of promise that elementary school children can benefit from participation in universal positive psychology interventions that target internal assets (gratitude, kindness, and signature strengths) and environmental resources (student-teacher and peer relationships). Keywords Elementary school children . Positive psychology interventions . Classwide implementation . Subjective well-being Mental health is increasingly viewed as a complete state of being, consisting not merely of the absence of * Shannon M. Suldo [email protected] 1

Department of Educational and Psychological Studies, University of South Florida, 4202 East Fowler Avenue, EDU 105, Tampa, FL 33620, USA

psychopathology, but also the presence of positive indicators of subjective well-being (SWB; Keyes 2009). Within a positive psychology approach, SWB is often used as an indicator of the complete range of psychological functioning, from miserable to content to flourishing. Researchers interested in happiness often define it as SWB, a multidimensional construct conceptualized as having cognitive and affective aspects (Diener et al. 2009). The cognitive aspect is indicated by life satisfaction judgments—global appraisals of the quality of one’s life overall or in regard to specific domains of life. The affective aspects involve how often a person experiences positive emotions (e.g., delight, pride, and zest) and negative emotions (e.g., sadness and anger). People with high SWB judge their life to be going well on the whole and experience more frequent positive than negative emotions on a daily basis. Studies with children (Greenspoon and Saklofske 2001) and adolescents (Suldo and Shaffer 2008) find that youth with the best academic, social, and physical health outcomes have both minimal symptoms of psychopathology and high SWB (i.e., complete mental health). Thus, comprehensive mental health services entail both the prevention and amelioration of psychopathology, and the promotion of SWB. However, the science of how to increase SWB through school-based intervention strategies pales in comparison to knowledge of how to treat psychopathology. As explicated in a 2013 joint report from the Institute of Education Sciences (IES) and the National Science Foundation (NSF), the process of developing an educational intervention generally starts with foundational research that informs theory and methodological issues about a given phenomenon, and exploratory research that identifies potentially malleable factors associated with the desired outcome. In design and development research, findings from such observational studies are applied in the creation of interventions to achieve the outcome. Initial small-scale tests

Author's personal copy Contemp School Psychol

of the intervention help to determine feasibility in the intended implementation setting by the intended end users (e.g., in classrooms by educators), often in the form of a Bpilot study to examine the promise of generating the intended outcomes^ (IES and NSF 2013, p. 13). Such evidence of promise is warranted before commencing an efficacy trial of a fully developed intervention. This paper presents ongoing design and development research to create a multicomponent, multitarget intervention intended to increase students’ SWB. This effort is informed by findings from exploratory research, especially studies within the area of positive psychology on the internal and environmental factors implicated in the SWB of elementary school age children. The feasibility and promise of the positive psychology intervention (PPI) was examined in a pilot study with a fourthgrade classroom at an elementary school that took part in a university-school partnership.

Positive Psychology Interventions for Youth Foundational Theory Early in the history of positive psychology, Seligman (2002) advanced a framework for increasing SWB through intentional activities intended to generate positive emotions about the past, present, and future. In this theory of authentic happiness, developing satisfaction with one’s past entails activities to strengthen gratitude and forgiveness. Positive emotions about the future are theorized to stem from hopeful and optimistic thinking. Positive feelings in the present involve enhancing momentary pleasures through savoring and mindfulness, as well as increasing gratifications that come from full absorption in a task (i.e., a flow state) through use of one’s talents and character strengths in meaningful ways. Exploratory Research One of the few applications of this framework to school-based interventions involves a 10session PPI for adolescents that targets many of these internal assets (gratitude, savoring, use of signature character strengths, hope, optimism; Suldo et al. 2014). Middle school students randomly assigned to the PPI (implemented in small groups) experienced significant gains in life satisfaction from baseline to immediate post-intervention, as compared to peers in a control condition (Suldo et al. 2014). Between-group differences were not evident at 6-month follow-up, suggesting the need for modifications to target additional correlates of SWB in youth. Next, we summarize the theoretical and empirical rationale for targeting specific internal assets and environmental resources in comprehensive PPIs, and note which targets may be especially appropriate for children in elementary school. Gratitude Gratitude is often referred to as an emotional response to the reception of a personal positive outcome from another individual that was neither deserved nor earned. One

may experience a grateful emotion for a number of reasons, including receipt of material items, mundane occurrences like favors, supportive relationships, or collective efforts (e.g., donations; Bono et al. 2014). Preliminary longitudinal research indicates long-term mental health benefits of gratitude among adolescents; higher and increasing levels of gratitude predicted fewer negative emotions and depression, as well as greater positive emotions and life satisfaction (Bono et al. 2014). PPIs targeting gratitude that have yielded positive effects among adolescents include counting blessings, sometimes called Gratitude Journaling, and expressing gratitude to another through writing and delivering a letter of thanks, often in person, which is referred to as a Gratitude Visit (Froh et al. 2009; Froh et al. 2008). Froh and colleagues (2014) found that elementary school children’s gratitude and positive emotions could be increased through participation in a classroom curriculum focused on appraisal of benefit exchanges (i.e., grateful thinking). Identical to the journaling and visit strategies used successfully in Suldo et al.’s (2014) multitarget PPI, the PPI developed in this project included two relevant exercises—Gratitude Journaling and Gratitude Visits. Kindness Fredrickson (2001) theorizes that positive emotions experienced in the moment may cause an upward spiral that has a lasting positive impact through enhancing social relationships and increasing well-being. One way to directly enhance the frequency and quality of positive emotional experiences is to perform Acts of Kindness, followed by reflection on and active savoring of these experiences. Acts of kindness can range from brief actions that have little or no cost (e.g., helping a classmate with homework) to more costly behaviors such as buying a sibling a gift. Within a sample of children ages 9 to 11, performing three kind acts per week had a positive effect on children’s SWB and popularity with classmates, underscoring the personal and social benefits of kindness (Layous et al. 2012). Thus, the multitarget PPI developed in this project for students of the same age included the Acts of Kindness exercise. Hope and Goal-Directed Thinking Snyder (2005) conceptualized hope as the perceived aptitude to successfully construct personal goals, identify pathways to achieve goals, and motivate oneself to use pathways through agency thinking. While children as young as 7 demonstrate hopeful thinking, improvements in cognitive capacity enhance youth’s ability to think more abstractly about their future ambitions and generate strategies to achieve them. Youth who have high levels of hope are more successful in obtaining their goals and subsequently experience more positive emotions and increased life satisfaction (Merkas and Brajsa-Zganec 2011). School-based PPIs targeting hope include Building Hope for the Future, a 5week intervention designed to help adolescents develop goals, create and pursue pathways, and reframe barriers. Portuguese


middle school students who participated in this program incurred lasting gains in hope, self-worth, and life satisfaction (Marques et al. 2011). Despite the promise of hope-based interventions in early adolescents (Marques et al. 2011; Suldo et al. 2014, whose PPI included one session to envision your Best Possible Self in the Future), a study of hope strategies with elementary-age youth concluded that more than eight sessions were needed to instill high hope (McDermott and Hastings 2000). Thus, we excluded the single session targeting hopeful thinking from the PPI modified in this project. Optimistic Thinking Optimism has been described as both (a) a general disposition related to positive expectations for the future and (b) a cognitive explanatory style in which positive life events are viewed as permanent, personal, and pervasive, while negative life events are interpreted as temporary, external, and limited to the immediate incident (Seligman et al. 1995). Educational interventions intended to prevent depression through teaching students optimistic thinking include the Penn Resiliency Program (PRP) and the Aussie Optimism Program-Positive Thinking Skills (AOP-PTS). Brunwasser et al.’s (2009) meta-analysis of studies with youth ages 8 to 18 found the PRP was associated with a reduction in depressive symptoms that lasted through 6- and 12-month followups. Gillham and colleagues (2006) reported positive effects of the PRP on an optimistic explanatory style, for up to 2 years. Although children in grades 4–5 who participated in AOPPTS experienced an immediate reduction in depressive symptomology, positive effects on symptoms or attribution style were not evident at 42- and 54-month follow-up (Johnstone et al. 2014). Elementary school students’ immature cognitive development was identified as a potential barrier to sustained improvements, indicating that children likely experienced difficulty engaging in abstract cognitive tasks independently. Little is known about the impact of PRP or AOPPTS on indicators of SWB. For such reasons, activities associated with developing an optimistic attribution style were not included in the PPI examined in this project. Use of Character Strengths Peterson and Seligman (2004) conceptualized character strengths as a set of 24 individual positive traits (e.g., creativity and bravery) that are classified into a set of six cross-culturally valued and morally grounded virtues. They proposed that each individual possesses a unique profile of Bsignature^ strengths that are frequently exhibited and highly regarded. Park and Peterson (2006) adapted the VIA classification system (Peterson and Seligman 2004) for youth ages 10 to 17 through a lengthy self-report instrument—the VIA-Inventory of Strengths for Youth. The VIA-Youth survey yields individual profiles of ranked character strengths that correspond to self-identified behaviors. PPIs that entail completion of the VIA-IS followed

by instruction to Use Signature Strengths in a New Way each day for 1 week have demonstrated lasting positive effects on adults’ happiness (Seligman et al. 2005). Individuals may also be able to spot their signature strengths through reflection on times one has excelled, such as in the You at Your Best activity that has caused short-term boosts in adults’ happiness (Seligman et al. 2005). Quinlan and colleagues’ (2015) classroom-based intervention (six 90-min sessions) targeting character strengths within students ages 9 to 12 yielded significant increases in positive affect, in addition to improved classroom cohesion and student engagement. That PPI included recognition of signature strengths through You at Your Best with reflection on activity strengths, and application of signature strengths in problem solving, goal pursuit, and relationship building. The current project included You at Your Best as well as Identify and Use Signature Strengths in a New Way, the activities relevant to strengths implemented with success in a prior multitarget PPI with youth (Suldo et al. 2014). Positive Relationships Complete mental health among early adolescents is linked to perceptions of greater social support from parents, classmates, and teachers (Suldo and Shaffer 2008). Longitudinal research implicated supportive relationships with family and teachers as key to maintaining a Bflourishing^ mental health status characterized by elevated SWB (Kelly et al. 2012). Attempts to facilitate youth SWB should thus target strengthening of relationships with multiple sources at home and school. PPIs that include teacher and/or peer components may be particularly plausible in schoolbased applications given school psychologists’ proximity to these resources. Thus, the PPI in this project focused on students’ relationships at school. Student-Teacher Relationships In prior studies of student mental health in relation to school climate, positive studentteacher relations emerged as a unique predictor of middle school students’ life satisfaction (Suldo et al. 2013). Adolescents with the highest SWB felt their teachers provided high levels of emotional and instrumental support (Suldo et al. 2009). One strategy to promote positive student-teacher relationships is to involve teachers directly in intervention implementation as a co-facilitator; teachers serve a significant role in sustaining successful programs that promote socialemotional development. Student-Student Relationships Social relationships with classmates can lead to distress or well-being depending on the nature of the interactions. Using an experience sampling method, Csikszentmihalyi and Hunter (2003) found that middle and high school students experienced the highest levels of positive affect when they were with friends and the lowest levels when they were alone. Among younger children (ages 9–12), Holder and Coleman (2009) found positive social


experiences accounted for 15 % of the variance in children’s ratings of SWB; happier children were rated by their parents as having more friends, were more popular with girls, and frequently spent time with friends outside of school. Conversely, children who experienced being left out, teased, and unpopular provided lower happiness ratings; these negative social experiences accounted for 32 % of the variance in the children’s happiness. Positive relationships with peers and teachers facilitate a sense of school connectedness. In a large sample of children (grades 4–7) from 25 schools in Canada, higher life satisfaction was reported by students who (a) personally experienced more positive peer relations and feelings of school connectedness, and (b) attended schools with greater mean levels of school connectedness (aggregate reports across students in the school; Oberle et al. 2011). Given that these predictors remained significant after accounting for the strong influences of perceived parent support and internal assets (i.e., optimism), the critical findings that strong relationships with peers as well as school connectedness were positively associated with children’s SWB provide further support for the notion that the school context may be an important avenue, outside of the family, where well-being can be cultivated and reinforced.

Purpose of the Current Study To determine if school-based PPIs that have shown promise with middle school students could be feasible and helpful with a younger population, we modified an existing multitarget PPI (Suldo et al. 2014) to be developmentally appropriate for elementary school children. We also expanded it to target potential environmental resources at school that were identified as relevant to children’s SWB in exploratory research. Our Table 1

design and developmental research included a pilot study with a convenience sample of fourth-grade students, to shed light on feasibility and promise. Observations and facilitator feedback informed the feasibility of session activities. We continually refined the intervention in collaboration with feedback from the classroom teacher, school psychologist, and students. We expected children to experience gains in aspects of SWB from pre- to post-intervention. Given that complete mental health co-occurs with academic success across indicators of skills, beliefs, and behavior (Suldo and Shaffer 2008), it was plausible that improved SWB might positively impact academic outcomes. Thus, we also looked for changes in students’ behavioral engagement at school as captured by two distal indicators—attendance and compliance with school rules (reflected in office discipline referrals)—before and after the intervention, and examined children’s SWB 2 months after the PPI concluded.

Method Intervention Development Given its alignment with Seligman’s (2002) theory pertinent to increasing happiness, we selected the multitarget PPI advanced by Suldo et al. (2014) for modification in this project. We refined a facilitator’s manual that outlines planned activities for each of the 11 weekly sessions (see Table 1). The intended session participants include the teacher alone (session 1), and all students in the class with the teacher present (sessions 2–11). Activities target gratitude, kindness, identification and use of signature character strengths, and positive relations with peers and teachers. Strategies targeting optimistic and hopeful thinking were omitted due to cognitive complexity. For descriptions of sessions 3–11, see Suldo et al.

Intervention overview

Session

Target

Strategies

1

Positive Relationships: Student-Teacher

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

Positive Relationships: Student-Student Character Strengths Gratitude Gratitude Kindness Character Strengths Character Strengths Character Strengths Character Strengths All

Teacher Psychoeducation: Strategies for Conveying Social Support to Students Team-Building You at Your Best Gratitude Journals Gratitude Visit Acts of Kindness Introduction to Character Strengths Character Strengths Assessment Application of Signature Strength 1 in New Ways Application of Signature Strength 2 in New Ways Termination; Review of Strategies and Plan for Future Use


(2014). Next, we describe the newly developed sessions that we added to target potential environmental resources (studentteacher relationships and student-student relationships), and describe modifications to the sessions adapted from Suldo et al. (2014). Student-Teacher Relationships Session 1 entailed a meeting between the classroom teacher and the university research team leader (primary facilitator); the school psychologist and another member of the research team (co-facilitator) were also present. The goals of this session were to establish rapport, introduce key concepts within positive psychology, share strategies teachers can use to communicate social support, and explain the PPI curriculum and schedule for the subsequent student-focused sessions. A didactic presentation included information relevant to those goals, emphasized empirical ties between teacher support and student SWB, and provided strategies for conveying support as suggested by prior research (specifically, Suldo et al. 2009). Then, the facilitator shared baseline levels of life satisfaction for students in the class (as determined by students’ recent completion of the Multidimensional Students’ Life Satisfaction [MSLSS; Huebner 1994]), clarified the purpose of the intervention, reviewed the content of the student sessions, and discussed the teacher’s role as a co-facilitator in the intervention. In subsequent sessions, student-teacher relationships were targeted for enhancement by (a) including the teacher as a session co-facilitator in sessions 2–11 (enabling her to learn the PPIs firsthand, which may have improved her own SWB if she personally used the strategies, as well as assisted with generalization of skills from the session to the classroom), (b) asking the teacher to increase her displays of support and care toward students, and to self-report such instances including how they impacted the classroom climate and/or relationships with specific students (sessions 3–6 and 9–10), and (c) weekly, asking students to share instances in which their teacher conveyed support to them (sessions 3–6 and 9–10) or ways in which they were kind to their teacher and the impact of such acts of kindness on their relationships (sessions 7 and 8). Student-Student Relationships Session 2 was the first meeting with the students. The goals of this session were to establish a supportive group environment, set clear behavioral expectations, identify commonalities among the students, and instill teamwork in the classroom. After introductions, the students were provided with a set of behavioral expectations for the intervention sessions, as described below (see the BBehavior Management System^ section). Next, an icebreaker activity was implemented to help students understand some of the things that they have in common with their classmates. During this activity, students stood side-by-side in a line and were asked to take a step forward if they answered Byes^ to a

situation. This activity began with innocuous situations (e.g., having a sibling) and gradually progressed to more sensitive situations (e.g., being teased). Students reflected on shared connections. Students then participated in a team-building activity that required them to complete an art project together. Each student could use only the crayon that he or she was given; students were not allowed to share or trade colors. This activity, named Creative Coloring (Jones 1998), was designed to increase cooperative play among the students and to help them understand the challenges and benefits to working as a team. Once the activity was completed, students reflected on their experience through a discussion highlighting the relation between peer support and feelings of happiness. Session 2 ended with a brief introduction to the well-being promotion program. Throughout the intervention, instances of classmate support and care were revisited regularly. At the beginning of sessions 3–6, 9, and 10, facilitators asked students, Bsince our last meeting, tell us about some times you’ve seen your classmates be particularly nice to you or another student, or times you’ve gone out of your way to help or support a classmate.^ Similarly, the teacher was asked to share aloud, Bover the past week, when you have noticed your students treated each other particularly nicely, or worked together cooperatively?^ Students were asked to reflect how they felt during that situation (e.g., Happier? Greater enjoyment of schoolwork?). In session 7, 8, and 11, students were asked to share ways in which they were kind to their classmates, and/or the impact of such acts of kindness on their relationships. Changes to Existing Sessions With the exception of the addition of the aforementioned discussion questions intended to strengthen classroom relationships, sessions 3, 5, 6, and 7 were identical in goals and procedures to the PPI described in Suldo et al. (2014). A small modification was made in session 4, whereby gratitude was defined more concretely through use of a visual graphic organizer of related terms. Due to the reduced reading fluency of elementary schoolchildren, we split the formerly single session on BAssessment of Signature Character Strengths^ into two meetings. Completion of the VIA-Youth survey became the primary goal of session 8; for homework, students were assigned to continue performing and recording acts of kindness. The comparison of expected versus VIA-identified strengths, and development of a plan for how to use one’s first signature strength in new ways, became the primary goals of session 9. Other changes to the unit targeting character strengths included the following: (a) in session 9, a review of the definitions (including additional synonyms and examples) of strengths that continued to prove challenging for children to understand (e.g., prudence, zest); (b) in sessions 9 and 10, more individualized and facilitator-led guidance during


the process of brainstorming new ways to apply one’s signature strengths in everyday life; (c) from session 10, removal of the concept of savoring; and (d) in sessions 9 and 10, restriction of the focus of homework assignments to application of signature strengths in new ways (vs. also requiring students to continue acts of kindness and gratitude journaling). Small changes to session 11 involved adding a review of activities that targeted relationships, and no discussion of (untaught) activities meant to engender positive emotions about the future (i.e., optimistic and goal-oriented thinking).

Participants

Behavior Management System The participating school was part of a districtwide initiative to implement schoolwide positive behavioral interventions and supports. At the classroom level, teachers reminded students of the BCHAMPS^ (Sprick 2009) for the upcoming activity, specifically: Conversation level? Help-seeking method? Activity/assignment? Movement level? Participation method? Success=adhering to those five guidelines. During sessions, students earned tangible rewards (stickers, candy) for engaging in positive classroom behaviors (as recorded by facilitators at 5-min intervals).

A total of 15 children were in the fourth-grade class at the start of the intervention and provided baseline data on SWB. Twelve of these students (who participated in 6 to 10 sessions; M=8.83, SD=1.14) also completed the measures at post-intervention. The other three students withdrew from the school during the course of the intervention. Data reported subsequently in this paper pertain to the 12 students with complete baseline and post-intervention data. Follow-up data are also available for nine of these students, as one student withdrew from the school late in the year, and two more were absent on data collection attempts. Two thirds of the participants (n=8) were male. According to school records, six participants were African-American, two were White, two were Hispanic, one was Asian, and one student was multiracial. Eleven students were eligible for the district’s free meals program, indicating relatively low family economic resources. None of the students were in Exceptional Student Education (ESE). Six participants were 9 years old and six were 10 years old.

Procedures

Outcome Measures

The classroom teacher, school psychologist, and university research team collaborated to implement the intervention in January through April of 2014 with one general education fourth-grade classroom. The classroom was selected for participation because the teacher expressed a desire for classwide intervention after observing Bunkind^ interactions between students. The students were immersed in a co-teach model in which they had one teacher in the morning for reading and writing, and one teacher in the afternoon for math and science. We partnered with the afternoon teacher and implemented the intervention weekly after lunch (sessions were anticipated to be 30–50-min in duration). Two to three members of the university research team led each session. Research team members rotated responsibilities as primary facilitator versus cofacilitators for a given session. Whereas the primary facilitator was positioned at the front of the room and led the manualized curriculum, co-facilitators took a supportive role and collected data on treatment integrity and acceptability. Children’s SWB was assessed at three time points (baseline, post-intervention, and 2-month follow-up) through group administration of the measures described below. Members of the research team verbally administered the measures; students asked clarifying questions to ensure meaning of all words in surveys. Immediately after the intervention concluded, students completed a brief feedback form to gauge their satisfaction with the program. In June, school records were accessed to provide additional information about attendance (days absent) and compliance with school rules (office discipline referrals [ODRs] incurred after major rule violations).

Positive and Negative Affect Scale for Children (PANASC; Laurent et al. 1999) The PANAS-C was used to capture the affective dimension of SWB, specifically frequency of positive emotions (12 items; e.g., interested and excited) and negative emotions (15 items; e.g., jittery and lonely). Youth report how often they had each feeling in the past few weeks, from 1 (very slightly or not at all) to 5 (extremely). The total score for each scale reflects average responses to items tapping positive affect and negative affect, respectively. In studies of children in grades 4–8, Laurent et al. (1999) reported strong internal consistency (α=.89–.94 across samples and scales), support for the two-factor structure, and evidence of construct validity through correlations in the expected directions with measures of depression and anxiety symptoms. Multidimensional Students’ Life Satisfaction Scale (MSLSS; Huebner 1994) The 40-item MSLSS was used to capture the cognitive dimension of SWB. It assesses satisfaction with five domains of life: family, friends, self, school, and living environment. Respondents indicate the degree to which they endorse statements about their life in each domain, using either a four-point scale ranging from 1 (never) to 4 (almost always), or a six-point scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 6 (strongly agree). In this study, the latter metric was used. The MSLSS may be administered to students in grades 3–12, and readability is estimated to be at a 1.5 grade level. In scale development work with children in grades 3–5, Huebner (1994) reported strong internal consistency across subscales (α=.78 for Self to .83 for School), support for the


five-factor structure, and evidence of convergent and discriminant validity through patterns of correlations with conceptually similar and dissimilar constructs. Students’ Life Satisfaction Scale (SLSS; Huebner 1991) The seven-item SLSS is a frequently used measure of children’s global life satisfaction. Using the same six-point response metric as in the MSLSS, children rated their agreement with items like BI am pleased with my life.^ After reversescoring two items, higher mean scores represent greater global life satisfaction. In scale development work with children in grades 4–8, Huebner (1991) reported strong internal consistency (α=.82), high test-retest reliability after a 1–2-week interval (r=.74), and strong associations between SLSS scores and other indicators of SWB.

changes in outcomes from post-intervention to follow-up using data from the subgroup of nine participants who completed the measures of SWB 2 months after intervention completion. We did not anticipate changes in scores in a specific direction at follow-up, so we used two-tailed tests when determining statistical significance. In line with the small sample size in this pilot study, estimates of effect size (clinical significance) are more meaningful than statistical significance. For a given t test, effect size for two dependent groups was calculated using a formula that considered the obtained t-value (using pooled variance), the correlation between the outcome variable at the two different time points, and sample size. Because the computation looked at the mean difference relative to the pooled SD, we adhered to traditional guidelines for interpreting Cohen’s d: .20 indicates a small effect, .50 a medium effect, and .80 and higher a large effect.

Indicators of Intervention Quality Treatment Integrity and Feasibility To document the extent to which the intervention was implemented as intended, cofacilitators completed a treatment integrity checklist for each session. Each checklist listed the 5 to 11 (M=9.8) primary elements for the session. Throughout the session, the cofacilitator recorded Byes^ or Bno^ as to whether the primary facilitator completed each primary element. The bottom half of each checklist form included space for co-facilitators to record start and end time of each session, general observations on session acceptability and feasibility, and suggestions for session improvement. Participant Satisfaction This one-page form asked children to describe what they liked and disliked about the program, as well as what they learned through participation and suggestions for future implementations of the program. Children were also asked to check which activities taught through the sessions they were likely to continue independently. Overview of Analyses Repeated-measures statistics (paired-samples t tests) were used to evaluate changes in outcomes from pre- to postintervention among the 12 participants who participated in at least six sessions and completed both baseline and postintervention measures of SWB. In line with our hypotheses that the sample mean scores would be different at postintervention in a specific direction (i.e., in favor of improved SWB), we conducted one-tailed tests for indicators of life satisfaction and affect. In line with the exploratory nature of our look at potential changes in student behavioral engagement during the course of the intervention, we conducted the more conservative two-tailed tests when analyzing attendance and ODRs. To determine if gains in SWB were maintained, a second series of paired-sample t tests was used to evaluate

Results Intervention Integrity and Feasibility On the checklist assessing the primary facilitator’s levels of adherence to delivering the intervention as intended, each of the 11 sessions was implemented with 100 % fidelity with regard to percentage of primary elements observed. One indicator of feasibility is the amount of contact time required to enact each session fully. Sessions ultimately ranged in duration of 40 to 60 min (M=51.7; SD=7.8). Cofacilitators recommended no changes to 7 of 11 (63.63 %) sessions. For the other four sessions, recommendations involved providing simpler definition of terms (i.e., of gratitude and character strengths included on the VIA) and providing more concrete guidance to students during the process of brainstorming applications of strengths in new ways. Four challenges, all ultimately manageable, were observed on more than one occasion (specifically, during two or three sessions): student noncompliance with homework assignments, behavioral challenges during sessions, teacher expressions of frustration with persistent student behavior challenges, and students’ struggles to identify new ways to use their signature strengths. Intervention Acceptability On the feedback form (missing for one child), students expressed considerable interest in and enjoyment of intervention sessions through statements such as B[I learned] to feel good about the past and that the future can always be better.^ Regarding the most preferred aspects of the intervention, 8 of 11 students (73 % of the respondents) mentioned that they enjoyed spending time with the facilitators (e.g., Bthe USF counselors^). Beyond discussion of the university research


team, students commented positively on (a) receiving candy during sessions (e.g., Bgetting treats^), (b) the opportunity to collaborate with their classmates (e.g., Bworking together^), and (c) doing activities to become happier (e.g., Bincreasing happiness^). Regarding suggestions for improvement, 55 % of students wrote Bnothing^ (one more student left the section blank); the only suggestion mentioned by more than one student involved provision of additional candy or treats (36 %). Regarding which of the PPIs that they were likely to continue to do on their own, all but one student checked at least one activity. The largest proportion of students (73 %) indicated acts of kindness, followed by signature strengths and gratitude journals (both 64 %), and then gratitude visits and You at Your Best writing (both 55 %). Summative comments indicated that students appeared to benefit from the experience of the intervention as led by the facilitators (e.g., BYou guys are the best thing for me in the world^). Changes in Subjective Well-Being Across Time Table 2 presents mean scores on outcomes at all time points for the students retained for data analyses (n=12 for baseline to post-intervention, n=9 for post-intervention to follow-up). Post-intervention Results of paired-samples t tests for the sample of 12 students from pre-intervention (time 1) to postintervention (time 2) indicated statistically significant increases from time 1 to time 2 on two indicators: positive affect, t(11) = −2.25, p = .023, d = .52, and satisfaction with self, t(11)=−1.86, p=.045, d=.40. Both effects were medium in magnitude. Medium, positive effects were also observed in

Table 2

three other indicators that evidenced marginally significant differences in mean scores from time 1 to time 2: global life satisfaction, t(11)=−1.59, p=.070, d=.40, satisfaction with friends, t(11)=−1.52, p=.079, d=.43, and satisfaction with living environment, t(11)=−1.45, p=.088, d=.52. There were no statistically significant changes pre- to post-intervention in mean levels of negative affect, t(11)=−0.98, p=.174, d=.25. In addition, there were no statistically significant betweengroup differences in change with respect to the remaining two domains of life: school, t(11)=−0.27, p=.395, d=.004, and family, t(11)=−0.18, p=.429, d=.06. Follow-Up Within the sample of nine students with follow-up data, results of paired-samples t tests indicated that changes in outcomes from post-intervention (time 2) to follow-up (time 3) were not statistically significant for any of five indicators of SWB that showed promising gains from pre- to post-intervention, including positive affect, t(8)=0.61, p=.557, d=.12, global life satisfaction, t(8)=−0.15, p=.885, d=.05, and satisfaction with three domains of life: self t(8)=−0.82, p=.439, d=.17, friends t(8)=0.46, p=.657, d=.21, and living environment t(8)=−0.25, p=.812, d=.06. This lack of significant change suggests that the gains in SWB observed from baseline to post-intervention were still evident at the end of the school year (i.e., follow-up point). In addition, the repeated measures analysis revealed a statistically significant positive change (with a medium to large effect size) in mean levels of school satisfaction from post-intervention to follow-up, t(8)=−3.33, p=.010, d=.68. For the remaining two indicators of SWB, the small to medium, positive changes in mean scores from time 2 to time 3 were not statistically significant: satisfaction with

Descriptive statistics and effect sizes for mental health and behavior outcomes by time point Pre-intervention (n=12)

Post-intervention (n=12)

Follow-up (n=9)

Cohen’s d

M 4.76 4.88 5.01 3.89 3.77 4.87 3.83

SD 0.53 0.84 0.64 1.23 1.09 0.72 0.93

M 4.98† 5.20† 5.26†† 4.49† 3.83 4.92 4.27††

SD 0.53 0.61 0.62 1.09 1.44 0.86 0.69

M 5.13 5.20 5.32 4.33 4.17** 5.06 4.17

SD 0.66 0.42 0.44 0.96 0.85 0.49 0.62

T1 to T2 (n=12) 0.40 0.43 0.40 0.52 0.00 0.06 0.52

T2 to T3 (n=9) 0.05 0.21a 0.17 0.06 0.68 0.44 0.12a

Negative Affect 1.86 Attendance (days absent from school) 4.58 Office discipline referrals 0.42

0.91 3.34 0.67

2.07 5.50 0.67

0.77 3.40 0.78

1.81

0.70

0.25a 0.27a 0.34a

0.35

Outcome Global Life Satisfaction Friend Satisfaction Self Satisfaction Living Environment Satisfaction School Satisfaction Family Satisfaction Positive Affect

T1=baseline (pre-intervention); T2=post-intervention; T3=2-month follow-up. Descriptive statistics for attendance and office discipline referrals refer to totals in semester 1 (pre-intervention) and semester 2 (during and after the intervention period) *p