School-based prevention of depressive symptoms: A randomized controlled study of the effectiveness and specificity of the Penn Resiliency Program

Abstract

The authors investigated the effectiveness and specificity of the Penn Resiliency Program (PRP; J. E. Gillham, L. H. Jaycox, K. J. Reivich, M. E. P. Seligman, & T. Silver, 1990), a cognitive-behavioral depression prevention program. Children (N = 697) from 3 middle schools were randomly assigned to PRP, Control (CON), or the Penn Enhancement Program (PEP; K. J. Reivich, 1996; A. J. Shatté, 1997), an alternate intervention that controls for nonspecific intervention ingredients. Children's depressive symptoms were assessed through 3 years of follow-up. There was no intervention effect on average levels of depressive symptoms in the full sample. Findings varied by school. In 2 schools, PRP significantly reduced depressive symptoms across the follow-up relative to both CON and PEP. In the 3rd school, PRP did not prevent depressive symptoms. The authors discuss the findings in relation to previous research on PRP and the dissemination of prevention programs.

Figure 1

Flow diagram of recruitment, screening, and follow-up. CDI = Children’s Depression Inventory; DICA-R = depressive disorders section of the Diagnostic Interview for Children and Adolescents; MD = major depressive disorder; PRP = Penn Resiliency Program; PEP = Penn Enhancement Program; CON = control; post = postintervention.

Figure 2

Onset of elevated symptoms by school: Cumulative proportion of participants with a Children’s Depression Inventory score greater than or equal to 13. PRP = Penn Resiliency Program; PEP = Penn Enhancement Program; CON = Control; pre = preintervention; post = postintervention.