Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Randomized Controlled Trial
. 2007 Feb;75(1):9-19.
doi: 10.1037/0022-006X.75.1.9.

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

Jane E Gillham  1 , Karen J Reivich, Derek R Freres, Tara M Chaplin, Andrew J Shatté, Barbra Samuels, Andrea G L Elkon, Samantha Litzinger, Marisa Lascher, Robert Gallop, Martin E P Seligman
Affiliations
Randomized Controlled Trial

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

Jane E Gillham et al. J Consult Clin Psychol. 2007 Feb.

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.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
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
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.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Angold A, Costello EJ, Worthman CM. Puberty and depression: The roles of age, pubertal status, and pubertal timing. Psychological Medicine. 1998;28:51–61. - PubMed
    1. Clarke GN, Lewinsohn PM. Instructor’s manual for the Adolescent Coping with Stress Course. 1995 Retrieved December 2, 2005, from Kaiser Permanente Center for Health Research Web site: http://www.kpchr.org/acwd/acwd.html.
    1. Gillham JE, Hamilton J, Freres DR, Patton K, Gallop R. Preventing depression among early adolescents in the primary care setting: A randomized controlled study of the Penn Resiliency Program. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology. 2006;34:203–219. - PubMed
    1. Gillham JE, Jaycox LH, Reivich KJ, Seligman MEP, Silver T. Unpublished manual. University of Pennsylvania; Philadelphia: 1990. The Penn Resiliency Program.
    1. Gillham JE, Reivich KJ, Jaycox LH, Seligman MEP. Preventing depressive symptoms in schoolchildren: Two year follow-up. Psychological Science. 1995;6:343–351.

Publication types