1、2. Method2.1. SubjectsThe present study used an experimental group of 251 adolescents who participated in Outward Bound high school programs. This group included 143 males and 108 females who were 14 to 15 years old and came from four high schools. A control group of 115 Year 9 students (56 males an
2、d 59 females) came from a fifth high school. These students were going to participate in an Outward Bound program after the study was conducted.Participation in the Outward Bound program was compulsory, with the program cost built into the school fee, for all students except 15 who came from a state
3、 high school. These 15 students voluntarily chose to participate in an Outward Bound high school program and received some financial assistance. Matching of the experimental and control groups took place as described in Section 3.3.2.2. Measures2.2.1. Self-Description Questionnaire-IIThe Self-Descri
4、ption Questionnaire-II (SDQ-II) is a 102-item, 11-scale, self-report, self-concept instrument designed for use with adolescents (see Appendix A). The six-point Likert scale varies from “1 = false“ to “6 = true“, with approximately half of the items negatively worded. The 11 scales are based on Shave
5、lsons multifaceted, hierarchical model of self-concept and the items are largely based on previous research with the Self Description Questionnaire-I (SDQ-I) for preadolescent children and the Self Description Questionnaire-III (SDQ-III) for late adolescents (Marsh, Parker, (b) responses to each fac
6、tor are internally consistent (coefficient alpha range .77 to .92, mean .88) and stable over time (r range .73 to .88), mean .80, over a seven week interval, N = 137) (Marsh and (c) each factor is significantly correlated with matching self-concepts inferred by teachers, peers, and parents (Marsh et
7、 al., 1985). The SDQ-II scale stability coefficients and internal consistencies reported by Marsh (1990) and for the present study are presented in Table 2.Table 2.Stability and Internal Consistency of the SDQ-II scales reported by Marsh (1990) (NORM) and the present study (OB)-NORMKOBNORMKOBrxxrxxa
8、lphaalpha-Physical Abilities.86.86.85.87Physical Appearance.75.84.91.92Opposite-Sex Relations.79.84.90.91Same-Sex Relations.76.78.86.83Parent Relations.77.80.87.90Honesty-Trustworthiness.73.76.84.86Emotional Stability.72.80.83.74Math.88.89.90.93Verbal.85.87.86.91General School.82.91.87.92General Sel
9、f.85.83.88.88Sample N1371115087319-Note: OB r is for the control group only.The SDQ-I and SDQ-III have previously been applied to research on Outward Bound programs for remedial students and adults respectively (Marsh et al., 1985; Marsh, Richards, love full, complete) were dropped as they seemed pe
10、ripheral to the Outward Bound intervention goals.(b) Four items from the “Loss of Behavioural/Emotional Control“ scale were dropped as they were considered inappropriate for normal adolescents (control behaviour, thoughts, feelings; concern about losing control of mind; better off dead; thinking abo
11、ut taking ownlife).(c) Two a priori hypothesized “Depression“ items were added (tired and listless; disappointed or sad).(d) Two items representing a new scale called “Irritability/Hostility“ were added (touchy and on edge with people; irritated and annoyed by others).(e) A single item rating physic
12、al health was added. The final instrument, called the General Well-Being (GWB), contained 35 items, each rated on a one to six point Likert scale, except for the “felt depressed item“ which had a five point scale. All questions were framed by asking subjects about how they felt within the past month
13、. Heubeck (1993) found high internal consistency on GWB scales in a sample of 368 Outward Bound program participants who ranged from 17 to 30 years in age. He also found test-retest coefficients of at least .73 in a subsample of 118 participants over a one month period.A factor analysis using PAF (P
14、rincipal Axis Factoring) with an oblique rotation was conducted on the pre-program GWB data from the present study (N = 312). Using an eigenvalue greater than one criteria, two factors were extracted, together explaining 49.1% of the variance. Factor 1 explained 34.0% of the variance and constituted
15、 a sychological distress factor. It contained all items from the a priori Anxiety, Depression, Loss of Behaviour/Emotional Control, and Irritability/Hostility scales. Veit Diener Diener, Larsen, Levine, Watson strain, stress, pressure) were dropped due to the low factor loadings reported by Veit & W
16、are (1983). Psychological Well-Being was calculated from all its loading items, the same as for Veit & Wares (1983) General Positive Affect scale. The structure matrix from the present studys factor analysis is presented in Table 3.Table 3.Factor Analysis for the GWB-Factor 1Factor 2 -Psychological
17、DistressFelt downhearted and blue.80Down in the dumps.79 Rattled, upset, flustered.77Low or very low in spirits.77Disappointed or sad.75 Moody, brooded about things.74 Nothing turns out as wanted.73 Felt depressed.72Difficulty trying to calm down.72 Touchy and on edge with people.72 Nothing to look
18、forward to.72Tired and listless.70 Restless, fidgetty, impatient.69 Irritated and annoyed by others.64 Anxious, worried.64Felt tense or high-strung.63 Bothered by nervousness.60 Felt like crying.54 Hands shake when doing things.52Very nervous person.49 Nervous or jumpy.38 Psychological Well-BeingGen
19、erally enjoyed things,85Felt cheerful, lighthearted.82 Happy, satisfied, or pleased.81Happy person.79 Daily life interesting.70 Felt calm and peaceful.67 Future hopeful, promising.67 Relaxed and free of tension.65 Living a wonderful adventure.57 Expect an interesting day.54 Wake up fresh, rested.39N
20、ote: N = 312. Item-factor correlations less than .3 are suppressed. Item 35 (physical health) was not included in the factor analysis.In the present study the internal consistency (coefficient alpha) for reports of Psychological Distress (N = 302) at the pre-program assessment was found to be .95. T
21、his can be compared with Veit and Ware (1983) who found an internal consistency of .94 for their psychological distress scale. The internal consistency for the Psychological Well-Being scale was .91 (N = 302) in the present study which can be compared with .92 found by Veit and Ware (1983) for the s
22、ame scale.In the present study the stability coefficient over an eight week interval was .71 for reports of Psychological Distress in the control group (N = 92). This compares to a stability coefficient of .62 reported by Veit and Ware (1983) over a one year interval (N = 3525). The Psychological We
23、ll-Being stability coefficient for the control group was .73 (N = 92) in the present study. Veit and Ware (1983) reported a stability coefficient for this scale of .63 over a one year period.Overall, the GWB shows considerable merit. It was developed from the sound theoretical and psychometric base
24、of the MHI. The modifications were appropriate for the present studys target population. In addition, analyses of GWB data show a clearly show a two factor model, with good scale reliability and internal consistency.2.2.3. Adolescent Coping ScaleThe Adolescent Coping Scale (ACS) is an 80-item (79 st
25、ructured, and 1 open-ended), 18-scale self-report instrument (see Appendix A). Responses are on a five point Likert scale from “1 = doesnt apply or dont do it“ to “5 = used a great deal“. Descriptions of the 18 ACS scales are presented in Table 4.Table 4. Scale Descriptions for the ACS-Description-S
26、ocial SupportAn inclination to share the problem with others andenlist support in its managementFocus on SolvingFocuses on tackling the problem systematically andthe Problemtakes into account different points of view or optionsWork Hard and AchieveCommitment, ambition, and industryWorryConcern about
27、 the future in general terms or morespecifically concern with happiness in the futureInvest in Close FriendsEngaging in a particular intimate relationshipSeek to BelongA caring and concern for ones relationship withothers in general and more specifically concern withwhat others thinkWishful Thinking
28、Hope and anticipation of positive outcomeNot CopingInability to deal with the problem and thedevelopment of psychosomatic symptomsTension ReductionAttempt to make oneself feel better by releasingtensionSocial ActionLetting others know what is of concern and enlisting support by writing petitions or
29、organising an activity such as a meeting or rallyIgnore the ProblemConscious blocking out of the problemSelf-BlameIndividual sees him/herself as responsible for theconcern or worryKeep to SelfWithdrawal from others and wish to keep others from knowing about concernsSeek Spiritual SupportPrayer and b
30、elief in the assistance of a spiritual leader or GodFocus on the PositivePositive and cheerful outlook on the current situation,including seeing the bright side of circumstances and seeing oneself as fortunateSeek Professional HelpUse of a professional adviser, such as a teacher or counsellorSeek Re
31、laxing DiversionsLeisure activities such as reading and paintingPhysical RecreationPlaying sport and keeping fitNote: From Frydenberg & Lewis, 1993a, pp.18-21.The ACS was developed using an open-ended, exploratory process with Australian adolescents whose answers were content analyzed (see Frydenber
32、g, 1989, for a full account of the initial ACS development). This lead to an initial pool of items which were factor analyzed and had items added from a literature review before further refinement (see Frydenberg & Lewis, 1990, for a full account of the more recent stages of the ACS development). Fr
33、ydenberg and Lewis (1993b) claim that the current ACS is “more sensitive to identifying differences in strategies and styles of coping behaviour than are other measuring tools which have been used to date“ (p. 264). Frydenberg and Lewis (1993a) have reported a number of psychometric analyses for the
34、 ACS (N = 643). Their results included: (a) Eighteen internally consistent factors with a mean coefficient alpha of .70 (range .54 to .84) and mean stability coefficient of .69 (range .44 to .84) over an unspecified time period.(b) Of the 153 correlations between pairs of scales, 18 were greater tha
35、n .4, while four were greater than .5, and none greater than .6, indicating sufficient distinction to use the scales separately.(c) General support for the existence of 18 coping strategy dimensions through a three step factor analysis.As the ACS instrument is still considered to be under developmen
36、t (Frydenberg & Lewis, 1993b) a check on internal consistency and stability coefficients was conducted for the present study. The ACS scale stability coefficents and internal consistencies reported by Frydenberg and Lewis (1993b) can be compared to the coefficients in the present study in Table 5.Table 5.Stability and Internal Consistency of the ACS scales reported by Frydenberg and Lewis (1993a) (NORM) and the present study (OB) -SCALENORMKOBNORMKOB
