coping skills adolescents

Educational Psychology in Practice, Vol. 20, No. 2,June 2004

Prevention is Better than Cure:

Coping skills training for

adolescents at school

Erica Frydenberg*a, Ramon Lewisb, Kerry Bugalskia,Amanda Cottaa, Cathy McCarthya, NeringaLuscombe-Smitha & Charles Poolea

aUniversity of Melbourne, Australia; bLatrobe University, Australia

(Received September 2002; accepted after revision, September 2003)

Children and adolescents today face a plethora of stressful problems, including family andrelationship conflict, death of close family members or friends, and academic and socialpressures. Such problems have been found to contribute to an increased risk of variousemotional–social–cognitive difficulties in adolescence. These include academic failure,social misbehaviour, interpersonal problems, and depression.

Programmes that promote coping with normative stress, delivered to the whole popu-lation, have been considered to represent a promising direction for the prevention of socialemotional difficulties. The Best of Coping: Developing Coping Skills Program (Frydenberg& Brandon, 2002) was introduced in two school settings on four separate occasions.Evaluation of the results provides modest support for coping skills enhancement but providea warning about the need for caution when implementing and evaluating the Programme.First, it appeared to have some opposing effects on males and females. Second, improve-ments in students’ coping responses were apparently related to the authenticity of im-plementation of the Programme.

The findings are discussed with regard to the need to implement programmes throughwhich we can teach adolescents coping responses, which include optimism and problem-solving skills, so that they may handle problems and stressors more effectively. Additionally,an important feature of such programmes is a focus on the reduction of the use ofnon-productive coping skills. With an increase in psycho-social problems, the need toprovide school-based programmes is discussed, with emphasis placed on programmeimplementation. In particular, the probable need for ongoing involvement of psychologicallytrained school counsellors with teachers, through the life of the programme.

Introduction

Adolescents’ psychological health and well-being are related to the develop-

*Corresponding author: Educational Psychology Unit, Faculty of Education, University ofMelbourne, Carlton 3010, Australia, email: [email protected]

ISSN 0266-7363 (print)/ISSN 1469-5839 (online)/04/020117-18 2004 Association of Educational PsychologistsDOI: 10.1080/02667360410001691053

118 E. Frydenberg et al.

ment of psychosocial competence, an area of activity within which schools areincreasingly called upon to be active. Although schools need to be able torespond to the 10–20% of young people who exhibit pathological symptomsand offer direct services to adolescents, their families and teachers, there aremany ways in which schools can improve the social–emotional competence ofall students. Developing coping skills is one way to facilitate young peoples’resilience. This paper examines one school-based programme designed toenhance the coping skills of adolescents.

An expanding body of literature suggests that inadequate responses tocoping with stress in children of school age contributes to a range of psychoso-cial problems, including poor academic performance, conduct problems, anxi-ety, depression, suicide, eating disorders and violence (Kovacs, 1997;Matheny, Aycock, & McCarthy, 1993). When young people are distressed,their energy is directed away from the learning process, thereby interfering withoptimal school performance and age-appropriate psychosocial development(Compas & Hammen, 1994; Kovacs, 1997). Within the Australian context, itis estimated that anywhere from 15% to 40% of adolescent school childrencould potentially benefit more from their education in both the socialand academic domain if they were more psychologically resilient (Cunningham& Walker, 1999; Dadds, Spence, Holland, Barrett, & Laurens, 1997;Roberts, 1999; Shochet & Osgarby, 1999). These figures are matched in otherWestern communities such as the United States and the United Kingdom.Additionally, many more students might benefit at some time in the future ifthey acquired a wider range of skills and competencies to enable them torespond to future stressful and challenging situations in ways that protectedtheir own emotional well-being. As a consequence of the World HealthOrganisation’s recent prediction that depression would be the second leadingcause of disability by the year 2020, the need to promote mental health insociety is receiving increasing attention at state, national, and internationallevels.

The growing awareness of the long-term negative consequences of psychoso-cial factors on children’s development has resulted in governments increasinglylooking to schools as settings for promoting resilience in young people. Forexample, the Department of Education, Victoria (1998a, 1998b) outlined newpolicies for student welfare support in schools that entailed a major shift in theroles of school psychologists, counsellors and welfare workers. The shift wasfrom a primarily individual service delivery approach to a prevention approachthat targets a whole population or class group. This prevention approach nowaccounts for over one-half of the total service delivery. The focus of preventionis on building resiliency in students through programmes that foster adaptivecoping skills (Department of Education, Victoria, 1998b). The critical role ofteachers in the social–emotional development of students in their care is alsostressed (Department of Education, Victoria, 1999). Nevertheless, relativelyfew programmes redressing emotional well-being are available for implemen-tation in school settings (Roberts, 1999).

Coping Skills Training for Adolescents at School 119

Examples of how psychology theory can be translated into practice arereflected in school-based programmes. However, many of these are not wellevaluated (Durlak & Wells, 1997; Roth, Brooks-Gunn, Murray, & Foster,1998). Ideally, such programmes need to be embedded in the organisationwithin which the target group is located (Reiss & Price, 1996).

A unique example of how this might be achieved is reflected in the recentwork of Cunningham, Brandon, and Frydenberg (1999, 2000) in the pre-ado-lescent area. They report a team approach in which school psychologists/coun-sellors and classroom teachers implemented an optimistic thinking skillsprogramme for whole class groups. This approach also combined the skills ofschool psychologists/counsellors and their familiarity with the principles ofcognitive–behavioural approaches, together with the teachers’ knowledge ofstudents and their expertise in classroom management. Generally, youngpeople who participated in the “Programme” reported increased control overtheir thoughts, feelings and behaviours, as well as greater utilisation of adaptivecoping strategies and reduced reliance on maladaptive or dysfunctional copingstrategies. These results support the validity of implementing low-cost pro-grammes in early adolescence that promote emotional well-being for all stu-dents through utilising systems and structures that already exist.

There is a growing recognition of a need for such programmes in thesecondary school system since there is clear-cut evidence that young people’snon-productive coping strategies increase with age, particularly in the middleadolescent years (Frydenberg & Lewis, 1999a, 2000). Furthermore, it is thereported use of dysfunctional coping strategies (e.g., worry, self-blame, tensionreduction, and ignoring the problem) that differentiates between poor andgood copers in middle adolescence (Frydenberg & Lewis, 2002a).

In summary, since there is growing evidence that youth are experiencingstress as never before (Diekstra, 1995), and given the growing rate of de-pression and suicide in young people, it is critical to address the associated andpredisposing factors of these difficulties. Rosenman (1998) argues that direct-ing prevention programmes only towards high-risk individuals is ineffective.What is urgently needed is a set of programmes that reduce overall risk in thewhole school population. Health and well-being are related to the developmentof psychosocial competence, aspects of which include optimistic thinking skills,utilisation of productive coping strategies, and reduced reliance on maladaptivecoping responses. The studies reported in this paper employ an innovative andcost-effective model of programme implementation, reducing the overall risk ofdepression and other indices of psychological distress. This is only likely to beachieved through low-cost, non-intrusive, school-based programmes. The pro-gramme being evaluated in this paper aims to enhance the coping resources ofyoung people within an environment that is already part of their lives. Theprogramme is embedded within existing structures, which include the curricu-lum as the primary planning and organisational unit of school systems. Thelonger-term success and viability of any universal preventative programmefacilitating emotional well-being may ultimately depend upon the extent to


which such programmes can be integrated into the core curriculum practices ofschools (Elias, 1991).

As stated earlier, the specific aim of the current study is the evaluation of theeffectiveness of a secondary student coping programme. “The Programme”—The Best of Coping (BOC) (Frydenberg & Brandon, 2002)—is unique in thatit builds on previous research using the Adolescent Coping Scale (ACS)(Frydenberg & Lewis, 1993) and takes into account the findings from alongitudinal study using the ACS (Frydenberg & Lewis, 2000) and the rela-tionship between well-being and coping (Frydenberg & Lewis, 2002b). “TheProgramme” integrates cognitive–behavioural skills and operational compo-nents of the 18 conceptual areas of coping identified by the ACS. It consists of10 one-hour weekly sessions. Core elements of the Programme include teach-ing skills that enhance optimistic thinking, effective communication, adaptiveproblem-solving, decision-making, goal setting and time management.

The foundations for the research on coping are based on the theory of copingarticulated by Lazarus and the Berkeley group (Lazarus, 1991), and theextension of this work into the Australian context (Cunningham, Brandon, &Frydenberg, 1999, 2000; Frydenberg & Lewis, 1993, 1996, 1999a). InLazarus’ model of coping, the concept of cognitive appraisal is an intrinsiccomponent of the coping process. When faced with events, an individual firstasks “What is at stake?” (primary appraisal) and, second, “What are theresources available to me?” (secondary appraisal). It is the coping resourcesthat are being developed in a coping skills programme. Responses to these twoquestions influence the coping actions that individuals employ. While theLazarus (1991) conceptualisation has generally been categorised as problem-focused and emotion-focused, there is no judgement inferred about people’scoping actions. However, in the coping literature, much of the discussion of theuse of some emotion-focused coping strategies has emphasised their maladap-tive nature.

This paper discusses the results of four studies (Study 1–4) that haveexamined the impact of the BOC Programme on students’ coping skills in twosecondary school settings. The first two studies that will be briefly reportedsupport, in part, the benefits of the Programme, particularly for the “at risk”group of students. The third and fourth studies, which will be discussed inmore detail, evaluate the Programme in a junior high school on two occasions,two years apart, and highlight the need to ensure fidelity when implementingthe Programme.

Method

The methodology adopted in this investigation involves utilising adolescents’changes in responses using a coping survey instrument, namely ACS, asoutcomes of an intervention, in this case the school-based delivery of the BOCProgramme.


The Instrument

The ACS, which was used both as part of the Programme and as a pre-pro-gramme and post-programme measure, was the main evaluative tool for eachof the studies reported here. The scale consists of 80 questions, 79 of whichelicit ratings of an individual’s use of 18 coping strategies, plus a final open-ended question. Scores on the scales can be expressed as percentages so thatthe respondents’ preferred coping styles can be readily compared (for coun-selling purposes) to populations reported in the manual and the literature. Theitems on the ACS comprise 18 different scales, each containing between threeand five items, and each reflecting a different coping response. The 18 scales,with exemplars, are described in Figure 1.

Each item in the scale, with the exception of the final one, describes aspecific coping response, be it a behaviour or a mind set (e.g., “Talk to othersto see what they would do if they had the problem”). The last item (Item 80)asks students to write down anything they do to cope, other than those thingsdescribed in the preceding 79 items. To record their responses, studentsindicate if the coping behaviour described was used “a great deal”, “often”,“sometimes”, “very little” or “doesn’t apply or don’t use it” (no usage), bycircling the numbers 5, 4, 3, 2 or 1, respectively. All scales are reliable with amedian Cronbach alpha figure of 0.70. The stability of responses as measuredby test–retest reliability coefficients range from 0.44 to 0.81 and are in generalmoderate, but nevertheless satisfactory given the dynamic nature of coping.

In addition to providing an assessment of 18 coping strategies, the ACSallows for combining scales to produce measures of three empirically defensiblecoping styles based on factor analysis (Frydenberg & Lewis, 1996). These threecoping styles or domains referred to in this study are:

1. Solving the problem, which comprises eight coping strategies (seek socialsupport, focus on solving the problem, physical recreation, seek relaxingdiversions, invest in close friends, seek to belong, work hard and achieve,and focus on the positive). This style represents coping characterised byworking at a problem while remaining optimistic, fit, relaxed and sociallyconnected.

2. Reference to others, which contains four strategies (seek social support, seekspiritual support, seek professional help, and social action) can be charac-terised by turning to others for support whether they be peers, professionalsor deities.

3. Non-productive coping, comprises eight strategies (worry, seek to belong,wishful thinking, not cope, ignore the problem, tension reduction, keep toself, and self-blame). These primarily reflect a combination of what may betermed non-productive, avoidance strategies that are empirically associatedwith an inability to cope. These second order factors, known as copingstyles, all have reliabilities exceeding 0.80 (Frydenberg & Lewis, 1996).

When examining the impact of the programme, it is noted that three of the four


1: Seek Social Support is represented by items that indicate an inclination to share theproblem with others and enlist support in its management (e.g., Talk to other people to helpme sort it out).

2: Focus On Solving The Problem is a problem-focused strategy that tackles theproblem systematically by learning about it and takes into account different points of viewor options (e.g., Work at solving the problem to the best of my ability).

3: Work Hard And Achieve is a strategy describing commitment, ambition (achievewell) and industry (e.g., Work hard).

4: Worry is characterised by items that indicate a concern about the future in generalterms or more specifically concern with happiness in the future. e.g., Worry about what ishappening

5: Invest In Close Friends is about engaging in a particular intimate relationship (e.g.,Spend more time with boy/girl friend).

6: Seek To Belong indicates a caring and concern for one’s relationship with others ingeneral and more specifically concern with what others think, e.g. (Improve my relationshipwith others).

7: Wishful Thinking is characterised by items based on hope and anticipation of apositive outcome (e.g., Hope for the best).

8: Social Action is about letting others know what is of concern and enlisting supportby writing petitions or organising an activity such as a meeting or a rally (e.g., Join withpeople who have the same concern).

9: Tension Reduction is characterised by items that reflect an attempt to make oneselffeel better by releasing tension (e.g., Make myself feel better by taking alcohol, cigarettes orother drugs).

10: Not Cope consists of items that reflect the individual’s inability to deal with theproblem and the development of psychosomatic symptoms (e.g., I have no way of dealingwith the situation).

11: Ignore The Problem is characterised by items that reflect a conscious blocking outof the problem and resignation coupled with an acceptance that there is no way of dealingwith it (e.g., Ignore the problem).

12: Self-Blame indicates that an individual sees themselves as responsible for theconcern or worry (e.g., Accept that I am responsible for the problem).

13: Keep To Self is characterised by items that reflect the individual’s withdrawal fromothers and wish to keep others from knowing about concerns (e.g., Keep my feelings tomyself).

14: Seek Spiritual Support is characterised by items that reflect prayer and belief in theassistance of a spiritual leader or Lord (e.g., Pray for help and guidance so that everythingwill be all right).

15: Focus On The Positive is represented by items that indicate a positive and cheerfuloutlook on the current situation. This includes seeing the ‘bright side’ of circumstances andseeing oneself as fortunate (e.g., Look on the bright side of things and think of all that isgood).

16: Seek Professional Help denotes the use of a professional adviser, such as a teacheror counsellor (e.g., Discuss the problem with qualified people).

17: Seek Relaxing Diversions is about relaxation in general rather than about sport. Itis characterised by items that describe leisure activities such as reading and painting (e.g.,Find a way to relax, for example, listen to music, read a book, play a musical instrument,watch TV).

18: Physical Recreation is characterised by items that relate to playing sport and keepingfit (e.g., Keep fit and healthy)

Figure 1. The conceptual areas of coping


studies considered in this investigation reported only coping styles as theoutcomes. Only one reported the impact of the intervention on both styles andstrategies. The styles, as defined, provide insights into the effectiveness of theintervention since two of them highlight Productive (i.e., desirable) copingresponses, and Non-productive (i.e., undesirable) coping responses. Due totheir empirically supported relationship with well-being and dysfunction,respectively (Frydenberg & Lewis, 1999b), these outcomes are most appropri-ate for establishing the effectiveness of a coping intervention.

Despite the validity of these measures, the evaluation is to some extentlimited. This is because styles, as defined earlier, comprise a number ofstrategies. For example, Solving the Problem (Productive coping) is defined askeeping fit and being socially connected while focusing on the positive andattempting to solve the problem. It is possible that a programme may impactsome of these strategies while not affecting or even reducing reliance on otherswithin the style. Therefore, using the style as an outcome may mask the successof a programme. In summary, consideration of styles as a criterion variable maybe seen as a limitation of the current investigation. The second limitationrelates to the use of a self-report survey inventory. The validity of any self-report as a measure of behaviour cannot be assumed. Despite these reserva-tions, as noted earlier, the scales have good indicators of both reliability andvalidity (Frydenberg & Lewis, 1993, 1996, 1999b). A further limitation of theanalysis that has implications for generalisation relates to the observation thatthe four studies reported involved only two settings. Caution when generalisingto other settings needs to be exercised.

The Programme

The principle that underscores the BOC Programme is that we can all do whatwe do better. If we do not like how we cope in certain contexts we can learnnew strategies. It is possible to enhance and develop one’s coping if we have aframework within which to do that. The ACS, with its 18 conceptual areas ofcoping, provides a framework and language with which individuals and groupscan obtain their coping profile and make changes in their coping practices.Thus, the ACS provides the underpinning of this coping skills programme.

Session 1 of the BOC Programme provides an introduction to the theoreticalframework and language of coping that is first introduced by the ACS and thatis utilised in many of the subsequent sessions. Session 2 on Good Thinkinghelps young people become aware of the ways in which they can change howthey think and, subsequently, how they appraise events (positively or nega-tively), and how they cope. Session 3 has an emphasis on what not to do. Theevidence is emerging very clearly that when it comes to coping it is importantto teach young people what not to do as much as what to do. It is the use ofthe non-productive coping strategies such as worry, self-blame and tensionreduction that is most readily associated with depression (Cunningham &Walker, 1999). Session 4 emphasises communication skills that play an import-


ant part in effective interactions. Asking for help depends on the capacity tocommunicate effectively. The next six sessions (Problem Solving, MakingDecisions, Goal Setting, Goal Getting, Aiming High and Time Management)provide an essential set of skills for high school students. Appendix 1 outlinesin brief the focus and content of the 10 sessions.

Study 1 In this study the impact of the Programme was assessed on Year 10students (16–17 years old) in a Melbourne co-educational high school (Lus-combe-Smith, 2000). The sample consisted of 83 students (39 males, 44females). All students participated in the Programme and there was no controlgroup.

The Programme was implemented across the entire year level by a registeredpsychologist/counsellor as part of the students’ pastoral care programme. Allparticipants completed the ACS on three occasions; prior to programmeimplementation, one week after programme completion, and six months afterprogramme completion.

The results indicated a significant increase in the coping style Reference toOthers, with males increasing their use of this coping style more than femalesupon completion of the Programme. No other significant changes in copingwere noted.

Study 2 The second study to be discussed was undertaken by Bugalski andFrydenberg (2000), and used the same sample of students as in Study 1. Thisstudy only investigated the students’ scores on the ACS on two occasions; priorto programme implementation and one week after programme completion.Consequently, there were fewer students who needed to be excluded due toincomplete data sets. The total number of students utilised in the study was113 (57 males, 56 females). The students of interest in this study were thosedeemed to be “at risk”. Such a rating came from scores on the Children’sAttribution Styles Questionnaire (CASQ) (Seligman, 1995) and the PerceivedControl of Internal States Questionnaire (PCIS) (Pallant, 1998). Scores onthese two scales were both divided into three groups, thus producing low,middle and high scoring groups. Students scoring in the low range for both thePCIS (32–46) and the CASQ ( � 7 to 2) were deemed to be “at risk” (n � 22).Those students scoring in the high range for both the PCIS (51–65) and theCASQ (4–17.5) were deemed resilient and were labelled the “resilient” group(n � 23). Those remaining students who had some combination of scores otherthan those already stated were considered intermediate and were named the“main” group (n � 68).

The “at risk” group consisted of students considered to be at risk fordepression. The 22 students who comprised this group were approximately20% of the sample. Kosky (1994) suggests that 1% of Australian school-agedchildren suffer from major depression and 14% of children show milderdegrees of depression. These figures concur with the findings of this study, asit is probable that not all students vulnerable to depression will manifest


symptoms. The “resilient” group consisted of students considered to be resist-ant to the development of depression. The 23 students in this group consti-tuted approximately 20% of the sample. No research to date offers informationabout the incidence of “resilience” in a normal population of children. Sixty-eight students made up a third group of students considered to be in themiddle range (i.e., not particularly vulnerable, yet not resistant to depression).

After participating in the BOC Programme, a decrease in Non-productivecoping was found in the “at risk” group, while Non-productive coping in-creased in the “resilient” and “main” groups. The mean scores for Referenceto Others coping indicated an overall increase across all subgroups. Once againmean scores for Productive (emotion-focused) coping indicated an increase inthis coping style for the “at risk” and “main” groups, and a decrease for the“resilient” group. The mean scores for Productive (problem-focused) copingindicate a decrease in this style of coping across all subgroups.

Changes in coping style due to programme exposure showed some differ-ences between males and females. Females appeared to benefit from theProgramme due to a small decrease in Non-productive coping, while malesappeared to increase in this type of coping style. The females also appeared toincrease their use of Productive (emotion-focused) coping, while males de-creased this type of behaviour. Both groups appeared to benefit from theprogramme by increasing their use of Reference to Others coping; however, themales showed a significantly greater increase than the females. The slightchanges in Productive, problem-focused coping style did not differ between thegenders.

Bugalski and Frydenberg (2000) report in summary that there was evidencefor the benefits of the Programme in the decreases in Non-Productive re-sponses for the “at risk” group; however, the “resilient” group appeared toincrease their use of this type of coping style. The considerable gain inReference to Others coping was similar for both the “at risk” and “resilient”groups.

Both Studies 1 and 2 were focused at the Year 10 level and used a facilitatorwho was unfamiliar to the student participants. It has been suggested thatinterventions should be offered to students by the time they reach Year 9/10,since that is the age when there is a significant increase in usage of Non-pro-ductive coping strategies (Frydenberg & Lewis, 2000). Nevertheless, it isimportant to consider the benefits of the coping skills programme for differingage cohorts.

The following two studies were conducted in the same school on twooccasions, two years apart. On both occasions the Programme was presentedby the school’s own teachers.

Study 3Participants A sample of 88 Year 7 students (49 males, 39 females) was

recruited from a secondary school in a western suburb of Melbourne, Australia.This school was willing to implement the BOC Programme as part of


Table 1. Descriptive statistics for dependent variables for pre-test (Time 1) and post-test(Time 2) for intervention and control groups (Study 3)

Intervention group Control group

Mean (standardMean (standardnVariable ndeviation) deviation)

Productive coping66.96 (10.3)Time 1 4570.30 (12.1) 43

Time 2 2771.54 (11.1) 65.78 (8.4)30Non-productive coping

Time 1 58.73 (13.3) 43 46.98 (8.8) 45Time 2 3351.84 (11.7) 47.55 (9.9)33

Reference to OthersTime 1 4549.54 (17.3) 39.39 (12.5)43Time 2 47.81 (17.5) 32 35.75 (8.8) 31

Self-efficacyTime 1 4047.77 (9.6) 52.93 (6.5)39Time 2 53.17 (7.5) 35 3150.65 (5.9)

pastoral care curriculum. The students’ ages ranged from 11 years 11 monthsto 13 years 10 months. Two classes (43 students) participated in the Pro-gramme and two classes (45 students) were used as a control group. After theProgramme, participant numbers were reduced to 75, as a result of schoolabsenteeism.

Procedure Prior to programme implementation, teachers consulted with theschool psychologist regarding the content of the Programme as well as variousstrategies for introducing the different concepts outlined in the Programme.Both the teacher and the school psychologist were together in the classroomand conducted the BOC Programme as a team.

The intervention and control groups were chosen according to time tablingconsiderations; that is, where the teachers were available to teach the groups atthe same time, or on the same day, they became the intervention groups. TheACS was administered to both the intervention and control group participantsin similar classroom conditions, prior to the Programme being conducted(Cotta, Frydenberg, & Poole, 2000). The students participating in the BOCProgramme had one-hour sessions every week for 10 weeks while the controlgroup did not receive the Programme. These sessions were within school hoursas part of the pastoral care subject that students were required to do as part ofthe school curriculum. The control group continued with their regular pastoralcare programme. At the completion of the Programme, the ACS and PCISwere administered to both the intervention and control groups.

Results As reported in Cotta et al. (2000), due to the nature of sampling, theintervention and control groups differed to some extent on the pre-test (seeTable 1).


Table 2. Gains of intervention and control groups from occasion 1 to occasion 2 fordependent variables and t-tests of the differences (Study 3)

Variable Gain Difference Degrees offreedom t

Intervention Controlgroup group

55 � 0.87Productive coping � 0.65 � 0.43 � 0.16Non-productive coping � 7.38 � 2.05 � 9.43 64 � 3.21**Reference to Others � 0.69� 0.64 61� 2.67 � 2.03

64 � 2.94**Self-efficacy � 5.34 � 2.89 � 8.24

** p � .01

Consequently an analysis of gains was conducted. The gains of the Interven-tion and Control groups from pre-test to post-test are presented in Table 2.

The changes from pre-test to post-test showed some dramatic differences forthe intervention and the control groups. The slight gain in Productive Copingin the intervention group was similar to that in the control group, so thisdifference proved to be non-significant. There was evidence, however, of thebenefits of the Programme in the strong lift in Self-efficacy for the interventiongroup contrasting with a slight fall in these scores for the control group. Thisdifference was clearly statistically significant. Non-productive coping fellsharply in the intervention group while the control group showed something ofan opposite trend. This difference was statistically significant. The third styleof coping, Reference to Others, showed some tendency to fall in both groups,so there was no significant difference between the intervention and controlgroups on this variable. No gender-related analyses were reported.

Cotta et al. (2000) continued the analysis, reporting changes in variousstrategies that composed the coping styles. These results are reported in Table3, which includes values for t-test analyses for related samples that were conduc-ted on pre-scores and post-scores for each of the 18 subscales of the ACS.

Inspection of the data in Table 3 indicates that there are many moresignificant differences, pre-test to post-test, on the 18 strategies for the inter-vention group compared with the control group. The intervention groupshowed significant drops in the utilisation of strategies such as worry(P � 0.01), seek to belong (P � 0.05), wishful thinking (P � 0.01), not cope(P � 0.01), keep to self (P � 0.01), spiritual support (P � 0.05), and, probablymost importantly, self-blame (P � 0.001). In contrast the control group showsa significant increase in self-blame (P � 0.05), although decreases on work hard(P � 0.05) and social action (P � 0.05).

Study 4

Participants Two years later a second study was conducted in the samemetropolitan high school (McCarthy, 2001). The 235 students were in intact


Table 3. Gains of intervention and control groups from occasion 1 to occasion 2 for copingstrategies and t-tests of the differences (Study 3)

Coping strategy Gain Difference Degrees tE–C of

freedom

E C

67 � 0.87Seek social support � 4.11 � 0.41 � 3.70Focus on solving problem � 5.22 0.00 � 5.22 71 � 1.21Work hard and achieve � 1.93� 0.21 73� 4.76 � 4.97

72 � 2.04*Worry � 8.76 � 0.76 � 8.00Invest in close friends � 0.11 � 2.11 � 2.01 70 � 0.57Seek to belong � 0.98� 6.89 70� 3.06 � 3.83Wishful thinking 71� 9.86 � 2.08*� 0.39 � 9.48Not coping � 8.21 � 3.68 � 11.89 73 � 3.18**Tension reduction � 1.23� 3.33 70� 0.11 � 3.44Social action 68� 1.92 � 0.73� 4.56 � 2.64Ignore the problem � 4.19 � 3.24 � 7.43 72 � 1.72Self-blame � 3.79***� 10.26 72� 7.08 � 17.35Keep to self 70� 8.65 � 2.04*� 0.14 � 8.51Seek spiritual help � 5.26 � 0.54 � 5.80 73 � 1.57Focus on the positive � 0.84� 2.84 68� 0.61 � 3.44Seek professional help � 0.42 � 2.36 70� 2.78 � 0.68Seek relaxing diversions � 0.33� 1.29 710.00 � 1.29

71Physical recreation � 0.49� 1.14 � 0.19 � 1.33

* p � .05** p � .01*** p � .001

classes in Year 7. The intervention group comprised 179 students (98 males,81, females) while the control group numbered 56 (35 males, 21 females).Their ages ranged from 11 years 11 months to 13 years 10 months.

Procedure Again the school implemented the BOC Programme as part of itspastoral care curriculum, administered by the school’s pastoral care teachers.As reported earlier the teachers and the school psychologist jointly imple-mented the Programme. In Study 4 three teachers and a school psychologistwere trained in the techniques of conducting the Programme by an externalpsychologist during a two-day inservice training sessions. The three teachersand the school psychologist then trained the remaining 10 pastoral careteachers in a one-day inservice session, employing a more condensed form ofthe training that they had received.

There were 13 pastoral care classes to which students were randomlyassigned at the beginning of the year. At the beginning of the second term, all13 classes were administered the ACS by the researcher over a two-day period,due to the large number of classes. This served as the pre-test for thisexperiment. From here 10 of the 13 classes began the Programme, with the


Table 4. Means and standard deviations of Productive coping and Non-productive copingof the intervention and control groups over time (Study 4)

Intervention Control

StandardStandarddeviation MeanMean deviation

Productive coping73.45Time 1 8.573.75 9.7

Time 2 8.872.09 72.921.2Non-productivecoping

8.0Time 1 53.3052.97 10.5Time 2 54.2351.53 9.610.7

remaining three classes commencing the Programme in the third term. Assuch, the 10 classes were considered to be the intervention group while thelatter three classes were used as the control group even though they eventuallyparticipated in the Programme. During the first week of the third term,approximately four weeks after the conclusion of the Programme for theintervention group and one week before the commencement for the controlgroup, the post-test ACS was administered to the participants.

Results Inspection of data in Table 4 indicates that the intervention groupdecreased in Non-productive coping while the control group increased. Thesechanges, however, were statistically non-significant. In contrast, Productivecoping appeared relatively unchanged in both the control and the interventiongroups. No gender differences were reported.

In order to investigate whether there was any significant effect of classmembership on coping, among the 10 classes that comprised the interventiongroup, a repeated measures multiple analysis of variance was conducted. In thisanalysis, class was a between-subjects factor and Productive coping and Non-productive coping were dependent factors. A significant main effect was foundfor class (P � 0.05) and for class over time (P � 0.05). The univariate effectsindicated that the significant effect of class was carried by both Productivecoping (P � 0.05) and Non-productive coping (P � 0.05). Consequently it canbe argued that the effect of a programme depended upon the class and thetrainer.

Discussion

This paper presented evaluations of a school-based coping skills programme intwo settings. In the first setting (Study 1 and Study 2) the Programme was runat a Metropolitan high school as part of the Year 10 curriculum. Results for


this group showed a significant increase in Reference to Others coping postProgramme, for all groups. The “at risk” group appeared to show a decreasein the use of Non-productive coping post Programme, in comparison with the“resilient” group.

In the second setting (Study 3 and Study 4), through collaboration betweenschool staff and either a school psychologist or counsellor, a total of 323adolescents were recruited from a Melbourne high school and divided intointervention and control groups, with the intervention group receiving theProgramme. In Study 3, results showed significant decreases in Non-productive coping for the intervention group post Programme (as well as atrend indicating increases in Productive coping). In particular, a decrease wasnoted in adolescents’ use of worry, seek to belong, wishful thinking, not cope,keep to self, spiritual support and, probably most importantly, self-blame. Incontrast, the control group showed a significant increase in self-blame,although decreases on work hard and social action were noted. In summary,the intervention appeared to be successful in reducing reliance on strategiesgenerally labelled elsewhere as maladaptive (Frydenberg & Lewis, 2000,2002b). In contrast, the results of Study 4 indicate no significant impact of thesame programme in the same school, two years later.

While in two studies gender differences in Reference to Others and Non-pro-ductive coping were noted, gender was not considered in the other two studies.When gender differences were reported, however, male participants in theProgramme appeared to increase their usage of Reference to Others whilefemales decreased their usage. The opposite occurred for Non-productivecoping. Consequently, it is highly recommended that any evaluation of acoping skills programme needs to examine its differential impact upon malesand females. This is particularly important as ignoring the possibility ofopposite effects on males and females may underestimate the programme’simpact. It is important for teachers and instructors to be consciousof the differential ways in which programmes might benefit boys and girlsand the need to adapt both the content and the process to their particularneeds.

In general, the findings provide modest support for the value of the BOCProgramme for students, particularly those at risk. However, the results ofStudy 4 appeared to indicate a potential problem related to the implementationof the Programme. In Study 3, where the psychologist was actively involved inthe teaching of the Programme together with the classroom teachers, and inwhich all teachers conducting the Programme were trained by the psychologist,the Programme appeared to have had maximum impact. In contrast, in Study4 only three of the 13 pastoral care teachers conducting the Programme weretrained by the psychologist. They in turn trained the remaining 10 pastoral careteachers. A further difference can be noted between the training offered toteachers in Studies 3 and 4. In the former all teachers received two daystraining, in the latter three teachers received one day inservice and the remain-ing 10 received approximately a half-day.


Implications for Applied Practice

This study clearly indicates that where teachers together with psychologists areinvolved in the delivery of the Programme to students it was most successful.Every teacher can play an important role in prevention and early interventionprogrammes and activities that strengthen the resilience of students as theylearn and develop. However, it would seem that there is a need for ongoingsupport for teachers if the benefits are to be maximised.

Student welfare is the responsibility of all staff working in a school context.Each teacher has a vital role (to play) as a source of support, in turndetermining the success of their students. The most significant amount ofstudents’ time, apart from family, is spent with teachers who are often a mostimportant adult connection—the first contact point for many issues and ser-vices. Teachers know that the social and emotional issues of students thatemerge during the course of their schooling have great impact upon thecommunity and can create serious, ongoing problems. Thus, any programmethat can contribute to social emotional well-being is desirable. Nevertheless,careful consideration needs to be given to the delivery of such programmes.In particular, the implications of the data reported is that teachers requireadequate preparation and the ongoing support of guidance and counsellingpersonnel in order to ensure successful programme implementation.

The framework policy documents issued by the Department of Education,Victoria (1998a, 1998b, 1999) emphasise a whole school approach to buildingresiliency in young people through programmes and strategies that fosteradaptive coping skills to enable students to better deal with difficult issues,including depression, self-harm and substance abuse. Specifically, the effective-ness of coping skills is significant in how young people cope with stress andadversity. There is clear evidence that having effective coping and problem-solving skills lessens the risk of depression in the face of negative life events.Thus, the current series of studies is consistent with policies at the national andstate level that recognise that proactive programmes, and approaches areurgently needed to redress the high levels of emotional distress experienced bymany young people in schools. The results from the Programme support thefeasibility of implementing low-cost, non-intrusive programmes utilising sys-tems and structures already in place. Schools and school communities areurgently seeking ways of enhancing resiliency in young people. Hence im-plementation and evaluation of programmes grounded firmly upon theoreticalprinciples that enhance coping skills in the school context are of paramountimportance.

Universal school-based intervention programmes promoting resilience inyoung people through utilising resources already available within the com-munities are scarce. The BOC model of programme implementation is innova-tive and cost-effective, and ensures that the Programme is owned andembedded within educational communities. The latter factor is deemed essen-tial for any longer-term effectiveness of prevention programmes (Elias, 1991;Reiss & Price, 1996).


References

Bugalski, K., & Frydenberg, E. (2000). Promoting effective coping in adolescents “at-risk”for depression. Australian Journal of Guidance & Counselling, 10, 111–132.

Compas, B. E., & Hammen, C. L. (1994). Child and adolescent depression: Covariationand comorbidity in development. In R. J. Haggerty, L. R. Sherrod, N. Garmezy, &M. Rutter (Eds.), Stress, risk, and resilience in children and adolescents: Processes,mechanisms, and interventions (pp. 225–267). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Cotta, A., Frydenberg, E., & Poole, C. (2000). Coping skills training for adolescents atschool. The Australian Educational and Developmental Psychologist, 17, 103–116.

Cunningham, E. G., & Walker, G. (1999). Screening for at-risk youth: Predicting ado-lescent depression from coping styles. Australian Journal of Guidance and Counselling,9, 15–24.

Cunningham, E. G., Brandon, C. M., & Frydenberg, E. (1999). Building resilience in earlyadolescence through a universal school-based prevention programme. AustralianJournal of Guidance & Counselling, 9, 37–47.

Cunningham, E. G., Brandon, C. M., & Frydenberg, E. (2000). The development of copingresources in pre-adolescence within the context of the whole-school curriculum. East Lansing,MI: Resources in Education (ERIC Document Reproduction Services No.CG029974).

Dadds, M. R., Spence, S. H., Holland, D. E., Barrett, P. M., & Laurens, K. R. (1997).Prevention and early intervention for anxiety disorders: A controlled trial. Journal ofConsulting and Clinical Psychology, 65, 627–635.

Department of Education, Victoria (1998a). Framework for student support services in Victo-rian government schools. Melbourne: Department of Education, Victoria.

Department of Education, Victoria (1998b). Framework for student support services inVictorian government schools: Professional development support materials. Melbourne:Department of Education, Victoria.

Department of Education, Victoria (1999). Framework for student support services in Victoriangovernment schools: Teacher resource. Melbourne: Department of Education, Victoria.

Diekstra, R. F. (1995). Depression and suicidal behaviours in adolescence: Socioculturaland time trends. In M. Rutter (Ed.), Psychosocial disturbances in young people (pp. 212–247). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Durlak, J. A., & Wells, A. M. (1997). Primary prevention mental health porgrams forchildren and adolescents: A meta-analytic review. American Journal of CommunityPsychology, 25, 115–152.

Elias, M. J. (1991). A multilevel action-research perspective on stress-related interventions.In M. E. Colten, & S. Gore (Eds.), Adolescent stress: Causes and consequences (pp. 261–279). New York: Walter de Gruyter.

Frydenberg, E., & Brandon, C. M. (2002). The best of coping. Melbourne: Oz Child.Frydenberg. E., & Lewis, R. (1993). Manual: The Adolescent Coping Scale. Melbourne:

Australian Council for Educational Research.Frydenberg. E., & Lewis, R. (1996). The Adolescent Coping Scale: Multiple forms and

applications of a self report inventory in a counselling and research context. EuropeanJournal of Psychological Assessment, 12, 216–227.

Frydenberg, E., & Lewis, R. (1999a). Things don’t get better just because you’re older: Acase for facilitating reflection. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 69, 81–94.

Frydenberg, E., & Lewis, R. (1999b). The Adolescent Coping Scale: Construct Validity andwhat the instrument tells us. Australian Journal of Guidance and Counselling, 9, 19–36.

Frydenberg. E., & Lewis, R. (2000). Coping with stresses and concerns during adolescence:A longitudinal study. American Educational Research Journal, 37, 727–745.

Frydenberg. E., & Lewis, R. (2002a). Concomitants of failure to cope: What we shouldteach adolescents about coping. The British Journal of Educational Psychology, 72,419–443.


Frydenberg, E., & Lewis, R. (2002b). Adolescent well-being: Building young people’sresources. In E. Frydenberg (Ed.), Beyond coping: Meeting goals, vision and challenges(pp. 175–194). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Kosky, R. (1994). Children, adolescents and depression. Mental Health in Australia, 6,9–11.

Kovacs, M. (1997). Depressive disorders in childhood: An impressionistic landscape.Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 38, 287–298.

Lazarus, R. S. (1991). Emotion and adaption. New York: Oxford University Press.Luscombe-Smith, N. (2000). Effectiveness of a school based coping skills programme on

adolescents use of productive coping styles and locus of control. Unpublished masters thesis,University of Melbourne, Melbourne.

Matheny, K. B., Aycock, D. W., & McCarthy, C. J. (1993). Stress in school-aged childrenand youth. Educational Psychology Review, 5, 109–134.

McCarthy, K. (2001). Assessing the effectiveness of Bright Lives—Best of Coping programme inadolescents across three secondary schools in Melbourne. Master of Educational Psy-chology Thesis, University of Melbourne (submitted).

Pallant, J. F. (1998). Development and evaluation of a multidimensional, multidomain inventoryto measure perceived control of internal states. Unpublished doctoral thesis, MonashUniversity, Melbourne.

Reiss, D., & Price, R. H. (1996). National research agenda for prevention research: TheNational Institute of Mental Health report. American Psychologist, 51, 1109–1115.

Roberts, C. M. (1999). The prevention of depression in children and adolescents. Aus-tralian Psychologist, 34, 49–57.

Rosenman, S. J. (1998). Preventing suicide: what will work and what will not. MedicalJournal of Australia, 169, 100–102.

Roth, J., Brooks-Gunn, J., Murray, L., & Foster, W. (1998). Promoting healthy adoles-cents: Synthesis of youth development programme evaluations, Journal of Research onAdolescence, 8, 423–459.

Seligman, M. E. (1995). The optimistic child. NSW: Random House Australia.Shochet, I., & Osgarby, S. (1999). The Resourceful Adolescent Project: Building psycho-

logical resilience in adolescents and their parents. The Australian Educational andDevelopmental Psychologist, 16, 43–64.

Appendix 1.The Best of Coping: Developing Coping Skills

Outlines of Sessions

Module 1: Map of coping. Looks at how each of us deals (or copes) with difficult situations,problems or worries and explores different coping strategies.

Module 2: Good thinking. The aim is to understand the connection between thoughts andfeelings and to learn to evaluate and change thinking.

Module 3: Heading down the wrong track: Strategies that don’t help. Looks at some Non-pro-ductive coping strategies that people use and to explores some helpful alternatives

Module 4: Getting along with others. The session focuses on how to get our messages acrossand how to listen to messages from others

Module 5: Asking for help. Explores the links we have with family and friendsModule 6: Problem solving. Teaches the steps of problem-solving and provides practice in

using themModule 7: Making decisions. Teaches how to explore options to make good decisionsModule 8: Goal setting. Teaches the relationship between goals and achievement and ex-

plores goals for the participant’s own future


Module 9: Goal getting. Discover the elements of effective goal setting and how to writedetailed goals

Module 10: Managing time. Teaches participants how to evaluate their time and to learn tomanage it in an effective way

coping skills adolescents

Documents