Pilot evaluation of the feasibility and acceptability of StressOFF Strategies: a single-session school-based stress management program for adolescents
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The present study reports the pilot evaluation of the feasibility and acceptability of StressOFF Strategies, a single-session (45 min) adolescent-targeted, school-based psychoeducational program, which introduces cognitive behavioral techniques and mindfulness-based techniques. Five hundred and sixty-five Grade 9 students (57% female; M age = 14.97, SD = 0.36) completed self-report measures of stress, current stress management use, satisfaction with program, understanding of and future willingness to use strategies taught. Pre-intervention, 35.04% of participants reported a moderate–high overall stress level. Furthermore, all participants initially reported limited strategy use with distraction as the most common strategy (68.89%). Post-intervention, 88.67% of participants rated the program as good to excellent with over 87% of participants reporting understanding strategies quite well to very well, and 76–87% of participants indicating high levels of willingness to use each strategy. Females reported high levels of stress, greater satisfaction with the program, and better understanding and willingness to use strategies. Implications for schools are discussed.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".