Coping and Emotional Development for Adolescents to Reduce Stress (CEDARS): Pilot test of a school-based positive psychological intervention for adolescents
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Introduction: This study tested the feasibility and preliminary efficacy of Coping and Emotional Development for Adolescents to Reduce Stress (CEDARS) a positive psychological intervention (PPI), tailored for adolescents and administered in a classroom setting, in boosting CEDARS skill use and emotional well-being. Method: Adolescents (N = 102, 45% female) aged 13-15, in four physical education classes at the same school were randomly assigned by classroom to either receive the CEDARS intervention (n = 59) or engage in the usual class activities (n = 44). Participants completed self-report measures at three time points assessing use of intervention skills, positive and negative affect, depressive symptoms, and perceived stress. Results and Conclusion: Groups differed significantly on race with 57% of the intervention group compared to 75% of the control group identifying as Asian or Pacific Islander. Race-adjusted analyses revealed that both groups improved on intervention skill use, negative affect, depressive symptoms, and perceived stress. The group by time interaction was significant such that the CEDARS group increased skill use from pre- to post- intervention and this difference persisted at follow-up. Contrary to hypotheses, there were also significant group by time interactions indicating that the control group had a steeper decline in depression and perceived stress from pre- to post-intervention. Students reported high acceptability and feasibility and suggested key changes to increase engagement. The current study expands on the existing PPI literature focused on adolescents and highlights the need for larger and more diverse samples, as well as developmentally- and culturally-tailored interventions.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".