ABSTRACT
Introduction: The study's objective was to evaluate whether a qualitative, collaborative, and multimethod assessment protocol increased reports of character strength interest, knowledge, and perceived skills. Methods: Thirty-two participants completed three phases of data collection. Participants were first screened for well-being, which was used as an auxiliary covariate to order participants into experimental conditions. Selected participants were randomly assigned to a control or collaborative and multimethod assessment (card sort × qualitative interview) condition. Participants completed pre- and post-measures of strength interest, knowledge, and perceived skill. In the final phase, second phase participants were invited to report on strength-related outcomes 24 h post-administration using an online survey. Results: A series of 2 (Assessment Condition) × 3 (Time) mixed ANOVAs were analyzed. Results revealed a significant assessment condition by time interaction for strength knowledge and perceived skill. Participants in the collaborative and multimethod assessment condition reported higher strength knowledge and perceived skills compared to control participants. These effects were maintained for 24 h. Conclusion: The findings offer preliminary yet sizable support for using collaborative and multimethod assessment procedures to increase strength knowledge and perceived skill. Because of the qualitative, collaborative, and individualized nature of our assessment protocol, the findings offer a low-cost and contextually bound pathway to increase strength-based outcomes.
ABSTRACT
The current study examined children and families who presented for treatment through Project SAFE (Sexual Abuse Family Education) following childhood sexual abuse. Pretreatment assessment data were used to develop clusters of participants with significantly differing presentation of symptom outcome following abuse. Four clusters were discovered: (a) a Highly Distressed group, whose members had clinically elevated scores on all self- and parent-report measures; (b) a Problem Behaviors group, whose members had scores within the normal range for self-report measures and elevated scores on all parent-report measures; (c) a Subclinical group, whose participants had scores below the mean and below cutoff scores for all self- and parent-report measures; and (d) a Self-reported Distress group, whose members had elevated scores on self-report measures and scores below clinical cutoffs for all parent-report measures.
Subject(s)
Adult Survivors of Child Abuse/classification , Child Abuse, Sexual/classification , Child Abuse, Sexual/rehabilitation , Family/psychology , Personality , Adult , Adult Survivors of Child Abuse/psychology , Adult Survivors of Child Abuse/statistics & numerical data , Anxiety/epidemiology , Child , Child Abuse, Sexual/psychology , Child Abuse, Sexual/statistics & numerical data , Comorbidity , Defense Mechanisms , Depression/epidemiology , Female , Humans , Life Change Events , Male , Middle Aged , Parent-Child Relations , Personality Development , Self ConceptABSTRACT
Practitioners in rural areas face particular challenges in providing psychological services, ranging from disparate rates of mental disorders to unique circumstances in treating special populations. In this article, we discuss the burden of mental disorders in rural areas, current trends in integration of mental health care and primary care, and unique concerns practitioners face in treating two special populations in rural areas (children and families, and older adults and their caregivers). Implications for practice are also discussed.
