Preparing Students for Junior High School

6 downloads 0 Views 437KB Size Report
The authors thank Robert J. Haggerty, Richard VanderLinda and Evelyn Hogan. ... Gilchrist, Schilling and Schinke (1985) asked youths about their concerns ...
Jow:nal of Early Adolescence 1986, Vol 6, No. 2, Page 127-137

Preparing Students for Junior High School William H. Snow Department of Psychology Bethany College Lewayne Gilchrist University of Washington Robert F. Schilling Columbia University Steven Paul Schinke Columbia University Cheryl Kelso University of Washington

Abstract The entrance into junior high school is a critical but seldom studied event in the life of the adolescent Little has been done to prepare youths for the transition. This study evaluated a skills building approach to prepare sixth graders for the entry to junior high. The curriculum was administered to two grade schools (n = 138) with two additional grade schools (n = 140) serving as controls. At the conclusion of post testing, youths in the skills training condition were more informed about junior high school, percieved themselves to be more prepared, and were better able to handle stress and peer pressure than the youths in the control condition. They used more direct refusals as a tactic in handling peer pressure, and were able to generate more options for dealing with tough situations. Generally, results of the study support claims of program effectiveness. ,, Supported by a grant from the William T. Grant Foundation. :;~ The authors thank Robert J. Haggerty, Richard VanderLinda and Evelyn Hogan.

[ 127]

128

W H. Snow, L. Gilchrist, R. F. Schilling, S. P Schinke, & C Kelso

The entry into junior high school ushers in a new world of complexity (Hamburg, 1974). Little has been done to study its effect on youths and even less has been done to help them cope with the change (Snow, Gilchrist, Schilling, & Schinke, 1985). Sixth graders worry about the demands of new teachers and fear the prospect of failure (Finger & Silverman, 1966). They are given increased responsibility for class attendance, personal conduct, and academic decisions. Junior high school students no longer can look to a single teacher for support but instead must adapt to the demands and limitations of several instructors. The junior high system itself, with strange buildings, new teachers, and multiple classrooms can be confusin& Many fear getting lost. Students also may feel anonymous and lonely. The problem is compounded as schools increase in size (Karweit & Hansell, 1983). Fifty percent of junior high students will try cigarettes and many will continue, thereby increasing their risk for lung cancer, heart disease, and emphysema (Luoto, 1983). Sixty-five percent will use alcohol and 25% will use marijuana (Miller et al., 1982); a portion of these will become permanent users. Eighteen percent of boys and 6% of the girls 13 to 14 years of age will experiment with sex; over a million of these girls will become pregnant (Guttmacher Institute, 1981). Depression is common among youths, often leading to chronic feelings of distress (Kaplan, Robbins, & Martin, 1983). Finally, suicide has become the second leading cause of death for the 12 to 24 age group, up 300% since 1950 (Prophit, 1979; Ladame & Jeanneret, 1982). The stress that accompanies junior high is formidable but predictable, suggesting the application of a broad-based, universal approach to prevention. Efforts should address the major problems of alcohol. tobacco, drugs, and sexuality, while still attending to the less serious but more prevalent concerns of youths such as physical intimidation and fighting (Kolodny, 1984). Mitman and Packer (1982) and Snow, Gilchrist, Schilling and Schinke (1985) asked youths about their concerns with entering junior high. Most mentioned that they feared the difficulty of school work; the potential of fighting; getting beat up or being robbed; the lack of privacy in restrooms and while undressing for gym; the strangeness of a new school; and the problem of maldng new friends and keeping old ones. This study describes a program designed to address the relevant concerns of youths in helping them cope with the transition to junior high school. It also evaluated the program's effectiveness as a means of inoculating youths against stress (Poser, 1970; Meichenbaum & Novaco. 1978). THE COPING SKILLS CURRICULUM Prevention researchers agree that schools are optimal sites for programs to streamline transitions, reduce stress, and promote the positive mental health of children and adolescents (Caplan, 1965; Jason & Glenwick, in press). The "Coping with Junior High Curriculum" was designed to address the concerns raised by sixth graders. Within the stress inoculation framework young people are taught appropriate reponses to current situations and future demands. Youths are exposed to each problem situation in a controlled. training environment to prepare them for future stress.

Preparing Students

129

The intervention consisted of eight weekly sessions led by two professional educators. The co-leaders jointly delivered the instruction to all six classes in the skills-

building condition to insure the consistency of training across sites. Sessions were Jllonitored to ensure that the trainers adhered to the curriculum guidelines. The

curriculum consisted of an orientation to junior high, problem solving, stress reduction, self-instruction, and rehearsal. Individuals cope and make better decisions when they view the future accurately (M"cHugh, Christman & Johnson, 1982). But peers often provide biased, misleading,

and incorrect information. Students confronted such distortions during interviews with junior high students and staff. Speakers covered class arrangements, teacher expectations, and the junior high curriculum. Upperclass students revealed how their

own fears gave way to new friendships and involvement in such activities as sports, clubs, and informal groups. Youths were taught to stop and avoid impulsive choices when confronted with new situations (Kanfer & Busemeyer, 1982; D'Zurilla & Nezu, 1980). They were presented with a probem-solving sequence which included (1) identifying a goal, (2) generating as many solutions as possible, (3) projecting each solutiorrs shortand long-term consequences, (4) selecting one solution, (5) making plans for its implementation and (6) self-praise. Anxiety interferes with one's ability to think clearly, choose wisely, and act appropriately (Stevens & PhiL 1983). Anxious youths were taught to take a mental time-out, develop a relaxing mental image, calm down, and then proceed to constructive problem-solving. Youths were also taught to examine their "self-talk," use selfinstructional statements ("! had better wait and think about this for a while''), reinforce themselves ("All right! I knew I could do it"), and counteract real or perceived rejection through positive self-instruction. Skills-building exercises provided students with ready responses for dealing with difficult situations. Group leaders modeled effective responses and offered instruction and feedback as adolescents practiced similar strategies. Through discussion and modeling, sixth graders learned how to speak clearly and directly to peers and

teachers. They also learned how to voice preferences, offer assistance, and ask favors. Students demonstrated their use of coping skills via guided role play rehersal and written assigmnents (McFalL 1982). Role plays enabled students to practice both selfinstruction and interpersonal skills. Written assigrunents facilitated the transfer of

coping skills from the classroom to the student's larger environment. Students were asked to consider situations in which coping skills could be helpful and to write out their plans for dealing with such situations.

METHODS

Subjects The skills building condition consisted of 138 students; the control condition of 140 students. Each condition had two schools and six classes. The majority of the

130

W H Snow, L. Gilchrist, R. F. Schilling, S. P. Schinke, & C. Kelso

students in the study were female (55%). The study sample was comprised of Blacks (29%), Chicanos (11%), American Indians (51%), Asian Americans (5A%), Caucasians (77.5 %) , and a group describing themselves as mixed race (8.0%). Ages of subjects ranged from 11 to 14 years with a mean age of 11.8 years (SD= li5). Over three-quarters lived in households with two adults, 15% lived in single adult households and 10% lived in households with three or more adults. More than half the students in the study had two or more siblings; more than one third had one sibling and less than ten percent had no brothers or sisters. Design An untreated control group design with pretest and posttest was employed (Campbell & Stanley, 1963; Cook & Campbell, 1979). Four schools were randomly assigned to two conditions: (I) skills building and (2) test only control. All subjects were pretested. Skills-building condition subjects received eight hours of training over two months during the spring term of sixth grade. Posttests were then administered following the completion of training. Schools rather than subjects were the unit of assignment. When the experimental and control subjects reside in the same classroom of school, contamination can take place. Students in treatment groups often share information with friends in control groups, decreasing group differences. Randomly assigning and treating intact schools prevents the effects of leakage. Using schools as the unit of assignment has merit but also drawbacks (Cronbach, 1976). When only a few schools are randomly assigned, as in this study, pre-test differences are likely. A more serious issue is the Jack of independence of observations. Classroom, school effects, and interactions are likely. Analyses can partial out these effects, but statistical controls are not a panacea At best, the design is quasiexperimental without the internal validity of true experimental designs. Measured Variables The following measures were included in the study: demographic variables included sex, age, number of siblings, racial or ethnic identification, and the total number of adults living in the household. The Assertive Friend Cartoon Test was included to verify how well the subjects learned the skills neccessary for coping with stress and peer pressure (Bobo, Snow, Gilchrist, & Schinke, in press). Trained personnel coded subject responses into categories including I-statements, direct refusals, and indirect refusals. Coders attained inter-rater agreements of .83 to 99 in coding the skill items. Pearson product moment correlations of items from test to retest (r = .65) suggest relative response stability. Subjects were also assessed for their ability to generate alternative options for handling a problem (Kagan, 1984). Total options were added to generate a summary score. The Modified Rathus Assertiveness Schedme was included as a general measure of social skills (Del Greco, Breitbach, & McCarthy, 1981). Split-half reliability scores ranged from r= .69 tor= .81 (n = 108). Correlations with peer ratings of assertiveness ranged from r = .25 to r = .52. Peer relations was measured by a test developed by

Preparing Students

131

f!udson (1982). It is reported to have estimates of internal consistency and stability at 90 or better (Bloom & Fisher, 1982). Several general measures of coping were also included. State anxiety was t11easured by the widely used STAI A-State scale. Measures of internal consistency range form .83 to .92 (Spielberger, Gorsuch, & Lushene, 1970). The Center for Jlpidemiologic Studies Depression Scale (CES-D scale) was designed as a short scale for the measurement of depression in the general population (Radloff, 1977). _Measures of internal consistency (coefficient alpha and split halves) yield estimates of .85 to .90. Measures of stability administered four weeks apart yielded estimates of .60. Self-Esteem was measured by a 25 item test developed by Hudson (1982). Estimates of internal consistency and stability for this test are reported to be .90 or better (Bloom & Fisher, 1982). Seven items were designed specifically for this study in order to tap into various aspects of preparedness for and anxiety about entering junior high school. One item was used to tap sixth graders' feelings of comfort or anxiety when contemplating entering junior high school. Another item assesses ones' general perception of preparedness for junior high. A single item asks about how well informed the student is about junior high school Other items ask about the student's ability to handle peer pressure, academic demands, new stresses, and to solve problems. As these items are newly developed, only preliminary psychometric data is available. Measures of internal consistency yielded alpha coefficients of .70. Analysis The study evaluated the impact of the experimental intervention while attempting to account for possible pre-test differences resulting from the limited random assignment. The analysis was completed using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (Nie, HulL Jenkins, Steinbrenner & Bent, 1981) and was comprised of chisquare tests, and univariate and multivariate analysis of covariance procedures. For the purpose of multivariate analyses the variables were grouped into four categories: (1) Anxiety and Coping, (2) Preparedness for Junior High School, (3) Interpersonal Skills, and (4) Problem Solving. Subsequent analyses tested the variables grouped and individually.

RESULTS Chi-square tests on pre test demographics confirmed that the experimental and control schools were similar in age. The mean of each group was 11] and 11.8 years respectively. No significant differences were evident in the gender composition of the groups with each composed of approximately 55% females. The majority of youths in the study lived in homes with 2 adults (74% and 79%). No significant differences were found in the number of siblings; the median was two. The experimental and control groups did significantly differ in their etlmic composition. The experimental group was composed of 66.7% white youths while the control group was composed of 88.5% white youths.

W H Snow, L. Gilchrist, R. F. Schilling, S. P Schinke, & C Kelso

132

TABLE 1 MANCOVAs on Post test Scores with Pre test as a Covariate

Anxiety and coping Preparedness for Junior High School Interpersonal

Hotelling 's T

df

F

.029 .047

4,243 4,247

1.76 2.88

.138

.082

6,224

3.05

.007**

.046

2,247

5.63

.004**

p~value

.023**

Skills Problem Solving

**indicates a statistically significant difference atp

< .05

Pretest scores on other major variables in the study also served to establish the similarity of the experimental and control groups at pre test. Of fourteen variables tested with a one-way analysis of variance test only two showed significant

differences. The control group perceived themselves at pre test to be more informed about junior high school than the experimental group. They also perceived themselves to be better at problem solving and decision malting. Differences between experimental and control goups at posttest for the self-report paper and pencil measures were assessed with univariate and multivariate analysis of

covariance procedures. Although the values for variables at pretest were generally similar for the treated and untreated groups, the limited nature of the random assignment to groups and differences in racial background argued for adjusting posttest scores for possible pre test differences. In addition, the use of pretest scores as covariates served to add precision to subsequent analyses.

The first hypothesis to be tested was that the experimental group would exhibit Jess anxiey and more positive coping at posttest than the control group. Using MANCOVA to test the block of variables designated as Anxiety and Coping, there were no significant differences at posttest (Tuble 1). Univariate analyses found no significant differences between the treatment and control groups for general measures of anxiety,

self esteem and depression (Table 2). But, the variable that measures the more specific anxiety toward entering junior

high school did significantly differ between the two groups. However, the difference was not as expected. Instead of decreasing the anxiety in the experimental group, anxiety was increased. After reviewing the training program the finding appears valid A major thrust of the training program was to increase each student's awareness of the tasks that Jay ahead in junior high school. Attention was focused on the negative as well as the positive aspects of junior high. This finding though is not necessarily and indication of program failure. Moderate amounts of anxiety can motivate an in-

dividual to action while large amounts of anxiety can become crippling, leading to excessive self-doubt, depression, and lowered self-esteem. The training appears to have resulted in only a slight increase in anxiety for the experimental group.

133

Preparing Students

TABLE2 Analysis of Variance on Posttest Scores With Pretest as a Covariate Experimental

Anxiety & Coping Anxiety Depression Self-esteem Anxiety towards entering Junior High Preparedness for Junior High General Readiness

Control

mean

138) SD

mean

SD

df

F

38.7 15.5 33.2

9.2 11.1 18.3

39.3 14.5 34.3

8.0 9.9 18.8

1,251 1,256 1,256

.404 .790 .308

4.6

1.7

4.2

1. 7

1,257

5.772**

2.7

1.1

3.0

1.0

1,256

4.808**

2.9

1.4

3.2

1.5

1,256

2.256

2.9 2.7

1.1 1.2

3.2 2.8

1.1 1.3

1,255 1,257

6.055** 4.289**

24.8 112

18.4 17

25.2 111

21.5 16

1,257 1,252

.561 .265

(n~

(n~l40)

Ability to Handle the Classwork

Ability to Handle the Stress How Well Informed Interpersonal Skills Peer Relations Assertiveness

Ability to Handle the Peer pressure of Junior High # Use of I-statements #Direct refusals # Indirect refusals

2.9 7.94 5.42 7.30

1.4 3.86 1.67 3.81

3.2 6.85 4.63 6.51

1.4 3. 71 1.80 3.71

1,257 1,240 1,242 1,241

6.525** 3.684 9.408** 1.818

2.9

1.3

3.1

1.1

1,249

2.491

3.6

3.9

2.3

2.3

1,257

11.05**

Problem Solving

Ability to Make Tough Decisions in Junior High #Number of Options Generated

**indicates statistically significant difference at p < .05 #indicates that a higher score is more positive. On the remaining variables a lower score is more positive.

The second hypothesis to be tested was that the students in the skills building condition would feel more prepared for junior high school than the students in the control condition. The results of the MANCOVA procedure revealed that students in the experimental group felt significantly more prepared for junior high school than the students in the control group. The more specific findings of the univariate aoalysis revealed that experimental students perceived themselves as better able to handle the stress of junior high school and better informed about the junior high school system. A good deal of the training program was devoted to providing information and teaching techoiques for handling stress. The strategy appears to have achieved results.

134

W. H Snow, L. Gilchrist, R F. Schilling, S. P. Schinke, & C Kelso

The two conditions were not significantly different in how they viewed their ability to handle the classwork. The third hypothesis to be tested was that the students in the experimental group would demonstrate better interpersonal skills than the students in the control group. The overall test by the MANCOVA procedure found the students in the skills training condition to be more interpersonally skilled Significance tests using univariate procedures did not reveal any significant differences at post test on general measures of

peer relations and assertiveness. Bu~ the students in the experimental group did perceive themselves to be significantly more prepared to handle the peer pressure in junior high school and more frequently demonstrated the use of direct refusals as a tactic to deal with peer pressure. The fourth and last hypothesis to be tested was that the experimental group would demonstrate better problem solving and decision making than the students in the control group. On the overall test of significance using MANCOVA the students in the skills training condition were significantly better problem solvers. The outcome of univariate analyses revealed that the students in the two groups did not see themselves differently in their preparation to problem solve and make tough decisions in junior high school. But on a more objective test of problem solving skills, the students in the experimental condition proved to be significantly better at generating alternative options, a key component of good problem solving (D'Zurilla & Nezu, 1980). Limitations of the Study The findings of this study appear to support the last three hypotheses, that the trained youths would feel more prepared for junior high and that they would perceive themselves to have and demonstrate better interpersonal and problem solving skills. However, this experiment fails to protect against several threats to internal validity. Selection-maturation differences resulting from the respondents in each group becoming more experienced at different rates could have accounted for the significant results at posttest. Such a scenario is not likely. Random assignment, although limited, did take place. In addition, the group scores on pretest measures served to support the contention that the experimental and control groups were similar. Another issue arising from this design is instrumentation. With many scales, the intervals are not necessarily equal and changes are easier to detect on some parts of

the scale than others. But, as Cook and Campbell (1979) note, the problem is more acute the greater the pretest nonequivalence of groups and the farther apart their scores tend to be on a scale Fortunately, the samples used in this study were quite similar at pretest and instrumentation appears to be less of an issue. Differential statistical regression was not viewed as a problem with this design. Samples were not selected on the basis of extreme values or attributes, and conse- .

quently it is not likely that the two groups simply regressed to the population baseline. Local history effects present an alternative explanation for explaining the treatment effects of this program. But no similar programs or other confounding events occurred in the schools during this study. Controls may have received some compensatory training from their own teachers, but if compensatory rivalry did take place, the effect would have decreased group differences at posttest rather than increasing them.

Preparing Students

135

Finally, this study does not evaluate the actual behavior of students in junior high school itself, providing no assurance that the reductions in stress and the improveJllents in skills will continue.

DISCUSSION The Coping with Junior High School program is one attempt to alleviate adolescent stress and promote coping during the transition to junior high school and the results for this study appear to lend support to the program's effectiveness. The jrnplementation of a formal needs assessment in developing the program served to guarantee that the training would be relevant and useful to students contemplating junior high and indeed feedback from parents and students indicated the program was well received. There were no significant group differences on general measures of anxiety and

coping. In retrospect, the training was geared to specific issues about the entrance to junior high school. Although the role plays and vignettes did use other types of illustrations, examples about the entrance into junior high school were dominant. future programs would do well to place more attention on methods to help youths generalize their skills to other settings. The Coping with Junior High School Program, in contrast to its initial goals, increased the anxiety of youths. The attention placed on the possible problems they might encounter in junior high school seemed to fuel many concerns. Although this finding initially appeared to be negative, it may not be so. Some anxiety is helpful as a motivational tool It serves to emphasize the importance of an issue and fosters increased attention. This slight increase in anxiety may additionally be worthwhile if

it enhances the coping of the students upon their entry into junior high school The students in the training condition, although more anxious about junior high after training, did feel more prepared and exhibited better interpersonal and problem solving skills for managing- the transition. The youths in the skills training condition felt better able to handle the peer pressure of junior high school. This and the more frequent usage of direct refusals supports the contention that the program can help youths handle peer pressure and avoid engaging in negative behaviors. These findings do not mean that the trained youths are better skilled in such areas as making friends. No curriculum can rectify all skill deficiencies in a few hours. This program focused on only a few skills valuable in handling peer pressure. Even with such limited goals, the eight sessions allowed for only minimal preparation. The trained youths did not perceive themselves as better decision makers. This lack of confidence indicates that more attention should be placed on the problem solving process. But, trained youths were able to generate more alternative options for problem solving. The stressful transition from elementary school to junior high school merits consideration by school personnel and prevention advocates. During this time youths are anxious but receptive to efforts that might improve their ability to cope. Discipline problems resulting from stress and acting out should subside as youths find their

136

W H Snow, L. Gilchrist, R. F Schilling, S. P Schinke, & C Kelso

adjustment to junior high streamlined. Students with more confidence in their abilities will contribute to a more relaxed class atmosphere and a better learning environment. Better able to concentrate on assignments, grades should improve and chances for academic success should increase. Skills building programs for sixth graders can help reduce staff time required to manage transition related problems. In summary, this study established the potential of a transition training program for youths preparing to enter junior high school. Still needed is a commitment to further research, development, and implementation.

REFERENCES Alan Guttmacher Institute. (1981). Teenage pregnancy: The problem hasn't gone away. New York: Guttmacher Institute. Bloom, M., & Fisher, J. (1982). Evaluating practice: Guidelines for the accountable professional. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall Bobo, J. K., Snow, WH., Gilchrist, L.D., & Schinke, S.P. (in press). Refusal skill assessment for minority youth. Psychological Reports. Campbell, D. T., & Stanley, J. C. (1963). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for research. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin. Caplan, G. (1965). Opportunities for school psychologists in the primary prevention of mental disorders in children. In N. M Lambert (Ed.), The protection and promotion of mental health in schools (Public Health Service Publication No. 1226, pp. 9-22). Bethesda, MD: U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare. Cronbach, L. J. (1976). Research on classrooms and schools: Formulation of questions, design and analysis. Stanford: Stanford University Press. Cook, T. D., & Cambell, D. T. (1979). Quasi-experimentation: Design and analysis issues for field settings. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin. Del Greco, L., Breitbach, L, & McCarthy, R H. (198!). The Rathus Assertive Schedule Modified for Early Adolescents. Journal of Behavioral Assessment, 3, 321-328. D'Zurilla, T. J., & Nezu, A. (1980). A study of the generation-of-alternatives process in social problem solving Coqnitive Therapy and Research, 4, 67-72. Finger, J., & Silverman, M. (1966). Changes in academic performance in the junior high school. Personnel and Guidance Journal, 45, 157-164. Hamburg, B. A. (1974). Early adolescence: A specific and stressful stage of the life cycle. In G. V. Coelho, B. A Hamburg, & J. E. Adams (Eds.), Coping and adaptation (pp. 101-124). New York: Basic Books. Hudson, W W (1982). The clinical measurement Package: A field manual. Homewood, IL: Dorsey Press. Jason, L. A., & Glenwick, D. S. (in press). Behavioral community psychology: A review of recent research and applications. In M. Hersen, R M. Eisler, & P. M Miller (Eds.), Progress in behavior modification (Vol. 17). New York: Academic. Kagan, C (1984). Social problem solving and social skills training. British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 23, 161-173. Kanfer, F. H., & Busemeyer, J. R. (1982). The use of problem solving and decision making in behavior therapy. Clinical Psychology Review, 2 239-266. Kaplan, H. B., Robbin~ C., & Martin, S. S. (1983). Antecedents of psychological distress in young adults: Self-rejection, deprivation of social support, and life events. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 24, 230-244. Karweit, N., & Hansell, S. (1983). School organization and friendship selection. In IL. Epstein & N. Karweit (Eds.), Friends in school: Patterns of selection and influence in secondary schools (pp. 29-38). New York: Academic.

Preparing Students

137

I{olodny. R L. ( 1984). ''Getcha after school": The professional avoidance of boyhood realities. Social Work With Groups, 7, 21-38. [,adame, F., & Jeanneret, 0. (1982). Suicide in adolescence: Some comments on epidemiology and prevention. Journal of Adolescence, 5, 355-366. {.uoto, l (1983). Reducing the health consequences of smoking. Public Health Reports, 98,

34-39. Jv{cFall, R M. (1982). A review and reformulation of the concept of social skills. Behavioral Assessment, 4, 1-33. rvicHugh, N. G., Christman, N., & Johnson, I E. (1982). Preparatory information: What helps and why. American Journal ofNursing, 780-782. Jv{eichenbaum D., & Novaco, R. (1978). Stress inoculation: A preventative approach. In C. D. Speilberger & I. G. Sarason (Eds.), Stress and anxiety (Vol. 5, pp. 317-330). Washington, DC: : Hemisphere. . . . Millehr,bl D., CpisiMn, I.( H., G) ai;~ner-Keaton, H., Harrdell, Ab. V., wirt z, (PD.HWH.,SAbelson, H. I., & Fis ume, . . 1983 . ,,ationa survey on rug a use: 1982 Pnblication No.

.

f

1

(ADM) 83-1263). Rockville, MD: National Institute on Drug Abuse. Jv[itman, A. L., & Packer, M. l (1982). Concerns of seventh graders about their transition to junior high school. Journal of Early Adolescence, 2, 319-338. Nie, N. H., Hull, C H., Jenkins, l G., Steinbrenner, K & Bent, D. H. (1981). The statistical package for the social sciences, 2nd Ed New York, McGraw-Hill. Poser, E. G. (1970). Toward a theory of behavioral prophylaxis. Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry, 1, 39-43. Prophit, S. P. (1979). The enigma of adolescent suicide. In R. T. Mercer (Ed.), Perspectives on adolescent health care (pp. 226-242). New York: Lippincott Radloff, L. S. (1977). The CES-D scale: A self-report depression scale for research in the general population. Applied Psychological Measurement, 1, 385-401. Snow, W H., Gilchrist, L. D., & Schinke, S. P (1985). A critique of progress in adolescent smoking prevention. Children and Youth Services Review, 7, 1-19. Snow, W H., Gilchris~ L. D., Schinke, S. P, & Schilling, R F. (1985). Entry into junior high school: Strategic point for preventive services. Manuscript submitted for publication. Spielberger, C. D., Gorsuch, R L., & Lushene, R. E. (1970). Manual for the state-trait anxiety inventory .Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologist Press. Stevens, R., & Pihl, R 0. (1983). Leaming to cope with school: A study of the effects of a coping skill training program with test vulnerable 7th-grade students. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 7, 155-158.

Reprint requests should be addressed to: William Snow

Department of Psychology Bethany College 800 Bethany Drive Santa Cruz, CA 95066