Improved college experiences (Time 2). To assess our intervention’s effects on participants’ college experiences, we measured five constructs associated with psychological toughness: (a) positive vs. negative affect over the previous 30 days, (b) resilience, (c) psychological vulnerability, (d) experience of stress in college, and (d) well-being. On 16 items, participants reported how much positive Positive versus negative affect. (seven items, e.g., and negative affect (nine items, e.g., they experienced “engaged”) “anxious”) over the past 30 days on a scale from 1 (very to 5 (extremely), .87, = 3.41, = slightly) = M SD 0.73 and .88, = 2.97, = 0.84, respectively. We modeled this measure after the = M SD Psychological Distress Scale (Kessler et al., 2002). We subtracted participants’ scores on the negative affect composite from the positive affect composite to create an overall affective balance score, = 0.45, = 1.30. Higher values indicate greater positive affect. M SD On six participants reported their overall resilience (e.g., am able to Resilience. “I adapt to change”) on a scale from 1 (not to 5 (true .72, = true at all) nearly all the time), = M 3.83, = 0.59. We used two items from Duckworth and colleagues’ (2007) Grit Scale and four SD items from the Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale (Connor & Davidson, 2003). On four items developed by Wickrama and colleagues Psychological vulnerability. (2013), participants reported their overall psychological vulnerability (e.g., often have you “How found that you could not cope with all the things that you had to do?”) on a scale from 0 (never) to 4 (very .74, = 1.10, = 0.77. often), = M SD On nine items from the College Student Stress Scale (Feldt, 2008), College stress. participants reported their experiences of stress while at college (e.g., often have you “How questioned your ability to handle difficulties in your life?”) on a scale from 0 (never) to 4 (very .85, = 2.10, = 0.85. often), = M SD
Improved college experiences (Time 2). To assess our intervention’s effects on participants’ college experiences, we measured five constructs associated with psychological toughness: (a) positive vs. negative affect over the previous 30 days, (b) resilience, (c) psychological vulnerability, (d) experience of stress in college, and (d) well-being. Positive versus negative affect. On 16 items, participants reported how much positive (seven items, e.g., “engaged”) and negative affect (nine items, e.g., “anxious”) they experienced over the past 30 days on a scale from 1 (very slightly) to 5 (extremely), = .87, M = 3.41, SD = 0.73 and = .88, M = 2.97, SD = 0.84, respectively. We modeled this measure after the Psychological Distress Scale (Kessler et al., 2002). We subtracted participants’ scores on the negative affect composite from the positive affect composite to create an overall affective balance score, M = 0.45, SD = 1.30. Higher values indicate greater positive affect. Resilience. On six participants reported their overall resilience (e.g., “I am able to adapt to change”) on a scale from 1 (not true at all) to 5 (true nearly all the time), = .72, M = 3.83, SD = 0.59. We used two items from Duckworth and colleagues’ (2007) Grit Scale and four items from the Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale (Connor & Davidson, 2003). Psychological vulnerability. On four items developed by Wickrama and colleagues (2013), participants reported their overall psychological vulnerability (e.g., “How often have you found that you could not cope with all the things that you had to do?”) on a scale from 0 (never) to 4 (very often), = .74, M = 1.10, SD = 0.77. College stress. On nine items from the College Student Stress Scale (Feldt, 2008), participants reported their experiences of stress while at college (e.g., “How often have you questioned your ability to handle difficulties in your life?”) on a scale from 0 (never) to 4 (very often), = .85, M = 2.10, SD = 0.85.
empowerment_through_difference_-_an_individually_administered_de_intervention_closes_the_social_class_achievement_gap.docx