This study reports secondary outcome analyses from a past study of the Penn Resiliency Program (PRP) a cognitive-behavioral depression prevention program for middle-school aged children. after the intervention and persisting for most of the follow-up assessments. Mouse monoclonal to MPS1 PRP also reduced parent-reported conduct problems relative to no-intervention. There was no evidence that this PRP program produced an effect on teacher- or self-report of adolescents’ symptoms. Overall PRP did not reduce symptoms relative to the alternate intervention although there is a suggestion of a delayed effect for conduct problems. These findings are discussed with attention to developmental trajectories and the importance of interventions that address common risk factors for diverse forms of unfavorable outcomes. using the difference in estimated marginal means divided by the pooled standard deviation. Negative effect sizes indicate that PRP symptom scores were lower than control (or PEP) scores over the follow-up period. For PEP vs. control comparisons unfavorable effect sizes indicate lower scores in PEP than Control. Attrition and missing data As with many longitudinal designs the current study TSU-68 (SU6668) faced challenges with retention and attrition. Considering self-report assessments 301 adolescents produced valid YSR scores at the final 3-year assessment and approximately half (n = 377; 54%) produced valid YSR scores for at least 6 of the 8 assessment points. For the CBCL parents produced valid scores for 160 participants at the final 3-year assessment and about half (n = 355; 51%) provided scores at 3 or more assessments. Teachers provided valid TRF scores for 161 participants at the final 3-year assessment and nearly half (332; 48%) provided valid TRF scores for TSU-68 (SU6668) at least 4 assessments. Rates of attrition did not differ between conditions nor did attrition rates impact the effects of condition group presented below. Analyses controlling for the number of assessments that participants completed produced comparable findings. The number of missing data points was not related to demographic variables nor baseline symptom scores suggesting that patterns of missingness met the assumptions of data missing at random (Schafer & Graham 2002 Missing data were imputed using TSU-68 (SU6668) PROC MI of SAS version 9.1. The imputation procedure estimates missing values through an iterative process: First maximum likelihood estimates were derived through an expectation-maximization (EM) algorithm. These estimates were then used as a starting point for a Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) method to create five imputed datasets (Schafer & Graham 2002 These datasets were collapsed into a single dataset for analyses by taking the mean of each value. Analyses were run using imputed and non-imputed datasets. The magnitudes of effect sizes were comparable. Results from the imputed dataset are reported here. Results Baseline Differences Groups did not differ at TSU-68 (SU6668) baseline with respect to age grade income or parents’ combined level of education. The groups differed on parent’s report of internalizing symptoms around the CBCL at baseline; the PRP and PEP participants both scored higher than controls but did not differ from each other (see Table I). Around the CBCL externalizing scale the PEP group was marginally higher than controls (see Table II) but no other group differences emerged at baseline. The groups did not differ around the internalizing or externalizing scales of the YSR and TRF. All analyses covary baseline internalizing and externalizing symptom scores to control for these differences as well as the covariance between and within internalizing and externalizing symptoms across contexts at the baseline assessment. Correlations between key variables are presented in Table III. Table I Parent’s report of internalizing symptoms: CBCL Internalizing Score means and test statistics. Table II Parent’s report of externalizing symptoms: CBCL Externalizing Score means and test statistics. Table III Correlations among adolescent parent and teacher report steps at baseline Adolescent Reported Outcomes: YSR MM ANOVAs revealed no overall intervention effects on YSR internalizing ((2 688 = 2.30; (2 688 = 0.71; (2 688 =.