A paragraph describing intervention effects on explanatory style for negative events was accidentally left out of the paper Gillham, J.E., Hamilton, J., Freres, D.R., Patton, K., & Gallop, R. (2006). Preventing Depression among Early Adolescents in the Primary Care Setting: A randomized controlled study of the Penn Resiliency Program, Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 34, 203-219. The missing paragraph is presented below along with Table 2 from the original paper which presents mean scores for explanatory style for negative events (CN) on the Children’s Attributional Style Questionnaire (CASQ: Seligman et al. 1984).

Table 2 Mean explanatory style for negative events (CN) scores by condition: raw mean (SD)
Full size table

Explanatory Style for Negative Events

The Penn Resiliency Program (PRP) tended to improve explanatory style for negative events, F(1, 216.21) = 2.85, p < 0.10, ES = -0.16 (95% CI: -0.35 to 0.03). Further analyses revealed a significant sex by condition interaction, F(1, 212.80) = 4.57, p < 0.05. PRP significantly improved explanatory style for negative events in girls, F(1, 108.14) = 9.49, p < 0.01, ES = -0.40 (95% CI: -0.65 to -0.14) but not in boys (see Table 2). PRP’s effect on explanatory style for negative events was not significantly moderated by symptom level.