1. Adolescents’ adaptive outcomes and resilience.
The importance of a comprehensive, multidimensional assessment of assets and competencies.
Giovanna Gianesini, MFT, PhD

2. Today strength-based assessment of adolescents is an important emerging area as the measurement of assets, resources and factors increasing positive outcomes offer the advantage of empowering individuals and families & promote optimism while enhancing resilience (Merrel, Felver-Gant & Tom, 2011)

3. Social-emotional assessment has been historically tied to adolescents psychopathology, often neglecting the assessment of positive social-emotional assets or competencies (Merrell & Bailey 2012).

4. The aim of this empirical research was a better understanding of the actual relationship between life events and dysfunctional outcomes weighting both the potential stress derived from the events and their perceived subjective impact.
We investigated the influence of resilience, emotion regulation (positive and negative) and coping flexibility on substance abuse and its characteristics (onset, latency, gravity) and treatment (type, length, outcome) in a clinical sample of 180 drug addicts under treatment, age (M = 23; SD = 2.97) recruited at an Italian drug treatment center (Ser.T) and a control group of 249 participants, age (M = 22; SD = 3.19) recruited in high schools.

5. THEORETICAL MODEL

6. RESILIENCE DEFINITION
Predictor of good outcome in high-risk groups
Moderator able to enhance or reduce the effect of adversity
Pattern of recovery from trauma
Giovanna Gianesini

7. Drug addiction & Treatment
EMPIRICAL STUDIES
Parenting
Style
N=324 parents
age 26-66
Marriage
Quality
N=159 couples
age 23-78
Drug addiction & Treatment
N=429, age 14-30
Social Network Dynamics
N=180 , students
Adult prosocial
behavior
N=339 adults
age 17-74
Giovanna Gianesini

8. SAMPLE N=429 age 14-30 Control N=249 Age: M = 22 SD = 3.19
SCALES:
PANAS (Watson, Clark, and Tellegen ,1988) [α= ]
CD-RISC, Connor and Davidson, 2003 [α=.94]
RS-14 ( Wagnild & Young, 1993) [α=.92]
PTSD Checklist (Weathers et al, 1993) [α=.94]
PACT (Perceived ability to cope with trauma) (Bonanno, Pat-Horenzcyk, & Noll, 2011) [α=.90;78-.89]
LIFE EVENTS SCALE
(Holmes and Rahe’s ,1967)
SAMPLE
N=429 age 14-30
Control N=249
Age: M = 22 SD = 3.19
Gender: 94male -155female
Clinical N= 180
Age: M = 23 SD =2.97
Gender: 80 male-100female

9. Do the clinical and control group differ on life events?
CLINICAL GROUP
LCU n % F p
Drug or alchool use
M=-.01, SD=.58
M=-1.1, SD=1.57 50
222
51.7
.001
Outstanding personal achievement
M=.0000,SD=.00
M=.0056, SD=.32 46
176 41
7.433
.007
Breaking up with partner
M=-.27, SD=1.13
M=-.46, SD=1.45 53
157
36.6
20.113
Change in health 44
146 34
.017
Change in peers acceptance 67
126
29.4
2.092
Change in parents financial status 
M=-.11, SD=.95
M=-.33,SD=.93 45
107
24.9
5.293
.022
Sexual difficulties
M=-.17, SD=.73
M=-.51,SD=1.01 39
105
24.5
49.194
Failing a grade or exam 59
102
23.8
3.415
Increased arguments with parents 47 89
20.7
2.306 . .

10. Do the clinical and control group differ on other variables?
CLINICAL GROUP F p
Resilience
RS-14
M = SD = 7.17
M = SD = 8.24
CD-RISC
M = SD = 12.55
M = SD = 12.99
Coping
Trauma Focus
PACT
M = 10.23
SD = 0.55
M = 9.56
SD = 0.57
Coping Forward Focus
M = 3.37
SD = 0.65
M = 2.53
SD = 0.63
Positive Affect PANAS
M = SD = 36
M = SD = 31
10.81
0.00
Negative Affect
PANAS
M = SD = 27
M = 32.25
SD = 32
Post Traumatic Checklist
PSTD
M = 40.5
SD = 13.47
M = 62.13
SD = 11.10
12.45
VARIABLE
CONTROL GROUP
CLINICAL GROUP F p
Total Life Change Unit (LCU)
M =
SD =
M =
SD =
9.11
0.01
Impact
M = 0.06
SD = 7.66
M = -4.87
SD = 9.88
11.55
Life Events NOT reported
M = 32.93
SD = 3.01
M = 30.36
SD = 3.71
Number of Life Events
M = 5.07
M = 7.64
Life Events with NO impact
M = 0.34
SD = 0.73
M = 0.54
SD = 0.92
Positive
Life Events
M = 1.78
SD = 2
M = 1.93
SD = 2.28
Negative
M = 1.94
SD = 2.38
M = 4.16
SD = 3.34
20.84
LCU 22: drug use
M = 0.23
SD = 1.41
M = -0.76
SD =.1.81
29.90

11. What moderates the negative impact of life events in the two groups?.

12. Results showed that the most frequent life events reported in both clinical and control sample were not the most traumatic in term of change unit and mostly referred to what are considered normative life events in late adolescence and young adulthood, such as breaking up with partner, failing a grade, or increased arguments with parents.

13. Nevertheless, the clinical and control group differed in terms of life events appraisal, coping flexibility, emotion regulation, and resilience. In fact, in the control group, both negative and positive events were handled with positive emotions and a forward focus coping style, which decreased post-traumatic symptoms. In the clinical group, on the other hand, the use of negative emotions and a trauma focus coping style were prevalent, further facilitated by family risk factors. .

14. This study confirmed the importance of simultaneously assessing actual, subjectively evaluated, not only potential, age relevant stressors and traumatic events, as well as assets such as emotion regulation skills, coping flexibility, generational and relational processes and competences (Hooper et al, in press). None of these components, in fact, alone could explain the complex process that lead adolescents and young adults to adaptive outcomes and resilience. .

15. It implies the ability to flexibly regulate emotional expression
CONCLUSIONS
RESILIENCE
It’s a process that varies across gender lines and changes throughout particular lifespan stages
Its relational and contextual dimensions explain both functional and dysfunctional behavior
It is defined by positive and negative emotions and positive and negative life events
It implies the ability to flexibly regulate emotional expression
Within the heterogeneity of Responses to Potentially Traumatic events, it represents a stable trajectory of healthy adjustment over time
Giovanna Gianesini

16. Bonanno, G. Pat-Horenczyk, R. , Noll, J
Bonanno, G. Pat-Horenczyk, R., Noll, J. (2011) ―Coping Flexibility and Trauma: The Perceived Ability to Cope with Trauma (PACT) Scale. Psychological Trauma: Theory, Research, Practice and Policy, 3(2),
L‘Abate, L. (2010). Resilience: a construct in search of a theory. Interdisciplinary Journal of Family Studies, 2,  
L‘Abate, L. (2011). Hurth feelings: Theory, research, and application in intimate relationships. New York: Cambridg University Press.
L’Abate L. & Cusinato M. (2012). Advances in Relational Competence Theory. New York: Nova Publishers.
Hooper, L., L’Abate, L., Sweeney, L. G., Gianesini, G., & Jankowsli, P. (in press). Models of psychopathology: Generational and relational process. New York: Springer-Science.  
Merrel, K. M., Felver-Gant, J. C and Tom K. M. (2011). Development and Validation of a Parent Report Measure for Assessing Social-Emotional Competencies of Children and Adolescents, Journal of Child and Family Studies, 20:
Merrell, C. & Bailey, K. (2012). Predicting achievement in the Early Years: How important is personal, social and emotional development? On-line Educational Research Journal 3(6).
Tugade, M. M., & Fredrickson, B. L. (2007). Regulation of positive emotions: Emotion regulation strategies that promote resilience. Journal of Happiness Studies, 8,
Zautra Z.J, Guarnaccia C.A, Dohrenwend B.P (1986). Measuring small life events. American Journal of Community Psychology 14:629–655
Zautra, A. J., Berkhof, J., & Nicolson, N. A. (2002). Changes in affect interrelations as a function of stressful events. Cognition & Emotion, 16,
Zautra A.J, Johnson L, and Davis M.E (2005). The role of positive affect in chronic pain: Applications of a dynamic affect model. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. 73(2), 212–220.

17. Giovanna Gianesini , Ph.D giovanna.gianesini@unipd.it
THANK YOU !
Giovanna Gianesini , Ph.D