Mendeley  

Zotero  

Ershadi Manesh S. (2021). A controlled comparison of the efficacy of creative problem solving therapy and cognitive behavioural therapy in adolescent' depression. Journal of Psychological Science. 20(100), 485-501.
URL: http://psychologicalscience.ir/article-1-1264-en.html

Background: Although aetiology and psychopathology of depression in adolescents emphesised the core factors for developing depression as experiencing negative life events, interpersonal problems and having deficiencies in skills of coping with challenges and problem solving skills, background of therapy shows instead of equipping them to problem solving skills, cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) has been applied for depression in youth which mainly concentrates on modifying dysfunctional beliefs and negative thoughts. Aims: The aim of the study was to apply creative problem solving therapy (CPST compare with CBT among mild and moderate depressed girl adolescents. Method: Using randomised control trials design, among all comprehensive state secondary girl schools in Tehran two schools were collected randomly based on two-stage sampling and all were tested by Beck’s Depression Inventory, BDI, 1996 and in the next stage were assessed by Short Mood and Feeling Questionnaire (Munoz and Miranda 2000). 96 adolescents were identified as having mild and moderate depression and were randomly assigned in three experimental groups at the same time with the similar conditions. The adolescents within creative problem-solving group underwent a 12 session intervention consisting of creative problem solving techniques adapted from (Osborn 1956, 1979; Stein 1975; Parnes 1979) each session took place for 90 minutes. The second group received cognitive behavioural techniques based on the group manuals (Munoz and Miranda 2000) with the same amount of time. The control group experienced similar time and condition with the same experimenter without receiving any intervention related to depression. All groups were assessed again at session 12 and in two months following the study. The results were analysed using multivariate analysis of variance. Results: The results showed clinically significant improvement of the interaction between treatment and time P = 0.001 < 0.05 in overall depression and Mood and Feelings in both groups compared to the control group which showed no change over time in their scores on the two assessments. Significant differences were also found between CPST (M= 7.37 and CBT M= 10.78) favouring the former. The results from the two month follow-up indicated that the CPST group showed fewer symptoms of depression M = 8.50 compared with the CBT group M=12.22. CPST represents a promising intervention for minor and mild depression in youth. Conclusions: Regarding aetiology of depression in youth, CPST showed reasonable evidence of efficacy in sample. Repetition with a larger sample is required before roll-out to counselling and clinical settings.