1) A study examined the effects of a strengths intervention on students' personal growth initiative. 2) 98 master's students participated in a 1-day training to identify their strengths and encourage developing those strengths. 3) Results showed the strengths training enhanced students' personal growth initiative and increased their psychological capital, which mediated the relationship between the intervention and personal growth.

1. M.C. Meyers
M. van Woerkom
R. de Reuver
Amsterdam, July 2014
The Effects of a Strengths
Intervention on Students’ Personal
Growth Initiative -
PsyCap as a Mediator

3. NOW WHAT?

4. “Active, intentional engagement in the process of personal growth”
(Robitschek, 1998, p. 184)
- influences the extent to which someone seeks out and capitalizes on
opportunities to grow (Robitschek et al., 2012)
- predicts environmental exploration and vocational identity in students
(Robitschek & Cook, 1999)
- can be developed through interventions that stimulate growth activities
(Thoen, & Robitschek, 2013)
PERSONAL GROWTH INITIATIVE PGI

5. STRENGTH OR DEFICIENCIES?

6. Group t0
(pre)
Intervention t1
(post)
t3
(1 m)
t4
(3 m)
Strengths x x x x
Deficiencies x x x x
RESEARCH DESIGN
Sample: N=98(90)
Master students in their final year
79% female; mean age: 22.9

7. Help students to identify their strong points & encourage them to
develop and use their strengths (based on Quinlan et al., 2012)
- 1 training day
- Groups of 10-14 students
- Various work forms
- Preparations & homework assignments
STRENGTHS INTERVENTION

8. Personal Growth Initiative Scale PGIS (Robitschek, 1998)
Sample item: ‘I have a specific action plan to help me reach my goals’
Reliability: α0 = .75; α1 = .80.; α2 = .83.; α3 = .83
Psychological Capital
New General Self-efficacy Scale (Chen, Gully, & Eden, 2001)
Life Orientation Test – Revised (LOT-R; Scheier, Carver, & Bridges, 1994)
Brief Resilience Scale (Smith et al., 2008)
State Hope Scale (Snyder et al., 1996)
Reliability: α0 = .88; α1 = .85; α2 = .92; α3 = .91
MEASURES

9. RESULTS I
Wilks’ Lambda=.89,
F(3,84)=3.46, p<.05;
partial η2=.11

10. RESULTS II
Wilks’ Lambda=.92,
F(3,85)=3.46, p=.06;
partial η2=.08

11. RESULTS III
DV: Personal Growth Initiative (t3)
B(SE) β B(SE) β B(SE) β
Step 1
Gendera -.11(.13) -.07 -.08(.13) -.05 -.05(.12) -.03
PsyCap (t0) .49(.16) .29** .41(.16) .24* -.25(.22) -.15
PGI (t0) .48(.10) .45*** .49(.10) .47*** .48(.09) .46***
Step 2
Group b .27(.10) .20* .17(.10) .13
Step 3
PsyCap (t2) .73(.18) .51***
R2 =.45 ∆R2=.04* ∆R2=.09***
95% Bootstrap CI [.01, 0.20]

12. The strengths training enhances students’ personal growth initiative
working on strengths might produce personal resources
(PsyCap) that motivate students’ self-development
It is not just a matter of encouraging young people to develop
themselves, but a matter of encouraging development in the right
area: the area of individual strengths
CONCLUSION

13. Limitations
• Small sample size
• Missing no-treatment control group
• High work-load during the semester as possible confounding factor
Future Research
• Conduct a similar training with working adults or MBA students
• Investigate the effects of interventions with a combination of working
on strengths and weaknesses
LIMITATIONS & FUTURE RESEARCH

14. Contact: m.c.meyers@uvt.nl
THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR
YOUR ATTENTION!