团体辅导对初中生心理健康水平的影响 The Effect of Group Counseling on the Mental Health of Junior High School Students

【摘要】 目的 探讨基于每日成功小组（achieving success everyday，ASE）模型的心理韧性团体辅导对提升初中生心理健康水平的效果，为青少年心理健康教育提供一定现实指导。方法 采用 2 （实验组／控制组）$\times 3$$\times 3$xx3\times 3（前测／后测／追踪测）的被试内实验设计，对分层随机抽取的新疆南疆某校 618 名初中生进行心理韧性团体辅导（共 8 周，每周 1 次，每次 60～90 $\min )$$\min )$min)\mathrm{min}) ~ 验证干预效果。结果 干预后，干预组心理韧性及目标专注、情绪控制、家庭支持、人际协助分维度，核心自我评价、应对倾向及积极应对得分均高于前测（ $t$$t$tt 值分别为 8.93 ， 3.78 ，6． 62 ， 3.17 ，6．1 3 ，5．1 $8,4.01,2.91,P$$8,4.01,2.91,P$8,4.01,2.91,P8,4.01,2.91, P 值均＜0．01）心理健康、消极应对得分低于前测（ $t$$t$tt 值分别为－4．24，－3．01）及对照组（ $t$$t$tt 值分别为 $-2.58,-3.11$$-2.58,-3.11$-2.58,-3.11-2.58,-3.11 ）（ $P$$P$PP 值均＜0．05）；心理韧性及目标专注、人际协助分维度 核心自我评价、应对倾向及积极应对得分均高于对照组 $(t$$(t$(t(t 值分别为 $3.88,2.84,3.18,4.19,3.68,2.49,P$$3.88,2.84,3.18,4.19,3.68,2.49,P$3.88,2.84,3.18,4.19,3.68,2.49,P3.88,2.84,3.18,4.19,3.68,2.49, P 值均＜0．01）。追踪测结果显示 心理韧性及目标专注、情绪控制、积极认知、家庭支持、人际协助分维度 核心自我评价与积极应对仍高于前测（ $t$$t$tt 值分别为 5.69 ， 3.50 ，2．26，2．80 2．64，4．13，3．39，2．13，$P$$P$PP 值均 $<0.05$$<0.05$< 0.05<0.05 ）心理健康得分低于前测（ $t=-4.62,P$$t=-4.62,P$t=-4.62,Pt=-4.62, P ＜0．01）。结论 基于 ASE 模型的心理韧性团体辅导可以有效提升学生心理健康水平 对提升核心自我评价改善应对倾向有显著效果。
【Abstract】 Objective To investigate the effect of resilience group counseling based on the Achieving Success Everyday (ASE) model on improving the mental health level of junior high school students, and to provide practical guidance for adolescent mental health education. Methods A total of 618 $\times 3$$\times 3$xx3\times 3 junior high school students from a school in southern Xinjiang, 618 junior high school students in southern Xinjiang were randomly selected for 8 weeks, once a week, 60~90 each time to $\min )$$\min )$min)\mathrm{min}) ~ verify the intervention effect. Results After the intervention, the scores of resilience, goal focus, emotional control, family support, and interpersonal assistance, core self-evaluation, coping tendency, and positive coping in the intervention group were higher than those in the pretest ( $t$$t$tt values were 8.93, 3.78, 6. 62 , 3.17 , 6.1 3 , 5.1 $8,4.01,2.91,P$$8,4.01,2.91,P$8,4.01,2.91,P8,4.01,2.91, P <0.01) mental health and negative coping scores were lower than those in the pretest ( $t$$t$tt -4.24, -3.01) and the control group ( $t$$t$tt $-2.58,-3.11$$-2.58,-3.11$-2.58,-3.11-2.58,-3.11 $P$$P$PP (<0.05), respectively $(t$$(t$(t(t The values were $3.88,2.84,3.18,4.19,3.68,2.49,P$$3.88,2.84,3.18,4.19,3.68,2.49,P$3.88,2.84,3.18,4.19,3.68,2.49,P3.88,2.84,3.18,4.19,3.68,2.49, P <0.01). The results of the follow-up test showed that the core self-evaluation and positive coping of resilience and goal focus, emotional control, positive cognition, family support, and interpersonal assistance were still higher than those of the pretest ( $t$$t$tt 5.69, 3.50, 2.26, 2.80, 2.64, 4.13, 3.39, 2.13, all values $<0.05$$<0.05$< 0.05<0.05 ), $P$$P$PP and the mental health scores were lower than those of the pretest ( $t=-4.62,P$$t=-4.62,P$t=-4.62,Pt=-4.62, P ＜0．01）。 Conclusion Resilience group counseling based on the ASE model can effectively improve students' mental health and have a significant effect on improving core self-evaluation and coping tendency.

【关键词】团体处理；精神卫生；干预性研究；健康促进；学生
【Keywords】group processing; mental health; interventional studies; health promotion; student
【中图分类号】 G 444 B 844．2 【文献标识码】A 【文章编号】 1000－9817（2020）06－0874－05
CLC Number: G 444 B 844.2 Document Identification Code: A Article Number: 1000-9817(2020)06-0874-05

【Abstract】 Objective This study amis to evaluate the effect of resilience group counseling based on Achieving Success Everyday（ ASE）group counseling model on mental health promotion of junior high school students．Methods An experimental de－ sign of 2 （ experimental group／control group）$\times 3$$\times 3$xx3\times 3（ pre－test／post－test／follow－up test）was adopted to conduct resilience group counse－ ling for junior high school students in a school in southern Xinjiang（ 8 weeks ，once a week，each activity lasts for 60－90 min）， followed by a detailed analysis of intervention effect．Results After intervention，scores of resilience，goal focus，emotional con－ trol ，family support ，interpersonal assistance ，core self－evaluation ，coping styles and positive coping in intervention group increased significantly $(t=8.93,3.78,6.62,3.17,6.13,5.18,4.01,2.91,P<0.01)$$(t=8.93,3.78,6.62,3.17,6.13,5.18,4.01,2.91,P<0.01)$(t=8.93,3.78,6.62,3.17,6.13,5.18,4.01,2.91,P < 0.01)(t=8.93,3.78,6.62,3.17,6.13,5.18,4.01,2.91, P<0.01) ．The scores of mental health and negative coping sig－ nificantly decreased（ $t=-4.24,-3.01,P<0.01$$t=-4.24,-3.01,P<0.01$t=-4.24,-3.01,P < 0.01t=-4.24,-3.01, P<0.01 ）and was lower than control group（ $t=-2.58,-3.11,P<0.05$$t=-2.58,-3.11,P<0.05$t=-2.58,-3.11,P < 0.05t=-2.58,-3.11, P<0.05 ）．The scores of re－ silience，goal focus，interpersonal assistance，core self－evaluation，coping styles and positive coping were significantly higher than those of the control group（ $t=3.88,2.84,3.18,4.19,3.68,2.49,P<0.01$$t=3.88,2.84,3.18,4.19,3.68,2.49,P<0.01$t=3.88,2.84,3.18,4.19,3.68,2.49,P < 0.01t=3.88,2.84,3.18,4.19,3.68,2.49, P<0.01 ）．The results of the follow－up test showed that the scores of resilience and goal concentration，emotional control，positive cognition，family support，interpersonal assistance，core self－evaluation and positive coping were still significantly higher than those of the pretest $(t=5.69,3.50,2.26,2.80,2.64,4.13$$(t=5.69,3.50,2.26,2.80,2.64,4.13$(t=5.69,3.50,2.26,2.80,2.64,4.13(t=5.69,3.50,2.26,2.80,2.64,4.13 ， $3.39,2.13,P<0.05)$$3.39,2.13,P<0.05)$3.39,2.13,P < 0.05)3.39,2.13, P<0.05) ，and the scores of mental health were still significantly lower than the pretest $(t=-4.62,P<0.01)$$(t=-4.62,P<0.01)$(t=-4.62,P < 0.01)(t=-4.62, P<0.01) ．Conclu－ sion Mental resilience group counseling based on ASE model can effectively improve students＇mental health level，and at the same time，it shows positive effect on improving core self－evaluation and coping styles．
【Abstract】 Objective This study amis to evaluate the effect of resilience group counseling based on Achieving Success Everyday（ ASE）group counseling model on mental health promotion of junior high school students．Methods An experimental de－ sign of 2 （ experimental group／control group） $\times 3$$\times 3$xx3\times 3 （ pre－test／post－test／follow－up test）was adopted to conduct resilience group counse－ ling for junior high school students in a school in southern Xinjiang（ 8 weeks ，once a week，each activity lasts for 60－ 90 min）， followed by a detailed analysis of intervention effect．Results After intervention，scores of resilience，goal focus，emotional con－ trol ，family support ，interpersonal assistance ，core self－evaluation ，coping styles and positive coping in intervention group increased significantly $(t=8.93,3.78,6.62,3.17,6.13,5.18,4.01,2.91,P<0.01)$$(t=8.93,3.78,6.62,3.17,6.13,5.18,4.01,2.91,P<0.01)$(t=8.93,3.78,6.62,3.17,6.13,5.18,4.01,2.91,P < 0.01)(t=8.93,3.78,6.62,3.17,6.13,5.18,4.01,2.91, P<0.01) ．The scores of mental health and negative coping sig－ nificantly decreased（ $t=-4.24,-3.01,P<0.01$$t=-4.24,-3.01,P<0.01$t=-4.24,-3.01,P < 0.01t=-4.24,-3.01, P<0.01 ）and was lower than control group（ $t=-2.58,-3.11,P<0.05$$t=-2.58,-3.11,P<0.05$t=-2.58,-3.11,P < 0.05t=-2.58,-3.11, P<0.05 ）．The scores of re－ silience，goal focus，interpersonal assistance，core self－evaluation，coping styles and positive coping were significantly higher than those of the control group（ $t=3.88,2.84,3.18,4.19,3.68,2.49,P<0.01$$t=3.88,2.84,3.18,4.19,3.68,2.49,P<0.01$t=3.88,2.84,3.18,4.19,3.68,2.49,P < 0.01t=3.88,2.84,3.18,4.19,3.68,2.49, P<0.01 ）．The results of the follow－up test showed that the scores of resilience and goal concentration，emotional control，positive cognition，family support，interpersonal assistance，core self－evaluation and positive coping were still significantly higher than those of the pretest $(t=5.69,3.50,2.26,2.80,2.64,4.13$$(t=5.69,3.50,2.26,2.80,2.64,4.13$(t=5.69,3.50,2.26,2.80,2.64,4.13(t=5.69,3.50,2.26,2.80,2.64,4.13 ， $3.39,2.13,P<0.05)$$3.39,2.13,P<0.05)$3.39,2.13,P < 0.05)3.39,2.13, P<0.05) ，and the scores of mental health were still significantly lower than the pretest $(t=-4.62,P<0.01)$$(t=-4.62,P<0.01)$(t=-4.62,P < 0.01)(t=-4.62, P<0.01) ．Conclu－ sion Mental resilience group counseling based on ASE model can effectively improve students＇mental health level，and at the same time，it shows positive effect on improving core self－evaluation and coping styles．

【Key words】 Group processes ，Mental health；Intervention studies；Health promotion；Students

据统计，发展中国家 $80\mathrm{\%}$$80\mathrm{\%}$80%80 \% 需要心理健康护理的个体没有得到相关干预 ${}^{[1]}$${}^{[1]}$^([1]){ }^{[1]} ，我国有 $10\mathrm{\%}\sim 30\mathrm{\%}$$10\mathrm{\%}\sim 30\mathrm{\%}$10%∼30%10 \% \sim 30 \% 的中学生存在不同程度的心理问题 ${}^{[2]}$${}^{[2]}$^([2]){ }^{[2]} 。新疆南疆四地州作为
According to statistics, individuals $80\mathrm{\%}$$80\mathrm{\%}$80%80 \% in need of mental health care in developing countries have not received relevant ${}^{[1]}$${}^{[1]}$^([1]){ }^{[1]} interventions, and some middle school students in China have varying degrees $10\mathrm{\%}\sim 30\mathrm{\%}$$10\mathrm{\%}\sim 30\mathrm{\%}$10%∼30%10 \% \sim 30 \% of psychological problems ${}^{[2]}$${}^{[2]}$^([2]){ }^{[2]} . The four prefectures of southern Xinjiang are as

扶贫关注的重点区域，且 $10\sim 15$$10\sim 15$10∼1510 \sim 15 岁青少年发展变化较快 ${}^{[3]}$${}^{[3]}$^([3]){ }^{[3]} ，为防止返贫现象发生，在改善物质条件的同时应及时采取干预措施，避免因贫困的＂疤痕＂效应为青少年带来的在身心健康方面的不利处境 ${}^{[4-7]}$${}^{[4-7]}$^([4-7]){ }^{[4-7]} 。
$10\sim 15$$10\sim 15$10∼1510 \sim 15 ${}^{[3]}$${}^{[3]}$^([3]){ }^{[3]} In order to prevent the phenomenon of returning to poverty, timely intervention measures should be taken while improving the material conditions to avoid the disadvantage of physical and mental health brought by the "scarring" effect of poverty ${}^{[4-7]}$${}^{[4-7]}$^([4-7]){ }^{[4-7]} .

心理韧性（resilience）指在逆境发生期间或之后个体的积极适应 ${}^{[8]}$${}^{[8]}$^([8]){ }^{[8]} ，可理解为个体和集体资源的相互作用 ${}^{[9]}$${}^{[9]}$^([9]){ }^{[9]} ，形式上可理解为通过常规途径（4C：胜任力、爱心、贡献、乐群）和非常规途径（ 4D：危险的、违规的、失
Resilience refers to the positive adaptation of individuals during or after the occurrence of adversity ${}^{[8]}$${}^{[8]}$^([8]){ }^{[8]} , which can be understood as the interaction between individual and collective resources ${}^{[9]}$${}^{[9]}$^([9]){ }^{[9]} , and can be understood in the form through conventional pathways (4C: competence, love, contribution, community) and unconventional pathways (4D: dangerous, violated, lost).

常的、混乱的）寻求健康。实证及干预研究表明，通过心理韧性训练可缓冲或消除负性事件带来的影响 ${}^{[10]}$${}^{[10]}$^([10]){ }^{[10]} ，对心理健康有正向预测作用 ${}^{[11-13]}$${}^{[11-13]}$^([11-13]){ }^{[11-13]} 。Kumpfer ${}^{[14]}$${}^{[14]}$^([14]){ }^{[14]} 环境一个体互动模型指出，个体面对逆境时采取积极的应对方式会形成正向的结果，与心理健康水平呈正相关 ${}^{[15-16]}$${}^{[15-16]}$^([15-16]){ }^{[15-16]} 。Lazarus ${}^{[17]}$${}^{[17]}$^([17]){ }^{[17]}＂评价一应对＂理论表明，高核心自我评价的个体认为自己有能力解决所面对的问题，并倾向于采取积极的应对方式，有利于青少年心理健康的维护 ${}^{[18-19]}$${}^{[18-19]}$^([18-19]){ }^{[18-19]} 。
Often, chaotic) in search of health. Empirical and intervention studies have shown that resilience training can buffer or eliminate the impact of negative events ${}^{[10]}$${}^{[10]}$^([10]){ }^{[10]} , and has a positive predictive effect on mental health ${}^{[11-13]}$${}^{[11-13]}$^([11-13]){ }^{[11-13]} . Kumpfer's ${}^{[14]}$${}^{[14]}$^([14]){ }^{[14]} one-person interaction model of the environment points out that positive coping in the face of adversity leads to positive outcomes and is positively correlated with mental health ${}^{[15-16]}$${}^{[15-16]}$^([15-16]){ }^{[15-16]} . Lazarus ${}^{[17]}$${}^{[17]}$^([17]){ }^{[17]} ' theory of "evaluation-coping" shows that individuals with high core self-evaluation believe that they are capable of solving the problems they face, and tend to adopt positive coping styles, which is conducive to the maintenance of adolescent mental health ${}^{[18-19]}$${}^{[18-19]}$^([18-19]){ }^{[18-19]} .

团体辅导因具有普及、体验和探索性等特点，可通过团体内的人际交往帮助学生发现自身已有的内、外资源，提升相关能力 ${}^{[20-21]}$${}^{[20-21]}$^([20-21]){ }^{[20-21]} ，是实施心理健康教育的有效途径之一。而每日成功小组模型（achieving suc－ cess everyday，ASE）模型是基于团体辅导模式 ${}^{[22]}$${}^{[22]}$^([22]){ }^{[22]} ，旨在为教育工作者提供的提升青少年相关能力的干预框架 ${}^{[23-24]}$${}^{[23-24]}$^([23-24]){ }^{[23-24]} 。该模型强调心理咨询与心理教育相结合并具有较强的灵活性，干预者在教授被试相关能力 （ 心理教育）的同时帮助处理个人问题（咨询），且可随时针对团体内的情况进行调整并选择与被试在团体各个阶段进展相一致的活动 ${}^{[24]}$${}^{[24]}$^([24]){ }^{[24]} 。以往研究验证了基于 ASE 模型的干预对学习体验及心理韧性的提升效果 ${}^{[2325-26]}$${}^{[2325-26]}$^([2325-26]){ }^{[2325-26]} 。故本研究采用 2 （实验组／控制组）$\times 3$$\times 3$xx3\times 3（前测／后测／追踪测）的被试内实验设计，探讨基于 ASE模型心理韧性团体辅导对初中生心理健康水平的干预效果，以期为青少年心理健康教育提供一定现实指导。
Due to its popularity, experiential and exploratory characteristics, group counseling can help students discover their existing internal and external resources and improve their relevant abilities through interpersonal communication within ${}^{[20-21]}$${}^{[20-21]}$^([20-21]){ }^{[20-21]} the group, which is one of the effective ways to implement mental health education. The Achieving Suc-Cess Everyday (ASE) model is based on ${}^{[22]}$${}^{[22]}$^([22]){ }^{[22]} the group coaching model, which aims to provide educators with an intervention framework to improve the relevant competencies of adolescents ${}^{[23-24]}$${}^{[23-24]}$^([23-24]){ }^{[23-24]} . The model emphasizes the combination of psychological counseling and psychoeducation, and has strong flexibility, the interventionist helps to deal with individual problems (counseling) while teaching the relevant abilities of the participants (psychoeducation), and can adjust to the situation within the group at any time and choose activities that are consistent with the progress of the participants at each stage of the group ${}^{[24]}$${}^{[24]}$^([24]){ }^{[24]} . Previous studies have verified the effect of intervention based on ASE model on learning experience and mental resilience ${}^{[2325-26]}$${}^{[2325-26]}$^([2325-26]){ }^{[2325-26]} . Therefore, this study used 2 (experimental group/control group) $\times 3$$\times 3$xx3\times 3 (pre-test/post-test/follow-up test) to explore the intervention effect of resilience group counseling based on the ASE model on the mental health level of junior high school students, in order to provide some practical guidance for adolescent mental health education.

1.1 对象 本研究根据文献［27］计算所需样本量，团体辅导干预组、对照组均需 14 名被试，考虑 $20\mathrm{\%}$$20\mathrm{\%}$20%20 \% 的样本流失率，本研究选取 48 名学生为被试，并随机分为干预组和控制组（均为 $n=24$$n=24$n=24n=24 ）。两组对象的年龄、性别分布等均进行严格控制，确保组间分布均匀、可比。
1.1 Subjects According to the literature [27], 14 participants were required in both the group counseling intervention group and the control group, $20\mathrm{\%}$$20\mathrm{\%}$20%20 \% and 48 students were selected as subjects in this study, and they were randomly divided into intervention group and control group (both of them $n=24$$n=24$n=24n=24 ). The age and gender distribution of the subjects in the two groups were strictly controlled to ensure that the distribution between the groups was even and comparable.

于2019年3－4月采用分层随机抽样的方法，在南疆某寄宿制中学初一、初二各 6 个班级现场施测，发放问卷 650 份，回收 650 份，剔除无效问卷后剩余 618份，有效率为 $95.08\mathrm{\%}$$95.08\mathrm{\%}$95.08%95.08 \% 。其中男生 302 名，女生 316 名；平均年龄（ $14.1\pm 1.44$$14.1\pm 1.44$14.1+-1.4414.1 \pm 1.44 ）岁。被试筛选标准：（1）一般心理健 康问 卷（General Health Questionnaire，GHQ－ 12）${}^{[28]}$${}^{[28]}$^([28]){ }^{[28]} 得分 $⩾15$$⩾15$>= 15\geqslant 15 分；（2）依据＂临界比率＂按青少年心理韧性量表（Resilience Scale for Chinese Adolescent， RSCA）${}^{[29]}$${}^{[29]}$^([29]){ }^{[29]} 得分，筛选后 $27\mathrm{\%}$$27\mathrm{\%}$27%27 \% 的低分组 ${}^{[30]}$${}^{[30]}$^([30]){ }^{[30]} ；（3） $12\sim 16$$12\sim 16$12∼1612 \sim 16岁；（4）自愿接受干预，知情同意。排除标准：（1）不能按时参加团体辅导活动；（2）存在沟通障碍，不能独立完成问卷；（3）存在躯体疾病不能参与团体活动。本研究得到石河子大学医学院第一附属医院医学伦理
From March to April 2019, the stratified random sampling method was used to conduct on-site testing in 6 classes of the first and second junior high schools of a boarding middle school in southern Xinjiang, 650 questionnaires were distributed, 650 were recovered, and 618 invalid questionnaires were eliminated, with an effective rate of $95.08\mathrm{\%}$$95.08\mathrm{\%}$95.08%95.08 \% . Among them, 302 were boys and 316 were girls; Mean age ( $14.1\pm 1.44$$14.1\pm 1.44$14.1+-1.4414.1 \pm 1.44 ) years. Screening criteria: (1) General Health Questionnaire (GHQ-12) ${}^{[28]}$${}^{[28]}$^([28]){ }^{[28]} score $⩾15$$⩾15$>= 15\geqslant 15 ; (2) According to the "critical ratio", the low group $27\mathrm{\%}$$27\mathrm{\%}$27%27 \% after screening was based on the score of the Resilience Scale for Chinese Adolescent (RSCA ${}^{[30]}$${}^{[30]}$^([30]){ }^{[30]} ); ${}^{[29]}$${}^{[29]}$^([29]){ }^{[29]} (3) $12\sim 16$$12\sim 16$12∼1612 \sim 16 years old; (4) Voluntary acceptance of intervention, informed consent. Exclusion Criteria: (1) Inability to participate in group counseling activities on time; (2) There is a communication barrier and cannot complete the questionnaire independently; (3) Having a physical illness that prevents them from participating in group activities. In this study, the medical ethics of the First Affiliated Hospital of Shihezi University School of Medicine were obtained

委员会批准（批号：2019－116－01），且经研究对象及其监护人知情同意。
Approved by the committee (lot number: 2019-116-01) with informed consent from study subjects and their guardians.
1.2 工具 1.2 Tools

1．2．1 一般心理健康问卷（General Health Question－ naire，GHQ－12）${}^{[28]}$${}^{[28]}$^([28])quad{ }^{[28]} \quad 共 12 个条目，分为积极、消极2个维度，采用 4 级评分, 0 （从不）$\sim 3$$\sim 3$∼3\sim 3（经常）分，总分为 36 分 总分越高心理健康水平越低，总分 $⩾15$$⩾15$>= 15\geqslant 15 提示有心理问题倾向。量表的内部一致性信度为 0.76 ，重测信度为 0.78 。
1.2.1 The General Health Question- naire (GHQ-12) ${}^{[28]}$${}^{[28]}$^([28])quad{ }^{[28]} \quad has a total of 12 items, divided into two dimensions: positive and negative, with a 4-level score, 0 (never) $\sim 3$$\sim 3$∼3\sim 3 (often), and a total score of 36 points $⩾15$$⩾15$>= 15\geqslant 15 . The internal consistency reliability of the scale was 0.76 and the test-retest reliability was 0.78.
1．2．2 青少年心理韧性量表（Resilience Scale for Chi－ nese Adolescent，RSCA）采用由胡月琴等 ${}^{[29]}$${}^{[29]}$^([29]){ }^{[29]} 编制的量表，包含 5 个维度（家庭支持、人际协助、目标专注、情绪控制、积极认知） 27 个条目，采用 5 级评分， 1 （完全不符合）～ 5 （完全符合），所有条目得分之和为 135分，总分越高心理韧性水平越高。量表内部一致性信度为 0.77 ，重测信度为 0.86 。
1.2.2 The Resilience Scale for Chi-nese Adolescent (RSCA) was developed by Hu et al ${}^{[29]}$${}^{[29]}$^([29]){ }^{[29]} The compiled scale contains 27 items in 5 dimensions (family support, interpersonal assistance, goal focus, emotional control, positive cognition), with a 5-level score, 1 (not at all) ~ 5 (completely agree), and the sum of all items is 135 points, the higher the total score, the higher the level of mental toughness. The internal consistency reliability of the scale was 0.77, and the test-retest reliability was 0.86.
1．2．3 简易应对方式问卷（Simplified Coping Style Questionnaire，SCSQ）由解亚宁 ${}^{[31]}$${}^{[31]}$^([31]){ }^{[31]} 编制，共 20 个题目，分为积极应对和消极应对 2 个维度。采用 4 级评分, 0 （不采取）$\sim 3$$\sim 3$∼3\sim 3（经常采取）分。积极应对方式标准分与消极应对方式标准分之差作为应对倾向得分，应对倾向得分越高表示越倾向于采用积极应对方式。量表内部一致性信度为 0.61 ，重测信度为 0.68 。
1.2.3 The Simplified Coping Style Questionnaire (SCSQ) ${}^{[31]}$${}^{[31]}$^([31]){ }^{[31]} was developed by Xie Yaning, with a total of 20 questions, divided into two dimensions: positive coping and negative coping. A 4-point rating is used, with 0 (not taken) $\sim 3$$\sim 3$∼3\sim 3 (often taken) points. The difference between the standard score of positive coping style and the standard score of negative coping style is used as the coping propensity score, and a higher coping propensity score indicates a greater tendency to adopt a positive coping style. The internal consistency reliability of the scale was 0.61, and the test-retest reliability was 0.68.
1．2．4 核心自我评价量表（Core Self－evaluations Scale， CSES）由杜建政等 ${}^{[32]}$${}^{[32]}$^([32]){ }^{[32]} 修订。包含 10 个题目，采用5级评分， 1 （完全不同意）$\sim 5$$\sim 5$∼5\sim 5（完全同意）分，总分为 50分，总分越高核心自我评价水平越高。量表内部一致性信度为 0.79 ，重测信度为 0.83 。
1.2.4 The Core Self-evaluations Scale (CSES) was ${}^{[32]}$${}^{[32]}$^([32]){ }^{[32]} revised by Du Jianzheng et al. It consists of 10 questions, with a 5-level rating, 1 (strongly disagree) $\sim 5$$\sim 5$∼5\sim 5 (strongly agree) and a total score of 50 points, with the higher the total score, the higher the level of core self-evaluation. The internal consistency reliability of the scale was 0.79, and the test-retest reliability was 0.83.

1．3．1 实验设计 本研究采用 2 （实验组／控制组）$\times 3$$\times 3$xx3\times 3 （前测／后测／追踪测）的被试内实验设计，干预组于 2019年4—6月接受每周 1 次， $60\sim 90\min /$$60\sim 90\min /$60∼90min//60 \sim 90 \mathrm{~min} / 次，共 8 次的团体辅导干预训练，对照组不接受任何干预。所有被试均采用 CHQ－12、RSCA、SCSQ、CSES 进行基线测评（干预前或平行时间点）和干预后测评（基线测评后 8 周）以及追踪测评（干预结束 3 个月后），以评估团体辅导训练对心理健康、心理韧性、应对倾向与核心自我评价的影响。此外，团体辅导的实施由 2 位经过团体心理咨询培训及接受专家督导的心理系研究生 （国家心理咨询师二级），及心理咨询资深专家进行督导与过程评估。团体活动场所为容纳 20 人的心理咨询教室，具有较充足的活动空间。
1.3.1 Experimental design This study adopted an intra-participant experimental design of 2 (experimental group/control group) $\times 3$$\times 3$xx3\times 3 (pre-test/post-test/follow-up test), and the intervention group received 1 time $60\sim 90\min /$$60\sim 90\min /$60∼90min//60 \sim 90 \mathrm{~min} / per week from April to June 2019 times, a total of 8 group counseling intervention trainings, and the control group did not receive any intervention. All participants were assessed using CHQ-12, RSCA, SCSQ, CSES at baseline (pre-intervention or parallel time points) and post-intervention (8 weeks after baseline assessment) and follow-up (3 months after the end of intervention) to assess the impact of group counseling training on mental health, resilience, coping tendencies, and core self-evaluation. In addition, the implementation of group counselling is supervised and evaluated by 2 graduate students of the Department of Psychology (National Psychological Counselor Level 2) who have been trained in group counseling and supervised by experts, and senior experts in psychological counseling. The group activity venue is a psychological counseling classroom that can accommodate 20 people, with sufficient activity space.
1．3．2 心理韧性团体辅导方案 ASE模型包含 6 个阶段，除评审以外其他阶段的顺序均可按需求调整：评审（筛选成员）、复审（制定团体规范、目标）、相识 （增强团体凝聚力）、挑战（激发团体中消极行为与想
1.3.2 Resilience Group Counseling Program The ASE model consists of 6 stages, and the order of the other stages can be adjusted according to the needs except for the review: review (selection of members), review (setting group norms and goals), acquaintance (enhancing group cohesion), and challenge (stimulating negative behaviors and thoughts in the group).

法的建设性对抗）、教授（相关的能力训练，引导学生建立积极认知及培养积极应对策略）、支持（引导被试反思团体经验，更加明晰自身的内外部资源，内化团体效果）${}^{[23]}$${}^{[23]}$^([23]){ }^{[23]} 。本研究依托于 ASE 模型及团体咨询技术，借鉴 Ungar 等 ${}^{[33]}$${}^{[33]}$^([33]){ }^{[33]} 提出的 6 种培养心理韧性的方法，参考＂成长的天空＂计划（Understanding Adolescent Program，UAP）项目，目标与《中小学心理健康教育指导纲要》 ${}^{[34]}$${}^{[34]}$^([34]){ }^{[34]} 相关内容结合，设计出一套适用于中学生以完善认知结构与改善行为方式为测重点的心理韧性团体辅导方案（共 8 次），第 2,6 次干预方案的设置侧重于认知层面 结合影响心理韧性的内外保护与风险因素，引导青少年重新建构问题的意义并客观的认识自己 ${}^{[35]}$${}^{[35]}$^([35]){ }^{[35]} 。第 $3\sim 5$$3\sim 5$3∼53 \sim 5 次的干预方案侧重于能力的培养 强调可变性帮助个体识别心理韧性的来源并寻求可获得相同体验的积极应对方式以替代消极行为从而更稳定提升心理健康水平 ${}^{[36-38]}$${}^{[36-38]}$^([36-38]){ }^{[36-38]} 。
Constructive confrontation of the law), teaching (relevant ability training, guiding students to establish positive cognition and cultivate positive coping strategies), support (guiding participants to reflect on group experience, be more aware of their own internal and external resources, and internalize group effects). ${}^{[23]}$${}^{[23]}$^([23]){ }^{[23]} This study relied on the ASE model and group counseling techniques, drew on six methods ${}^{[33]}$${}^{[33]}$^([33]){ }^{[33]} for cultivating resilience proposed by Ungar et al., and referred to the "Growing Sky" program (UAP) project, and the goals of the "Guidelines for Mental Health Education in Primary and Secondary Schools ${}^{[34]}$${}^{[34]}$^([34]){ }^{[34]} ". The 2nd and 6th intervention programs focused on the cognitive level and combined the internal and external protection and risk factors that affect resilience to guide adolescents to reconstruct the meaning of the problem and understand themselves ${}^{[35]}$${}^{[35]}$^([35]){ }^{[35]} objectively. The second $3\sim 5$$3\sim 5$3∼53 \sim 5 intervention focused on capacity development, emphasizing variability, helping individuals identify sources of resilience and seek positive coping styles that would lead to the same experience as negative behaviors in place of negative behaviors ${}^{[36-38]}$${}^{[36-38]}$^([36-38]){ }^{[36-38]} , resulting in a more stable improvement in mental health.
1.4 统计方法 使用 SPSS 17.0 进行数据分析，使用 $K-S$$K-S$K-SK-S 检验分别对干预组和对照组的 CHQ－12、RSCA、 SCSQ、CSEC 评分进行正态性检验 结果均符合正态分布。采用配对样本 $t$$t$tt 检验进行组内比较；采用独立样本 $t$$t$tt 检验进行组间比较；对两组被试各量表3个时间点进行 2 因素（干预组、对照组）$\times 3$$\times 3$xx3\times 3 水平（干预前、干预后、追踪测）重复测量方差分析。检验水准 $\alpha =$$\alpha =$alpha=\alpha=
1.4 Statistical Methods SPSS 17.0 was used for data analysis, and the test was $K-S$$K-S$K-SK-S used to test the normality of CHQ-12, RSCA, SCSQ, CSEC scores in the intervention group and the control group, respectively, and the results were in line with the normal distribution. Paired sample $t$$t$tt tests were used for intra-group comparisons. Independent sample $t$$t$tt tests were used for comparisons between groups; Repeated measures ANOVA was performed for the 2-factor (intervention group, control group) $\times 3$$\times 3$xx3\times 3 level (pre-intervention, post-intervention, follow-up test) at 3 time points of each scale in the two groups. Inspection level $\alpha =$$\alpha =$alpha=\alpha=
0.05 。

2.1 干预前后心理韧性变量的差异检验 结果显示，干预前干预组除情绪控制得分低于对照组外（ $t=$$t=$t=t= －2．83，$P<0.05$$P<0.05$P < 0.05P<0.05 ），其他各维度得分差异均无统计学意义 $(t$$(t$(t(t 值分别为 $-0.82,1.26,-0.44,0.48,-0.69,P$$-0.82,1.26,-0.44,0.48,-0.69,P$-0.82,1.26,-0.44,0.48,-0.69,P-0.82,1.26,-0.44,0.48,-0.69, P 值均 $>$$>$>> 0．05）；干预后干预组心理韧性总分及目标专注、人际协助分维度得分均高于对照组 $t$$t$tt 值分别为 $3.88,2.83$$3.88,2.83$3.88,2.833.88,2.83 ， $3.18,P$$3.18,P$3.18,P3.18, ~ P 值均 $<0.01$$<0.01$< 0.01<0.01 ）；追踪测结果显示，心理韧性总分及目标专注、积极认知、人际协助得分均高于对照组 $(t$$(t$(t(t值分别为 $2.72,2.32,2.52,2.13,P$$2.72,2.32,2.52,2.13,P$2.72,2.32,2.52,2.13,P2.72,2.32,2.52,2.13, P 值均＜0．05）。
2.1 Difference test of resilience variables before and after intervention The results showed that there was no significant difference in the scores of other dimensions in the intervention group before intervention, except that the emotional control score was lower than that of the control group ( $t=$$t=$t=t= -2.83, ), $P<0.05$$P<0.05$P < 0.05P<0.05 and $-0.82,1.26,-0.44,0.48,-0.69,P$$-0.82,1.26,-0.44,0.48,-0.69,P$-0.82,1.26,-0.44,0.48,-0.69,P-0.82,1.26,-0.44,0.48,-0.69, P the value was $>$$>$>> 0.05, respectively. $(t$$(t$(t(t After intervention, the total score of resilience and the scores of goal focus and interpersonal assistance in the intervention group were higher than those in $3.88,2.83$$3.88,2.83$3.88,2.833.88,2.83 the control group $t$$t$tt , respectively. $3.18,P$$3.18,P$3.18,P3.18, ~ P $<0.01$$<0.01$< 0.01<0.01 The results of the follow-up test showed that the total score of mental toughness, the scores of goal focus, positive cognition, and interpersonal assistance were higher than those of the control group $(t$$(t$(t(t , all of which $2.72,2.32,2.52,2.13,P$$2.72,2.32,2.52,2.13,P$2.72,2.32,2.52,2.13,P2.72,2.32,2.52,2.13, P were <0.05).

干预组干预前后结果显示心理韧性总分及目标专注、情绪控制、家庭支持、人际协助分维度得分均高于干预前（ $P$$P$PP 值均＜0．01）；追踪测结果显示，心理韧性总分及目标专注、情绪控制、积极认知、家庭支持、人际协助高于干预前（ $P$$P$PP 值均＜0．05）。对照组干预前后测结果显示，除情绪控制得分低于干预前外（ $P<$$P<$P <P< 0．05）心理韧性总分及其他维度差异均无统计学意义 （ $P$$P$PP 值均 $>0.05$$>0.05$> 0.05>0.05 ）。追踪测结果显示，心理韧性总分及目标专注、情绪控制、家庭支持、人际协助分维度得分差异均无统计学意义（ $P$$P$PP 值均 $>0.05$$>0.05$> 0.05>0.05 ）。见表1。
The results of the intervention group before and after intervention showed that the total score of mental resilience and the sub-scores of goal focus, emotional control, family support and interpersonal assistance were higher than those before intervention ( $P$$P$PP all values <0.01), and the results of follow-up test showed that the total scores of mental resilience and goal focus, emotional control, positive cognition, family support and interpersonal assistance were higher than those before intervention ( $P$$P$PP all values <0.05). The results of the pre- and post-intervention tests in the control group showed that there was no significant difference in the total score of resilience and other dimensions except that the emotional control score was lower than that before the intervention ( $P<$$P<$P <P< 0.05) (all $P$$P$PP values $>0.05$$>0.05$> 0.05>0.05 ). The results of the follow-up test showed that there was no significant difference in the total score of mental toughness and the scores of goal focus, emotional control, family support, and interpersonal assistance (all $P$$P$PP values $>0.05$$>0.05$> 0.05>0.05 ). See Table 1.

表 1 不同组别学生团体心理辅导干预前后及追踪测心理韧性各维度得分比较 $(\overline{x}\pm s)$$(\overline{x}\pm s)$( bar(x)+-s)(\bar{x} \pm s)
Table 1 Comparison $(\overline{x}\pm s)$$(\overline{x}\pm s)$( bar(x)+-s)(\bar{x} \pm s) of the scores of resilience in different groups of students before and after the intervention and on the follow-up test

注：$t_1$$t_1$t_(1)t_{1} 值为干预前后比较 $t_2$$t_2$t_(2)t_{2} 值为干预前与追踪测比较；$\ast P<0.05$$\ast P<0.05$**P < 0.05* P<0.05 ，＊＊$P<0.01$$P<0.01$P < 0.01P<0.01 。
Note: $t_1$$t_1$t_(1)t_{1} Values are before and after the intervention and the $t_2$$t_2$t_(2)t_{2} values are before and after the intervention. $\ast P<0.05$$\ast P<0.05$**P < 0.05* P<0.05 ，＊＊ $P<0.01$$P<0.01$P < 0.01P<0.01 。