Fifteen volunteers were recruited from a community organisation north of Auckland to pilot test the optimism intervention to ensure that it was clear and easily understood by older adults. In exchange for their time and effort, a morning tea was provided at the meeting for all members of the organisation. Inclusion criteria included the ability to read and understand English and no serious cognitive impairment (as evidenced by the ability to fill out questionnaires). All participants were females with an average age of 76 years (ranging from 70 – 80 years). The average number of total years of education was 11, and previous occupations included machinist, nurse, nurse aide, waitress, hairdresser, secretary, and shop assistant. Twenty-five percent of people who attended the meeting volunteered to participate and two dropped out.
Pilot test materials
Each folder contained an information sheet, a consent form, four Optimism Intervention Forms and a Pilot Test Feedback Questionnaire. These were self- administered individually at home rather than in a group format to prevent embarrassment, discomfort or feelings of obligation.
Optimism Intervention Forms
The Optimism Intervention Form is the modified version of the Daily Attributions Questionnaire (DAQ; Fresco & Craighead, 1993), which itself is similar to the Attributional Style Questionnaire (Peterson et al., 1982). Each form (i.e., for one event) takes approximately 10 minutes to complete. Specifically, the Optimism Intervention Form includes the following steps:
Step A) Identify and describe either a good and bad event that has occurred in your life this week. Circle the type of event - achievement/ability, health, social, personal, other.
good/bad the cause makes you feel. Rate how strongly you believe the cause. Rate the cause along the three dimensions of explanatory style including internality, stability, and globality.
Step C) Develop a more optimistic (positive yet realistic) explanation/cause for the event. Rate how good/bad this alternative cause makes you feel. Rate how strongly you believe this alternative cause. Rate this alternative cause along the three dimensions of explanatory style including internality, stability, and globality.
Step D) Re-rate how strongly you believe that the first cause was the reason for why the event happened. Rate how much the above process helped them to feel better about the event.
Pilot Test Feedback Questionnaire
The Pilot Test Feedback Questionnaire is a short survey developed for the purpose of the pilot study (shown in Appendix B). Participants indicated how much they agreed with a number of statements on a 5-point Likert scale (from 1 strongly disagree to 5
strongly agree). Statements targeted the difficulty and usefulness of the Optimism Intervention as a whole, as well as components within it, such as the instructions and examples that were given. There was space for qualitative comments at the end of the questionnaire.
Pilot test procedure
After an introduction of the pilot test aims, members of a community organisation received approximately ten minutes of briefing regarding the Optimism Intervention. This briefing included instruction on self-monitoring of how they assign causes to events in their lives and how to develop alternative helpful explanations for those events. Examples were given for different types of events. Members were told that completing this reflection would help them arrive at the most positive but realistic causes for good and bad events. If members were interested in volunteering, they collected a folder from a pile to take home.
At home, participants completed four Optimism Intervention forms (two ‘good’ and two ‘bad’ events), over one week. During the week, participants were rung to check their understanding of the task. All reported they were proceeding without any
problems or questions. At the end of the week, participants completed the Pilot Test Feedback Questionnaire regarding the instructions, questions and scale items of the Optimism Intervention. The folders were returned to the researcher using the self- addressed stamped envelope provided. Participants received a letter in the mail thanking them for their participation. These instructions are illustrated in Figure 1 below.
Figure 1. Flow chart of instructions.
Pilot test results
Responses on the Pilot Test Feedback Questionnaire (on scales from 1 strongly disagree to 5 strongly agree) indicate that the Optimism Form was generally easy to understand (M = 3.56; SD = 1.13), and the examples helped to make it clearer (M = 3.67; SD = 0.71). In addition, completing four forms a week was perceived as a reasonable number (M = 4.44; SD = 1.33) and participants mostly enjoyed the intervention (M = 3.78; SD = 0.83). Some people found the task difficult (M = 2.88;
SD = 1.25), as it was a challenge to develop alternative causes for events that were both positive and realistic. Overall, participants believed that the intervention would be moderately helpful for increasing their level of optimism (M = 2.63; SD = 1.77). This perception may be due to the short period they had to complete forms and practice the skills. Some participants also indicated that they were unsure whether they would recommend the intervention to other people (M = 2.88; SD = 0.99).
Read the Information Sheet (pg. 1-3)
Sign the Consent Form (pg 4) During the next week:
- Complete 4 Optimism Intervention Forms (pg. 5-16) (2 good events and 2 bad events)
Complete the Feedback Questionnaire (pg. 17-18)
Return the folder in the self-addressed stamped envelope provided at the back of the folder
Participants’ comments were that it was only moderately helpful because they were already optimistic. However, on closer analysis of their intervention forms, it appeared that some participants were not only pessimistic in their initial responses to events, but they also developed alternative, more optimistic responses throughout the intervention forms. It is possible that they were not given enough explanation about the processes underlying the intervention and therefore could not see the changes in their responses. Other comments from participants were that they lacked confidence in filling out the forms, as they were unsure of whether they were doing it correctly. However, they often added that the intervention forms got easier over time with practice.