Transcript ADOLESCENT ABSTINENCE FROM MULTIPLE RISK …

APPLYING A YOUTH ENGAGEMENT FRAMEWORK TO PREDICTING COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT
Michael A. Busseri, Linda Rose-Krasnor, Kelly Campbell, and Holly Stack
Brock University (Canada) and the Centre of Excellence for Youth Engagement (Health Canada)
The Centres of Excellence are a
Health Canada-funded program.
The opinions expressed in this
poster do not necessarily reflect
those of Health Canada.
Introduction
Results
Multiple Regression Results
• Previous studies have linked youth activity involvement with positive developmental outcomes,
including reduced risk behaviors, higher academic success, better psychological functioning,
and stronger interpersonal bonds.
Summary of Study Measures and Correlations with Youth Involvement
Standardized beta weights are shown in the prediction of community involvement (CI)
and next year intentions (NYI) – controlling for current involvement.
• Comparatively fewer studies, however, have systematically examined predictors of youth
involvement.
As shown in the table below, with few exceptions, initiating and sustaining factor
indicators showed positive bivariate associations with both current community
involvement (CI) and next year intentions (NYI).
Factor / Level
• We have proposed a process-oriented framework for youth “engagement”, which we define as
sustained, meaningful activity involvement.
Initiating / Self
Prosocial values
Valuing ambition
• As shown in the figure below, our Youth Engagement Framework comprises four primary
components: initiating factors expected to promote youth engagement; sustaining factors
expected to support and maintain engagement; youth engagement itself; and outcomes.
• The present study focuses on relationships between initiating and sustaining factors and youth
engagement, evaluated at three hypothesized levels of influence: personal beliefs, attitudes, and
predispositions (self-level); interpersonal relations (social-level); and society and institutions
(systems-level).
Measure
Introversion
Open to new experience
Negative attitudes
Interest in involvement
Initiating / Social
Social modeling
Social expectations
Social encouragement
4
1
2
2
4
1
6
6
6
.67
---.71
--
Initiating / System
Youth engagement
Involvement opportunities
Neighborhood quality
Outcomes
Societal climate
Sustaining / Self
Sustaining factors
Note. The ‘layers’ surrounding initiating and sustaining factors represent self, social, and systems-level influences.
Dashed box indicates components assessed in the current study.
Sustaining / Social
Participants and Procedures
• Results were based on survey responses from 190 youth: female undergraduates ranging in age
from 17 to 19 years old (M = 18.48 years, SD = 0.53).
• Community involvement was assessed by mean frequency of current involvement in five
activities in the past year (volunteering/community service, political action, school clubs,
community youth groups, conferences/workshops), as was a composite measure of involvement
intentions for the coming year.
Analysis
4
-.07
.05
.08
Valuing ambition
-.12
-.20
Introversion
-.05
-.09
Open to new experience
-.05
.17
Negative attitudes
-.06
-.02
-.12
Interest in involvement
.17
.01
.12
Initiating / Social
Social composite
.18
.15
-.14
Initiating / System
Involvement opportunities
-.07
-.04
.36
Neighborhood quality
-.01
-.01
Societal climate
-.13
-.03
Efficacy composite
.29
.05
Perseverance
-.06
.18
Volatility
.15
.03
Positive attitudes
.27
-.02
Social composite
-.07
-.11
.07
-.01
Growth opportunities
.01
-.02
Limits to responsibility
.20
.01
--
.48
-.18
-.20
.25
-.16
.30
Sustaining / Self
.72
.67
.68
.09
.03
.02
.36
.05
.03
Sustaining / Social
Sustaining / Systems Societal climate
.04
Involvement
4
.73
Perseverance
3
.76
.18
.28
Volatility
1
--
.01
-.04
Positive attitudes
3
.74
.40
.33
Social support
6
.75
Social recognition
6
.83
Quality of social experience
6
.71
Current involvement
Note. Underlined values indicate ps < .05.
Predicting Next Year Intentions
.25
.23
6
.76
.35
.26
Growth opportunities
3
.60
.30
.21
Limits to responsibility
1
--
.14
.05
System openness to change*
5
.80
.46
.36
Current involvement (CI)
5
.67
--
.61
Next year intentions (NYI)
5
.65
.61
--
Note. N = 190. * Efficacy composite combines scores from two systems-level factors (self-level
‘perceived efficacy’, and systems-level ‘openness to change’). Underlined values indicate ps < .05
The hierarchical regression model explained 50% of the variance in next year intentions
(NYI); R = .71, p < .001. In step 1, current involvement explained 37% of the variance (p
< .001). In step 2, the initiating and sustaining factor indicators explained an additional
13% of the variance (p = .002).
As shown in the table above, in the final regression model five predictors made
significant, unique contributions to the prediction of stronger intentions for next year
involvement: more frequent current involvement, less valuing of ambition, greater
openness to new experiences, stronger social support, and greater perseverance.
Discussion
• Initiating and sustaining factors both were associated with current community
involvement and future intended involvement in bivariate and multivariate analyses.
• Regression results support the unique role of two of three hypothesized levels of
influence: self-level and social-level variables.
Predicting Community Involvement
• Pairwise correlations: initiating and sustaining factor indictors with youth involvement (current
community involvement, next year intentions).
Together the initiating and sustaining factors indicators explained a total of 41% of the
variance in current community involvement (CI) was explained (R = .64, p < .001).
• Multiple regression of current involvement on initiating and sustaining factor indicators.
As shown in the table at the top of the next column, several indicators made significant
and unique contributions to the prediction of community involvement including:
greater interest in getting involved, greater social encouragement, higher perceived
efficacy, and more positive engagement attitudes.
• Hierarchical multiple regression of next year intentions on current involvement (step 1) and
initiating and sustaining factors (step 2).
Prosocial values
.80
Efficacy composite*
Involvement
Initiating / Self
.26
Perceived efficacy*
Sustaining / Systems Societal climate
Measures
.22
.85
Social composite
• The study survey was completed at the participant’s convenience and encompassed questions
related to each of the primary components of our Youth Engagement Framework.
• Ten initiating factor indicators and eight sustaining factor indicators were derived from previous
studies, as well as our conceptual work. Indicators were based on multi-item measures (see
table in next column).
4
Criteria
CI
NYI
Correlations with
CI
NYI
.36
4
Predictor
.71
Social composite
Youth Engagement Framework
Initiating factors
Scale properties
Items
Alpha
Factor / Level
• No inferences can be made about causal influence including how relations among
framework components unfold over time. Results may vary depending on the type of
involvement examined and the specific initiating and sustaining factor indicators.
Conclusion
Our Youth Engagement Framework - comprising multiple types and levels of
influence - holds promise for the study of youth engagement.