Running head: YD PARTICIPATION AND INTENTIONAL SELF-REGULATION
Youth Development Program Participation and Intentional-Self Regulation Skills: Contextual
and Individual Bases of Pathways to Positive Youth Development1
Megan Kiely Mueller
Erin Phelps
Edmond P. Bowers
Jennifer P. Agans
Tufts University
Jennifer Brown Urban
Montclair State University
Richard M. Lerner
Tufts University
Submitted: February 28, 2011
1
This research was supported in part by grants from the National 4-H Council and the Thrive
Foundation for Youth. Address correspondence to: Megan Kiely Mueller, Institute for Applied
Research in Youth Development, Tufts University, 301 Lincoln Filene Building, Medford, MA
02155; e-mail: megan.kiely@tufts.edu.
1
YD Participation and Intentional Self-Regulation
2
Abstract
The present research used data from Grades 8, 9, and 10 of the 4-H Study of Positive
Youth Development in order to better elucidate the process through which the strengths of youth
and the ecological resources promoting healthy development (such as out-of-school-time
programs) may contribute to thriving. We examined the relationship between adolescents’ selfregulation skills (selection, optimization, and compensation) and their participation in youth
development (YD) programs across Grades 8 and 9 in predicting Grade 10 PYD and
Contribution. Results indicated that while self-regulation skills alone predicted PYD, selfregulation and YD program participation both predicted Contribution. In addition, Grade 8 YD
participation positively predicted Grade 9 self-regulation, which, in turn, predicted Grade 10
PYD and Contribution. We discuss how the alignment of youth strengths and resources within
the environment may promote positive youth development.
YD Participation and Intentional Self-Regulation
3
Youth Development Program Participation and Intentional-Self Regulation Skills: Contextual
and Individual Bases of Pathways to Positive Youth Development
Both theory and research suggest that high quality youth development (YD) programs are
a strong contextual asset for promoting positive outcomes in the lives of diverse youth (Eccles &
Gootman, 2002; Mahoney, Vandell, Simkins, & Zarrett, 2009). However, given the limited
resources available for such programs, it is critical to explore the ways that youth can benefit
maximally from such programs. Therefore, the present research aims to explore the links among
individual characteristics of adolescents, their use of (or capitalization on) the resources provided
by participation across time in a quality YD program, and their positive youth development.
Adolescent Development and the Positive Youth Development (PYD) Perspective
Traditionally, adolescence has been considered a time of “storm and stress,” with
universal, biologically-based changes inevitably driving adolescents to a period of emotional and
physical conflict and stress (e.g., Hall, 1904). This approach to adolescent research was based on
a biological reductionism that fostered the view that adolescents were simply “problems to be
managed” (Roth & Brooks-Gunn, 2003) and that, practically speaking, research should focus on
preventing or ameliorating the inevitable biologically (e.g., genetically) predetermined negative
consequences of the adolescent period (e.g., Erikson, 1968; Freud, 1969). In turn, however,
developmental systems theories provide a useful and optimistic theoretical frame for studying
adolescent development in particular. Developmental systems theories indicate that youth should
be studied not in isolation but, instead, as the product of the bidirectional relationship between
the individual and his or her environment
Much contemporary research in human development is framed by these relational,
developmental systems models (Overton, 2010), which emphasize that the fundamental process
YD Participation and Intentional Self-Regulation
4
of human development involves mutually influential relations between the developing individual
and the multiple levels of the ecology of human development, represented as individual 
context relations. This framework rejects the reductionist notion of genetically predetermined
outcomes, and because of its emphasis on plasticity, affords the idea that multiple directions of
change (from problematic to positive) could derive from variation in an adolescent’s history of
individual  context relations.
Current developmental research has been shaped by the innovations brought about by the
positive youth development (PYD) perspective (J. Lerner, Phelps, Forman, & Bowers, 2009). As
such, researchers consider the integrated role of multiple contexts of adolescent development,
such as the family, peers, and schools in providing a basis for, and outcome of, the actions of
people developing across this period of life (e.g., Lerner et al., 2005, Theokas & Lerner, 2006).
The PYD perspective has been derived from theory and, as well, from the work of practitioners
interested in developing programs or policies to enhance youth development, as opposed to
decreasing the purported deficits in their behavior (Deschenes, McDonald, & McLaughlin, 2004;
J. Lerner et al., 2009). Because of this confluence of research, theory, and practice, there has
been increasing attention paid to the role of community-based, youth-serving organizations, and
how they may provide resources that promote positive development (Li, Bebiroglu, Phelps, &
Lerner, 2009). As designed facets of the ecology, programmatic experiences intended to foster
positive development among youth may be a potentially powerful basis of support of PYD.
Youth Development Programs and PYD
An extensive body of research has shown that high quality, structured out-of-school-time
(OST) programs promote a host of positive outcomes including, but not limited to, initiative
skills (Larson, 2000), academic achievement (Zaff, Moore, Papillo, & Williams, 2003), civic
YD Participation and Intentional Self-Regulation
5
engagement (Sherrod & Lauckhardt, 2009; Stoneman, 2002), and overall positive youth
development (J. Lerner et al., 2009). Furthermore, adolescence is an important period for identity
development and for structuring positive and prosocial peer relations, and activity participation is
a context in which this development may be fostered (Barber, Stone, Hunt, & Eccles, 2005;
Mahoney et al., 2009). It is clear from the extant research that participation in structured OST
activities is a developmental asset vital to promoting PYD (Lerner, 2005; Zarrett et al., 2009).
As the nature and quality of youth OST activity involvement is critical to positive
development, it is important to delineate the precise features of programs that serve as crucial
developmental assets for youth. Youth development (YD) programs are a subset of OST
programs that include structured activities that are deliberately intended to affect positive
developmental outcomes (Lerner, 2004). Such programs often contain the “Big Three” (Lerner,
2004) program characteristics shown to promote positive development, that is: 1. positive and
sustained (for at least one year; Rhodes, 2002) adult-youth relations, such as mentoring; 2. youth
life-skill building activities; and 3. youth participation in and leadership of valued community
activities (Zaff, Hart, Flanagan, Youniss, & Levine, 2010). YD programs, such as 4-H Clubs and
other after school programs that incorporate the “Big Three” characteristics, provide a structured
environment that serves as a developmental asset encouraging youth to take leadership and
agency in their development (Eccles & Gootman, 2002; Larson, 2000) and to develop needed
and useful life skills (Mahoney, Larson, Eccles, & Lord, 2005). Greater participation in such
programs has been linked to indicators of PYD (Balsano, Phelps, Theokas, Lerner, & Lerner,
2009; Mahoney et al., 2009), and to the growth of positive outcomes such as higher grades,
school value, self-esteem, and resilient functioning (Fredricks & Eccles, 2005).
YD Participation and Intentional Self-Regulation
6
However, it is important to note that while research suggests that increased participation
in OST activities is linked to positive developmental outcomes (e.g., Mahoney et al., 2009),
research by Zarrett and colleagues (2009) suggests that a more nuanced relationship exists.
Zarrett et al. found that, in some instances, higher activity participation can lead to higher PYD,
but also to higher risk of depression. In addition, patterns of participation may affect
developmental outcomes differentially. Zarrett and colleagues found that for middle school
youth, the benefits of participating in sports differed depending on the other types of activities in
which youth also participated (Zarrett, Peltz, Fay, Li, & Lerner, 2007). This research points to
the complexity in which youth participation in OST activities can have an impact on
development, and suggests that a more nuanced approach is necessary, one that establishes how
much and what kind of programs are beneficial to youth of particular characteristics.
Intentional Self-Regulation as an Individual Strength
Research on the strengths that youth bring to their interactions with their contexts has
increasingly assessed adolescents’ abilities to seek out and acquire the resources possessed by
these organizations to promote their development (Mueller, Lewin-Bizan, & Urban, in press).
Are there particular characteristics of youth that may be linked to effectively engaging in YD
programs in ways that maximize the probability of PYD? Gestsdóttir and colleagues (Gestsdóttir
& Lerner, 2007, 2008; Gestsdóttir, Lewin-Bizan, von Eye, Lerner, & Lerner, 2009) have
suggested that intentional self-regulation behaviors, involving the selection of positive or
developmentally beneficial goals, acting to optimize the resources needed to make such goals a
reality, and possessing the ability to compensate effectively when goals are blocked, are the
characteristics that youth need to seek out and maximally use the resources in the environment,
such as those represented by (or found within) YD programs. These selection (S), optimization
YD Participation and Intentional Self-Regulation
7
(O), and compensation (C) skills (i.e., SOC skills) provide a set of cognitive, emotional, and
behavioral attributes that an individual employs to contribute to mutually beneficial relations
with his or her context (Freund & Baltes, 2002; Gestsdóttir & Lerner, 2008; Lerner, Freund, De
Stefanis, & Habernas, 2001). The SOC model offers a framework for understanding adolescents’
abilities to influence or select from and use the resources in the context of the YD program that
is, in turn, influencing them.
Prior research has indicated that SOC skills are predictive of PYD outcomes (e.g.,
Gestsdóttir & Lerner, 2007; Zimmerman, Phelps, & Lerner, 2007), with high SOC scores
associated with the highest PYD trajectories (Zimmerman, Phelps, & Lerner, 2008). Therefore, it
is reasonable to expect that SOC scores, as an index of the presence of the individual’s potential
contribution to mutually beneficial relations with his or her context, when coupled with
participation in YD programs, constitutes a relational structure linked to PYD. That is, if YD
programs are structured to provide youth with the developmental assets of positive adult
relationships, skill building, and leadership opportunities, then, alignment with individual
strengths, such as intentional self-regulation, should constitute an ideal relation for promoting the
positive individual  context relationships that result in PYD.
The Present Research: YD Program Participation, SOC Skills, PYD, and Contribution
The purpose of the present research, therefore, is to better understand how adolescents’
SOC skills are linked to the assets of YD programs. As well, the purpose is to ascertain the
sequence of the development of SOC skills and participation in YD programs. That is, do
individuals with high SOC skills self-select into YD programs (presumably in order to obtain the
resources that they need to achieve their goals)? Or, alternatively, do YD programs provide
YD Participation and Intentional Self-Regulation
8
youth with the resources that are linked to subsequent development of intentional self-regulation
skills?
The fact that YD programs are linked in the extant literature to SOC skills (Lerner, 2004)
suggests that greater “dosages” of YD program involvement should co-vary with higher SOC
scores. Past research indicates that high quality, structured YD programs containing the “Big
Three” (e.g., 4-H Clubs) serve as a source of contextual assets for youth (Theokas & Lerner,
2006). Therefore, under the assumption that high quality YD programs provide resources to
youth and that intentional self-regulation skills may afford a means by which youth access the
assets of programs, the present research expands upon past findings by directly testing the link
between YD program involvement, SOC scores, PYD, and Contribution (an important outcome
related to youth contributing to their community, family etc., and one that YD programs such as
4-H often focus on in particular; National 4-H Council, 2010).
Accordingly, we will capitalize on data from the 4-H Study of PYD, a longitudinal
investigation that initially studied a cohort of fifth graders and now includes information through
the twelfth grade (Bowers et al., 2010; Lerner et al., 2005; Phelps et al., 2007; Phelps et al.,
2009). Within the 4-H study, youth strengths are operationalized by a measure associated with
the SOC model, which assesses adolescents’ adaptive intentional self-regulation skills. In
addition, we will use measures of the activities that youth engage in outside of school,
operationalized by both number of activities and intensity (frequency per month) of involvement;
these measures will capture the benefits afforded by both diverse and frequent participation in
youth development programs.
Along with the individual strengths of intentional self-regulation skills and the contextual
assets afforded by YD program participation, the 4-H study also provides measures of PYD
YD Participation and Intentional Self-Regulation
9
(conceptualized by the “Five Cs” – Competence, Confidence, Connection, Character, and
Caring; Lerner, 2004, 2009). These concepts are used to assess domains of healthy development
and characteristics that place youth on a life trajectory marked by mutually beneficial individual
 context relations that in turn, lead to the “Sixth C” of youth Contribution (e.g., contribution
to self, family, community, society; Lerner, 2004, 2009; Lerner et al., 2005). Measures of the
“Five Cs” and of Contribution are used to assess the benefits of adolescent participation in YD
programs (Eccles & Gootman, 2002; Roth & Brooks-Gunn, 2003) and are recognized as
indicators of a “thriving youth” (King et al., 2005).
In sum, the measures used in the present study (i.e., of YD program participation, SOC,
PYD, and Contribution) enable the fundamental question of this study to be addressed: How
does the combination of youth strengths, as operationalized by SOC, and the contextual asset of
participation in youth development programs, combine within and across time to promote to
mutually beneficial relations that may lead to thriving among youth? Past research has shown
consistent links between YD program participation and both PYD and Contribution (Lerner,
Lerner, & Phelps, 2008, 2009). As such, the present research aims to explore the relationship
between YD program participation, SOC skills, PYD, and Contribution in more detail, and to
ascertain the development sequence of this relationship.
Method
Participants and Procedure
Sample. The current study included a subset of participants in the 4-H Study of Positive
Youth Development, a national, longitudinal study. Overall, across the first six waves of the
study, 6,120 youth (59% female) in 41 states were surveyed, along with 3,084 of their parents.
YD Participation and Intentional Self-Regulation
10
Across the first six waves, 2,527 of these students were tested two or more times. The present
study utilized a subsample of youth from Grades 8 through 10 (Waves 4 through 6).
In Grade 8 (Wave 4), 1,990), 2,051 youth were surveyed from 17 states along with 563 of
their parents. These youth were 62.2% female, with a mean age of 14.40 years (SD = 1.41). Selfreported race for these youth was American Indian, 1.5%; Asian American, 2.6%; African
American, 8.2%; Latino/a, 11.5%; European American, 73.3%; and Multiracial 2.9%.
In Grade 9 (Wave 5), 1,208 youth were surveyed from 18 states along with 292 of their
parents. These youth were 60.5% female, with a mean age of 14.93 years (SD = 1.10). Selfreported race for these youth was American Indian, 3.1%; Asian American, 2.8%; African
American, 9.6%; Latino/a, 11.3%; European American, 67.8%; and Multiracial, 3.1 %.
In Grade 10 (Wave 6), 2,488 youth were surveyed from 32 states along with 341 of their
parents. These youth were 63.6% female, with a mean age of 15.71 years (SD= 1.38). Selfreported race for these youth was American Indian, 1.1%; Asian American, 1.7 %; African
American, 7.2%; Latino/a, 7.2%; European American, 77.6%; and Multiracial, 2.9%.
The current study uses a subsample of 895 youth from Grades 8, 9, and 10 (Waves 4, 5,
and 6); the selection criterion was participation in the study at least two of the three grades. The
youth in this subsample were 62.7% female and self-reported race was 1.5% Native American,
3.2% Asian or Pacific Islander, 7.5% African American, 6.9% Latino/a, 64.9% European
American, and 1.0% Multiracial. In addition, 14.5% of participants reported race inconsistently
across waves of participation. Based on research documenting the link between maternal
education and youth’s educational and career attainment (e.g., Hauser & Featherman, 1976),
maternal education was used as an indicator of participants’ socioeconomic background/status
(SES). The items pertinent to maternal education asked about mother’s/guardian’s (and both if
YD Participation and Intentional Self-Regulation
11
the participating guardian is not the child’s mother) education level. There are nine categories,
from 8th Grade or less to doctoral degree, with higher scores indicating higher levels (i.e., more
years) of formal education. The variable was recoded to reflect the number of years of education,
and ranges from 8 to 20. In the current subsample, the mean number of years of maternal
education was 14.26 (SD = 2.43).
Procedure. In Grades 8, 9, and 10 (Waves 4, 5, and 6 ), for youth that were surveyed in
their schools or youth programs, teachers or program staff gave each child an envelope to take
home to the parent or guardian. The envelope contained a letter explaining the study, two
consent forms (one that was returned to the school and one that could be kept for the records of
the parent or guardian), a parent questionnaire, and a self-addressed stamped envelope for
returning the parent questionnaire and consent form. For the youth surveys, data collection was
conducted by trained study staff or assistants hired at more distant locations. A detailed protocol
was used to ensure that data collection was administered uniformly and to ensure the return of all
study materials. The procedure began with reading the instructions for the student questionnaire
to the youth. Participants were instructed that they could skip any questions they did not wish to
answer. A two-hour block of time was allotted for data collection, which included one or two
short rest periods.
For youth who were absent on the day of the survey or were from schools who did not
allow on-site testing were contacted by e-mail, mail, or phone, and were asked to complete the
survey. Beginning in Wave 5, youth could go online to complete the survey. Youth participating
in 4-H clubs were given the paper survey or used club computers to complete the survey online.
Lerner et al. (2005) provides complete details about the methodology of the 4-H study.
YD Participation and Intentional Self-Regulation
12
Attrition. Attrition in the 4-H Study sample is not randomly distributed across schools or
youth program sites. In Grades 4, 5, and 6, many of the schools that were originally sites for data
collection did not allow us to conduct on-site surveys. Youth in these schools were contacted
through mail or phone and were asked to complete the survey and mail it back to us, or to go
online to complete it. Since we consistently contact all youth who ever participated in the study,
many youth who were not surveyed in earlier waves of the study came back into the study in
later waves. During Grades 4, 5 and 6, we continued to contact all youth who were part of the
first three waves and, in addition, we increased the sample by expanding our recruitment of
youth in 4-H clubs around the country.
Table 1 presents the grade and variable non-response, two possible types of nonresponse, in Grades 8 through 10. Grade non-response ranged from 45.3% to 73.6%, and
variable non-response at each wave ranged from 1.4% to 10.1% across the three grades. In
addition, t-tests and χ2 tests were conducted to compare attrition vs. non-attrition groups (of the
entire sample of youth who participated in Grades 8 to 10) on background variables (i.e., sex and
mother’s education) as well as on each outcome variable (PYD and Contribution). The results
indicated that participants who dropped out of the study between Grades 8 and 9 or Grades 9 and
10 did not differ significantly in their PYD or Contribution scores. However, participants who
dropped out between Grades 8 and 9 had significantly lower maternal education scores than
those who did not drop out. In addition, youth who dropped out between Grades 9 and 10 were
more likely to be boys than youth who did not drop out. Finally, multivariate logistic regression
analyses of missingness for each outcome variable (Grade 10 PYD and Contribution) indicated
that the data appear to be missing completely at random; in other words, missingness among
outcome variables did not appear to be related to other characteristics of the participants.
YD Participation and Intentional Self-Regulation
13
Participants’ sex, mother’s education level, and Grade 10 selection, optimization, and
compensation scores were not significant predictors of missing data for PYD or Contribution.
For the purpose of this research, missing data were imputed for the longitudinal subsample
(N=895) with LISREL 8.80 (Jöreskog & Sörbom, 2006), using the Expectation-Maximization
(EM) algorithm.
----------------------------------------Insert Table 1 about here
----------------------------------------Measures
In the current study, indices of several constructs were used, in addition to several
demographic variables. These measures involved assessment of youth development (YD)
program participation as well as indices of several individual characteristics including intentional
self-regulation and positive youth development (PYD). Maternal education was used as an
indicator of socioeconomic status.
YD Program Participation. Participation in YD programs was operationalized in several
ways. In the 4-H study, the YD programs that participants are specifically asked about include 4H clubs, 4-H after school programs, Girl Scouts/Boy Scouts, Big Brother Big Sister, YMCA, and
Boys and Girls Clubs. Intensity of participation was measured by asking youth how often they
participated in each of the programs, from “never,” “once a month or less,” “a couple of times a
month or more,” “once a week,” “a few times a week,” to “every day.” The variable was recoded
to reflect the number of days per month (assuming a four week month, with five school days a
week) youth participated in a program (0-20), and then a mean intensity score was calculated
across all YD programs. In addition, we assessed how many YD programs youth participated in
YD Participation and Intentional Self-Regulation
14
(0 to 6) at each of Grades 8 and 9 (youth had to participate “at least a couple of times a month or
more” in order for their participation to count). Participants who did not respond to any of the
activity participation questions were considered to have missing data for YD program
participation.
Intentional Self-Regulation Skills (SOC). The Selection, Optimization, and Compensation
(SOC) questionnaire (Freund & Baltes, 2002) was used to measure intentional self-regulation at
Grades 8 and 9. Three subscales were used from the short version of the SOC Questionnaire:
Elective Selection, Optimization, and Compensation. Elective Selection (S) represents the
development of preferences or goals and the construction of a goal hierarchy and the
commitment to a set of goals. Optimization (O) refers to acquisition and investment of goalrelevant means to achieve one’s goals. Compensation (C) refers to the use of alternative means to
maintain a given level of functioning when specific goal-relevant means are not available
anymore.
Each of the subscales has six items with a forced-choice format. Each item consists of
two statements, one describing behavior reflecting S, O, or C and the other describing a nonSOC related behavior. Participants are asked to decide which of the statements is more similar to
how they would behave. An item from the Elective Selection subscale is “I concentrate all my
energy on few things [Person A]” or “I divide my energy among many things [Person B].” An
Optimization subscale item is “I don’t think long about how to realize my plans, I just try it
[Person A]” or “I think about exactly how I can best realize my plans [Person B].” An item from
the Compensation subscale is “When something does not work as well as before, I get advice
from experts or read books [Person A]” or “When something does not work as well as before, I
YD Participation and Intentional Self-Regulation
15
am the one who knows what is best for me [Person B].” Affirmative responses are summed to
provide a score for each individual on each subscale.
The SOC measures have adequate psychometric properties of reliability (e.g., Elective
Selection, Cronbach’s alpha = .75-.78; Optimization, Cronbach’s alpha = .68-.76; Compensation,
Cronbach’s alpha = .67-.75; Freund & Baltes, 2002). Freund and Baltes (2002) report that SOC
has good convergent and divergent associations with other psychological constructs (e.g., goal
pursuit, thinking styles) and positive correlations with measures of well-being (Brandtstädter &
Renner, 1990; Freund & Baltes, 2002).
Positive Youth Development (PYD). A PYD score (ranging from 0 to 10) for each
participant was computed at Grade 10 as the mean of the scores for each of the Five Cs
(Competence, Confidence, Connection, Character, and Caring, also ranging from 0-10), provided
that at least three of the Cs have valid values (in past research, a range of 0 to 100 was used;
Phelps, et al., 2009). Higher scores represent higher levels of the Five Cs and therefore, higher
levels of PYD. In the 4-H data set, the Cronbach’s alpha for Grade 10 PYD is .77. The Five Cs
comprising the PYD construct are operationalized as follows:
Competence is a positive view of one’s action in domain-specific areas including the
social and academic domains (11 items for Grade 10). In the 4-H data set, the Cronbach’s alpha
for Competence in Grade 10 is .64.
Confidence is an internal sense of overall positive self-worth, identity, and feelings about
one’s physical appearance (16 items for Grades 10). In the 4-H data set, the Cronbach’s alpha for
Grade 10 Confidence is .83.
YD Participation and Intentional Self-Regulation
16
Character involves respect for societal and cultural rules, possession of standards for
correct behaviors, a sense of right and wrong, and integrity (20 items for Grade 10). In the 4-H
data set, the Cronbach’s alpha for Grade 10 Character is .71.
Connection involves a positive bond with people and institutions that are reflected in
healthy, bidirectional exchanges between the individual and peers, family, school, and
community in which both parties contribute to the relationship (22 items for Grade 10). In the 4H data set, the Cronbach’s alpha for Grade 10 Connection is .70.
Caring is the degree of sympathy and empathy, i.e., the degree to which participants feel
sorry for the distress of others (9 items for Grade 10). In the 4-H data set, the Cronbach’s alpha
for Grade 10 Caring is .83.
Full details about these measures, their construction, and validity and reliability can be
found in Lerner et al. (2005) and Bowers et al. (2010).
Contribution. Youth responded to 12 items, which were weighted and summed to create
two subscales, action and ideology. The Contribution items are derived from existing instruments
with known psychometric properties and used in large-scales studies of adolescents, i.e., the
Profiles of Student Life-Attitudes and Behaviors (PSL-AB; Benson, Leffert, Scales, & Blyth,
1998) survey and the Teen Assessment Project (TAP; Small, & Rodgers, 1995) survey question
bank. Items from the leadership, service, and helping scales measured the frequency of time
youth spent helping others (e.g., friends or neighbors), providing service to their communities,
and acting in leadership roles. Together, the leadership, service, and helping subsets comprise the
action component of Contribution. The ideology scale measured the extent to which Contribution
was an important facet of their identities (e.g., ‘It is important to me to contribute to my
community and society’). The action and ideology components are weighted equally to calculate
YD Participation and Intentional Self-Regulation
17
the Contribution scores. As with the PYD scores, in this study, the Contribution scores range
from 0 to 10 (in past research, a range of 0–100 was used; Jeličič, Bobek, Phelps, Lerner, &
Lerner, 2007). In the 4-H data set, the Cronbach’s alpha for Grade 10 for Contribution is .80.
Results
The present research explored how youth strengths, as operationalized by SOC, may be
linked to the contextual asset of participation in youth development programs within and across
time (Grades 8 and 9). We hypothesized that the coupling of intentional self-regulation skills and
YD program participation in Grades 8 and 9 would constitute a relational structure linked to
PYD and Contribution in Grade 10.
Preliminary Analyses
Table 2 presents the means and standard deviations for the measures of youth
development program participation (number of programs and intensity of participation), SOC
(selection, optimization, and compensation), PYD, and Contribution across Grades 8 to 10 for
the 895 youth who participated in the study for at least two of the three grades. As seen in Table
2, there is little change across Grades 8 to 10 in the mean levels of these measures.
----------------------------------------Insert Table 2 about here
----------------------------------------Youth Development Program Participation and SOC Predicting PYD and Contribution
Using LISREL 8.80 (Jöreskog & Sörbom, 2006), a series of structural equation models
were tested to examine the relationship between youth development program participation and
intentional self-regulation skills at Grades 8 and 9 in predicting Grade 10 PYD and Contribution.
To test these relationships, we began by examining a “baseline” model (Model 1) testing the
YD Participation and Intentional Self-Regulation
18
influence of YD program participation and SOC across time in predicting Grade 10 PYD and
Contribution (see Figure 1). In the next model (Model 2), we added the relationship across time
between YD participation and SOC skills in predicting PYD and Contribution (see Figure 2).
Both Model 1 and Model 2 included correlations of the residual variance between selection,
optimization, and compensation over time (Grades 8 to 9) as well as between Competence and
Confidence, and Caring and Character at Grade 10. These estimations were based on theoretical
understanding of and previous empirical research with these constructs (Bowers et al., 2010) and,
as well, on the relatively high correlations between these indicators. Model 3 was then created to
improve on Model 2 by additionally estimating the correlations of residual variance among all of
the Five Cs indicators as well as among selection, optimization, and compensation within-time,
as suggested in the modification indices (see Figure 3).
We evaluated the models using the RMSEA (Root Mean Square Error of Approximation)
with a 90% confidence interval as a recommended measure of fit (Steiger & Lind, 1980), with a
value of 0.08 or less indicating an adequate fit (Browne & Cudeck, 1993). In addition, we used
the CFI (Comparative Fit Index) and TLI (Tucker-Lewis Index; Tucker & Lewis, 1973)
measures, both with a recommended “acceptable” fit at 0.90 and above (McDonald & Ho, 2002).
The commonly used χ2 statistic is presented, although it is sensitive to large sample size as is the
case in this study (Bollen, 1989). Table 3 presents and compares model fit statistics for all three
models.
----------------------------------------Insert Table 3 about here
-----------------------------------------
YD Participation and Intentional Self-Regulation
19
The first baseline model (see Figure 1) indicated that while YD participation did not
predict Grade 10 PYD, SOC scores in Grade 8 predicted SOC scores in Grade 9, which did
appear to predict PYD in Grade 10. In addition, there appears to be a significant pathway
between YD program participation in Grade 9 and Grade 10 Contribution, as well as between
Grade 9 SOC and Grade 10 Contribution. This model has only mediocre fit (RMSEA=0.09;
TLI=0.88; see Table 3 for full model statistics), indicating that there are further relationships
among the variables that this baseline model does not account for.
----------------------------------------Insert Figure 1 about here
----------------------------------------Model 2 (see Figure 2), which estimated the relationship between YD participation and
SOC in predicting youth thriving, indicated that when accounting for this relationship, YD
participation at Grades 8 and 9 still did not predict PYD at Grade 10, although SOC scores in
Grades 8 and 9 did continue to predict PYD in Grade 10. In addition, both YD participation and
SOC predicted Grade 10 Contribution over time, although there did not appear to be a significant
relationship between the two variables in predicting Grade 10 PYD or Contribution. However,
the fit for Model 2 did not improve significantly from Model 1 (see Table 3).
----------------------------------------Insert Figure 2 about here
----------------------------------------In order to improve model fit, the third model (see Figure 3) estimated the residuals
suggested in the modification indices that were theoretically-relevant and interpretable (i.e.,
among the Five Cs indicators and among the within-time selection, optimization, and
YD Participation and Intentional Self-Regulation
20
compensation scores). These modifications improved the model fit significantly (see Figure 3 for
χ2, RMSEA, CFI, and TLI model fit statistics). Similar to the previous models, Model 3 indicated
a direct relationship between SOC at Grade 9 (but not YD participation) in predicting overall
Grade 10 PYD, as well as significant pathways between both YD participation and SOC in
Grade 9 in predicting Grade 10 Contribution. However, this model also suggested that there was
a positive relationship between Grade 8 YD participation and Grade 9 SOC (higher YD
participation was associated with higher SOC skills), which, in turn, predicted higher Grade 10
PYD and Contribution scores, providing support for our hypothesis of a mutually influential
relationship between these two individual and contextual assets.
----------------------------------------Insert Figure 3 about here
----------------------------------------The models tested suggest several potential pathways to youth thriving (indexed by PYD
and Contribution in Grade 10), as predicted by youth development program participation and
intentional self-regulation skills at Grades 8 and 9. Consistent with previous research (e.g.,
Gestsdóttir & Lerner, 2007), intentional self-regulation skills across Grades 8 and 9 predicted
Grade 10 PYD, providing further support for the importance of these self-regulation skills in
promoting positive developmental outcomes in adolescence. However, it did not appear as
though participation in youth development programs at Grades 8 and 9 was directly predictive of
Grade 10 PYD.
However, both YD participation and SOC scores at Grade 8 and 9 did, in fact, predict
Grade 10 Contribution, a key outcome of PYD. In addition, Model 3 indicated that Grade 8 YD
program participation predicted Grade 9 SOC skills, which, in turn, were predictive of Grade 10
YD Participation and Intentional Self-Regulation
21
PYD and Contribution. This finding supports the hypothesis that the ecological asset of youth
development program participation is associated with the individual asset (strength) of
intentional self-regulation skills in predicting youth thriving. Furthermore, this finding suggests
that participating in YD programs may in fact positively affect a youth’s SOC skills, which, in
turn, are predictive of positive developmental outcomes.
Discussion
Extant research points to the importance of youth development program participation
(Theokas & Lerner, 2006; Urban, Lewin-Bizan, & Lerner, 2009, 2010) and self-regulatory
behaviors (Gestsdóttir & Lerner, 2007) as contextual and individual assets, respectively, for
promoting positive development among adolescents. Accordingly, the present study aimed to
further elucidate the relationship between YD program participation and intentional selfregulation skills. We predicted that the individual characteristics of intentional self-regulation, as
operationalized by the selection (S), optimization (O), and compensation (C) measure (Freund &
Baltes, 2002), would, when coupled with the contextual asset of participation in YD programs
(operationalized by number of programs and intensity of participation), be linked to PYD and
Contribution in Grade 10.
The results provided some support for the hypothesis that there is an important
relationship between the ecological asset of youth development programs and the individual
strength of intentional self-regulation skills. Furthermore, it appears as though there is
directionality in that relationship; youth development program participation at Grade 8 was
predictive of Grade 9 SOC skills, which, in turn, were predictive of Grade 10 PYD and
Contribution. However, the results suggest that, contrary to suggestions in the literature (e.g.,
Benson et al., 1998) and to our hypothesis, there was no direct relationship between YD program
YD Participation and Intentional Self-Regulation
22
participation at Grades 8 and 9 and PYD at Grade 10. While SOC skills at Grades 8 and 9
positively predicted Grade 10 PYD, this direct relation did not exist for Grade 8 and 9 YD
program participation.
These findings suggest a more nuanced link between intentional self-regulation skills and
YD program participation than suggested in past research. There was evidence for a relationship
between the contextual resource of YD program participation at Grade 8 and the individual asset
of SOC skills in Grade 9 and, in turn, Grade 9 SOC skills predicted Grade 10 PYD and
Contribution. In addition, there was a direct relationship between Grade 8 and 9 YD participation
and Grade 10 Contribution. However, there was no evidence for a direct relationship between
YD participation and Grade 10 PYD. This finding does make conceptual sense, given that
Contribution is often a key outcome for youth development programs, and service to one’s
community may be a value that is highlighted specifically within the program context (National
4-H Council, 2010). Therefore, for youth participating in YD programs, Contribution may be a
specific outcome directly related to program curricula, instead of an outcome of general thriving
as conceptualized in the PYD model. Furthermore, it appears as though participation in a YD
program is positively related to SOC skills. The ability to select goals, optimize resources in the
environment to achieve these goals, and then compensate when problems arise would seem to be
relevant skills relating to youth contribution to family, community, and self.
Limitations and Future Research
The selective subsample used in this research provides limitations for generalizing the
results of this study. The subsample included only youth who participated in the study for at least
two consecutive years, and such youth are likely to be similar in other characteristics. Moreover,
the indices reflecting participation in a YD program indicated relatively low participation in the
YD Participation and Intentional Self-Regulation
23
sample (see Table 2), and participation level variance may have constrained the degree to which
we were able to identify the potential impacts of participation in such a program. In addition, this
study used a general measure to index positive youth development, and it may be useful for
future research to examine the impact of the relationship between youth development program
participation and intentional self-regulation skills in promoting domain-specific outcomes.
Programs vary, of course, in their behavioral objectives, and obtaining more nuanced
information about what specific facets of intentional self-regulation are linked to what specific
outcomes for particular YD programs may enhance program design and sharpen program
evaluations. Furthermore, the present research did not examine trajectories of positive
developmental outcomes, an assessment that would be useful to further understanding the nature
of the relationship between YD participation and SOC skills in promoting youth thriving.
In addition, while the current research highlights the important developmental impacts
that involvement in a YD program may have on youth, and suggests the use of the general
principles that are necessary to encourage positive outcomes (i.e., the Big Three; Lerner, 2004),
it is critical to note that the specific aspects of such programs that provide these impacts are not
discernible within the current data set. Within the survey method of the 4-H Study data set, the
specific features of any given instance of the YD programs in which participants engaged were
not assessed. As such, these programs constitute a “black box.” Each individual program may
have a different theory of change, and the activities and relationships within programs certainly
encompass many domains. Furthermore, even programs that have a general guiding structure at
the national level (e.g., 4-H programs, Big Brothers/Big Sisters, Scouts) may not enact these
protocols with high fidelity in individual settings. Therefore, there may be considerable variance
at the local level in programmatic practices. In order to meet the needs of individual
YD Participation and Intentional Self-Regulation
24
communities, programs evolve within their organization’s guidelines to fit their personal needs
and constraints. In fact, even when programs delineate specific procedures and guidelines, that
does not necessarily mean that such guidelines are actually put into practice. Therefore, our two
indicators of YD participation (number of programs and intensity of participation) certainly do
not capture the full breadth and depth of experiences that youth have in such programs.
The variance among YD programs presents a unique methodological challenge when
attempting to ascertain the specific aspects of various programs that are associated with
developmental outcomes. The methodology of the 4-H Study is not best suited to make
transparent the contexts of a given program (“black box”). Therefore, it will be important in
future research to use detailed qualitative, process-oriented information about individual
programs in order to fully test outcome-oriented research questions. Future research must delve
deeper into the individual practices of programs to explore both the framework for such
programs and also what actually happens in terms of implementation.
Conclusions
The results of this research provide support for the notion that a convergence of
contextual and individual assets is critical in promoting positive developmental outcomes for
adolescents. The findings of this study have important policy and program implications,
suggesting that participation in high quality YD programs may be an especially important
resource for youth in developing individual strengths, such as self-regulatory skills, and that the
alignment of program resources and youth strengths may be critical in promoting positive
developmental outcomes. These findings begin to provide insight into the relationship between
individual and contextual assets, and suggest the need for future research to address these
YD Participation and Intentional Self-Regulation
complex relationships in a nuanced way using longitudinal data from diverse populations of
adolescents.
25
YD Participation and Intentional Self-Regulation
26
References
Balsano, A. B., Phelps, E., Theokas, C., Lerner, J. V., & Lerner, R. M. (2009). Patterns of early
adolescents’ participation in youth development programs having positive youth
development goals. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 19(2), 249-259.
Barber, B. L., Stone, M. R., Hunt, J. E., & Eccles, J. S. (2005). Benefits of activity participation:
The roles of identity affirmation and peer group norm sharing. In J. L. Mahoney, R. W.
Larson & J. S. Eccles (Eds.), Organized activities as contexts of development:
Extracurricular activities, after-school and community programs (pp. 185-210).
Mahwah, NJ, US: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
Benson, P.L., Leffert, N., Scales, P.C., & Blyth, D.A. (1998). Beyond the ‘‘village’’ rhetoric:
Creating healthy communities for children and adolescents. Applied Developmental
Science, 2(3), 138–159.
Bollen, K. A. (1989). Structural equations with latent variables. New York: Wiley.
Bowers, E. P., Li, Y., Kiely, M. K., Brittian, A., Lerner, J. V., & Lerner, R. M. (2010). The Five
Cs model of positive youth development: A longitudinal analysis of confirmatory factor
structure and measurement invariance. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 39, 720-735.
Brandtstädter, J. & Renner, G. (1990). Tenacious goal pursuit and flexible goal adjustment:
Explication and age-related analysis of assimilative and accommodative strategies of
coping. Psychology and Aging, 5(1), 58-67.
Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In K. A. Bollen
& J.S. Long (Eds.), Testing structural equation models. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
YD Participation and Intentional Self-Regulation
27
Deschenes, S., McDonald, M., & McLaughlin, M. (2004). Youth organizations: From principles
to practice. In S.F. Hamilton & M.A. Hamilton (Eds.), The Youth Development
Handbook. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Eccles, J. S., & Gootman, J. A. (Eds.). (2002). Community programs to promote youth
development: Committee on community-level programs for youth. Washington DC:
National Academy Press.
Erikson, E.H. (1968). Identity: youth and crisis. Oxford, England: Norton & Co.
Fredricks, J. A., & Eccles, J. S. (2005). Developmental benefits of extracurricular involvement:
Do peer characteristics mediate the link between activities and youth outcomes? Journal
of Youth and Adolescence, 34(6), 507-520.
Freud, A. (1969). Adolescence as a developmental disturbance. In G. Caplan & S. Lebovici
(Eds.), Adolescence (pp. 5-10). New York: Basic Books.
Freund, A. M., & Baltes, P. B. (2002). Life-management strategies of selection, optimization and
compensation: Measurement by self-report and construct validity. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 82, 642-662.
Gestsdóttir, S., & Lerner, R. M. (2007). Intentional self-regulation and positive youth
development in early adolescence: Findings from the 4-H Study of Positive Youth
Development. Developmental Psychology, 43, 508-521.
Gestsdóttir, S., & Lerner, R. M. (2008). Positive development in adolescence: The development
and role of intentional self-regulation. Human Development, 51, 202-224.
Gestsdóttir, S., Lewin-Bizan, S., von Eye, A., Lerner, J. V., & Lerner, R. M. (2009). The
structure and function of selection, optimization, and compensation in middle
YD Participation and Intentional Self-Regulation
28
adolescence: Theoretical and applied implications. Journal of Applied Developmental
Psychology, 30(5), 585-600.
Hall, G. S. (1904). Adolescence: Its psychology and its relations to physiology, anthropology,
sociology, sex, crime, religion, and education (Vols. 1 and 2). New York: Appleton.
Hauser, R. M., & Featherman, D. L. (1976). Equality of schooling: Trends and prospects.
Sociology and Education, 49, 99-120.
Jeličič, H., Bobek, D.L., Phelps, E., Lerner, R.M., & Lerner, J.V. (2007). Using positive youth
development to predict contribution and risk behaviors in early adolescence: Findings
from the first two waves of the 4-H Study of Positive Youth Development. International
Journal of Behavioral Development, 31, 263–273.
Jöreskog, K. G., & Sörbom, D. (2006). LISREL 8.8. Chicago: Scientific Software International.
King, P. E., Dowling, E. M., Mueller, R. A., White, K., Schultz, W., Osborn, P., Dickerson, E.,
Bobek, D. L., Lerner, R. M., Benson, P. L., & Scales, P. C. (2005). Thriving in
adolescence: The voices of youth-serving practitioners, parents, and early and late
adolescents. Journal of Early Adolescence, 25(1), 94-112.
Larson, R. W. (2000). Toward a psychology of positive youth development. American
Psychologist, 55(1), 170-183.
Lerner, J. V., Phelps, E., Forman, Y., & Bowers, E. P. (2009). Positive youth development. In R.
M. Lerner, & L. Steinberg (Eds.), Handbook of Adolescent Psychology: Vol 1. Individual
bases of adolescent development, (3rd ed., pp.524-558). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Lerner, R. M. (2004). Liberty: Thriving and civic engagement among American youth. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
YD Participation and Intentional Self-Regulation
29
Lerner, R. M. (2005). Promoting Positive Youth Development: Theoretical and Empirical Bases.
White paper prepared for the Workshop on the Science of Adolescent Health and
Development, National Research Council/Institute of Medicine. Washington, D.C.:
National Academies of Science.
Lerner, R. M. (2009). The positive youth development perspective: Theoretical and empirical bases
of a strength-based approach to adolescent development. In C. R. Snyder and S.J. Lopez
(Eds.). Oxford Handbook of Positive Psychology (2nd ed.) (pp. 149-163). Oxford, England:
Oxford University Press.
Lerner, R. M., Freund, A. M., De Stefanis, I., & Habermas, T. (2001). Understanding developmental
regulation in adolescence: The use of the selection, optimization, and compensation model.
Human Development, 44, 29-50.
Lerner, R. M., Lerner, J. V., Almerigi, J., Theokas, C., Phelps, E., Gestsdóttir, S. Naudeau, S.,
Jeličič, H., Alberts, A. E., Ma, L., Smith, L. M., Bobek, D. L., Richman-Raphael, D.,
Simpson, I., Christiansen, E. D., & von Eye, A. (2005). Positive youth development,
participation in community youth development programs, and community contributions
of fifth Grade adolescents: Findings from the first wave of the 4-H Study of Positive
Youth Development. Journal of Early Adolescence, 25(1), 17-71.
Lerner, R. M., Lerner, J. V., & Phelps. E. (2008). The positive development of youth: Report of
the findings from the first four years of the 4-H Study of Positive Youth Development.
Institute for Applied Research in Youth Development, Tufts University: Medford, MA.
Lerner, R. M., Lerner, J. V., & Phelps, E. (2009). Waves of the Future: The first five years of the
4-H study of positive youth development. Institute for Applied Research in Youth
Development, Tufts University: Medford, MA
YD Participation and Intentional Self-Regulation
30
Li, Y., Bebiroglu, N., Phelps, E., & Lerner, R. M. (2009). Out-of-school time activity
participation, school engagement and positive youth development: Findings from the 4-H
study of positive youth development. Journal of Youth Development. doi: 080303FA001.
Mahoney, J. L., Larson, R. W., Eccles, J. S., & Lord, H. (2005). Organized activities as
development contexts for children and adolescents. In J. L. Mahoney, R. W. Larson & J.
S. Eccles (Eds.), Organized activities as contexts of development: Extracurricular
activities, after-school and community programs. (pp. 3-22). Mahwah, NJ, US: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
Mahoney, J. L., Vandell, D. L., Simkins, S., & Zarrett, N. (2009). Adolescent out-of-school
activities. In R. M. Lerner & L. Steinberg (Eds.), Handbook of Adolescent Psychology:
Vol 2. Contextual influences on adolescent development (3rd ed., pp. 228-269). Hoboken,
NJ: Wiley.
McDonald, R. P., & Ho, M. H. R. (2002). Principles and practice in reporting structural equation
analyses. Psychological Methods, 7(1), 64-82.
Mueller, M. K., Lewin-Bizan, S., & Urban, J. B. (In press). Youth activity involvement and
positive youth development. In R. M. Lerner, J. V. Lerner, & J. B. Benson, (Eds.),
Advances in Child Development and Behavior: Positive youth development: Research
and applications for promoting thriving in adolescence. Elsevir Publishing.
National 4-H Council. (2010) 4-H Today: Five National Initiatives. Retrieved from
http://www.4-H.org.
Overton, W. F. (2010). Life-span development: Concepts and issues. In R. M. Lerner (Ed-inchief) & W. F. Overton (Vol. Ed.), The Handbook of Life-Span Development: Vol 1.
Cognition, Biology, and Methods (pp. 1-29). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
YD Participation and Intentional Self-Regulation
31
Phelps, E., Balsano, A., Fay, K., Peltz, J., Zimmerman, S., Lerner, R., M., & Lerner, J. V.
(2007). Nuances in early adolescent development trajectories of positive and of
problematic/risk behaviors: Findings from the 4-H Study of Positive Youth Development.
Child and Adolescent Clinics of North America, 16(2), 473–496.
Phelps, E., Zimmerman, S., Warren, A. E. A., Jeličič, H., von Eye, A., & Lerner, R. M. (2009).
The structure and developmental course of Positive Youth Development (PYD) in early
adolescence: Implications for theory and practice. Journal of Applied Developmental
Psychology, 30(5), 571-584.
Rhodes, J.E. (2002). Stand by me: The risks and rewards of mentoring today’s youth.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Roth, J. L., & Brooks-Gunn, J. (2003). What exactly is a youth development program? Answers
from research and practice. Applied Developmental Science, 7, 94-111.
Sherrod, L. R., & Lauckhardt, J. (2009). The development of citizenship. In R. M. Lerner & L.
Steinberg (Eds.), Handbook of adolescent psychology: Vol 2. Contextual influences on
adolescent development, (3rd ed., pp. 372-407). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Small, S., & Rodgers, K. (1995). Teen assessment project. Madison, WI: School of Family
Resources and Consumer Sciences, University of Wisconsin.
Steiger, J.H., & Lind, J.M. (1980). Statistically based tests for the number of common factors.
Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Psychometric Society, Iowa City, IA.
Stoneman, D. (2002). The role of youth programming in the development of civic engagement.
Applied Developmental Science, 6, 221-226.
YD Participation and Intentional Self-Regulation
32
Theokas, C., & Lerner, R. M. (2006). Observed ecological assets in families, schools, and
neighborhoods: Conceptualization, measurement and relations with positive and negative
developmental outcomes. Applied Developmental Science, 10(2), 61-74.
Tucker, L. R., & Lewis, C. (1973). A reliability coefficient for maximum likelihood factor
analysis. Psychometrika, 38(1), 1-10.
Urban, J. B., Lewin-Bizan, S., & Lerner, R. M. (2009). The role of neighborhood ecological
assets and activity involvement in youth developmental outcomes: Differential impacts of
asset poor and asset rich neighborhoods. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology,
30(5) 601-614.
Urban, J.B., Lewin-Bizan, S. & Lerner, R.M. (2010). The role of intentional self regulation,
lower neighborhood ecological assets, and activity involvement in youth developmental
outcomes. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 39(7), 783-800. doi:10.1007/s10964-0109549-y
Zaff, J. F., Hart, D., Flanagan, C. A., Youniss, J., & Levine, P. (2010). Developing civic
engagement within a civic context. In R. M. Lerner (Ed-in-chief), M. E. Lamb, & A. M.
Freund (Vol. Eds.), The Handbook of Life-Span Development: Vol 2. Social and
Emotional Development (pp. 590-630). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Zaff, J. F., Moore, K. A., Papillo, A. R., & Williams, S. (2003). Implications of extracurricular
activity participation during adolescence on positive outcomes. Journal of Adolescent
Research, 18, 599-630.
Zarrett, N., Fay, K., Carrano, J., Li, Y., Phelps, E., & Lerner, R. M. (2009). More than child’s
play: Variable- and pattern-centered approaches for examining effects of sports
participation on youth development. Developmental Psychology. 45(2), 368-382.
YD Participation and Intentional Self-Regulation
Zarrett, N., Peltz, J., Fay, K., Li, Y., & Lerner, R. M. (2007). Sports and youth development
programs: Theoretical and practical implications of early adolescent participation in
multiple instances of structured out-of-school (OST) activity. Journal of Youth
Development, 2 doi: 0702FA001
Zimmerman, S., Phelps, E., & Lerner, R. M. (2007). Intentional self-regulation in early
adolescence: Assessing the structure of selection, optimization, and compensations
processes. European Journal of Developmental Science, 1, 272-299.
Zimmerman, S., Phelps, E., & Lerner, R. M. (2008). Positive and negative developmental
trajectories in U.S. adolescents: Where the PYD perspective meets the deficit model.
Research in Human Development, 5,153-165.
33
YD Participation and Intentional Self-Regulation
34
Table 1.
Percentage of grade and variable (VN) non-response for each variable within each grade
Grade 8
Grade 9
Grade 10
Percentage of grade non-response in overall sample*
54.4
73.6
45.3
Percentage of grade non-response in subsample**
20.1
18.2
33.9
VN***
Overall**
VN***
Overall**
VN***
Overall**
YD program participation
3.2
22.7
4.1
21.6
2.9
35.8
Selection
7.4
26.0
6.4
23.5
8.5
39.4
Optimization
7.7
26.3
6.2
23.2
8.8
39.7
Compensation
9.7
27.8
7.8
24.6
10.1
40.6
Positive Youth Development (PYD)
2.2
21.9
10.0
26.4
1.4
34.7
Contribution
5.7
24.7
5.2
22.5
5.4
37.4
*Percentages were calculated based on the overall sample size for youth who participated at least once in Grades 8 to 10 (N = 4282).
**Percentages were calculated based on the longitudinal subsample of youth in the current study (youth who participated at least two
times in Grades 8 to 10, N = 895)
***Percentages were calculated based on the sample size for each particular wave of data for the longitudinal subsample of youth in
the current study (youth who participated at least two times in Grades 8 to 10): Ng8 = 715, Ng9 = 732, and Ng10 = 592.
YD Participation and Intentional Self-Regulation
35
Table 2.
Mean, standard deviation, and range for each variable within each grade for subsample of youth who participated in at least two
grades (N=895).
Grade 8
Grade 9
Grade 10
M
SD
N
M
SD
N
M
SD
N
Scale range
Number of YD programs
0.49
0.80
715
0.44
0.80
732
0.40
0.71
592
0-6
Intensity of YD participation
0.76
2.09
692
0.69
1.95
702
0.53
1.64
575
0-20
Selection
2.80
1.34
662
2.70
1.42
685
2.63
1.41
542
0-6
Optimization
3.97
1.24
660
4.21
1.41
687
4.15
1.33
540
0-6
Compensation
3.55
1.25
646
3.61
1.29
675
3.48
1.26
532
0-6
PYD
6.78
1.21
699
6.85
1.30
659
6.87
1.20
584
0-10
Contribution
5.64
1.66
674
5.65
1.69
694
5.71
1.70
560
0-10
YD Participation and Intentional Self-Regulation
36
Table 3.
Model Fit Statistics
Model
Model 1
Description
RMSEA
χ2 (df)
χ2∆ (df ∆)
(90% CI)
CFI
TLI
870.20 (108)
---
0.09
0.91
0.88
0.91
0.88
0.93
0.90
Baseline model testing direct paths between
YD participation and SOC to PYD and
Contribution
Model 2
(0.083-0.094)
Structural model testing relationship
between YD participation and SOC in
870.80 (106)
0.06 (2)
predicting PYD and Contribution
Model 3
0.09
(0.084-0.095)
Final structural model, improvements made
by estimating theta epsilons with large
standardized residuals
651.89 (95)
218.91* (11)
0.08
(0.075-0.087)
Note: Significant χ2 test indicates that the model listed had a significantly better fit than the previous model at the p<.001 level.
YD Participation and Intentional Self-Regulation
Figure 1. Baseline structural model (Model 1) with standardized parameter estimates for youth development program participation
and intentional self-regulation skills at Grades 8 and 9 predicting PYD and Contribution at Grade 10.
37
YD Participation and Intentional Self-Regulation
38
Figure 2. Structural model (Model 2) with standardized parameter estimates for the relationship between youth development program
participation and intentional self-regulation skills at Grades 8 and 9 predicting PYD and Contribution at Grade 10.
YD Participation and Intentional Self-Regulation
39
Figure 3. Improved fit final structural model (Model 3) with standardized parameter estimates for the relationship between youth YD
program participation and intentional self-regulation skills at Grades 8 and 9 predicting PYD and Contribution at Grade 10.