Page 79 - Ana Kozina and Nora Wiium, eds. ▪︎ Positive Youth Development in Contexts. Ljubljana: Educational Research Institute, 2021. Digital Library, Dissertationes (Scientific Monographs), 42.
P. 79
measuring positive youth development in slovenia
to promote the competencies held by young people. Moreover, it describes
youth development as the interaction of characteristics of adolescents and
characteristics of their environment. Adolescent development is expected
to be positive if their strengths (internal assets) are aligned with resourc-
es from their environment (external assets). If that is the case, this is like-
ly to be reflected in indicators of PYD (i.e. the 5Cs) as well as not engaging
in risky behaviour. Prosocial behaviour or an adolescent contribution to
society are expected to be more strongly present (Lerner et al., 2005). This
paradigm has been empirically tested primarily in the United States (e.g.
Benson et al., 2011; Lerner et al., 2005), while in Europe it has only come
to the forefront of research in the last decade (e.g. Beck & Wiium, 2019). In
Slovenia, the model has yet to be fully tested, although individual connec-
tions between positive youth development and different phenomena have
been confirmed, e.g. academic achievement (Kozina et al., 2019) and risky
behaviours (Pivec et al., 2020).
Since only particular connections were examined in the Slovenian con-
text, the rationale of this paper is to see whether the PYD model is trans-
ferable for use in that setting. To test this, we first required reliable and val-
id measures because some indicators of PYD may vary due to cultural and
societal differences. Therefore, this paper aims to present the psychometric
properties (reliability, structural validity) of PYD measures (i.e. internal,
external assets, and the 5Cs of PYD) in Slovenia. Second, we look at possi-
ble gender and age differences with a focus on differences on the school lev-
el (i.e. lower secondary schools vs. upper secondary schools).
The Positive Youth Development Perspective
The PYD perspective is based on the Relational-developmental-systems
paradigm (Overton, 2015), which concentrates on the important interplay
of individual characteristics and contexts (e.g. school, family, community,
society) where it especially stresses the importance of seeing adolescents
as active agents of their society. Further, PYD is a strengths-based model,
which highlights the plasticity of individual development and mutual in-
dividual ↔ context relationships. Through this lens, PYD focuses on en-
hancing young people’s strengths that they themselves or other members
from different contexts appreciate (i.e. family, peers, teachers, neighbours)
(Lerner et al., 2019). The two most prominent models advocating youth pos-
itive development are Developmental Assets (DA; Benson, 2003) and the
5Cs of PYD (Lerner et al., 2005).
79
to promote the competencies held by young people. Moreover, it describes
youth development as the interaction of characteristics of adolescents and
characteristics of their environment. Adolescent development is expected
to be positive if their strengths (internal assets) are aligned with resourc-
es from their environment (external assets). If that is the case, this is like-
ly to be reflected in indicators of PYD (i.e. the 5Cs) as well as not engaging
in risky behaviour. Prosocial behaviour or an adolescent contribution to
society are expected to be more strongly present (Lerner et al., 2005). This
paradigm has been empirically tested primarily in the United States (e.g.
Benson et al., 2011; Lerner et al., 2005), while in Europe it has only come
to the forefront of research in the last decade (e.g. Beck & Wiium, 2019). In
Slovenia, the model has yet to be fully tested, although individual connec-
tions between positive youth development and different phenomena have
been confirmed, e.g. academic achievement (Kozina et al., 2019) and risky
behaviours (Pivec et al., 2020).
Since only particular connections were examined in the Slovenian con-
text, the rationale of this paper is to see whether the PYD model is trans-
ferable for use in that setting. To test this, we first required reliable and val-
id measures because some indicators of PYD may vary due to cultural and
societal differences. Therefore, this paper aims to present the psychometric
properties (reliability, structural validity) of PYD measures (i.e. internal,
external assets, and the 5Cs of PYD) in Slovenia. Second, we look at possi-
ble gender and age differences with a focus on differences on the school lev-
el (i.e. lower secondary schools vs. upper secondary schools).
The Positive Youth Development Perspective
The PYD perspective is based on the Relational-developmental-systems
paradigm (Overton, 2015), which concentrates on the important interplay
of individual characteristics and contexts (e.g. school, family, community,
society) where it especially stresses the importance of seeing adolescents
as active agents of their society. Further, PYD is a strengths-based model,
which highlights the plasticity of individual development and mutual in-
dividual ↔ context relationships. Through this lens, PYD focuses on en-
hancing young people’s strengths that they themselves or other members
from different contexts appreciate (i.e. family, peers, teachers, neighbours)
(Lerner et al., 2019). The two most prominent models advocating youth pos-
itive development are Developmental Assets (DA; Benson, 2003) and the
5Cs of PYD (Lerner et al., 2005).
79
