Page 95 - Ana Kozina and Nora Wiium, eds. ▪︎ Positive Youth Development in Contexts. Ljubljana: Educational Research Institute, 2021. Digital Library, Dissertationes (Scientific Monographs), 42.
P. 95
measuring positive youth development in slovenia
was employed to inspect these differences (see Table 5) (Λ = 0.96; F = 6.10; p
< .001; partial ŋ2 = 0.04). We used pairwise comparisons with a Bonferroni
adjustment for multiple comparisons (mean differences were significant
at the .05 level). Students from lower secondary schools reported higher
Support (p < .01), Constructive use of time (p < .001), Commitment to learn-
ing (p < .05), Social competencies (p < .05) and a Positive identity (p < .01).
There were no differences in Empowerment, Boundaries and expectations,
and Positive values across school levels. Concerning the 5Cs, students from
lower secondary schools reported higher Competence (p < .001) and a high-
er Connection (p < .01). There were no school differences in Confidence,
Character and Caring.
Discussion
PYD perceives youth as engaged, flourishing individuals who can find sup-
port in their environment. The first aim of the present paper was to exam-
ine this perspective in Slovenia with a focus on the psychometric evaluation
of two PYD-related measures: DA and 5Cs. Our second goal was to recog-
nise the differences in gender and school level with a view to suggesting
suitable interventions for each group observed.
Based on earlier research in the European context, we hypothesised
the data would indicate a good fit for both questionnaires. After including
some adjustments, an adequate fit for 8 first-order constructs of DA was es-
tablished, although some target and non-target loadings were not accept-
able since their loadings were poor. To our knowledge, just a few studies (i.e.
Adams et al., 2018; Syvertsen et al., 2019; Wiium et al., 2019; Wiium et al.,
2021) examined the measurement properties of the Developmental Assets
Profile. Among these studies, only one study (Syvertsen et al., 2019) exam-
ined the psychometric properties in detail, which led to changing the ques-
tionnaire such that some items were removed or moved to another asset
category. It must be noted that this study solely examined the CFA of each
asset with some changes included, not the factor structure of the whole in-
strument. The factor loadings were comparable to those in our study de-
spite the changes, except for Boundaries and expectations, Commitment
to learning (which the authors named Academic achievement), Social com-
petencies, and Positive values. Syvertsen and colleagues (2019) omitted
Constructive use of time from CFA because it represents extracurricular
activity participation and is not a psychological construct.
95
was employed to inspect these differences (see Table 5) (Λ = 0.96; F = 6.10; p
< .001; partial ŋ2 = 0.04). We used pairwise comparisons with a Bonferroni
adjustment for multiple comparisons (mean differences were significant
at the .05 level). Students from lower secondary schools reported higher
Support (p < .01), Constructive use of time (p < .001), Commitment to learn-
ing (p < .05), Social competencies (p < .05) and a Positive identity (p < .01).
There were no differences in Empowerment, Boundaries and expectations,
and Positive values across school levels. Concerning the 5Cs, students from
lower secondary schools reported higher Competence (p < .001) and a high-
er Connection (p < .01). There were no school differences in Confidence,
Character and Caring.
Discussion
PYD perceives youth as engaged, flourishing individuals who can find sup-
port in their environment. The first aim of the present paper was to exam-
ine this perspective in Slovenia with a focus on the psychometric evaluation
of two PYD-related measures: DA and 5Cs. Our second goal was to recog-
nise the differences in gender and school level with a view to suggesting
suitable interventions for each group observed.
Based on earlier research in the European context, we hypothesised
the data would indicate a good fit for both questionnaires. After including
some adjustments, an adequate fit for 8 first-order constructs of DA was es-
tablished, although some target and non-target loadings were not accept-
able since their loadings were poor. To our knowledge, just a few studies (i.e.
Adams et al., 2018; Syvertsen et al., 2019; Wiium et al., 2019; Wiium et al.,
2021) examined the measurement properties of the Developmental Assets
Profile. Among these studies, only one study (Syvertsen et al., 2019) exam-
ined the psychometric properties in detail, which led to changing the ques-
tionnaire such that some items were removed or moved to another asset
category. It must be noted that this study solely examined the CFA of each
asset with some changes included, not the factor structure of the whole in-
strument. The factor loadings were comparable to those in our study de-
spite the changes, except for Boundaries and expectations, Commitment
to learning (which the authors named Academic achievement), Social com-
petencies, and Positive values. Syvertsen and colleagues (2019) omitted
Constructive use of time from CFA because it represents extracurricular
activity participation and is not a psychological construct.
95
