academic.csuohio.edu · web viewlife skills have been variously defined. there does not appear to...

CYFAR Life Skills Measurement Study

Mat DuerdenAssistant Professor and Extension Specialist

Project Coordinator

Peter A. WittBradberry Recreation and Youth Development Chair

Chris BolemanState 4-H and Youth Development Director

CO-PIs

Mariela Fernandez, Marie Jolliff, Daniel TheriaultGraduate Assistants

Sequor Youth Development InitiativeTexas A&M University

[email protected]

January, 2010

mailto:[email protected]

Table of ContentsIntroduction......................................................................................................................................1

Project Steps................................................................................................................................1Organization of Document..........................................................................................................1References Introduction...............................................................................................................2

Part One: Survey of CYFAR Project Directors...............................................................................3Introduction..................................................................................................................................3

Part Two: Review of Measures........................................................................................................5Communication............................................................................................................................7Community Volunteering..........................................................................................................10Critical Thinking........................................................................................................................13Decision Making........................................................................................................................16Leadership..................................................................................................................................22Problem Solving........................................................................................................................27Responsible Citizenship.............................................................................................................30Self-Esteem................................................................................................................................35Self-Responsibility....................................................................................................................40Teamwork..................................................................................................................................42References Part II......................................................................................................................50

Part III: Analysis of Selected Life Skill Measures........................................................................59Introduction................................................................................................................................59

Research Questions................................................................................................................59Methods.....................................................................................................................................59

Sample and Data Collection Procedures................................................................................59Data Analysis Procedures......................................................................................................62

Results........................................................................................................................................62Demographics........................................................................................................................62What are the Psychometric Properties of the Selected Life Skills Measures?......................64What Types of Relationships Exist Between the Selected Life Skills Measures?................67Did life skill measure scores differ across the selected subpopulation groups?....................67What amount of variance can be explained on the selected life skill measures based on gender, school level, ethnicity, at-risk status, and state standardized test scores?................72

Discussion..................................................................................................................................75

Limitations and Future Research...........................................................................................75Conclusions................................................................................................................................76References Part III.....................................................................................................................76

Appendix One: Items for Selected Scales.....................................................................................77Appendix Two: Hierarchical Regression Tables...........................................................................82

List of TablesTable 1: Summary Statistics for CYFAR Directors Survey............................................................4Table 2: Overview of Chosen Life Skills, Definitions and Meanings.............................................6Table 3: Review of Available Measures for Communication.........................................................9Table 4: Community Volunteering Measurement Tools...............................................................12Table 5: Critical Thinking Measurement Tools.............................................................................15Table 6: Reliability and Confirmatory Principal Component Analysis.........................................19Table 7: Analysis by Race.............................................................................................................19Table 8: Decision Making Measurement Tools.............................................................................20Table 9: Leadership Measurement Tools......................................................................................25Table 10: Problem Solving Measurement Tools...........................................................................28Table 11: Responsible Citizenship Measurement Tools...............................................................33Table 12: Self-Esteem Measurement Tools...................................................................................37Table 13: Self-Responsibility Measurement Tools.......................................................................41Table 14: Framework for Understanding Teamwork (Rousseau, Aube, & Savoie, 2006)...........43Table 15: Desirable Team Member Characteristics Measures......................................................46Table 16: Popular Personality Scales Used in Teamwork Research.............................................47Table 17: Popular Personality Scales Used in Teamwork Research.............................................48Table 18: Comparison of Original and Adapted Altruism Scale (Rushton, 1981)........................61Table 19: Sample Demographics...................................................................................................63Table 20: Reliabilities from Current Data for Total Sample.........................................................65Table 21: Scale Alphas from Previously Reported Studies...........................................................66Table 22: Correlations between Life Skills Measures...................................................................67Table 23: Mean Scores..................................................................................................................68Table 24: t test Results for Sample................................................................................................69Table 25: t test Results for Gender................................................................................................69Table 26: One-Way ANOVA Results for Ethnicity......................................................................70Table 27: One-Way ANOVA Results for School Level...............................................................72Table 42: Summary of Significant Predictors...............................................................................74

YDI CYFAR Student Report 1_____________________

IntroductionLife Skills have been variously defined. There does not appear to be one agreed upon definition, but in general most definitions contain elements of the World Health Organization’s (1997) description which indicates that life skills are the “abilities for adaptive and positive behaviour that enable individuals to deal effectively with the demands and challenges of everyday life” . Mincemoyer and Perkins (2005) have identified life skills as “personal social assets to become competent, contributing adult members of society.” Life skills are thought to represent the psycho-social skills that determine valued behaviors and include for example reflective skills such as problem-solving and critical thinking, personal skills such as self-awareness, and interpersonal skills. Research suggests that practicing life skills leads to qualities such as self-esteem, sociability and tolerance, and to action competencies to take action and generate change and capabilities to have the freedom to decide what to do and who to be.

A number of studies have been conducted in extension settings related to life skills (see selected examples in the reference list). Existing materials will be used in the current project as the basis for identifying reliable and valid measures of life skills that can be broadly used in CYFAR and 4-H settings.

Project Steps

Review existing literature and develop a working definition of life skills (LS) Conduct a web-survey of CYFAR program directors to identify key dimensions of life

skills relevant to CYFAR and 4-H programs. Develop working definitions for each of the identified LS dimensions, including sub-

domains of interest. Review existing literature to inform these definitions. Utilize a panel of experts to insure face-validity of items for the various LS elements

(face validity and discrimination from items included for other life skills). Field test the measures in selected programs. Apply appropriate psychometric statistics to develop scales that are a) short enough for

use by practitioners, but b) have acceptable psychometric properties.

Organization of Document

Part One of the report provides information about the survey that was conducted with CYFAR Project Directors. Part Two reviews the LS domains chosen for further study based on the results of the survey, provides a definition for each domain, and provides a review of selected instruments that have been designed to measure each domain. Part Three field tests the specific instruments selected in Part Two. Psychometric and other results for the field tests are included.


References Introduction

Mincemoyer, C., & Perkins, D. F. (2005). Measuring the impact of youth development programs: A national on-line youth life skills evaluation system. The Forum for Family and Consumer Issues [On-line], 10(2). Available at: http://www.ncsu.edu/ffci/publications/2005/v10-n2-2005-october/pa-1-measuring.php

World Health Organization. (1997). Life skills education for children and adolescents in schools. [On-line]. Available at: http://whqlibdoc.who.int/hq/1994/WHO_MNH_PSF_93.7A_Rev.2.pdf


Part One: Survey of CYFAR Project DirectorsIntroduction

We conducted a survey of CYFAR program directors in order to determine the perceived importance of specific life skills targeted as CYFAR program outcomes. Forty-seven project directors were sent email invitations to complete a short (5-10 minute) online survey. The survey asked respondents to identify the program’s targeted outcomes and the instruments being used to measure these outcomes. Respondents were also asked to identify and rank the importance of up to 10 life skills for which they would like to see valid and reliable instruments developed or made available. Thirty-five (35) were listed from the Targeting Life Skills Model by P. Hendricks (http://www.extension.iastate.edu/4h/lifeskills/homepage.html) at Iowa State University Extension. Thirty-seven (n=37) individuals representing programs located in 34 different states and territories responded to the survey.1 Table 1 provides the listed life skill areas sorted by their weighted ranks.

Higher mean rank scores represent higher levels of ascribed importance. The weighted rank scores represent the product of the number of times the item was

selected as part of the respondents top ten life skills multiplied by the mean rank score (e.g., 19 * 8.37=159.0).

Results suggest a clear group of most commonly selected and highest ranked life skills. These items all have weighted mean ranks greater than 70, and there is a 15 point gap between the lowest item in this group and the next highest ranked item.

Based on the survey results, we concentrated our efforts on identifying existing scales in 10 of the top 11 areas.2 The strength of this group of life skill categories is that they were selected by CYFAR project managers who will be the actual end users of the measures identified and subsequently tested.

1 Three states had two respondents, one from each of two CYFAR projects funded in that state.2 Healthy Living was eliminated because it was too broad a category for identifying a single measure.

http://www.extension.iastate.edu/4h/lifeskills/homepage.html


Table 1: Summary Statistics for CYFAR Directors Survey

Life SkillTimes

SelectedMean Rank*

Weighted Rank**

Leadership 19 8.37 159.00Communication 18 6.17 111.00Self-Esteem 15 7.13 107.00Responsible Citizenship 14 7.43 104.00Teamwork 14 6.93 97.00Decision Making 17 5.59 95.00Community Volunteering 11 8.00 88.00Healthy Lifestyle Choices 14 6.00 84.00Self-Responsibility 15 5.60 84.00Problem Solving 13 5.77 75.00Critical Thinking 12 5.92 71.00Resiliency 12 4.67 56.00Self-Discipline 9 6.11 55.00Goal Setting 10 5.50 55.00Conflict Resolution 11 4.73 52.00Accepting Differences 10 4.80 48.00Self-Motivation 6 6.83 41.00Marketable Skills 7 5.43 38.00Character 5 6.80 34.00Stress Management 5 6.00 30.00Learning to Learn 5 6.00 30.00Nurturing Relationships 6 5.00 30.00Service Learning 5 5.50 27.50Cooperation 7 3.57 25.00Social Skills 5 4.80 24.00Contributions to Group Effort 3 7.00 21.00Managing Feelings 4 4.75 19.00Planning/Organizing 4 4.75 19.00Empathy 3 5.67 17.00Concern for Others 3 5.33 16.00Sharing 3 3.33 10.00Disease Prevention 2 4.00 8.00Personal Safety 2 4.00 8.00Wise Use of Resources 1 7.00 7.00Keeping Records 1 1.00 1.00*Higher Scores Indicate Higher Rankings** Times Selected x Mean Rank


Part Two: Review of MeasuresThe purpose of this portion of the study was to review the life skills literature to identify or, if necessary, create operationalized definitions of the top 10 life skills identified through the survey of CYFAR project directors discussed in Part One of this study.. The following steps were taken for each identified life skill area:

Literature was reviewed to determine how the construct is currently defined. Existing definitions were selected or new definitions created into order to best match the conceptualization to CYFAR contexts.

Instruments were identified for each life-skill with particular attention to the appropriate age group(s) that the instrument was designed for, information about reliability and validity, and studies in which the instrument had been used.

Based on the reviews, recommendations were made regarding specific instruments deemed to be appropriate for use as outcome measures for CYFAR projects.

The following sections detail this process and present the groups final recommendations regarding construct definitions and measurements. This work facilitated Part Three of this project which consisted of administration of the identified life skills instruments and subsequent determinations or reliability and validity of the measures for children of differing age groups and race/ethnicity backgrounds.

Table 2 provides an overview of the selected life skills and their chosen definitions and instrumentation. More detailed information regarding these constructs is provided in the body of the report.


Table 2: Overview of Chosen Life Skills, Definitions and MeaningsLife Skill Area Definition Measure

Communication The dynamic process by which people exchange thoughts, ideas, and messages. Listening is the act of interpreting sounds and/or visual stimuli and using those interpretations to give them meaning (Mincemoyer, Perkins, & Munyua, 2001).

Communication Scale (Barkman & Machtmes, 2002a) Reading Grade Level: 5.7

Community Volunteering

The attempt to meet a community need through uncompensated giving of time and or talents to others.

An adapted version of the Self-Report Altruism scale (Rushton, 1981).Reading Grade Level: 5.4

Critical Thinking Thinking that evaluates reasons and brings thought and actions in line with evaluations (Mincemoyer, et al., 2001).

Critical Thinking for Everyday Life (Perkins & Mincemoyer, 2002)Reading Grade Level: 6.1

Decision Making Decision making is the ability to define a problem, choose between alternatives, identify the risk and consequences for each alternative, selecting an alternative, and finally evaluating the situation (Mincemoyer & Perkins, 2003).

Making Decisions in Everyday Life (Mincemoyer & Perkins, 2002)Reading Grade Level: 6.5

Leadership The ability to interact with a group in order to exercise influence and achieve a common goal (Mills, 2009).

Leadership Efficacy (Chi, Jastrzab, & Melchior, 2006)

Problem Solving “The self-directed cognitive behavioral process by which a person attempts to identify or discover effective or adaptive ways of coping with problematic situations encountered in everyday living” (D'Zurilla & Maydeu-Olivares, 1995, p. 410)

Problem Solving (Barkman & Machtmes, 2002a) Reading Grade Level: 5.3

Responsible Citizenship 1. Sense of generalized reciprocity2. Ability to be involved in civic society and democracy3. Desire to make positive contributions to community4. Participation in activities to better community(Bobek, Zaff, Li, & Lerner, 2009, p. 616)

Civic Responsibility Survey Level 2 (Furco, Muller, & Ammon, 1998a)

Self-Esteem Self-esteem is the hypothetical construct created by individuals to determine their self-worth. The ideal self is created when the individual compares himself or herself to the people around him or her.

Rosenberg Self-esteem Scale (Rosenberg, 1965)Reading Grade Level: 3.2

Self-Responsibility The habit of owning and accepting consequences of personal actions (Ellis & Sibthorp, 2006).

Responsibility Scale (American Camping Association, 2007a)Reading Grade Level: 5.4

Teamwork Desirable team member characteristics consist of knowledge, skills, attitudes, or behaviors that increase the likelihood that an individual can be an effective member of a team.

Teamwork Scale (American Camping Association, 2007a)

YDI CYFAR Student Report 7

Communication3

Description of ConceptThe mechanics and components of human communication have been discussed and debated since the time of the ancient Greek philosophers (Bowman & Targowski, 1987). Multiple models and theories have been developed to explicate the communications process. Although differences exist across models, most contain the same core elements of speaker, message, and listener (Lysaught, 1984). The speaker is the individual conveying the message; the message is the content of what is being conveyed; and the listener is the individual to whom the message is directed. Additional components have been added to this model including the medium through which the message is conveyed (e.g., face to face, written word, etc.), the encoding and decoding process involved with conveying and interpreting the message, speaker/listener background experiences, and “noise” that may disrupt the communication channel (Lysaught, 1984).

Priest and Gass (2005) suggest, “effective communication occurs when people receiving the information alter their performances or beliefs on the basis of what the senders meant to convey” (p. 254). To achieve this result, there needs to be a significant degree of congruence between the sender’s and receiver’s interpretation of the transmitted message.

The majority of research dealing with adolescent communication focuses on parent-child communication. The quality of family communication and parent-child communication appears to be related a variety of areas including adolescent identity development (Grotevant & Cooper, 1985), adolescent self-esteem (Jackson, Bijstra, Oostra, & Bosma, 1998), family functioning (Barnes & Olson, 1985), and a variety of deviant behaviors (Luk, Farhat, Iannotti, & Simons-Morton, in press) to name a few.

Chosen DefinitionBased on their review of the literature, Mincemoyer, Perkins, & Munyua (2001) define communication as “the dynamic process by which people exchange thoughts, ideas, and messages. Listening is the act of interpreting sounds and/or visual stimuli and using those interpretations to give them meaning.”

They also suggest the following skills are necessary for effective communication to occur:

1. Awareness of one’s own styles of communication;2. Understanding and valuing different styles of communication;3. Practicing empathy;4. Adjusting one’s own styles of communication to match others' styles. (Communicative adaptability);5. Communication of essential information; and6. Interaction management.

Description of Measures

3 Prepared by Mat Duerden


The majority of communication measures tailored for adolescents deal with parent-child communication. One of the most widely used measures is the Parent-Adolescent Communication Scale (Barnes & Olson, 1982). The scale consists of two 10 item subscales, family openness and family communication problems. The scale has received widespread application and produces acceptable levels of reliability across multiple studies (e.g., Jackson, et al., 1998). The Parent-Adolescent Communication Inventory (Noller & Bagi, 1985) asks adolescents and parents to rate their communication in multiple content areas in terms of frequency, initiation, recognition, self-disclosure, domination and satisfaction.

Two scales were reviewed that directly assess adolescent communication. The first, the Life Skills Development Scale – Adolescent Form (Darden & Ginter, 1996), is a global life skills measure that includes four sub-dimensions including interpersonal communication/human relations skills. The scale includes 65 items and has produced reliability scores of .94 for the entire scale and subscale scores ranging from .72 to .87. Factor analyses results returned only one factor with an Eigen value greater than 1 suggesting that the scale most effectively measures one global construct rather than four separate areas.

The final scale reviewed, the Communication scale from the Youth Life Skills Evaluation (Mincemoyer, et al., 2001), contains 23 items that measure the six skill areas identified discussed in the previous section. The scale was pilot tested with 203 youth attending a 4-H event. The average age of respondents was 16.5 with females making up 72% of the group. The sample was 91.5% Caucasian. The full version of the survey has produced an average reliability across 11 waves of data collection of .79. A short 6-item version of the scale has produced a reliability score of .70.

Chosen MeasureDue to the length and adolescent focus, the Communications scale from the Youth Life Skills Evaluation (Barkman & Machtmes, 2002a) appears the most appropriate for CYFAR applications.


Table 3: Review of Available Measures for Communication Instrument Description Reliability Validity SourceParent-Adolescent Communication Scale

This 20 The scale consists of two subscales, family openness and family communication problems, each containing 10 items.

>.80 for Family Openness and >.68 for Communication Problems

Barnes, H. L., & Olson, D. H. (1982). Parent-adolescent communication scale. In D. H. Olson (Ed.), Family inventories: Inventories used in a national survey of families across the family life cycle (pp. 33-48). St. Paul, MN: Family Social Science, University of Minnesota.

Life Skills Development Scale - Adolescent form

65 item scale that assesses global life skills across four subscale areas: interpersonal communication/human relations skills; problem-solving/decision-making skills; physical fitness/health maintenance skills; and identity development/purpose in life skills.

.94 overall and .73 for Interpersonal communication/human relations

Darden, C. A., Ginter, E. J., & Gazda, G. M. (1996). Life-skills development scale - adolescent form: the theoretical and therapeutic relevance of life-skills. Journal of Mental Health Counseling, 18, 142-163.

Parent-Adolescent Communication Inventory

Adolescents and parents rate their communication across multiple content areas in terms of frequency, initiation, recognition, self-disclosure, domination and satisfaction on a 1 to 6 scale

Noller, P., & Bagi, S. (1985). Parent--adolescent communication. Journal of Adolescence, 8(2), 125-144.

Communication 23 item self-report scale that assesses communication skills related to six different areas. Short form contains 6 items.

Short form reliability of .70

Barkman, S., & Machtmes, K. (2002). Four-fold: A research model for designing and evaluating the impact of youth development programs. News and Views, 4(4), 4-6. /


Community Volunteering4

Description of ConceptAmerica has a long tradition of community volunteering. In 1835 in his commentary on the new American democracy, Democracy in America, Alexis de Tocqueville wrote of the surprising propensity of Americans to form associations and engage in civic activities.

While adults are more likely to volunteer in order to make a contribution to their community, youth volunteer to gain skills, explore career fields, or to participate with friends who also volunteer (Shannon, 2009). Youth who participate in community volunteering activities become involved most often through one of five means: youth organizations, religious organizations, service learning classes, school required service hours, and through a family tradition of volunteering. Youth are more likely to volunteer in the community if they belong to an organized group or quite simply if they are asked (Shannon, 2009).

Participation in well-designed community volunteering helps youth grow and develop personal and interpersonal assets needed not only for the benefit of the community but also to develop youth into fully functioning adults. Development for youth falls into three major areas: social development, psychological development, and intellectual development (Moore & Allen, 1996). Community volunteering allows youth to explore new roles and identities, foster a sense of empowerment and self- efficacy, and advance a personal set of morals (Youniss, McLellan, Su, & Yates, 1999). It may also advance academic learning through improved skills in decision making, abstract thought, and reasoning (Conrad & Hedin, 1989). Volunteering provides youth the opportunity to participate in and comment on the adult world (Youniss, et al., 1999). The most obvious benefits gained through the volunteer experience are a greater sense of responsibility for the community, a commitment to future community service and an increased understanding of civic engagement. Youth also show improved social competence and a better understanding of community problems and democratic ideals (Moore & Allen, 1996).

Chosen DefinitionCommunity volunteering is the attempt to meet a community need through uncompensated giving of time and or talents to others. A meaningful volunteer experience includes (Thoits & Hewitt, 2001):

1. Planning /orientation- recognition of a community need/ social problem, discussion on how to best meet the need and building of necessary skills to complete plan;

2. Action – implementation of ideas; and 3. Reflection – orient experience in larger context, decide how to better address the

recognized community need/ social problem (Omoto & Snyder, 2002)

Description of Measures Community volunteering has not been defined in a consistent manner. “Not only is the independent variable, service, hard to define, but any service activity has a wide range of plausible outcomes” (Conrad & Hedin, 1989, p. 7). Therefore, possible measures range from the

4 Prepared by Marie Joliff


number of hours of service to social/psychological development to civic engagement and academic development. Many researchers suggest that due to the often personal nature of the life lessons presented in community volunteering projects, qualitative research techniques such as personal interviews or journal analysis can reveal a deeper engagement and learning from a volunteer experience then simple pre-/post-surveys.

Lakin and Mahoney created a pre- and post-test that was taken in part from the Learner Empowerment Measure (25 items), Cowen et al.’s (1991) self-efficacy scale (19 items), and the Index of Empathy for Children (18 items). The scale measures empowerment (α = .90), global self-efficacy (which did not demonstrate sufficient reliability), civic responsibility (α = .83), intent to be involved in future community action (α =.72) and empathy (α =.72). The measure considers a wide range of developmental assets resulting from community volunteering. However, the scale may be too long for use in all settings.

A primary goal of community volunteering is to create youth who are more considerate of other’s needs (individual and community) and therefore more altruistic. The Self-Report Altruism Scale measures altruistic behavior with a twenty question survey asking how often an altruistic action is performed. The survey asks the subject to respond to each question on a scale of never, once, more than once, often or very often. The measure has been widely used for adult subjects and has a reliability rating of .84 (Rushton, 1981).

Chosen MeasurementThe Self- Report Altruism Scale (Rushton, 1981) could be altered first to relate to youth’s lives and second to measure intentions rather than behaviors in order to be appropriate for youth programs. Questions in the measure ask about behavior youth are incapable of performing, for example driving a car. Questions would need to need to be reformulated to reflect youth experiences. Also, considering the needs of youth programmers, the Self-Report Altruism Scale should be reworded to measure intentions rather than actual behavior. Knowledge gained from a youth program may take time to effect actual behavior. However, intentions to change behavior could be measured to understand the impact of a program. Finally, the Self-Report Altruism scale uses the word “stranger” in each item (Rushton, 1981). In youth education, stranger may have a negative connotation. A measure based upon the Self-Report Altruism Scale would need to use another term to reflect someone you do not know.


Table 4: Community Volunteering Measurement ToolsInstrument Description Reliability Validity Source

Global Self-Efficacy Scale

25 items measuring how youth thought they could handle 3 challenge areas: difficult situations, new experiences, problems with people.

.87 Lakin, R. and A. Mahoney (2006). Empowering youth to change their world: Identifying key components of a community service program to promote positive development. Journal of School Psychology 44(6): 513-531

Youth Supplemental Survey

Uses 150 items to measure 13 thriving outcomes, such as helping others on a 5 point scale from not important to extremely important

Scales, P. L., N. Vraa, R. (2003). The relation of community developmental attentiveness to adolescent health. American Journal of Health Behavior: Special Issue on Positive Youth Development, 27, S22-S34.

Self-Report Altruism Scale

20 item scale: asks how frequently specific behaviors occur

.84

Rushton, P. C., R. (1981). The altruistic personality and the self-report altruism scale. Personality and Individual Differences, 2(4), 293-302.

Learner Empowerment Measure

25 items administered in a pre and post test to determine if activity was congruent with values, beliefs and talents

.87 Frymier, A. B., & Shulman, G. M. (1996). The development of a learner empowerment measure. [Article]. Communication Education, 45(3), 181

Index for Empathy for Children

22 items measured with yes or no response

Across age groups and gender reliability ranged from .74 to .86

Bryant, B. K. (1982). An Index of Empathy for Children and Adolescents. [Article]. Child Development, 53(2), 413

Critical Thinking5

Description of Concept5 Prepared by Mat Duerden


Critical thinking (CT) has long been identified as one of the key goals of education (Bloom, Englehart, Furst, & Hill, 1956). It is considered a key skill necessary for lifelong learning (Terenzini, Springer, Pascarella, & Nora, 1995) and navigating an increasingly complex world (Facione, 2006). CT has been defined in a number of different ways including “judging in a reflective way what to do or what to believe” (Facione, 2000, p. 61), and “thinking that is purposeful, reasoned, and goal directed” (Halpern, 1989, p. 5).

In 1989 a Delphi panel of 46 experts on CT developed a consensus definition of the construct:

“We understand critical thinking to be purposeful, self-regulatory judgment whichresults in interpretation, analysis, evaluation, and inference, as well as explanation of the evidential, conceptual, methodological, criteriological, or contextual considerations upon which that judgment is based” (Facione, 1990, p. 2).

Additionally, they proposed a list of cognitive skills (e.g., interpretation, analysis, evaluation, inference, explanation, and self-regulation) and affective dispositions (e.g., inquisitiveness, desire to stay well-informed, prudence, open-mindedness, etc.) associated with CT (Facione, 1990). The panel defined the cognitive skills as follows:

Interpretation: To comprehend and express the meaning or significance of a wide variety of experiences, situations, data, events, judgments, conventions, beliefs, rules, procedures or criteria.

Analysis: To identify the intended and actual inferential relationships among statements, questions, concepts, descriptions or other forms of representation intended to express beliefs, judgments, experiences, reasons, information, or opinions.

Evaluation: To assess the credibility of statements or other representations which are accounts or descriptions of a person's perception, experience, situation, judgment, belief, or opinion; and to assess the logical strength of the actual or intend inferential relationships among statements, descriptions, questions or other forms of representation.

Inference: To identify and secure elements needed to draw reasonable conclusions; to form conjectures and hypotheses; to consider relevant information and to deduce the consequences flowing from data, statements, principles, evidence, judgments, beliefs, opinions, concepts, descriptions, questions, or other forms of representation.

Explanation: To state the results of one's reasoning; to justify that reasoning in terms of the evidential, conceptual, methodological, criteriological and contextual considerations.

Self-Regulation: To self-consciously monitor one's cognitive activities, the elements used in those activities, and the results educed, particularly by applying skills in analysis and evaluation to one's own inferential judgments with a view toward questioning, confirming, validating, or correcting either one's reasoning or one's results (Facione, 1990, pp. 13-19).


Much of the CT research since 1990 traces its conceptual roots back to this framework.

Chosen DefinitionIn an effort to produce a more parsimonious measure of critical thinking geared towards adolescents, researchers at Perkins and Mincemoyer (2002) developed a unique conceptualization of critical thinking based upon an extensive review of literature. Their work resulted in a conceptualization of CT as “thinking that evaluates reasons and brings thought and actions in line with evaluations” and the identification of the following sub-skills:

Reasoning: Explore implications and consequences; ability to reason/think independently; use precise language to explain what you think; use given information to make predictions/develop hypotheses; draw inferences/make deductions from information given; and ability to give reasons for opinions.

Enquiry: Locate, collect, recall relevant information/find relevant examples; gather information from a wide variety of resources; and plan what to do and how to conduct research.

Analysis/Information Processing: Ability to break ideas and problems into parts and analyze them; able to analyze one's own thinking process; ability to sort, classify, compare; determine assumptions that underlie conclusions; and analyze an argument.

Evaluation: Evaluate likelihood and probability; Identify relationships between phenomena; evaluate credibility of sources; decide what skills are needed to solve a problem; judge value of what you hear, see, read; develop general criteria for judging values; determine whether information is relevant/useful to you; check for inconsistencies; prioritize; and distinguish poor reasoning from sound reasoning.

Flexibility: Open-minded to new ideas; able to transfer knowledge/skills to different contexts/situations; ability to be sensitive to context; awareness that there may not be a single, clear "right" answer; and consider multiple viewpoints and perspectives (Perkins & Mincemoyer, 2001, pp. 1-3).

Although the bulk of CT research has relied on the Delphi Panel conceptualization of CT, the focus of Perkins and Mincemoyer’s work on adolescents makes their definition more appropriate for CYFAR settings.


Description of Measures As a direct result of the Delphi study, measures have been developed to assess both the skills (CCTST; Facione, 1991) and dispositional components (CCTDI; Facione & Facione, 1992) of CT. Research suggests a significant degree of positive correlation between the two areas (Facione, 2000). Measures built upon the Delphi framework have also been developed to assess specific components of CT within particular contexts, such as a scale to measure engagement, cognitive maturity, and innovativeness among FFA participants (Ricketts & Rudd, 2005).

Although the CCTST and CCTDI have been widely used over the last 20 years their length, 34 and 75 items respectively, factors such as being designed for an older target audience and cost make them prohibitive for implementation as outcome measures for CYFAR programs. An alternative CT measure, the Critical Thinking in Everyday Life scale (CTEL), was developed by Mincemoyer, et al.(2001). The scale assesses the following CT sub-skills: reasoning, enquiry, analysis/information processing, flexibility, and evaluation. The scale has a long and short, version, 20 and 5 items respectively. The scales were pilot tested with 203 youth attending a 4-H event. The average age of respondents was 16.5 with females making up 72% of the group. The majority, 91.5%, were Caucasian. The full version of the survey produced an average reliability across 11 waves of data collection of .74. A short 6-item version of the scale produced a reliability score of .72. Although CTEL addresses a slightly different subset of CT skills than the Delphi Panel list there is substantial overlap and agreement between the two conceptual frameworks.

Chosen MeasureCETL appears to be the most appropriate measure for implementation in CYFAR contexts. CTEL (Perkins & Mincemoyer, 2002) offers the flexibility of both a long and short-form, and focuses on a target population more in line with CYFAR projects that CCTST and CCTDI. CTEL also possess acceptable psychometric properties.

Table 5: Critical Thinking Measurement ToolsInstrument Description Reliability Validity Source

California Critical Thinking Skills Test (CCTST)

34 items; 6 subscales:Analysis, Inference, Evaluation, Inductive Reasoning, Deductive reasoning

Alpha coefficient .69 (Facione, 1991)

Correlates with reading scores, GPA and SAT scores (Facione, 1991)

http://www.insightassessment.com/9test-cctst.html

California Critical Thinking Disposition Inventory (CCTDI)

75 items; 7 disposition subscales:Truth seeking,Open-mindedness,Analyticity,Systematicity,Critical Thinking, Self-Confidence,Inquisitiveness,Maturity of Judgment.

.92 for full scale; subscale alphas range from .60 to .78 (Facione, Facione, & Sanchez, 1994)

Correlates with a variety of measures. For example, ego-resiliency (Giancarlo, 1993) and biculturalism (Giancarlo, 1996)

http://www.insightassessment.com/9test-cctdi.html








Critical Thinking for Everyday Life

Full version 20 items; Short form 5 items

.72 for the short form

http://www.humanserviceresearch.com/youthlifeskillsevaluation/evaltools1218.htm

Decision Making6

Description of ConceptIndividuals utilize the skill of decision making daily. When a child picks out his or her outfit for school, this involves decision making. When a teenager is considering whether or not to do drugs, this involves decision making. When a high school graduate is debating what college to attend, that involves decision making. Although some decisions are small in degree, others require serious thinking by adolescents. The problem arises, however, because some adolescents 1) easily succumb to peer pressure, 2) tend to focus on immediate rather than long-term consequences, and 3) tend to be “less risk averse” (Scott, Reppucci, & Woolard, 1995, p. 222). It is no surprise Carlson et al. (2009) suggested that effective decision making requires the “the ability to control one’s thoughts and behaviors in situations in which there is a relatively strong motivational component (e.g., rewards and losses tied to one’s performance)” (p. 1076). According to Scott (No Date), decision making is the “process of making choices among possible alternatives”. Scott introduces the normative model of decision making. The model includes the following five skills: 1) identify all possible solutions in a given situation; 2) identify all possible consequences that come with each possible solution ; 3) evaluate “the desirability of each of the consequences”; 4) determine the likelihood that each consequence can occur; and 5) make a decision based on the decision rule. Parker (2005) states that decision making requires the skills of “assessing beliefs, assessing values, combining beliefs and values in order to identify choices, and having a meta-cognitive understanding of one’s abilities” (p. 3).

Mann’s Nine Indicators of Competence. Mann et al. (1984) created the nine indicators of competent decision making. These are outlined below:

Comprehension. Decision-maker must possess an understanding of “one’s own cognitive processes” (p. 268).

Creative Problem-Solving. This step involves clarification of ill-defined goals; alternative choices, creative combination of those alternative choices, and “conceptualization of a sequence of steps for moving toward the preferred goal” (p. 268).

Compromise. Decision-maker must understand other’s point of view and be willing to compromise an agreement.

Consequentiality. Individual must understand the potential consequences of any action taken. Individual must not only understand the consequences to the self but consider others as well.

Correctness of Choice. Individual must be able to “process information efficiently and logically” (p. 270).

6 Prepared by Mariela Fernandez





Credibility. Children may take adults’ words for granted. They lack the ability to be able to recognize the “possible vested interests of professional advice givers” (p. 271). Youth are likely to take adults’ words for granted without any further questioning.

Consistency. There must be a stability of choices taken by the decision-maker. As youth grow up they experiment with different choices and consequences. As they get older, they adhere to a more stable pattern.

Commitment. The individual must display a commitment to the original decision. Maybe a student decides to go to college. This student must prepare him or herself academically, apply to the colleges, apply for scholarships, and so on.

Chosen DefinitionFor the purpose of this project, decision making is the ability to define a problem, choose between alternatives, identify the risk and consequences for each alternative, selecting an alternative, and finally evaluating the situation.

Description of MeasuresMaking Decisions in Everyday Life (Mincemoyer & Perkins, 2003) would serve as the best measurement tool for this project. The other scales were targeted at adults or questioned participants about their different decision making styles. Others seemed like a good fit for the target group, but the domains were not pertinent to this study. Thus, it is best to proceed with Making Decisions in Everyday Life. It features two parts: 20 statements on what a youth does during the decision making process and 10 statements addressing what factors go into decision making. The validity is not given. However,


Table 6 displays the reliability and confirmatory principal component analysis on the measurement.


Table 6: Reliability and Confirmatory Principal Component AnalysisFactor Item Principal Component

Analysis

Define the Problem(alpha = .6340)

I easily identify my problem. .609

I think about the problem before I take action. .779

I look for information to help me understand the problem. .781

I ask others to help me identify my problem. .580

Identify Alternatives(alpha = .7057)

I think about ways of dealing with my problem. .809

I think before making a choice. .738

I discuss choices with my friends. .896

I discuss choices with my parents. .738

Identify Risks and Consequences(alpha = .6577)

I look for positive points of possible choices. .769

I look for negative points of possible choices. .750

I consider the risks of a choice before making a decision. .824

I consider the benefits of a choice before making a decision. .816

Select an Alternative(alpha = .8456)

I make decisions based on what my parents tell me. .508

When faced with a decision, I realize that some choices are better than others. .765

I make a decision by thinking about all the information I have about the different choices. .829

I prioritize my choices before making a decision. .752

Evaluate Decision(alpha = .8960)

Before making another decision, I think about how the last one turned out. .837

I do think of past choices when making new decisions. .878

If I experience negative consequences, I change my decision the next time. .764

Source: Mincemoyer & Perkins, 2003

The survey was mainly distributed out to European descent youth (Table 7).

Table 7: Analysis by RaceFrequency Percent Valid

PercentCumulative

PercentAfrican American 3 1.3 1.4 1.4

API 4 1.8 1.9 3.3Hispanic 3 1.3 1.4 4.7

European American 194 87.0 91.5 96.2Other 8 3.6 3.8 100.0Total 212 95.1 100.0

Missing Data 11 4.9Total 223 100.0

Source: (Mincemoyer & Perkins, 2003)


The scale would be adequate for this project. It may also need to be modified in order to survey the younger children who may be as young as nine.

Table 8: Decision Making Measurement ToolsInstrument Description Reliability Validity Citing StudiesAdolescent Decision making Questionnaire (ADMQ)

30-item, 4-point Likert-type self-report questionnaire; 5 subscales: self-confidence; vigilance; panic; evasiveness; complacency

Cronbach's alpha: vigilance, .73; panic, .70; evasiveness, .66; complacency, .73

NA Friedman, I. A., & Mann, L. (1993). Coping patterns in adolescent decision making: An Israeli-Australian comparison. Journal of Adolescence, 16, 187-199.

Behavior Inventory

6-pt Likert Scale. Part 1 (24 items): social decision making skills; sexual decision making skills; communication skills; assertiveness skills; birth control assertiveness skills. Part 2 (18 items): Comfort engaging in social activities; comfort talking about sex; comfort talking about birth control; comfort expressing concern and caring; comfort being sexually assertive; comfort having current sex life; comfort getting and using birth control.

Social decision making scale (6 items): Test-retest is .84; Cronbach’s alpha is .58. Sexual decision making scale (4 items): Test-retest is .65; Cronbach’s alpha is .61.

NA Lock, S. E., & Vincent, M. L. (1995). Sexual decision making among rural adolescent females. Health Values, 19, 47-58.

General Decision making Style (GDMS)

25-item 5-pt Likert Scale instrument Five subscales: rational; intuitive; dependent; spontaneous; and avoidant

NA Face validity and logical content validity; alpha's from .68 to .94

Scott, S., & Bruce, R. (1995) Decision making style: the development of a new measure. Educational and Psychological Measurements, 55, 818-831.

Decision making Inventory (DMI)

20-item scale using a 6-pt Likert scale; It is intended to assess an individual’s preferred style of decision making; Four subscales: Information gathering style (spontaneous, systematic) and Information processing style (internal, external)

Form H: Alpha coefficients range from .30 to .69; Form I: Alpha coefficients range from .34 to .73.

NA Coscarelli, W. C. (1983). Developing a decision making inventory to assess Johnson's decision making styles. Measurement and Evaluation in Guidance, 16, 149-160.

Adolescent Decision making Inventory

Semi-structured interview tool; 6 subscales: thinking patterns; risk-taking behavior; development of identity and personal

NA NA Strauss, S. S., & Clarke, B. A. (1992). Decision making patterns in adolescent mothers. IMAGE: Journal of Nursing Scholarship,


Instrument Description Reliability Validity Citing Studies(ADI) boundaries; coping; goals

and contingency planning; and interpersonal processes

24, 69-74.

Making Decisions in Everyday Life

20 statements on what a youth does during the decision making process and 10 statements addressing what factors go into decision making

See Table 4. NA Mincemoyer, C. C., Perkins, D. F., Munyua, H. (2001) Making decisions in everyday life. Retrieved from: http://www.humanserviceresearch.com/youthlifeskillsevaluation/decision.pdf

Problem Solving/Decision Making

15 item 4-pt Liker scale; 4 subscales: 1) Interpersonal Communication/Human Relations, 2) Problem Solving/Decision Making, 3) Physical Fitness/Healthy Maintenance Skills, and 4) Identity Development/Purpose in Life Skill

Reliability is stated at .82

NA Darden, C. A., Ginter, E. J., & Gazda, G. M. (1996). Life-skills development scale-adolescent form: the theoretical and therapeutic relevance of life-skills. Journal of Mental Health Counseling, 18, 142-163.


Leadership7

Description of ConceptResearchers have attempted to pinpoint the definition of leadership. However, this has resulted in overlapping definitions. The idea of leadership has greatly evolved since the initial conceptions of the construct. Bennis and Nanus (1985) stated that leadership was once thought to come from the right breed of individuals. This was replaced by the notion that “great events make leaders” (p. 5). Today, vanLinden and Fertman (1998) argue that leadership begins to form even before the early age of five. These two researchers define leaders as individuals who are able to think, express their concerns, aide and persuade others to act in a responsible manner. Furthermore, Carter (n.d.) defines leadership as a process where the leader influences the group to work toward accomplishing a common goal. As easy as this sounds, the term process dictates action. Leaders must not only provide adequate stimulation for the group, but they must also sustain the relationships between group members. Although leadership brings to mind power, a leader must know how to utilize it properly. Roberts (2009) suggests that the most important component of a leader is vision. She states the following:

The ability to imagine a better future, to articulate it clearly, and then to bring others forward in building and attaining that vision is certainly an essential quality of effective leaders. These individuals become recognized as accomplished leaders because others follow them, not because of some proactive effort to “direct” or “manage” others. (p. 85)

Sabatelli et al (2005) takes it further by stating that “leadership in community envisions the community as the setting in which leadership relationships take place” (p. 4). The definitions do not stop there. Across the literature, 11 characteristics of leadership constantly arise:

“(a) personality or effectiveness of personality, (b) the art of inducing compliance, (c) the exercise of influence, (d) a function of a set of acts or behavior. (e) a form of persuasion, (f ) a set of acts or behavior, (g) a power of relationship, (h) an instrument of goal achievement, (i) an effective interaction, (j) a differentiated role, and (k) the initiation of structure” (Ricketts, 2002; Sabatelli, 1974).

Kouze and Posner (1995) developed the Ten Commitments of Leadership:

1. Search out challenging opportunities to change, grow, innovate, and improve;2. Experiment, take risks, and learn from the accompanying mistakes;3. Envision an uplifting and ennobling future; 4. Enlist others in a common vision by appealing to their values, interests, hopes and

dreams;

7 Prepared by Mariela Fernandez


5. Foster collaboration by promoting cooperative goals and building trust;6. Strengthen people by giving power away, providing choice, developing competence,

assigning critical tasks, and offering visible support;7. Set the example by behaving in ways that are consistent with shared values;8. Achieve small wins that promote consistent progress and build commitment;9. Recognize individual contributions to the success of every project; and10. Celebrate team accomplishments regularly (p. 18).

Leadership Development. Professionals have instituted leadership development curricula. The curricula are not limited to simply reading articles on leadership. DesMaria, Yang, and Farzenhkia (2000) suggest that leadership development entails the following:

“youth/adult partnerships, granting young people decision making power and responsibility for consequences, a broad context for learning and service, recognition of young people's experience, knowledge and skills” (p. 680)

In other words, youth need to practice leadership in their lives. Many youth will not feel like leaders if they do not hold a position in the various clubs in their schools. However, they need to understand that they lead all the time. Taking action in a group or captaining a neighborhood basketball game are simple ways of taking charge. Ricketts and Rudd (2002) produced a model for youth leadership curriculum. Each circle “represents a construct of leadership”.

Figure 1: Ricketts and Rudd’s (2002) Model for Youth Leadership Curriculum

It is important to note that not every adolescent will be interested in taking the lead. It requires motivation and good role models that practice leadership.

Chosen Definition


There exist a plethora of definitions for leadership. Stogdill (1974) states that “there are almost as many different definitions of leadership as there are people who have tried to define it” (p. 7). Bennis and Nanus (1985) add to this by noting that “decades of academic analysis have given us more than 850 definitions of leadership” (p. 4). This becomes difficult when trying to find a universal definition. Mills (2009) states, “When we define leadership by ascribing unlimited and undifferentiated functions and activities in an organization to leadership, we have really not defined leadership at all. We have simply thrown up our hands in frustration” (p. 24). Because there is no definition readily accepted of leadership, researchers must identify a conceptualization that matches their specific project (Kleon & Rinehart, 1998).

For the purpose of this project, leadership will be defined by the most common elements that recur throughout the literature. Thus, leadership is the ability to interact with a group to exercise influence and achieve a common goal (Mills, 2009).

Description of Measures After reviewing several leadership measurements, the Leadership Efficacy Scale (Chi, et al., 2006) is recommended. The other measures are too lengthy, apply more to adults, or focus more on leadership styles. On the other hand, the Leadership Efficacy Scale is short and easy to understand. It covers the elements of leadership without touching on the technical items such as the leadership styles. However, one drawback to using that the scale was developed for grades K-5. In order to test the other age group, the questions may need to be modified, Furthermore, the scale’s reliability might be a concern. Cronbach’s alpha is stated at .64. Reliability is lower for girls than it is for boys, .59 and .68, respectively. For African Americans the reliability was only .49. These issues will need to be resolved before utilizing the Leadership Efficacy scale.

Table 9: Leadership Measurement Tools


Instrument Description Reliability Validity SourceLeadership Ability Evaluation

50-item multiple choice on the four leadership styles: laissez faire, democratic-cooperative, autocratic-submissive, and autocratic-aggressive

Split-half for total scale: .71-.91; split-half for subscales: .29-.91; no test-retest

Content: expert judges: no criterion-related or construct

Cassel, R. N., & Stancik, E. J. (1982). The Leadership Ability Evaluation-Revised: Manual. Los Angeles: Western Psychological Services.

Leadership Skills Inventory

125-item four point Likert scale Nine subscales: fundamental leadership, written communication, speech, values clarification, decision making, group dynamics, problem-solving, personal development, and planning.

Split-half and Kuder-Richardson coefficients in .80s for each scale; test-retest: 6 of 9 coefficients less than .50

Content: questionable: no criterion-related or construct

Karnes, F. A., & Chauvin, J. C. (1985). Leadership Skills Inventory: Administration manual. East Aurora, NY: D.O.K. Publishers.

Leadership Appraisal Survey

12-item paper and pencil self-report inventory to be used in conjunction with the Styles of Leadership Survey (SLS)

Median coefficient of stability greater than .70

NA Hall, J. (1986). Leadership Appraisal Survey. The Woodlands, TX: Teleometrics International.

Styles of Leadership Survey

12-item paper and pencil self-report Inventory

Median coefficient of stability greater than .70

NA Hall, J., & Williams, M. S. (1986). Styles of Leadership Survey. The Woodlands, TX: Teleometrics Int.

Leadership Opinion Questionnaire

40-item adult, paper-pencil test, measures two aspects of leadership: consideration and structure.

Internal consistency: .62-.89; test-retest: .67-.80

Criterion: correlated with other measures; construct: factor analysis

Fleishman, E. A. (1989). Leadership Opinion Questionnaire: Examiner’s manual. Park Ridge, IL: Science Research Associates.

Supervisory Behavior Description Questionnaire

40-item paper-pencil questionnaire is designed to be used in conjunction with the Leadership Opinion Questionnaire (LOQ). The SBD

Split-half: .68-.98; test-retest: .46-.87

Criterion: correlated with other measures; construct: factor analysis

Fleishman, E. A. (1989). Supervisory Behavior Description Questionnaire: Examiner’s manual. Park Ridge, IL: Science Research Associates.


Instrument Description Reliability Validity Sourcefocuses on subordinates’ perceptions of their leaders’ behavior.

Leadership Efficacy 6-item 4-pt Likert Scale intended for grades K-5

Cronbach’s alpha is stated at .64. Reliability is lower for girls than it is for boys, .59 and .68, respectively. African Americans had a .49 reliability.No test-retest information.

No information provided

Chi, B., Jastrzab, J., & Melchior, A. (2006). Civic measurement models: Student survey and teacher rating forms. Retrieved from the following: http://civicyouth.org/PopUps/WorkingPapers/WP47chi.pdf


Problem Solving8

Description of ConceptSolving problems is the process of using reasoning and analysis to look beyond the surface of a problem to the underlying concepts that need to be part of the solution. It is a process of recognizing and correctly defining problems, creating and implementing solutions, and evaluating the results of those solutions (Perkins & Mincemoyer, 2001). Problem solving is a sub concept under the meta construct reasoning and which can be defined as “the inferential steps that lead from a given state of affairs to a desired goal state” (Barbey & Barsalou, 2009, p. 35).

Problem solving typically involves some degree of planning or “formulating a method for attaining a desired goal state” (Barbey & Barsalou, 2009, p. 35). Here we are concerned with one specific type of problem solving: social problem solving. Social problem solving is defined as “the self-directed cognitive behavioral process by which a person attempts to identify or discover effective or adaptive ways of coping with problematic situations encountered in everyday living” (D'Zurilla & Maydeu-Olivares, 1995, p. 410).

According to D’Zurilla and Nezu (1990), there are four major problem-solving skills: (a) problem definition and formulation, (b) generation of alternative solutions, (c) decision making, and (d) solution implementation and verification. Several scholars have noted that effective problem solving in adolescence is linked with success as an adult (e.g., Gambone, Klem, & Connell, 2002).

Chosen DefinitionFor the purposes of this study, social problem solving is defined as “the self-directed cognitive behavioral process by which a person attempts to identify or discover effective or adaptive ways of coping with problematic situations encountered in everyday living” (D'Zurilla & Maydeu-Olivares, 1995, p. 410).

Description of MeasuresThere are two major types of social problem solving measures: (a) process measures: which assess problem solving attitudes and skills and (b) outcomes measures: which assess one’s ability to effectively utilize problem solving skills. Process measures are typically inventories of relevant attitudes and skills. Outcome measures are performance tests (D'Zurilla & Maydeu-Olivares, 1995). Table 5 describes several commonly used social problem solving measures.

Barkman and Machtmes (2002b) Solving Problems Survey was chosen for use in this study. The instrument has 24 questions which are measured on a 5 point likert type scale (1=Never to 5= Always). Result of pilot testing with over 200 4-H youth participants showed that the survey has good internal consistency; α = .76.

8 Prepared by Daniel Theriault


Table 10: Problem Solving Measurement Tools Instrument Description Reliability Validity Citing

StudiesSocial Problem Solving Inventory

70 likert type items, 2 scales, 7 subscales (Maydeu-Olivares & D’Zurilla, 1996). Problem Orientation Scale, Cognition Subscale, Emotion Subscale, Behavior Subscale, Problem Solving Skills Scale, Problem Definition and Formulation Subscale, Generation of Alternative Solutions Subscale, Decision Making Subscale, Solution Implementation and Verification Subscale

Test-Retest Reliability: POS: .83, PSSS: .88, Subscale Test-Retest Range: .86 to .73, Internal Consistency: POS: .94, PSSS: .92, Subscale Range: .90 to .65 (Maydeu-Olivares & D’Zurilla, 1996)

Concurrent Validity: Significant Correlations between SPSI and other problem solving measures, Predictive Validity: small, yet significant correlations between SPSI and academic achievement (D’Zurilla & Nezu, 1990)

(D’Zurilla & Sheedy, 1991)

Problem Solving Inventory

35 item, Likert-type inventory, 3 factors (Heppner & Peterson, 1982). Problem Solving Confidence, Approach-Avoidance Style, Personal Control

Test-Retest Reliability: Subscale Range: .83-.88, Scale: .89, Internal Consistency: Subscale Range: .72-.85, Scale: .90 (P. P. Heppner & Peterson, 1982)

Moderate correlations with self-rated problem solving skills (P. P. Heppner & Peterson, 1982)

(Heppner, Witty, & Dixon, 2004) – Reviews 120 studies that used the PSI

Social Problem Solving Inventory-Revised

52 likert type items, 5 subscales, authors report 10-20 min. average completion time, 25 item short form also exists (e.g., Spence, Sheffield, & Donovan, 2002), Positive Problem Orientation, Negative Problem Orientation, Rational Problem Solving, Impulsivity, Carelessness Style, Avoidance Style

Test-Retest Reliability: Scales range from .72 - .88, Internal Consistency: Scales range from:.76 to .92 (D'Zurilla & Chang, 1995)

2 factor analytic studies: Sample 1 AGFI: .77, Sample 2 AGFI: .70 (Maydeu-Olivares & D'Zurilla, 1995, 1996)

(D'Zurilla & Chang, 1995; Grant et al., 2006)

Means/Ends Problem Solving Procedure

9 stories with a beginning and ending, subjects make up the middle. One factor: means end cognition (Platt & Spivack, 1975). Means end cognition: the ability to articulate step by step means to reach a stated goal.

Internal consistency: .80-.84, test retest correlations: .43-.64 (as cited in P. P. Heppner & Peterson, 1982)

Factor analysis of 3 samples indicated one factor: factor loadings ranged from .31 - .77 (Platt & Spivack, 1975).

(Nezu & Ronan, 1988)

Interpersonal Problem Solving Assessment Technique

46 items,6 classes of situations, subjects identify alternative solutions to problems and choose 1 to implement. Responses are then

Inter-rater reliability: .99 (four raters) (Getter & Nowinski, 1981).

Response styles are positively correlated with related measures and personality types (e.g., aggressive) (Getter &


Instrument Description Reliability Validity Citing Studies

coded according to style (e.g., avoidant) and scored (D'Zurilla & Maydeu-Olivares, 1995).

Nowinski, 1981).

Adolescent Problems Inventory

44 multiple choice items, short form with 22 items also exists (Palmer & Hollin, 1996)

Inter-rater reliability (2 raters) = .99, Internal consistency = .97. Authors suggested this may be inflated due to use of extreme samples in study (Palmer & Hollin, 1996)

Significant correlations between scores on API and conduct problems, 89 % of respondents correctly classified as delinquent/non delinquent (Hunter & Kelley, 1986; Palmer & Hollin, 1996)

(Gaffney & McFall, 1981; Hollin & Palmer, 2006)

Solving Problems Survey

24 questions, 5 point likert type scale

Internal consistency = .76

(Barkman & Machtmes, 2002b)


Responsible Citizenship9

Description of ConceptRecent studies suggest that the younger generation of Americans shows a lack of interest in political life. As a democracy, the United States of America relies on its people to act as responsible citizens to ensure the continuation of the American society. Therefore, the development and fostering of good citizens is imperative. Although youth may not be able to vote, as citizens they are entitled to certain rights and consequently have certain responsibilities.

Westheimer and Kahne (2004b) separate citizens of a democracy into three categories: the personally responsible citizen, the participatory citizen, and the justice-oriented citizen. The personally responsible citizen obeys laws, pays his or her bills, and volunteers in hard times. They have high moral character. They work hard and believe in honesty and integrity. In short, a personally responsible citizen is a responsible person. However, is it enough to ask youth to be personally responsible citizens? Personally responsible citizens would be good members of any country or regime.

The second kind of citizen is the participatory citizen, who is an active member of the community, understands how government and other agencies work and organizes efforts to improve the community. The definition of participatory citizen in part encompasses the more traditional understanding of citizenship, an understanding of how the government works.

Finally, the justice-oriented citizen critically assesses authority and seeks out causes of injustice and seeks to promote social change. In addition, to paying their bills and working work hard, the justice oriented citizen thinks critically about injustice and takes action.

Other definitions of responsible citizenship also combine the social and the political spheres. Most refer to a citizen’s rights and corresponding responsibilities to country and community (Giles & Eyler, 1994) as well as practices that make a citizen a competent and contributing member of society. Wayne and Kymlicka (1994) suggest that not only does a responsible citizen actively participate in civil society, he or she also thinks critically of authority and constantly evaluates current events and political leaders. Beauvais, McKay and Seddom (2001) suggest that to be a responsible citizen is to be inspired by a sense of nationalism. Without a sense of pride for one’s community or country, the responsibilities of citizenship loose importance.

The majority of the literature addressing responsible citizenship states that the responsible citizen is civically engaged, whether by community volunteering, participation in advocacy groups or recycling. The term responsible citizenship and civic engagement are often used interchangeably, especially when referring to youth who may not yet be of age to vote or participate in political processes. Bobek, Zaff , Li and Lerner (2009, p. 616) define civic engagement with four interrelated constructs that closely parallel responsible citizenship:

9 Prepared by Marie Joliff


1. Sense of generalized reciprocity;2. Ability to be involved in civic society and democracy;3. Desire to make positive contributions to community; and4. Participation in activities to better community.

To understand responsible citizenship requires a synthesis of many life skills from community volunteering to self-responsibility and critical thinking. Youth programs targeting responsible citizenship or civic engagement should lay the ground work for any given activity by helping youth to recognize the political, social and economic implications of the issue to be addressed. It should seek to foster interest and critical thinking toward government and current events, and in order to increase civil efficacy, youth programs should demonstrate tangible results of project or activity related to responsible citizenship (Michelsen, Zaff, & Hair, 2002).

Youth programs dealing with responsible citizenship and civic engagement have been shown to positively affect youth in areas such as, increased civic engagement, improved academic performance, decreased teen pregnancy, and decreased use of drugs and alcohol. (Michelsen, et al., 2002).

Chosen DefinitionResponsible citizenship is best defined by Bobek, Zaff, Li and Lerner’s (2009, p. 616) definition of civic engagement. The construct includes four dimensions using four constructs:

1. Sense of generalized reciprocity2. Ability to be involved in civic society and democracy3. Desire to make positive contributions to community4. Participation in activities to better community

Description of Measures Several measures have been developed to evaluate responsible citizenship. The Civic Identity Civic Engagement (Bobek, et al., 2009) evaluates several dimensions of civic engagement including: civic duty, civic skills, civic participation and connection to peer, adults and neighborhood. The total scale has 48 items. It alpha reliability for the subscales range from .73 to .91.

The scale developed by Westheimer and Kahne (2004a) measures the increase in characteristics of both participatory citizens and justice-oriented citizens. The measure is designed to allow programs to evaluate characteristics of the two types of citizens. The measure includes a pre- and post-test. Each subcategory carries its own reliability and validity measurements. The reliability ranges from .43 to .91 (Westheimer & Kahne, 2004a). Subcategories include:

1. personal responsibility to help others; 2. commitment to community involvement;3. interest in politics;4. structural/individual explanations for poverty;5. desire to work for justice;6. civic efficacy, vision;


7. knowledge/social capital for community development;8. leadership efficacy;9. likelihood to volunteer; 10. follows news;11. government responsibility for those in need; and12. employer responsibility for employees.

The Civic Identity/Civic Engagement (Bobek, et al., 2009) measure was created to determine which items from the 4-H Study of Positive Youth Development could be used to understand the four key CIVE development constructs, civic knowledge and skills, civic attitudes, civic engagement and social trust. These four constructs closely correlate with the four constructs used to define responsible citizenship. Forty-eight items were identified as falling into one of the four categories. The 48 items were then separated into six dimensions: civic duty, civic skill, neighbor, peers, civic participation, and adults. Reliability for the domains ranged from .73 to .91.

The Center for Information and Research on Civic Learning and Engagement (CIRCLE) created a series of measurements entitled Civic Measurement Models: Tapping Adolescents’ Civic Engagement. The overall instrument contains several measures directly related to civic mindedness in young people, but three specific measures relate to responsible citizenship: Competence for Civic Action (9 items); Personally Responsible Citizen (6 items); and Civic Accountability (4 items). Measures were designed for youth age 12- 18 (Flanagan, Syversten, & Stout, 2007). No specific information on reliability or validity was provided, but reliability coefficients for domains ranged from .5 to .9.

The Social Responsibility scale was developed for use with youth ages 12-16, and was originally intended for use with African American males. Its six items were intended to measure feelings of civic responsibility as protective factors against risk behaviors. No specific information on reliability or validity was provided, but reliability coefficients for domains ranged from .5 to .9 (Nedwek, Flewelling, Paschall, & Ringwalt, 1998).

The Civic Responsibility Survey was created in three age levels: level 1 (elementary), level 2 (middle school), level 3 (high school). Each level has a different number of items and looks at different qualities’ associated with civic responsibility. Level 2 and level 3 were found to have higher reliability readings and .84 and .93 respectively (Furco, Muller, & Ammon, 1998b).

Chosen MeasureThe Civic Responsibility Survey level 2 (middle school) is specifically designed to measure connection to the community, civic awareness and civic efficacy. It has an overall reliability reading of .84. It has 10 items and a Flesch-Kincaid reading level of 6.0. After testing the measure, reading level should be adjusted to match target groups.


Table 11: Responsible Citizenship Measurement Tools

Instrument Description Reliability Validity SourceCivic Responsibility Survey Level 2

10 items in three clusters of questions: Connection to Community, Civic Awareness, Civic Efficacy. Designed for middle school students, scale is also available for elementary and high school (level 1 and level 3).

.83 Furco, A., Muller, P., & Ammon, M. S. (Producer). (1998) Civic Responsibility Survey for K-12 Students Engaged in Service-Learning. retrieved from http://www.peecworks.org/PEEC/PEEC_Inst/S0038CEB0-0038CF0A

Civic Identity/Civic Engagement(CIVE)

48 items. Consists of 6 sub-domains: civic duty, civic skills, neighborhood social connection, peer social connection, civic participation, and adult social connection.

Reliability coefficients for these domains ranged from .73 to .91

Bobek, D. Zaff, J., Li, Y., & Lerner, R. (2009). Cognitive, emotional, and behavioral components of civic action: towards an integrated measure of civic engagement. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology.

Educating for Different Kinds of Citizenship

Measure of civic efficacy, vision, leadership efficacy, desire to volunteer, knowledge/social capital, attention to news stories, views on government responsibility to citizen and employers responsibilities to workers.

Reliability coefficients for domains ranged from .43 to .91

Validity for domains ranged from .01 to .77

Westheimer, J., & Kahne, J. (2004). Educating the citizen: political choices and pedagogical goals. PS: Political Science & Politics, 37(02), 241-247.

Civic Measurement: Tapping Adolescents’ Civic Engagement/ Civic Accountability

4 items designed to be administered in a pre and posttest. Drawn from California Civic Index


Flanagan, C. A., Sylversten, A. K., & Stout, M. D. (2007). Civic Measurement Models: Tapping Adolescents' Civic Engagement. Civic Accountability. Circle.

Civic Measurement: Tapping Adolescents’ Civic Engagement. Personally Responsible Citizen

6 items that measures an understanding of responsibility for the greater good. Administered with pre and posttest. Drawn from California Civic Index


Flanagan, C. A., Sylversten, A. K., & Stout, M. D. (2007). Civic Measurement Models: Tapping Adolescents' Civic Engagement. Circle.

Civic Measurement: Tapping Adolescents’ Civic Engagement. Competence for Civic Action

9 items. Measures communication, team building and problem solving.


Flanagan, C. A., Sylversten, A. K., & Stout, M. D. (2007). Civic Measurement Models: Tapping Adolescents' Civic Engagement. Circle.


Instrument Description Reliability Validity SourceSocial Responsibility

6 items assets feelings of civic responsibility. Originally used to measure protective factors for problem behaviors. Target audience African American males.


Nedwek, B. P., Flewelling, R. L., Paschall, M. J., & Ringwalt, C. L. (Producer). (1998) Social Responsibility. retrieved from http:/www.cdc.gov/ncipc/pub-res/measure


Self-Esteem10

Description of ConceptSelf-esteem is generally thought as one’s own perception of worth. The term is often used synonymously with self-concept, self-image, and self-worth (Butler & Gasson, 2005). At times, the terms and definitions become convoluted. As a result, they are often misused which leads to people failing to realize complexity of the concept. There is however a growing notion that self-esteem is an internal resource or asset a person possesses (Emler, 2001).

DeBord (2001) defines self-esteem as “the degree to which children feel accepted and valued by adults and peers who are important to them” (p. 1). Other researchers characterize self-esteem differently. Robinson (1991) defines the term as a hypothetical construct that regards the salient attributes of one’s self or personality, which leads to the “overall affective evaluation of one’s own worth, value, or importance” (p. 115). This paves the way to Festinger’s (1954) theory of social comparison processes. The theory suggests that humans “seldom have access to objective and absolute standards against” to judge against (Emler, 2001, p. 5). Self-esteem is constructed when one compares oneself to other people such as family, friends, or characters seen through the media. An individual is consistently receiving confirmation from these sources to see if they have matched up to their own expectations. While, Cohen (1959) terms self-esteem as the discrepancy between the actual and ideal self, Wells and Marwell (1976) expand this idea by stating that it is the attitude to the discrepancy that develops one’s self-esteem. Despite the different approaches, the general consensus is that high self-esteem is desirable, though there are some critics of this notion.

Critics of Self-esteemSociety discourages a low self-esteem because it can potentially lead to a decrease in confidence which is needed to tackle new tasks. Emler (2001) argues that low self-esteem can lead to abusing drugs, committing crimes, depression, unsafe sexual practices, suicidal thoughts, unemployment, eating disorders, and the inability to sustain relationships. However, individuals with a low self-esteem are “not more likely to commit crime, use or abuse illegal drugs, drink alcohol, smoke to excess, abuse children or fail academically” (p. 59). This appears to be the result of those with a low self-esteem treating others kindly but treating themselves badly.

Self-esteem can be achieved by two means: 1) setting higher goals and achieving success, or 2) adopting less ambitious goals: ‘to give up pretensions is as blessed a relief as to get them gratified’ (James, 1890, p. 311). However, some researchers argue that efforts to build a child’s self-esteem can be counterproductive. Harter (1983) warns parents not to inflate a child’s ego through empty words; and Baumeister (1998) states that praising a child who excels in something invokes the idea that another child might be performed inadequately. This can lead to a low self-esteem for the second child.

Chosen DefinitionFor the purpose of this study, self-esteem is the hypothetical construct created by individuals to determine their self-worth. It is determined when their ideal self does not match up with their real self. The ideal self is created when individuals compare themselves to people around them. 10 Prepared by Mariela Fernandez


They either receive confirmation or negative feedback. This can lead to either high or low self-esteem.

Description of Chosen Measure

Construction of Self-esteem Measures: Butler and Gasson (2005) identified four principles that were variously utilized in most self-esteem measures. These include:

Self-report. The most frequently utilized measurement involves the self-reflexive process where the individual views himself or herself in an objective manner. There are critics of this type of measurement. Brinthaupt and Erwin (1992) argue that certain skills are needed for self-reporting such as verbal competence and self-awareness. In addition, an individual may desire to appear competent and need approval from the researcher.

A focus on psychological notions about self. Most of the self-esteem measures “appeal to psychological constructs (e.g. social or emotional aspects) rather than sub-ordinate or super-ordinate core constructs” (p. 191).

An assumption of variability. There will be differences in how individuals see themselves. Variability will, therefore, always be present.

An assumption that self-esteem is quantifiable. Assuming that self-esteem is easily determined by “summing evaluations across salient attributes of self or personality” can lead to error in results (p. 191).

Global versus Specific Self-esteem. There has been debate about whether self-esteem is best examined from a global or specific perspective. Many of the self-esteem surveys focus on the global aspect and general questions are used to measure a person’s overall self-esteem. However, the specific self-esteem scales have also gained attention. These scales take in consideration that a youth may have positive self-esteem in one aspect of his or her life, but lower self-esteem in another aspect. Rosenberg et al. (1995) state that “although the differences between global and specific attitudes are sometimes overlooked, they are not equivalent or interchangeable” (p. 142). They suggest that global self-esteem is a better predictor of a youth’s well-being, while specific self-esteem is a better to predict behavior.

For the purpose of this study, the best measure appears to be the Rosenberg Self-esteem Scale (RSE). It measures the global self-esteem in children. Although scales designed to measure situation specific self-esteem are worth looking into, the more global measure appears to be more appropriate for use in CYFAR projects.

The Rosenberg Self-esteem Scale is a 10-item Likert-type questionnaire. A six-item measurement is available for those in middle school and younger. The RSE reports an internal consistency ranging from .77-.88. The test-retest ranges from .82-.85. In regards to validity, correlations with the Coopersmith equals .55, .72 with the Lerner Self Esteem Scale, .79 with the General Self subscale of SDQ-III, and .64 with the Self Concept subscale of Affective Perception Inventory. In addition, correlations of -.64 with anxiety, -.54 with depression, and -.43 with anomie show relationships in the expected direction (Robinson, 1991, p. 122).

Table 12: Self-Esteem Measurement Tools


Instrument Description Reliability Validity Citing StudiesPiers-Harris Children’s Self Concept Scale

80-item self-report inventory; Six subscales: behavior, intellectual and school status, physical appearance and attributes, anxiety, popularity, and happiness and satisfaction

Internal consistency: total score is .91; domains range from .74-.81

Convergent validity: .85 with Coopersmith and .51-.61 with Tennessee Self ConceptScale validity: Locus of control (.35); Children’s Manifest Anxiety Scale (.54 to .69)

Piers, E. V. (1984). Piers-Harris Children’s Self-Concept Scale: Revised Manual. Los Angeles: Western Psychological Services.

Rosenberg Self Esteem Scale

10-item scale (6-item version for those younger than high school) utilizing a 4-pt Likert scale

The RSE demonstrates a Guttman scale coefficient of reproducibility of .92. Test-retest reliability over a period of 2 weeks reveals correlations of .85 and .88.

Demonstrates concurrent, predictive and construct validity using known groups. The RSE correlates significantly with other measures of self-esteem, including the Coopersmith Self-Esteem. In addition, the RSE correlates in the predicted direction with measures of depression and anxiety.

Rosenberg, M. (1965). Society and the adolescent self-image. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Tennessee Self Concept Scale

100 self-administered statements to which subjects agree or disagree with; 5 categorical scores: physical self, moral-ethical self, personal self, family self, and social self

Split-half reliability estimated at .91. Roid and Fitts report figures ranging from .89 to .94. The test-retest coefficients ranged from .62 to .94.

NA Roid, G. H., & Fitts, W. H. (1988). Tennessee Self-Concept Scale (revised manual). Los Angeles: Western Psychological Services.

Self Esteem Inventory

Two different formats: a 50- and 25-item scales where participants mark either “like me” or “unlike me” for each statement

Split-half reliability coefficient of .90. Test-retest reliability over 5 weeks is .88 and .70 for 3 years.

Scale correlates .55 with the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale and .72 with the Janis-Field Feelings of Inadequacy.

Coopersmith, S. (1967) The antecedents of self-esteem. San Francisco: W. H. Freeman.


Instrument Description Reliability Validity Citing StudiesFeelings of Inadequacy Scale

There are many revisions to this scale. The original scale contained 23 items measuring social anxiety, self-consciousness, and feelings of personal worthlessness

Split-half reliability coefficient of .83 and a Spearman-Brown coefficient of .91 for their 23-item version

The scale correlated .67 with the California Personality Inventory self-esteem measure and .60 with self-ratings of self-esteem (Hamilton, 1971).

Robinson, J. P., Shaver, P.R., Wrightsman, L.S., Ed. (1991). Measures of Personality and Social Psychological Attitudes. London, Academic Press, Inc.

Texas Social Behavior Inventory

2 parallel 16-item forms that utilize a 5-pt Likert-type format

Scale had an internal consistency of .89.

The scale is related to the locus of control. It correlates from .76 with performance self-esteem all the way to .23 with the athletic social self-esteem.

Robinson, J. P., Shaver, P.R., Wrightsman, L.S., Ed. (1991). Measures of Personality and Social Psychological Attitudes. London, Academic Press, Inc.

Social Self-Esteem NA Split-half reliability estimates range from .80-.85. Test-retest correlation was .54 for sixth and seventh graders.

This scale does not correlate very highly with other measures of self-esteem.

Ziller, R. C., Hagey, J., Smith, M. D., & Long, B. (1969). Self-esteem: A self-social construct. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 33, 94-95.

Self-Perception Profile for Children

27-item scale; Five domains: scholastic competence, social acceptance, athletic competence, physical appearance, and behavioral conduct plus global self-worth

Scale demonstrates a Cronbach’s coefficient ranging from .71 to .85.

Correlations were .42 between perceived competence and preferred level of difficulty in puzzle tasks

Harter, S. (1985). Manual for the Self-Perception Profile for Children (revision of the Perceived Competence Scale for Children). Denver, CO: University of Denver.

Self-Perception Profile for Adolescents

45-item scale; Eight domains: scholastic competence, social acceptance, athletic competence, physical appearance, behavioral conduct job competence, close friendship, and romantic appeal plus global self-worth,

Internal consistency ranges from .72-.89

Harter, S. (1988). Manual for the Self-Perception Profile for Adolescents. Denver, CO: University of Denver.


Instrument Description Reliability Validity Citing StudiesSelf-Description Questionnaire

66-item scale; 7 subscales: physical abilities, appearance, relationships with peers, relationships with parents, reading, math, school subjects

Cronbach’s values range from .80-.92. Test-retest scores range from .27-.74.

Correlations were: physical abilities: .30-.53; appearance: .07-.31; relationships with peers: .22-.58; mathematics: .33-.74; school subjects: .22-.65

Marsh, H. W., Relich, J. D., & Smith, I. D. (1983). Self-concept: The construct validity of interpretations based upon the SDQ. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45, 173-187.

Personal Evaluation Inventory

54-item Likert scale; 6 subscales: academic performance, athletics, physical appearance, romantic relationships, social interactions, and speaking with people

Cronbach’s values range from .74-.89 for females and .67 to .86 for males. Test-retest scores range from .53-.89 for women and .25-.90 for men.

Scale correlates .58 with the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale and .59 with the Janis-Field Feelings of Inadequacy.

Shrauger, J. S. 91990). Self-confidence: Its conceptualization, measurement, and behavioral implications. Manuscript in preparation, SUNY at Buffalo.

The Body-Esteem Scale

32-item 5-pt Likert scale measuring gender-specific subscales: physical attractiveness, upper body strength, physical condition for men, sexual attractiveness, weight concern, and physical condition for women

Internal consistency ranges from .78-.87.

Franzoi, S. L., & Shields, S. A. (1984). The Body-Esteem Scale: Multidimensional structure and sex differences in a college population. Journal of Personality Assessment, 48, 173-178.

Self-Responsibility11

11 Prepared by Mat Duerden


Description of ConceptThe concept of adolescent self-responsibility has connections to a broad array of literature. Researchers have tied self-responsibility into discussions of altruism and personal norms (Schwartz & Howard, 1984), academic outcomes (Spencer, Dupree, & Swanson, 1996; Wang & Stiles, 1976), and values-based physical education interventions (Watson, Newton, & Kim, 2003) to mention just a few. While these connections appear to have some legitimacy, such a broad application complicates the process of operationalizing the construct of self-responsibility. A brief review of a number of self-responsibility definitions may help to provide some clarity.

Schwartz and Howard (1984) proposed a motivational pathway through which individuals progress towards a decision to act altruistically. In this pathway the interaction between personal values and norms may lead individuals to feel responsible to exhibit altruistic behavior in certain contexts.

Wang and Stiles (1976) defined self-responsibility as “ the management of one’s own environment and behaviors” (p. 159) but their application of this definition focused solely on academic achievement.

Hellison (2003) developed a Take Personal and Social Responsibility (TPSR) framework for physical education curriculum development. The framework consists of five levels: respect the rights and feelings of others, participation and effort, self-direction, helping others and leadership, and the application of skills in non-sports settings. This framework has been widely applied in practice and has received research attention (Watson, et al., 2003).

Chosen DefinitionWhat is needed is a general concept of self-responsibility as opposed to contextual versions of the construct (e.g., academic self-responsibility). One potential approach comes from a collaborative project between researchers at the University of Utah and the American Camp Association (ACA). In an effort to assess the impact of camp experiences on youth participants, this team created measures for seven constructs including responsibility (Ellis & Sibthorp, 2006). After reviewing pertinent literature Ellis and Sibthorp defined responsibility as the “habit of owning and accepting consequences of personal actions” (p. 38). Two sub-domains were identified: ownership (i.e., taking ownership for one’s actions) and correction (i.e., willing to accept correction and consequences resulting from one’s actions). This definition appears most applicable for CYFAR contexts.

Description of MeasuresSpecific measures have been developed to look at both self-responsibility for school learning (Wang & Stiles, 1976) and self-responsibility as defined in Hellison’s TPSR framework (Watson, et al., 2003). The Self-Responsibility Interview Schedule (SRIS; Wang & Stiles) measures domains related to self-responsibility for school learning and consists of 21 semi-structured interview items that have produced a test-retest reliability coefficient of .59. To measure the TPSR framework Watson et al. developed the Contextual Self-Responsibility Questionnaire (CSRQ). The scale contains 15 items that require respondents to react to certain hypothetical situations and addresses three sub-domains: goal setting, self-responsibility, and self-control/respect. Reliability coefficients for these sub-domains ranged from .68 to .76. As noted in the previous section, these are primarily contextual specific measures.


Based upon their conceptualization of responsibility, Ellis and Sibthorp developed two versions of a responsibility scale, one that asked respondents to report on how their camp experience impacted their sense of responsibility and a retrospective version that required respondents to report on both children’s pre- and post-camp levels of responsibility (Ellis & Sibthorp, 2006). The scale originally contained 11 core items. The retrospective version was pilot tested by 398 campers from four different camps. After pilot testing, five items were removed based upon individual item performance. The two versions share the same items, only the formatting is different, so data from the retrospective version was used to assess both versions’ psychometric properties. Reliability coefficients for both the increase (α = .84) and retrospective items (α = .91). The measure also exhibited strong positive correlations (range .62 to .74) with measures of family citizenship, perceived competence, and affinity for exploration

Chosen MeasureAs noted with its construct definition, Ellis and Sibthorp’s (2006) measure of responsibility is both succinct and can be used to assess the development of self-responsibility within a variety of settings. These attributes coupled with strong psychometrics makes this measure a strong selection for CYFAR project evaluative purposes. Permission will need to be obtained from the ACA for the use and adaptation of this measure for CYFAR applications. Table 13: Self-Responsibility Measurement Tools

Instrument Description Reliability Validity SourceSelf-Responsibility Interview Schedule

21 semi-structured interview items related to school learning

Test-retest reliability coefficient of .59

Wang, M. C., & Stiles, B. (1976). An investigation of children's concept of self-responsibility for their school learning. American Educational Research Journal, 13(3), 159-179.

Contextual Self-Responsibility Questionnaires

15 item instrument that requires respondents to indicate how they would respond to a variety of hypothetical situations. Consists of 3 sub-domains: goal setting, self-responsibility, and self-control/respect

Reliability coefficients for these sub-domains ranged from .68 to .76.

Correlates with measures of enjoyment, sport interest and leader respect (Watson, et al., 2003)

Watson, D. L., Newton, M., & Kim, M. S. (2003). Recognition of values-based constructs in a summer physical activity program. The Urban Review, 35(3), 217-232.

ACA Responsibility Scale

6 item scale that assesses an individual’s ability to both own and accept consequences of their actions

Reliability coefficient of.84

Positively correlated with family citizenship, perceived competence, and exploration

American Camping Association. (2007a). Creating Positive Youth Outcomes. Monterey, CA: Healthy Learning.


Teamwork12

Description of ConceptDefinitions of teamwork converge on three key areas: actions, people, and task. For example, teamwork can be defined as “the set of interrelated behaviors and actions that occur among team members while performing on a task” (Salas, Burke, & Cannon-Bowers, 2000, p. 344). Similarly, “teamwork is a set of interrelated thoughts, actions, and feelings of each team member that are needed to function as a team and that combine to facilitate coordinated, adaptive performance and task objectives resulting in value-added outcomes” (Salas, Sims, & Burke, 2005, p. 562). Even Wikipedia got it right “teamwork is a joint action by two or more people, in which each person contributes with different skills and express his or her individual interests and opinions to the unity and efficiency of the group in order to achieve common goals” (Wikipedia, 2010).

Regardless of the specific definition chosen, we are most concerned with the actions associated with teamwork. There seems to be a general consensus among researchers who have studied teamwork that it is a multidimensional construct comprised of specific knowledge, skills, and attitudes (KSA: e.g., Lembke & Wilson, 1998). However, there is a considerable disagreement as to the number, name, and definition of each KSA (Rousseau, Aube, & Savoie, 2006). There have been several attempts to address this challenge since the mid-1990s (Hoegl & Gemuenden, 2001; Paris, Salas, & Cannon-Bowers, 2000; Rousseau et al., 2006; Salas et al., 2000). Several taxonomies of teamwork behaviors have emerged from these reviews and there important differences between them. For instance, the KSA approach presents three categories, each containing specific teamwork behaviors. These include:

Knowledge: team mission, objectives, resources Skills: adaptability, leadership, decision making Attitudes: motivation, collective efficacy, perceived importance of teamwork

(Paris et al., 2000).

An earlier formulation by Cannon-Bowers, Tannenbaurm, Salas and Volpe (1995) included eight dimensions, each with specific sub skills. Decision making was conceived as a skill dimension in this taxonomy with problem solving, assessment, and planning as sub skills. The seven remaining dimensions were communication, coordination, interpersonal relations, leadership/team management, performance monitoring and feedback, shared situational awareness, and adaptability. In brief, there are at least 29 frameworks or taxonomies of team behaviors (Rousseau et al., 2006). These frameworks vary in strength and content, with some frameworks containing only two or three (e.g., Erez, Lepine, & Elms, 2002) dimensions and others containing as many as ten (e.g., Marks, Mathieu, & Zaccaro, 2001).

Rousseau, Aube, and Savoie (2006) integrated 29 teamwork behavior frameworks published between 1984 and 2005. The authors presented two broad classifications of teamwork behavior: performance behaviors (related to goal attainment) and maintenance behaviors (maintaining the integrity of the team). Performance behaviors are presented in chronological stages so that

12 Prepared by Dan Theriault


preparation comes first and adjustments are last. All definitions in the outline are direct quotations from Rousseau, Aube, and Savoie (2006). Their framework is presented in Table 14.

Table 14: Framework for Understanding Teamwork (Rousseau, Aube, & Savoie, 2006)I. Team performance

a. Preparation of work accomplishment Team mission analysis – the collective interpretation and evaluation of the team’s purpose,

including identification of its main tasks and the operative environmental conditions and team resources available for carrying out the mission.

Goal Specification- identification of the level of performance that team members have to achieve. Planning – the development of alternative courses of action for task accomplishment

b. Work assessment behaviors Performance monitoring – tracking progress toward goal attainment and determining what needs

to be accomplished for goal attainment Systems monitoring – tracking team resources and environmental conditions as they relate to team

accomplishmentc. Task-related collaborative behaviors

Coordination – integrating team member’s activities to ensure task accomplishment within established temporal constraints.

Cooperation – the willful contribution of personal effort to the completion of interdependent jobs. Information Exchange – the extent to which team members share task related information among

themselves.d. Team adjustment behaviors

Backing up behaviors- the extent to which team members help each other perform their roles Intrateam coaching – the exchange among team members of constructive feedback regarding task

accomplishment Collaborative problem solving – where team members collectively find and implement a solution

that brings actual conditions closer to desired conditions Team practice innovation – team member’s activities designed to invent and implement new and

improved ways of doing their taskse. Team maintenance

Psychological Support – the voluntary assistance that team members provide to reinforce the sense of well-being of their teammates.

Integrative Conflict management – the integration of team members’ interests while resolving disagreements among themselves.


Desirable Team Member Characteristics. After the above review, it seems clear that utilizing teamwork as a life skill may be inappropriate for several reasons. First, teamwork is, by definition, a group level concept. More specifically, teamwork describes the behavior of a group of people (Baker & Salas, 1992). As such, individual behavior could not adequately describe teamwork. Second, teamwork occurs over a period of time, thus measurements taken at a single moment in time may not adequately describe teamwork. For instance, an assessment made during a period of team conflict may poorly describe that team if they ultimately overcame the conflict and successfully completed their task. Therefore, it seems appropriate to focus on desirable team member characteristics for which individual level assessments would be more appropriate.

There are two common approaches to the study of desirable team member characteristics: skill based and cognitive ability/personality approaches. The authors of a recent meta-analysis reported that aggregated cognitive ability is the strongest predictor of team performance, followed by personality and expertise (Stewart, 2006).

Skill Based Approaches. Skill based approaches examine team knowledge competencies, team skill competencies, and team attitude competencies that are related to team success. Team knowledge involves understanding the teamwork culture, for example when specific behaviors are appropriate and how skills should be employed in a team setting. Team skill competencies refer to those skills that increase the likelihood of successful interaction in a team setting such as conflict resolution and communication. Finally, team attitude competencies are internal states of being that influence individual actions in a team setting such as attitudes toward teamwork.

Much of the literature describes teamwork at the group level (e.g., Barrick, Stewart, & Mount, 1998; Campion, Medsker, & Higgs, 1993). There is also considerable conceptual confusion that surrounds key concepts in the literature, particularly with regard to teamwork skills (Murray, Clermont, & Binkley, 2005). These issues have contributed to a lack of valid and reliable skill based measures. However, several instruments were located which show promise for measuring desirable team member characteristics. Instruments are described in


Table 15.


Table 15: Desirable Team Member Characteristics MeasuresInstrument Description Reliability Validity Citing

StudiesStudent Attitudes toward teamwork scale

29 items, 7 subscales (Pfaff & Huddleston, 2003). Team Experience, Leadership, Workload, Cooperation, Class time, Peer Evaluation, Free Rider

Internal Consistency: ranged from .62 to .87(Pfaff & Huddleston, 2003) (only some subscales are relevant to our purpose)

Administered to undergraduate students (Pfaff & Huddleston, 2003)

Knowledge, Skills, and Ability Test

35 items, participants choose between four responses to situations, 8th grade reading level

Internal Consistency: .70 (Leach, Wall, Rogelberg, & Jackson, 2005)

Evidence of convergent and incremental validity described above (Stevens & Campion, 1999)

(Stevens & Campion, 1994)

Older Camper Teamwork Scale

8 items measured on a five point scale. Intended for 10-17 year old campers (American Camping Association, 2007)

Internal Consistency: alpha above .9

Item to item correlations were each above .5

(American Camping Association, 2007)

Attitude toward Group work Scale

24 questions, 7 point likert type scale

Internal Consistency: .81(Carter & Spotanski, 1989)

(Carter & Spotanski, 1989)

Gross Cohesion Questionnaire

13 items, 5 point likert type scale, 3 subscales (Stokes, 1983)

Internal Consistency: .87, ICC(1): .24, ICC(2): .75 (Barrick et al., 1998)

(Barrick et al., 1998)

Work Group Characteristics Measure

54 items, 5 point likert-type scale, 19 subscales:Self-Management, Participation, Task Variety, Task Significance, Task Identity, Task Interdependence, Goal Interdependence, Interdependent Feedback and Rewards, Membership, Flexibility, Relative Size, Preference for Group Work, Training, Managerial Support, Communication, Potency, Social Support, Workload Sharing, Cooperation within the work group

Internal Consistency: only one subscale below .6 (Campion et al., 1993)

Factor Analysis: 19 factors explained 73% of the variance (Campion et al., 1993)

Solving Problems Survey

24 items, 5 point likert type scale

(Barkman & Machtmes, 2002)


Cognitive Ability/Personality Approaches. An alternate approach to assessing individual performance of teams involves assessing personality traits and cognitive abilities. Studies have shown that personality traits and cognitive abilities positively correlate with team performance (Kickul & Neuman, 2000; Morgeson, Reider, & Campion, 2005; Neuman & Wright, 1999).

Personality Traits. Research has shown that the 1,400 adjectives that can be used to describe personality converge in five key constructs (the Big Five): Neuroticism, Extraversion, Openness, Agreeableness, Conscientiousness (Goldberg, 1990). Neuroticism is “an individual’s tendency to experience psychological distress (Costa & McCrae, 1992a, p. 5). Extraversion can be defined as the “quantity and intensity of energy directed outwards into the social world” (Costa & McCrae, 1992b, p. 1). Openness to experience refers to “the active seeking and appreciation of experiences for their own sake” (Costa & McCrae, 1992b, p. 1). Agreeableness was defined as “the kinds of interactions an individual prefers from compassion to tough mindedness” (Costa & McCrae, 1992b, p. 2). Conscientious refers to “degree of organization, persistence, control and motivation in goal directed behavior (Costa & McCrae, 1992b, p. 2).

Within the Five Factor Model of Personality, personality traits are understood according to four levels of abstraction. At the highest level of abstraction is one of the five traits which are habits, and ultimately responses to specific situations (Digman, 1990). Research has also indicated that the Big-Five are valid across several cultures. For instance, one study demonstrated high levels of congruence of the big five across six language families: German, Portuguese, Hebrew, Chinese, Korean, and Japanese (McCrae & Costa, 1997). Further, a recent review of personality research showed that while personality is very stable throughout the lifespan, personality continues to change well into adulthood (Caspi, Roberts, & Shiner, 2005). Test-retest correlations reported in a review of research on the consistency of personality ranged from .41 in childhood to .70 in populations aged 50 and older (Roberts & DelVecchio, 2000). Table 16 identifies several common measures of personality.

Table 16: Popular Personality Scales Used in Teamwork ResearchScale Name Description Reliability ValidityNEO-PIR 240 items, 5 subscales, 6

traits or facets that define each subscale, 6th grade reading level.Neuroticism: anxiety, angry hostility, depression, self-consciousness, vulnerability, impulsiveness, Extraversion: warmth, gregariousness, assertiveness, activity, excitement, positive emotions, Openness: Fantasy, Aesthetics, Feelings, Actions, Ideas, Values, Agreeableness: trust, straightforwardness, altruism, compliance, modesty, tender, Conscientiousness: competence, order, dutifulness, achievement

Internal Consistency: .90 (LePine, Hollenbeck, Ilgen, & Hedlund, 1997)

Incremental Validity: personality predicts performance beyond skills and cognitive ability (Neuman & Wright, 1999). discriminant validity (Robert R. McCrae & Costa, 1992)


Scale Name Description Reliability Validitystriving, self-discipline, deliberation

NEO-PI 181 items, 5 point likert-type scale, 5 subscales

Internal Consistency: Subscale Range from .73-.93 (Costa & McCrae, 1992a)

Personality Characteristics Inventory

137 items, 5 subscales corresponding to the Big Five personality traits (Barrick & Mount, 1993)

Internal consistency: .82-.87, test retest reliability: .66-.91(Morgeson et al., 2005)

Demonstrated correlations with NEO-PI subscales: values ranged from .56 - .71 (Barrick & Mount, 1993)

Cognitive Ability. Cognitive ability is the capacity to understand complex ideas, learn from experience, reason, problem solve, and adapt (Devine & Philips, 2001, p. 507). Devine and Phillips (2001) noted that individual’s cognitive ability is predictive of team performance across a wide range of settings and is potentially moderated by a number of variables, including study location (laboratory vs. field) and task complexity. A number of well-developed measures of cognitive ability exist (e.g., Jensen, 1992) and are described in Table 17.

Table 17: Popular Personality Scales Used in Teamwork ResearchScale Name Description Reliability Validity Citing StudiesThurstone test of Mental Alertness

Test Retest Reliability: range from .84 - .95, Internal Consistency: .98 (Neuman & Wright, 1999)

Weschler Adult Intelligence Scale – Third Edition

Intended for adults 16-89. 2 broad categories: Verbal and Performance. Total of 10 subtests in 4 domains: Verbal Comprehension: Working Memory: Perceptual Organization:, Processing Speed

Split-half reliability: .97 verbal, .94 performance, .98 full scale

Evidence of construct validity through exploratory and confirmatory factor

(as cited in Kaufman, 2000)

Woodcock-Johnson Psycho Educational Battery Revised

Battery of tests for 2-90 year olds. 2 sections (Cognitive and Achievement) measuring 7 abilities, each with 2-4 subtests : Long term retrieval, short-term memory, processing speed, auditory processing, visual processing, fluid reasoning

Internal Consistency: .69-.93 for subtests, Median .93

Strong factor analytic support



Kaufman Adolescent and Adult Intelligence Test

11-85 years core battery of 6 subtest that yield crystallized, fluid, and composite IQ scores

Split Half reliability: .95-.97 for IQ scores, Test-retest: .87-.94

Evidence of construct validity through factor analysis


Cognitive Assessment System

5-17 years: Four Components, 12 subtests total

Internal Consistency: Components range from .88-.96

Confirmatory Factor analysis, Criterion Validity: relation with WJ-R scores


Chosen DefinitionDesirable team member characteristics refer to knowledge, skills, attitudes, or behaviors that increase the likelihood that an individual can be an effective member of a team.

Description of Chosen MeasureIt seems that skill based approaches would be better suited to assess program impacts on teamwork than cognitive ability/personality approaches. While several well developed measures of both cognitive ability and personality exist, these instruments are too lengthy for use in the average program evaluation. One skill based measure, the teamwork scale (developed for the American Camp Association [2007b] as part of the youth camp outcomes battery) is recommended for use in this study. This scale has eight items with response options ranging from increased a lot, I am sure to decreased. The scale has a 9th grade reading level and is intended for use with older campers (i.e., ages 10 and up). Psychometric testing (n = 791) revealed that the scale has an internal consistency of above .9 and between item correlations were each above .5 (American Camp Association).

LimitationsThere may be weakness in the suggested approach. The approach assumes that individual level competencies are resources that can be readily applied in a teamwork setting. However, the applicability of individual competencies may be influenced by a variety of individual (e.g., personality characteristics, work roles) and other factors. As such, our assumption that means scores on a KSA test will influence an individual’s ability to work on a team regardless of team composition could be flawed (Mathieu, Maynard, Rapp, & Gilson, 2008). Despite these weaknesses, it appears that a general pattern of behavior can be observed whereby individuals that exhibit greater team competencies will demonstrate more effective performance on a team.


References Part II

American Camp Association. (2007a). Creating Positive Youth Outcomes. Monterey, CA: Healthy Learning.

American Camp Association. (2007b). Older Camper Teamwork Scale. Retrieved January 17, 2010, from www.acacamps.org

American Camp Association. (2007c). Statistical information: Youth camp outcomes questionnaires. Retrieved February 12, 2010, from http://www.acacamps.org/members/outcomes/statistical_information.php

Baker, D. P., & Salas, E. (1992). Principles for measuring teamwork skills. Human Factors, 34(4), 469-475.

Barbey, A. K., & Barsalou, L. W. (2009). Reasoning and problem solving: Models. In L. R. Squire (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Neuroscience (vol. 8) (pp. 35-43): Elsevier.

Barkman, S., & Machtmes, K. (2002). Four-fold: A research model for designing and evaluating the impact of youth development programs. News and Views, 4(4), 4-6.

Barnes, H. L., & Olson, D. H. (1982). Parent-adolescent communication scale. In D. H. Olson (Ed.), Family inventories: Inventories used in a national survey of families across the family life cycle (pp. 33-48). St. Paul, MN: Family Social Science, University of Minnesota.

Barnes, H. L., & Olson, D. H. (1985). Parent-adolescent communication and the circumplex model. Child Development, 56(2), 438-447.

Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. (1993). Autonomy as a moderator of the relationships between the big five personality dimensions and job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78(1), 111-118.

Barrick, M. R., Stewart, G. L., Neubert, M.J.,, & Mount, M. K. (1998). Relating member ability and personality to work-team processes and team effectiveness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83(3), 377-391.

Baumeister, R. F., J. M. Boden, and L. Smart. (1996). (1996). Relation of threatened egotism to violence and aggression: the dark side of high self-esteem. Psychological Review 103(1).

Beauvais, C., McKay, L., & Seddon, A. (2001). A Literature review on youth and citizenship. Canadian Policy Research Network Inc.

Bennis, W., & Nanus, B. (1985). Leaders: The strategies for taking charge. New York: Harper Collins.

Blascovich J., & Tomaka J. (1991). Measures of self-esteem. Measures of personality and social psychology attitudes. New York, Academic Press, Inc. : 115-160.

Bloom, B., Englehart, M. D., Furst, E. J., & Hill, W. H. (1956). The taxonomy of educational objectives, the classification of educational goals, handbook I: Cognitive domain. New York: Longmans, Green.

Bobek, D. L., Zaff, J. F., Li, Y., & Lerner, R. M. (2009). Cognitive, emotional, and behavioral components of civic action: Towards an integrated measure of civic engagement. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 30(5), 615-627.

Bowman, J. P., & Targowski, A. S. (1987). Modeling the communication process: The map is not the territory. Journal of Business Communication, 24(4), 21-34.

Brinthaupt, T., & Erwin, J. (1992). The self: Definitional and methodological issues. SUNY Series, Studying the Self.


Butler, R. J., & Gasson, S. L. (2005). Self-esteem/self-concept scales for children and adolescents: A review. Child and Adolescent Mental Health, 10(4): 190–201.

Campion, M. A., Medsker, G. J., & Higgs, A. C. (1993). Relations between work group characteristics and effectiveness: Implications for designing effective work groups. Personnel Psychology 46, 823-850.

Cannon-Bowers, J. A., Tannenbaum, S. I., Salas, E., & Volpe, C. E. (1995). Defining competencies and establishing team training requirements. In R. A. Guzzo & E. Salas (Eds.), Team effectiveness and decision making in organizations (pp. 333-380). San Francisco: Josey-Bass.

Carlson, S. M., Guthormsen, A., & Zayas, V. (2009). Neural correlates of decision making on a gambling task. Child Development, 80(4), 1076-1096.

Carter, R. I. (n.d.). Leadership and personal development : A resource packet. Ames, Iowa State University.

Carter, R. I., & Spotanski, D. R. (1989). Perceptions of leadership and personal development of selected high school students in Iowa. Journal of Agricultural Education, Winter, 30-34.

Caspi, A., Roberts, B. W., & Shiner, R. L. (2005). Personality development: Stability and change. Annual Review of Psychology, 56, 453-484.

Cassel, R. N., & Stancik, E. J. (1982). The Leadership Ability Evaluation-Revised: Manual. Los Angeles, Western Psychological Services.

Chi, B., Jastrzab, J., & Melchior, A. (2006). Civic measurement models: Student survey and teacher rating forms. [On-line]. Available at: http://civicyouth.org/PopUps/WorkingPapers/

Chi, B., Jastrzab, J., & Melchior, A. (2006). Civic measurement models: Student survey and teacher rating forms. Retrieved from : http://civicyouth.org/PopUps/ WorkingPapers/WP47chi.pdf

Cohen, A. R. (1959). Some implications of self-esteem for social influence. In C. Hovland & I. L. Janis (Eds.). Personality and persuasibility New Haven, CT, Yale University Press: 102-120.

Conrad, D., & Hedin, D. (1989). High School Community Service: A Review of Research and Programs: Document Service, National Center on Effective Secondary Schools, Wisconsin Center for Educational Research, 1025 West Johnson Street, Madison, WI 53706 ($7.00).

Coopersmith, S. (1967). The antecedents of self-esteem. San Francisco, W.H. Freeman.Coopersmith, S. (1975). Self-concept, race, and education. In C. K. Verma & C. Bagley (Eds.).

Race and education across cultures. London, Heinemann.Coscarelli, W. C. (1983). Developing a decision making inventory to assess Johnson's decision

making styles. Measurement and Evaluation in Guidance, 16, 149-160. Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1992a). Normal personality assessment in clinical practice: The

NEO personality inventory. Psychological Assessment, 4(1), 5-13.Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1992b). Revised NEO personality inventory (NEO-PI-R) and

NEO five factor inventory (NEO-FFI) professional manual. Odessa: Psychological Assessment Resources.

Darden, C. A., & Ginter, E. J. (1996). Life-skills development scale-adolescent form: The theoretical and therapeutic relevance of life. Journal of Mental Health Counseling, 18(2), 142-163.

DeBord, K. (2001) Self-esteem in children. North Carolina Cooperative Extension Service.


DesMarais, J., Yang, T., & Farzanehkia, F. (2002). Service-learning leadership development for youths. Phi Delta Kappan, 81(9): 678-680.

Devine, D. J., & Philips, J. L. (2001). Do smarter teams do better: A meta-analysis of cognitive ability and team performance. Small Group Research, 32(5), 507-532.

Digman, J. M. (1990). Personality structure: emergence of the five factor model. Annual Review of Psychology, 41, 417-440.

D'Zurilla, T. J., & Chang, E. C. (1995). The relations between social problem solving and coping. Cognitive Therapy & Research, 19(5), 547-562.

D'Zurilla, T. J., & Maydeu-Olivares, A. (1995). Conceptual and methodological issues in social problem-solving assessment. Behavior Therapy, 26, 409-432.

D'Zurilla, T. J., & Nezu, A. M. (1990). Development and preliminary evaluation of the Social Problem-Solving Inventory. Psychological Assessment, 2(2), 156-163.

D'Zurilla, T. J., & Sheedy, C. F. (1991). Relation between social problem solving ability and subsequent level of psychological stress in college students. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 31(5), 841-846.

Edmunds, A. L. (1998). Content, concurrent, and construct validity of the Leadership Skills Inventory. Roeper Review 20(4): 281.

Ellis, G., & Sibthorp, J. (2006). Development and validation of a battery of age appropriate measures for camper outcomes. Salt Lake City, UT: University of Utah.

Emler, N. (2001). Self-esteem: The costs and causes of low self-worth. York: Joseph Rowntree Foundation.404-421.

Erez, A., Lepine, J. A., & Elms, H. (2002). Effects of rotated leadership and peer evaluation on the functioning and effectiveness of self-managed teams: A quasi-experiment. Personnel Psychology, 55, 929-948.

Facione, N. C., Facione, P. A., & Sanchez, C. A. (1994). Critical thinking disposition as a measure of competent clinical judgment: the development of the California Critical Thinking Disposition Inventory. The Journal of nursing education, 33(8), 345-350.

Facione, P. A. (1990). Critical thinking: A statement of expert consensus for purposes of educational assessment and instruction: American Philosophical Association.

Facione, P. A. (1991). Using the critical thinking skills test in research, evaluation, and assessment. Millbrae, CA: California Academic Press.

Facione, P. A. (2000). The disposition toward critical thinking: Its character, measurement, and relationship to critical thinking skill. Informal Logic, 20(1), 61-84.

Facione, P. A. (2006). Critical thinking: What it is and why it counts. [On-line]. Available at: http://kolla.oru.se/oru-upload/Institutioner/Humaniora/Dokument/filosofi/Kursmaterial/ On_critical_thinking.pdf

Facione, P. A., & Facione, N. C. (1992). The CCTDI: A disposition inventory. Millbrae, CA: : California Academic Press.

Festinger, L. (1954) A theory of social comparison processes. Human Relations 7: 117–140.Flanagan, C. A., Syversten, A. K., & Stout, M. D. (2007). Civic Measurement Models: Tapping

Adolescents' Civic Engagement. Civic Accountability. Circle. Fleming, J. S., & Courtney, B.E. (1984). The dimension of self-esteem II: Hierarchical facet

former Florida State FFA officers. Journal of Southern Agricultural Education Franzoi, S. L., & Shields, S.A. (1984). "The Body-Esteem Scale: Multidimensional structure and

sex differences in a college population." Journal of Personality Assessment 48: 173-178.


Friedman, B., & Mann, L. (1993). Coping patterns in adolescent decision making: An Israeli-Australian comparison. Journal of Adolescence, 16, 187-199.

Furco, A., Muller, P., & Ammon, M. S. (1998a). Civic responsibility survey for K-12 students engaged in service-learning, from http://www.peecworks.org/PEEC/PEEC_Inst/S0038CEB0-0038CF0A

Furco, A., Muller, P., & Ammon, M. S. (Producer). (1998b). Civic Responsibility Survey for K-12 Students Engaged in Service-Learning. Retrieved from http://www.peecworks.org/PEEC/PEEC_Inst/S0038CEB0-0038CF0A

Gaffney, L. R., & McFall, R. M. (1981). A comparison of social skills in delinquent and nondelinquent adolescent girls using a behavioral role-playing inventory. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 49(6), 959-967.

Gambone, M.A., Klem, A.M., Connell, J.P. (2002). Finding out what matters for youth: TestingGetter, H., & Nowinski, J. K. (1981). A free response test of interpersonal effectiveness. Journal

of Personality Assessment, 45(3), 301-308.Giancarlo, C. A. (1993). An exploration of cognitive strategies and dispositions in relation to

ego-resiliency. master's thesis. University of California, Riverside. Riverside, CA. Giancarlo, C. A. (1996). Critical thinking, culture, and personality: Predictors of Latinos'

academic success. doctoral dissertation. University of California, Riverside. Giles, D. E., & Eyler, J. (1994). The impact of a college community service laboratory on

students' personal, social, and cognitive outcomes. Journal of Adolescence, 17(4), 327-339.

Goldberg, L. R. (1990). An alternative "description of personality": The Big-Five factor structure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59(6), 1216-1229.

Grant, J. S., Elliott, T. R., Weaver, M., Glandon, G. L., Raper, J. L., & Giger, J. N. (2006). Social Support, Social Problem-Solving Abilities, and Adjustment of Family Caregivers of Stroke Survivors. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 87(3), 343-350.

Grotevant, H. D., & Cooper, C. R. (1985). Patterns of interaction in family relationships and the development of identity exploration in adolescence. Child Development, 56(2), 415-428.

Halpern, D. F. (1989). Thought and knowledge: An introduction to critical thinking. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Harter, S. (1985). Self-perception profile for children. University of Denver.Hellison, D. (2003). Teaching responsibility through physical activity. Champaign, IL: Human

Kinetics.Helmreich R., S., J. (1974). Short forms of the Texas Social Behavior Inventory (TSBI, an

objective measure of self-esteem. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 4: 473-475.Heppner, P. P., & Peterson, C. H. (1982). The development and implications of a personal

problem-solving inventory. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 29(1), 66-75.Heppner, P., Witty, T. E., & Dixon, W. A. (2004). Problem-Solving Appraisal and Human

Adjustment: A Review of 20 Years of Research Using the Problem Solving Inventory. The Counseling Psychologist, 32(3), 344-428.

Hoegl, M., & Gemuenden, H. G. (2001). Teamwork Quality and the Success of Innovative Projects: A Theoretical Concept and Empirical Evidence. Organization Science, 12(4), 435-449.

Hollin, C. R., & Palmer, E. J. (2006). The Adolescent Problems Inventory: A profile of incarcerated English male young offenders. Personality and Individual Differences, 40(7), 1485-1495.


Hunter, N., & Kelley, C. K. (1986). Examination of the Validity of the Adolescent Problems Inventory Among Incarcerated Juvenile Delinquents. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 54(3), 301-302.

Jackson, S., Bijstra, J., Oostra, L., & Bosma, H. (1998). Adolescents' perceptions of communication with parents relative to specific aspects of relationships with parents and personal development. [Article]. Journal of Adolescence, 21(3), 305-322.

James, W. (1890). Principles of Psychology. New York, Dover.Jensen, A. R. (1992). Commentary: Vehicles of g. Psychological Science, 3(5), 275-278.Karnes, F. A. & D'Ilio, V. (1988). Assessment of the concurrent validity of the Leadership Skills

Inventory with gifted students and their teachers. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 66(l), 59-66.

Karnes, F. A., & Chauvin, J. C. (1985). Leadership Skills Inventory: Administration manual. East Aurora, NY, D.O.K. Publishers.

Karnes, F. A., & Meriweather, S. & D'Ilio, V. (1987). The effectiveness of the leadership studies program, Roeper Review, 9(4), 238-240.

Katz, A. (2000) Leading lads. London: Topman.Kaufman, A. S. (2000). Tests of Intelligence. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of Intelligence

(pp. 445-476). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Kickul, J., & Neuman, G. (2000). Emergent leadership behaviors: The function of personality

and cognitive ability in determining teamwork performance and KSAs. Journal of Business & Psychology, 15(1), 27-51.

Kimora, S., & Kottke, J. L. (2009). Cognitive ability and personality can predict team productivity but not team synergy. Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the Association for Psychological Science, San Francisco, California.

Kleon, S., & Rinehart, S. (1998). Leadership skill development of teen leaders." Journal of Extension 36(3). Retrieved from http://www.joe.org/joe/1998june/rb1.php

Kottke, J. L. (2008, April 10). Able but not willing? Teamwork aptitude and interest meet head on. Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, San Francisco, California.

Kouzes, J., & Posner, B. (1995). The Leadership Challenge. San Francisco, CA, Jossey-Bass.Kymlicka, W., & Norman, W. (1994). Return of the Citizen: A Survey of Recent Work on

Citizenship Theory. Ethics, 104(2), 352-381. Leach, D. J., Wall, T. D., Rogelberg, S. G., & Jackson, P. R. (2005). Team Autonomy,

Performance, and Member Job Strain: Uncovering the Teamwork KSA Link. Applied Psychology: an International Review, 54(1), 1-24.

Lembke, S., & Wilson, M. (1998). Putting the “Team” into Teamwork: Alternative Theoretical Contributions for Contemporary Management Practice. Human Relations, 51(7), 927-944.

LePine, J. A., Hollenbeck, J. R., Ilgen, D. R., & Hedlund, J. (1997). Effects of individual differences on the performance of hierarchal decision making teams: Much more than g. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82(5), 803-811.

Lock, S. E., & Vincent, M. L. (1995). Sexual decision making among rural adolescent females. . Health Values, 19, 47-58.

Luk, J. W., Farhat, T., Iannotti, R. J., & Simons-Morton, B. G. (In Press). Parent-child communication and substance use among adolescents: Do father and mother communication play a different role for sons and daughters? Addictive Behaviors.


Lysaught, J. P. (1984). Toward a comprehensive theory of communications: A review of selected contributions. Educational Administration Quarterly, 20(3), 101-127. doi: 10.1177/0013161x84020003006

Mann, L., Harmoni, R., & Power, C. N. (1984). Adolescent decision making: the development of competence. Journal of Adolescence, 12(3), 265-278.

Marks, M. A., Mathieu, J. E., & Zaccaro, S. J. (2001). A Temporally Based Framework and Taxonomy of Team Processes. The Academy of Management Review, 26(3), 356-376.

Mathieu, J., Maynard, M. T., Rapp, T., & Gilson, L. (2008). Team Effectiveness 1997-2007: A Review of Recent Advancements and a Glimpse Into the Future. Journal of Management, 34(3), 410-476.

Maydeu-Olivares, A., & D'Zurilla, T. J. (1995). A factor analysis of the Social Problem-Solving Inventory using polychoric correlations. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 11(2), 98-107.

Maydeu-Olivares, A., & D'Zurilla, T. J. (1996). A factor-analytic study of the social problem-solving inventory: An integration of theory and data. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 20(2), 115-133.

McClough, A. C., & Rogelberg, S. C. (2003). Selection in teams: An exploration of the Teamwork Knowledge, Skills, and Ability Test. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 11(1), 56-66.

McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. (1997). Personality traits structure as a human universal. American Psychologist, 52(5), 509-516.

McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T., Jr. (1992). Discriminant Validity of NEO-PIR Facet Scales. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 52(1), 229-237.

Michelsen, E., Zaff, J., & Hair, E. (2002). Civic engagement programs and youth development: a synthesis Child Trends. Washington D.C.: The Edna McConnell Clark Foundation.

Mills, L. B. (2009). A meta-analysis of the relationship between emotional intelligence and effective leadership. Journal of Curriculum and Instruction 3(2): 22-38.

Mills, L. B. (2009). A meta-analysis of the relationship between emotional intelligence and effective leadership. Journal of Curriculum and Instruction, 3(2), 22-38.

Mincemoyer, C. C., & Perkins, D. F. (2002). Decision making: Educational material for the life skills resources and evaluation program. University Park, PA: The Pennsylvania State University.

Mincemoyer, C., & Perkins, D. F. (2003). Assessing decision making skills of youth. The Forum for Family and Consumer Issues [On-line], 8(2). Available at: http://ncsu.edu/ffci/publications/2003/v8-n1-2003-january/ar-1-accessing

Mincemoyer, C., Perkins, D. F., & Munyua, C. (2001). Youth life skills evaluation Retrieved February 1, 2010, from http://www.humanserviceresearch.com/youthlifeskillsevaluation/

model for revised measurement scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46. Moore, C., & Allen, P. (1996). The effects of volunteering on the young volunteer. The Journal

of Primary Prevention, 17(2), 231 - 258. Morgeson, F. P., Reider, M. H., & Campion, M. A. (2005). Selecting individuals in team

settings: The importance of social skills, personality characteristics, and teamwork knowledge. Personnel Psychology, 58, 583-611.

Murray, T. S., Clermont, Y., & Binkley, M. (2005). Measuring adult literacy and life skills: New framework for assessment. Retrieved January 18, 2010, from http://www.nald.ca/fulltext/measlit/01.htm


Nedwek, B. P., Flewelling, R. L., Paschall, M. J., & Ringwalt, C. L. (Producer). (1998). Social Responsibility. Retrieved from http:/www.cdc.gov/ncipc/pub-res/measure

Neuman, G. A., & Wright, J. (1999). Team effectiveness: beyond skills and cognitive ability. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84(3), 376-389.

Nezu, A. M., & Ronan, G. F. (1988). Social problem solving as a moderator of stress-related depressive symptoms: A prospective analysis. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 35(2), 134-138.

Noller, P., & Bagi, S. (1985). Parent--adolescent communication. Journal of Adolescence, 8(2), 125-144.

Oakland, T., Falkenberg, B.A., & Oakland, C. (1996). Assessment of leadership in children, Omoto, A. M., & Snyder, M. (2002). Considerations of Community: The Context and Process of

Volunteerism. American Behavioral Scientist, 45(5), 846-867. doi: 10.1177/0002764202045005007

Palmer, E. J., & Hollin, C. R. (1996). Assessing adolescent problems: an overview of the adolescent problems inventory. Journal of Adolescence, 19(4), 347-354.

Paris, C. R., Salas, E., & Cannon-Bowers, J. A. (2000). Teamwork in multi-person systems: A review and analysis. Ergonomics, 43(8), 1052-1075.

Parker, A. M., & Fischhoff, B. (2005). Decision making competence: external validation through an individual-differences approach. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making 18, 1-27.

Perkins, D. F., & Mincemoyer, C. (2001). Critical thinking matrix. report. Pennsylvania State University.

Perkins, D. F., & Mincemoyer, C. (2001). Youth life skills evaluation. Retrieved January 15, 2010, from http://www.humanserviceresearch.com/youthlifeskillsevaluation/

Perkins, D. F., & Mincemoyer, C. C. (2002). Critical thinking: Educational material for the life skills resources and evaluation program (pp. 25). University Park, PA: The Pennsylvania State University.

Pfaff, E., & Huddleston, P. (2003). Does it matter if I hate teamwork? What impacts student attitudes toward teamwork. Journal of Marketing Education, 25(1), 37-45.

Piers, E. V., Harris, D.B., & Herzberg, D.S. (1984). Piers-Harris Children's Self-Concept Scale: Revised Manual. Los Angeles, Western Psychological Services.

Platt, J. J., & Spivack, G. (1975). Unidimensionality of the means-end problem solving (MEPS) procedure. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 31(1), 15-16.

Priest, S., & Gass, M. A. (2005). Effective leadership in adventure programming (2nd ed.). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

Ricketts, J. & Rudd, R. (2002). A comprehensive leadership education model to train, teach, and develop leadership in youth. Journal of Career and Technical Education 19(1): 7-17.

Ricketts, J. C., & Rudd, R. D. (2005). Critical thinking skills of selected youth leaders: The efficacy of critical thinking dispositions, leadership, and academic performance. Journal of Agricultural Education, 46(1), 32-43.

Ricketts, J., & Rudd, R. (2004). Leadership development factors leading to the success of former Florida State FFA officers. Journal of Southern Agricultural Education Research 54(1): 242-253.

Roberts, B. W., & DelVecchio, W. F. (2000). The rank-order consistency of personality traits from childhood to old age: A quantitative review of longitudinal studies. Psychological Bulletin, 126, 3-25.


Roberts, L.W. (2009). Leadership in academic psychiatry: the vision, the “givens,” and the nature of leaders. Academic Psychiatry 33(2).

Robinson, J. P., Shaver, P.R., & Wrightsman, L.S., Ed. (1991). Measures of personality and social psychological attitudes. London, Academic Press, Inc.

Rosenberg, M. (1965). Society and the adolescent self-image. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Rosenberg, M., Schooler, C., Schoenback, C. (1995). Global self-esteem and specific self-esteem: Different concepts, different outcomes. American Sociological Review, 60(1): 141-156.

Rousseau, V., Aube, C., & Savoie, A. (2006). Teamwork Behaviors: A Review and an Integration of Frameworks. Small Group Research, 37(5), 540-570.

Rushton, P. C., R. (1981). The altruistic personality and the self-report altruism scale. Personality and Individual Differences, 2(4), 293-302.

Sabatelli, R. M., Anderson, S.A., Trachtenberg, J., & Liefeld, J. (2005). Outcome evaluation of programs offering youth leadership training. Retrieved from http://www.ct.gov/opm/LIB/opm/CJPPD/CjJjyd/JjydPublications/YouthLeaderOutcomel2005.pdf

Salas, E., Burke, C. S., & Cannon-Bowers, J. A. (2000). Teamwork: emerging principles. International Journal of Management Reviews, 2(4), 339.

Salas, E., Sims, D. E., & Burke, C. S. (2005). Is there a "Big Five" in Teamwork? Small Group Research, 36(5), 555-599.

Schwartz, S. H., & Howard, J. A. (1984). Internalized values as motivators of altruism. Development and maintenance of prosocial behavior: International perspectives on positive morality, 229-255.

Scott, D. (No Date). Decision Making. [On-line]. Available at: http://ag.arizona.edu/sfcs/cyfernet/nowg/sc_decision.html

Scott, E., Reppucci, N., & Woolard, J. (1995). Evaluating adolescent decision making in legal contexts. Law and Human Behavior 19, 221-244.

Scott, S., & Bruce, R. (1995). Decision-making style: The development and assessment of a new measure. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 55(5), 818.

Shannon, C. (2009). An untapped resource understanding volunteers ages 8 to 12. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 38(5), 828-845.

Spence, S. H., Sheffield, J., & Donovan, C. (2002). Problem-solving orientation and attributional style: Moderators of the impact of negative life events on the development of depressive symptoms in adolescence? Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology, 31(2), 219.

Spencer, M. B., Dupree, D., & Swanson, D. P. (1996). Parental monitoring and adolescents' sense of responsibility for their own learning: An examination of sex differences. The Journal of Negro Education, 65(1), 30-43.

Stevens, M. J., & Campion, M. A. (1994). The knowledge, skill, and ability requirements for teamwork: Implications for human resource management. Journal of Management, 20(2), 503-530.

Stevens, M. J., & Campion, M. A. (1999). Staffing work teams: Development and validation of a selection test for teamwork settings. Journal of Management, 25(2), 207-228.

Stewart, G. L. (2006). A meta-analytic review of relationships between team design features and team performance. Journal of Management, 32(1), 29-55.


Stodgill, R. M. (1974). Handbook of leadership; a survey of theory and research. New York: The Free Press.

Stokes, J. P. (1983). Components of group cohesion: Intermember attraction, instrumental value, and risk taking. Small Group Research, 14(2), 163-173.

Strauss, S. S., & Clarke, B. A. (1992). Decision making patterns in adolescent mothers. IMAGE: Journal of Nursing Scholarship, 24, 69-74.

Terenzini, P., Springer, L., Pascarella, E., & Nora, A. (1995). Influences affecting the development of students' critical thinking skills. Research in Higher Education, 36(1), 23-39.

Thoits, P. A., & Hewitt, L. N. (2001). Volunteer work and well-being. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 42(2), 115-131.

Van Linden, J. A., & Fertman, C. I. (1998). Youth leadership: A guide to understanding leadership development in adolescents. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Wang, M. C., & Stiles, B. (1976). An investigation of children's concept of self-responsibility for their school learning. American Educational Research Journal, 13(3), 159-179. doi: 10.3102/00028312013003159

Watson, D. L., Newton, M., & Kim, M. S. (2003). Recognition of values-based constructs in a summer physical activity program. The Urban Review, 35(3), 217-232.

Wells, L. E., & Marwell, G. (1976). Self-esteem: Its conceptualization and measurement. Beverly Hills, CA, Sage.

Westheimer, J., & Kahne, J. (2004a). Educating the citizen: political choices and pedagogical goals. PS: Political Science & Politics, 37(02), 241-247. doi: doi:10.1017.S1049096504004160

Westheimer, J., & Kahne, J. (2004b). What kind of citizen? The politics of educating for democracy. American Educational Research Journal, 41(2), 237-269. doi: 10.3102/00028312041002237

Wikipedia. (2010). Teamwork. Retrieved January 13, 2010, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Teamwork

Youniss, J., McLellan, J. A., Su, Y., & Yates, M. (1999). The role of community service in identity development: Normative, unconventional, and deviant orientations. Journal of Adolescent Research, 14(2), 248-261. doi: 10.1177/0743558499142006

Ziller, R. C., Hagey, J., Smith, M.D., & Long, B. (1969). Self-esteem: A self-social construct. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 33: 84-95.


Part III: Analysis of Selected Life Skill MeasuresIntroduction

The purpose of this final portion of the overall study was to field test the long form and short form (if available) versions of each of the scales identified for use in part two of the study. Data were collected from two separate adolescent populations: 4H participants in camp programs in Texas and participants in Fort Worth After School Program. A total of number of completed surveys received from both groups was 923.

Research QuestionsThe following research questions guided this portion of the study:

1. What are the psychometric properties of the selected life skills measures?2. What types of relationships exist between the selected life skills measures?3. Did life skill measure scores differ across the selected subpopulation groups?4. What amount of variance can be explained on the selected life skill measures based on

gender, school level, ethnicity, at-risk status, and state standardized test scores?

Methods

Sample and Data Collection ProceduresSimilar procedures were used to gather data from each sample. Variations between the groups in terms of data collection will be highlighted in the following sections. The ten life skill measures were divided into two different sets of surveys. Version A contained measures of communication, altruism, decision making, responsible citizenship, and teamwork. Version B contained measures of critical thinking, problem solving, leadership, self-responsibility, and self-esteem. The creation of the two versions was done because overall length would have been prohibitive for administering to each individual.

All survey items are provided in Appendix A. All item wording remained in its original form except for the altruism measure (Rushton, 1981). Although this measure was deemed appropriate for the study it had been originally targeted for older audiences and so a number of adaptations were made from the original.


Table 18 provides a summary of the adaptations.


Table 18: Comparison of Original and Adapted Altruism Scale (Rushton, 1981)Original Items Adapted Items

I have helped push a stranger's car out of the snow. ---I have given directions to a stranger. I would give directions to someone I did not know.I have made change for a stranger. ---I have given money to a charity. I would give money to a charity.I have given money to a stranger who needed it (or asked me for it). ---I have donated goods or clothes to a charity. I would donate clothes or goods to a charity.I have done volunteer work for a charity. ---I have donated blood. ---I have helped carry a stranger's belongings (books, parcels, etc.).

I would help carry belongings of someone I did not know.

I have delayed an elevator and held the door open for a stranger.

I would hold the door open for someone I did not know.

I have allowed someone to go ahead of me in a lineup (at Xerox machine, in the supermarket).

I would allow someone I did not know to go in front of me in line.

I have given a stranger a lift in my car. ---l have pointed out a clerk's error (in a bank, at the supermarket) in undercharging me for an item.

I would point out a cashier's error in undercharging me for an item.

I have let a neighbor whom I didn't know too well borrow an item of some value to me (e.g., a dish, tools, etc.).

I would let a neighbor I did not know well borrow an item of value to me.

I have bought 'charity' Christmas cards deliberately because I knew it was a good cause. ---

I have helped a classmate who I did not know that well with a homework assignment when my knowledge was greater than his or hers.

I would help a classmate who I did not know well with a homework assignment when my knowledge was greater than his or hers.

I have before being asked, voluntarily looked after a neighbor’s pets or children without being paid for it.

I would look after a neighbor’s pet or children without being paid.

I have offered to help a handicapped or elderly stranger across a street.

I would offer to help a disabled or elderly person across the street.

I have offered my seat on a bus or train to a stranger who was standing.

I would offer my seat on a train or bus to someone who was standing.

I have helped an acquaintance to move households. I would help someone in my neighborhood move houses.

4-H Center Sample. In coordination with administrators of the 4-H Center in Brownwood, TX letters were sent to 4th grade and older registered participants in eight different 2010 summer camp sessions. In total, 652 letters were sent that included an invitation to participate in this study. Parental consent forms were included with the letter and only youth who returned a consent form were allowed to complete surveys during their camp session. A total of 165 completed surveys were collected from this effort resulting, yielding a 25% response rate.


FWAS Sample. All 4th grade and older youth who were signed up for Fort Worth After School (FWAS), an after-school program sponsored by the Fort Worth Independent School District, were included in the study sample. In cooperation with FWAS administrators, survey packets were sent to after school programs at nine elementary schools, four middle schools, and eight high schools.13 All surveys were pre-labeled with unique codes for each youth participant. These codes allowed for completed survey data to be paired with student level variables from the school district master data files. Variables used in this study included at-risk status which is a composite of a variety of risk indicators; and variables indicating whether an individual met the passing requirements on the state standardized reading and math assessments. Information about each individual’s grade, gender, and race/ethnicity was also available.

Program staff at each location were provided an administration protocol which they read to the students before inviting them to complete the survey. Participation was voluntary and occurred during the fall 2010. In total 2089 surveys were distributed and 758 completed surveys were returned for a 37% response rate.14

Data Analysis ProceduresAll survey data was entered into a dataset and analyzed using SPSS 18. Mean scores were calculated for each measure as well as for applicable measure’s short forms. In order to better utilize the available data, measure mean scores were calculated for all cases where at least 90% of the items for each measure were completed. Descriptive statistics were computed for all subgroups (e.g., gender, school level, and ethnicity) across all measures. Cronbach’s Alphas were computed for each measure. Pearson’s correlations were conducted to assess the relationship between the measures on survey A and B separately. T-tests were conducted to look at sample and gender differences across the measures and one-way ANOVA’s were used to test for ethnicity and school level differences. Finally, hierarchical regressions were employed to assess the relationship between the measures and a variety of demographic and academic performance measures.

Results

DemographicsSurveys were collected from a total of 923 youth between both the 4-H and FWAS sites. Of these, 17.9% (n=165) were associated with 4-H programs and 81.8% (n=758) were associated with Fort Worth After School (FWAS). Participants were divided individuals were grouped into elementary, middle and high school level. Table 19 provides the demographic characteristics for the sample.

Table 19: Sample Demographics

13 The IRB at Texas A&M and Fort Worth ISD approved administering the survey as part of a larger outcome study of the FWAS. While the current study was part of a sub-contract with the University of Arizona, Texas A&M researchers were working with FWISD staff to identify additional instruments for the FWAS study already. Thus, the study was deemed exempt due to it being part of an overall study to investigate the outcome of a school-based educational practice.14 The refusal rate for completing the survey is unknown, since some children were absent on the day the survey was administered, some children from the compiled list had dropped out of the program, and some children only attended on certain days of the week, which might not have included the survey administration day for each school.


Percent4-H

Center FWAS Total 4-H FWAS Total

Female 91 421 512 56.5 56.1 56.2Male 70 329 399 43.5 43.9 43.8

Totals 161 750 911Native American 2 8 10 1.3 1.1 1.1Asian/Pacific Island 1 15 16 0.6 2.0 1.8

African American 18 329 347 11.5 44.0 38.3Hispanic 10 350 360 6.4 46.8 39.8White 126 41 167 80.3 5.5 18.5Multi-Racial 0 5 5 0.0 0.7 0.6

Totals 157 748 905Elementary 65 314 379 39.4 41.4 41.1Middle School 66 274 340 40.0 36.1 36.8High School 34 170 204 20.6 22.4 22.1

Totals 165 758 923 17.9 82.1

For the sample as a whole, 56.2% were female and 43.8% were male; 39.8% were Hispanic, 38.3% African American, 18.5% were White, and 3.5% were

variously classified as other; 41.1% were in grades 4-5, 36.8% were in middle school, and 22.1% were in high school.

The distribution across the two samples by gender and level of school was similar. However, the 4-H sample was predominately White, while the FWAS sample was mainly Hispanic and African American.

For the 4-H sample, 56.5% % were female and 17.8% were male; 6.4% were Hispanic, 11.%% were African American, 80.3% were White, and 1.9% were

variously classified as other; 39.4% were in grades 4-5, 40.0% were in middle school, and 20.6% were in high school.

For the sample as a whole, 56.1% were female and 43.9% were male; 46.8% were Hispanic, 44.0% were African American, and 5.5% were White, and 3.8%

were variously classified as other. 41.4% were in grades 4-5, 36.1% were in middle school, and 22.4% were in high school.


What are the Psychometric Properties of the Selected Life Skills Measures?Cronbach’s Alphas were computed for each measure. The performance of each item on the overall Alpha was reviewed as well as item-total correlations. The only underperforming items occurred on the communication scale. Analyses indicated that items two and five had very low item-total correlations, -.01 and .09 respectively. The decision was made to remove these items from further analyses and new mean scores were calculated for the communications scale. The removal of these items increased the Alpha for this scale from .839 to 854.

Table 20 lists the reliability for each scale. Reliabilities ranged from .770 to .900 for the full scales, and .647 to .767 for short forms for four of the scales. No meaningful differences in reliabilities were observed when calculated separately for males and females, Race/Ethnic groups, or school level.

Steps were also taken to compare the Alpha’s from this study’s data with previously reported Alpha’s (Table 21). For the most part Alpha scores were similar across the studies although there are some marked differences between the data collected for this study and previously reported data for short forms of decision making and critical thinking. These variances may be indicative of a generally weaker stability of these short form measures as compared to their full versions. The self-esteem Alpha from the current study was also markedly lower than previous reports but this may be due to the fact that the previously cited study’s sample was university students.


Table 20: Reliabilities from Current Data for Total SampleCronbach's Alpha (α)

MeasureNumber of Items All Male Female

Elementary School

Middle School

High School

African American Hispanic White

Communication 23 0.854 0.873 0.839 0.854 0.830 0.870 0.820 0.864 0.883 Communication Short 6 0.653 0.673 0.638 0.645 0.630 0.690 0.626 0.674 0.621Altruism 14 0.882 0.874 0.880 0.879 0.871 0.908 0.892 0.871 0.871Decision Making 20 0.910 0.920 0.902 0.912 0.893 0.931 0.912 0.903 0.920 Decision Making Short 5 0.767 0.779 0.757 0.739 0.755 0.831 0.786 0.771 0.717Responsible Citizenship 10 0.900 0.902 0.900 0.892 0.907 0.890 0.912 0.903 0.838Teamwork 7 0.892 0.887 0.898 0.880 0.896 0.897 0.879 0.907 0.849Critical Thinking 20 0.857 0.845 0.855 0.839 0.876 0.850 0.856 0.840 0.870 Critical Thinking Short 5 0.647 0.607 0.656 0.652 0.661 0.573 0.665 0.605 0.628Problem Solving 24 0.888 0.877 0.886 0.883 0.891 0.883 0.873 0.886 0.895 Problem Solving Short 6 0.716 0.687 0.723 0.739 0.704 0.632 0.672 0.734 0.698Leadership 6 0.789 0.814 0.747 0.778 0.808 0.764 0.781 0.799 0.758Self-Responsibility 6 0.867 0.859 0.869 0.859 0.868 0.871 0.864 0.865 0.838Self-Esteem 10 0.770 0.783 0.763 0.706 0.794 0.820 0.771 0.774 0.745


Table 21: Scale Alphas from Previously Reported Studies

Measureα’s from

Current StudyPrevious

α’s Sample Description Citation

Communication 0.85 --- The evaluation instrument was pilot tested with 203 youth who attended a 4-H state achievement event.

(Mincemoyer & Perkins, 2005)

Communication Short 0.65 0.70 The evaluation instrument was pilot tested with 203 youth who attended

a 4-H state achievement event.(Mincemoyer & Perkins, 2005)

Altruism 0.88 0.84 99 undergraduates (36 males and 63 females) at The 'University of Western Ontario

(Rushton, 1981)

Decision Making 0.91 ---

The evaluation instrument was pilot tested with 203 youth who attended a 4-H state achievement event.


Decision Making Short 0.77 0.60 The evaluation instrument was pilot tested with 203 youth who attended


Responsible Citizenship 0.90 0.84 586 middle school students in California. (Furco, et al., 1998a)

Teamwork 0.89 0.90791 youth campers (ages 10-16) from 11 different ACA sponsored camps.

(American Camping Association, 2007b)

Critical Thinking 0.86 --- The evaluation instrument was pilot tested with 203 youth who attended


Critical Thinking Short 0.65 0.72 The evaluation instrument was pilot tested with 203 youth who attended


Problem Solving 0.89 ---



Problem Solving Short 0.72 0.76



Leadership 0.79 0.64 550 elementary and middle school students. 33.7% white, 22.4% multi-racial, 19.8% Latino, 8.3% African American. 57.5% Females

(Chi, et al., 2006)

Self-Responsibility 0.87 0.84

791 youth campers (ages 10-16) from 11 different ACA sponsored camps.

(American Camping Association, 2007b)

Self-Esteem 0.77 .88-.90508 undergraduate students who attended the University of California at Berkeley. 42% Asian, 40% Caucasian, 11% Chicano/Latino, 6% African American, 1% Native American.

(Robins, Hendin, & Trzesniewski, 2001)


What Types of Relationships Exist Between the Selected Life Skills Measures?Table 22contains a complete summary of the correlations between the measures contained on survey A and survey B. All correlations were significant (p <.001) and positive. Correlations between full and short versions ranged from .843 to .908. Overall correlations ranged from .110 to .751. Self-esteem had the weakest correlations with the other measures ranging from .110 with problem solving to .367 with self-responsibility.

Table 22: Correlations between Life Skills Measures

Measures (Survey A) CommunicationCommunication

Short AltruismDecision Making

Decision Making Short

Responsible Citizenship Teamwork

Communication 1.00Communication Short .843 1.00

Altruism .547 .475 1.00Decision Making .611 .623 .548 1.00Decision Making Short .527 .572 .483 .908 1.00

Responsible Citizenship .427 .446 .462 .550 .512 1.00

Teamwork .460 .497 .423 .574 .535 .758 1.00

Measures (Survey B)Critical

ThinkingCritical

Thinking ShortProblem Solving

Problem Solving Short Leadership

Self-Responsibility

Self-Esteem

Critical Thinking 1.00Critical Thinking Short .853 1.00

Problem Solving .751 .662 1.00Problem Solving Short .683 .600 .891 1.00

Leadership .613 .512 .614 .590 1.00Self-Responsibility .544 .499 .566 .584 .676 1.00Self-Esteem .253 .207 .110 .160 .334 .367 1.00

Did life skill measure scores differ across the selected subpopulation groups?A full summary of the scale means across groups is displayed in Table 23. T-tests and ANOVA’s were conducted to assess potential mean score differences across groups.


Table 23: Mean Scores

Comm.Comm. Short Altruism

Decision Making

Decision Making S.

Resp. Citizen.

Team- work

Critical Thinkin

gCritical

Think. S.Problem Solving

Problem Solving S.

Leader-ship

Self-Resp.

Self-Est.

4H N 55 69 70 65 59 60 59 82 81 75 75 72 72 74Mean 3.38 3.58 3.58 3.56 3.62 3.87 4.00 3.54 3.58 3.42 3.57 3.87 4.09 3.71

SD 0.49 0.64 0.57 0.56 0.63 0.55 0.61 0.53 0.59 0.52 0.63 0.62 0.70 0.62FWAS N 292 332 334 325 319 313 306 380 364 373 372 358 360 359

Mean 3.31 3.50 3.16 3.38 3.48 3.58 3.68 3.43 3.43 3.34 3.43 3.68 3.89 3.47SD 0.61 0.74 0.82 0.69 0.81 0.82 0.89 0.56 0.71 0.60 0.74 0.76 0.80 0.68

Male N 188 222 226 220 212 208 205 252 240 242 241 232 236 235Mean 3.36 3.50 3.26 3.42 3.51 3.64 3.72 3.50 3.52 3.40 3.48 3.79 4.00 3.53

SD 0.57 0.72 0.81 0.65 0.78 0.79 0.87 0.57 0.70 0.59 0.73 0.68 0.75 0.68Female N 151 170 169 161 157 156 151 204 199 200 200 193 191 192

Mean 3.28 3.53 3.18 3.39 3.46 3.58 3.74 3.37 3.36 3.28 3.39 3.62 3.83 3.47SD 0.62 0.72 0.78 0.70 0.80 0.80 0.84 0.53 0.66 0.57 0.70 0.80 0.82 0.67

Elementary N 138 157 155 145 139 141 139 182 173 168 167 164 162 163Mean 3.22 3.49 3.22 3.43 3.56 3.85 3.87 3.51 3.56 3.48 3.58 3.81 4.08 3.39

SD 0.65 0.77 0.85 0.70 0.81 0.77 0.83 0.58 0.73 0.64 0.80 0.79 0.78 0.65Middle School

N 127 148 155 152 148 145 141 173 166 173 173 163 169 166Mean 3.29 3.42 3.15 3.35 3.42 3.46 3.58 3.38 3.35 3.23 3.30 3.61 3.78 3.61

SD 0.53 0.67 0.74 0.62 0.75 0.81 0.88 0.58 0.71 0.58 0.71 0.76 0.83 0.69High School

N 81 94 93 92 90 86 84 105 104 105 105 101 99 102Mean 3.55 3.71 3.40 3.47 3.55 3.53 3.77 3.45 3.45 3.35 3.48 3.72 3.89 3.51

SD 0.54 0.67 0.80 0.69 0.80 0.70 0.83 0.47 0.56 0.48 0.57 0.62 0.69 0.67African American

N 122 147 148 144 139 137 136 182 170 177 177 169 171 168Mean 3.42 3.54 3.24 3.42 3.49 3.63 3.74 3.38 3.41 3.31 3.36 3.65 3.80 3.50

SD 0.56 0.71 0.84 0.70 0.85 0.85 0.89 0.57 0.74 0.59 0.72 0.77 0.85 0.72Hispanic N 135 150 150 147 146 141 139 182 179 178 177 172 174 173

Mean 3.23 3.44 3.06 3.33 3.45 3.49 3.60 3.43 3.40 3.32 3.43 3.67 3.91 3.44SD 0.62 0.75 0.78 0.65 0.75 0.78 0.87 0.53 0.65 0.58 0.74 0.74 0.76 0.65

White N 67 76 79 72 66 68 64 74 72 70 70 67 67 69Mean 3.34 3.59 3.50 3.53 3.63 3.85 3.99 3.54 3.59 3.45 3.58 3.87 4.17 3.64

SD 0.61 0.64 0.71 0.63 0.70 0.61 0.64 0.56 0.63 0.54 0.63 0.66 0.63 0.58


Sample Differences. Results from t tests indicated higher mean scores for the 4-H sample on 8 out of the 14 measures. All other comparisons were non-significant. Table 24 provides a full summary of the t test results.

Table 24: t test Results for Sample

Scale t pHigher Mean

Communication 0.85 0.39 ---Communication Short 0.87 0.38 ---Altruism* 5.13 <.001 4HDecision Making 2.28 0.02 4HDecision Making Short* 1.48 0.14 ---Responsible Citizenship* 3.50 <.01 4HTeamwork* 3.35 <.01 4HCritical Thinking 1.62 0.11 ---Critical Thinking Short* 2.07 0.04 4HProblem Solving* 1.00 0.32 ---Problem Solving Short 0.16 0.11 ---Leadership 1.97 0.05 4HSelf-Responsibility 2.04 0.04 4HSelf-Esteem 2.83 <.01 4H*Equal variances not assumed

Gender Differences. Results from t tests indicated higher mean scores for the females on critical thinking measures, problem solving, leadership and self-responsibility (Table 25).

Table 25: t test Results for Gender Scale t p Higher Mean

Communication 1.15 0.25 ---

Communication Short-

0.33 0.74 ---Altruism 0.99 0.32 ---Decision Making 0.41 0.68 ---Decision Making Short 0.59 0.55 ---Responsible Citizenship 0.71 0.48 ---

Teamwork-

0.15 0.88 ---Critical Thinking 2.54 0.01 FemaleCritical Thinking Short 2.48 0.01 FemaleProblem Solving 2.12 0.03 FemaleProblem Solving Short 1.26 0.21 ---Leadership 2.34 0.02 FemaleSelf-Responsibility 2.19 0.03 FemaleSelf-Esteem 0.95 0.34 ---


Ethnicity Differences. Due to small numbers in some of the ethnicity groups the analysis was delimited to African Americans, Hispanics, and Whites. One-way ANOVA results indicated a number of differences across these groups (Table 26).

African Americans had higher communication scores than Whites Whites had higher scores than Hispanics on measures of altruism, responsible citizenship,

and teamwork. Whites had higher self-responsibility scores than African Americans.

Table 26: One-Way ANOVA Results for Ethnicity

Scale df F pBonferroni Post-Hoc

Communication 2, 321 3.12 0.05 AA > HispCommunication Short 2, 370 1.39 0.25 ---Altruism 2, 374 8.40 <.001 W > HispDecision Making 2, 360 2.17 0.12 ---Decision Making Short* 2, 348 1.13 0.33 ---Responsible Citizenship 2, 343 5.04 <.01 W > HispTeamwork* 2, 336 5.26 <.01 W > HispCritical Thinking 2, 435 2.24 0.11 ---Critical Thinking Short* 2, 418 2.32 0.10 ---Problem Solving 2, 422 1.57 0.21 ---Problem Solving Short 2, 421 2.31 0.10 ---Leadership 2, 405 2.25 0.11 ---Self-Responsibility 2, 409 5.55 <.01 W > AASelf-Esteem* 2, 407 2.19 0.11 ---*Equal variances not assumed. Brown-Forsythe statistics reported.

School Level Differences. One-way ANOVA results indicated a number of differences across school levels (


Table 27): High school (HS) respondents had higher scores than elementary (ES) and middle (MS)

school respondents on both communication measures. MS scores self-esteem scores were higher than ES. ES scores were higher than MS on teamwork, critical thinking short, problem solving

short, and self-responsibility. ES scores were than MS and HS on responsible citizenship and problem solving.


Table 27: One-Way ANOVA Results for School Level

Scale df F pBonferroni Post-Hoc

Communication 2, 343 8.81 <.001 HS > ES & MSCommunication Short 2, 396 5.10 0.02 HS > ES & MSAltruism 2, 400 2.89 0.06 ---Decision Making 2, 386 1.00 0.37 ---Decision Making Short 2, 374 1.42 0.24 ---Responsible Citizenship 2, 369 10.29 <.001 ES > HS & MSTeamwork 2, 361 4.11 0.02 ES > MSCritical Thinking* 2, 457 2.57 0.08 ---Critical Thinking Short 2, 440 4.08 0.02 ES > MSProblem Solving* 2, 443 7.67 <.001 ES > HS & MSProblem Solving Short* 2, 442 6.95 <.01 ES > MSLeadership* 2, 425 2.97 0.05 ---Self-Responsibility 2, 427 6.17 <.01 ES > MSSelf-Esteem 2, 428 4.40 0.01 MS > ES*Equal variances not assumed. Brown-Forsythe statistics reported.

What amount of variance can be explained on the selected life skill measures based on gender, school level, ethnicity, at-risk status, and state standardized test scores?Hierarchical regressions were delimited to FWAS participants because of the availability of school district data for this sample. Within this group the analysis was constrained to African Americans, Hispanics and Whites due to small sample sizes for the other race/ethnicity categories. Dummy variables were created for ethnicity and school level. The baseline categories for each variable were White and Elementary School respectively. The steps for each regression were as follows: 1) gender, 2) school level dummy variables, 3) ethnicity dummy variables, 4) at-risk status, and 5) standardized academic assessment variables. The academic variables, Math TAKS Met and Reading TAKS Met, indicate whether or not a student met the Texas State mandated passing levels on these assessments. All regression tables can be found in Appendix Two.

Regression results for each scale were as follows:

Communication. The predictor variables explained 12% of the variation in communication scores. Results also suggest that high school students (b* = .15, p = .03) and African Americans (b* = .34, p = .02) on average scored higher on this measure than elementary students and Whites.

Communication Short. The predictor variables explained 9% of the variation in communication short form scores. The only significant predictor in the model was math scores (b* = .17, p = .03) suggesting that students how passed the math portion of the assessment scored higher on this measure.


Altruism. The predictor variables explained only 5% of the variation in altruism scores. None of the predictors were significant.

Decision Making. The predictor variables explained 12% of the variation in decision making scores. At-risk status (b* = -.15, p = .05) and reading scores (b* = .15, p < .01) were the only two significant predictors with at-risk status being associated with lower and reading scores with higher decision making skills.

Decision Making Short. The predictor variables explained 15% of the variation in decision making short scores. High school (b* = -.13, p = .04), at-risk (b* = -.23, p < .001), and reading scores (b* = .15, p = .04) were all significant predictors in the model. Being in high school and at-risk was associated with lower scores whereas passing reading scores were linked with higher scores.

Responsible Citizenship. The predictor variables explained 17% of the variation in responsible citizenship scores. Both of the school level predictors were significant indicating that middle (b* = -.24, p < .01) and high school (b* = -.23, p < .001) status was associated with lower scores.

Teamwork. The predictor variables explained 15% of the variation in teamwork scores. Middle school (b* = -.16, p = .02) and at-risk status (b* = -.20, p = .01) both returned significant, negative coefficients indicating both statuses were associated with lower measure scores.

Critical Thinking. The predictor variables explained 8% of the variation in critical thinking scores. Gender (b* = -.17, p < .01) and middle school both (b* = -.18, p < .01) returned significant, negative coefficients indicating male middle school students produced lower scores on the measure.

Critical Thinking Short. The predictor variables explained 6% of the variation in critical thinking short scores. Gender (b* = -.14, p = .01) and middle school (b* = -.18, p < .01) both returned significant, negative coefficients indicating male middle school students produced lower scores on the measure.

Problem Solving. The predictor variables explained 11% of the variation in problem solving scores. Gender (b* = -.15, p < .01) and middle (b* = -.26, p < .001) and high school (b* = -.13, p < .01) all returned significant, negative coefficients indicating male middle and high school students produced lower scores on the measure.

Problem Solving Short. The predictor variables explained 10% of the variation in problem solving short scores. Gender (b* = -.11, p = .04) and middle school (b* = -.22, p < .01) both returned significant, negative coefficients indicating male middle school students produced lower scores on the measure.

Leadership. The predictor variables explained 10% of the variation in leadership scores. Gender (b* = -.19, p < .01) and middle school (b* = -.16, p < .01) both returned significant,


negative coefficients indicating male middle school students produced lower scores on the measure.

Self-Responsibility. Regression results indicated the predictor variables explained 11% of the variation in self-responsibility scores. Gender (b* = -.12, p < .03) and middle school (b* = -.21, p < .001) both returned significant, negative coefficients indicating male middle school students produced lower scores on the measure.

Self-Esteem. Regression results indicated the predictor variables explained 6% of the variation in self-esteem scores. Middle school (b* = -.17, p < .01) returned significant, negative coefficients indicating middle school students produced lower scores on the measure. Error: Reference source not found provides a full summary of the regression results.

In order to gain a better picture of the overall explanatory power of the study’s predictor variables a table of all significant coefficients across all analyses was constructed. Table 28 contains this information. Middle school and gender were the most consistent predictors returning significant coefficients in nine and six of the analyses respectively. A composite interpretive statement of the findings could be that male, at-risk, middle school students would be expected to produce the lowest scores on the observed measures.

Table 28: Summary of Significant Predictors

GenderMiddle School

High School

African American Hispanic At-Risk

Math TAKS Met

Reading TAKS Met

Communication .15* .34*Communication Short .17*AltruismDecision Making -.15* .20**Decision Making Short -.13* -.23*** .15*Responsible Citizenship -.24** -.23***Teamwork -.16* -.20*Critical Thinking -.17** -.18**Critical Thinking Short -.14* -.18**Problem Solving -.15** -.26*** -.13*Problem Solving Short -.11* -.22**Leadership -.19** -.16**Self-Responsibility -.12* -.21***Self-Esteem -.17**Total # of Significant Predictors 6 9 4 1 0 3 1 2

*p < .05**p < .01***p < .05


DiscussionThis study highlights the both the importance of life skills as a targeted outcome domain for many youth development programs and the breadth of approaches and conceptualizations that have been applied to life skill constructs. The study’s findings suggest that although little agreement exists regarding the actual number of life skills, some consensus exists, at least among CYFAR Program Directors, regarding the most frequently targeted life skills.

The identification of 10 key life skill domains discussed in Part One of this report provided the research team with a roadmap for the remaining portions of the study. The literature reviews in Part Two highlighted the disparity of conceptualizations across life skills. Attempts were made to select life skill definitions from the existing literature that were most aligned with CYFAR program goals and the populations they served. Although the original plan included the possibility of construct new life skill measures where needed, it became apparent that ample measures existed and that the real issue was selecting and testing those that appeared most applicable to CYFAR programs. Hopefully the recommendations in this report regarding individual life skill domains will help promote increased standardization of life skill conceptualization and measurement across youth development related fields and programs.

In terms of the testing and validation of the selected measures, it appears that each of the measures performed adequately with a diverse sample of youth in terms of gender, school level, and gender. The study’s findings represent an important contribution to the literature for many of the selected measures, especially those that had previously been employed with older (e.g., college students) or primarily homogenous (e.g., White) samples.

Having respondents complete multiple life skill measures on the same survey also allowed the study to address the measures’ convergent validity. The fact that all measures employed in this study showed mild to strong positive correlations provides evidence of convergent validity. The high degree of positive correlation between long and short forms of communication, critical thinking, decision making and problem solving supports the efficacy of both forms of these measures.

In terms of the relationship of the tested measures and the study’s predictor variables, only small amounts of variance (5-17%) were significantly explained. The most powerful explanatory variables were gender, middle school, and at-risk status. In other words, the data suggested that male, at-risk middle school students were the most likely to score lower on a number of the measures in comparison to the rest of the sample.

Limitations and Future ResearchAlthough this study contributes to the psychometric validation of the selected measures in terms of their reliability, convergent, and to some degree discriminant validity, further work is needed to test their predictive validity. This would require the employment of the measures in studies employing experimental designs that included measures of constructs theoretically justified as being linked to and potentially influenced by selected life skills. A greater understanding of the predictive validity of key life skills would greatly enhance the efficacy of these measures in both research and practice.


ConclusionsThe sequence and breadth of this study make a strong contribution to the life skills literature. It also highlights the fact that the conceptualization and measurement of abstract life skill domains remains a field in need of further attention. While it is generally agreed that life skills remain key targeted outcome domains for many youth development programs, the true power of life skills focused programs will not be obtained without standardization of definitions and measurement approaches. Hopefully this work can contribute to helping achieve this goal and promote further development of life skills research and practice.

References Part III

Rushton, J. P. (1981). The altruistic personality and the self-report altruism scale. Personality and Individual Differences, 2(4), 293-302.


Appendix One: Items for Selected ScalesAltruism (adapted from)Rushton, J. P. (1981). The altruistic personality and the self-report altruism scale. Personality and Individual Differences, 2(4), 293-302.

1. I would give directions to someone I did not know.2. I would give money to a charity.3. I would donate clothes or goods to a charity.4. I would help carry belongings of someone I did not know.5. I would hold the door open for someone I did not know.6. I would allow someone I did not know to go in front of me in line.7. I would point out a cashier's error in undercharging me for an item.8. I would let a neighbor I did not know well borrow an item of value to me.9. I would help a classmate who I did not know well with a homework assignment when my

knowledge was greater than his or hers.10. I would look after a neighbor’s pet or children without being paid.11. I would offer to help a disabled or elderly person across the street.12. I would offer my seat on a train or bus to someone who was standing.13. I would help someone in my neighborhood move houses.14. I would give directions to someone I did not know.

CommunicationBarkman, S., & Machtmes, K. (2002). Four-fold: A research model for designing and evaluating the impact of youth development programs. News and Views, 4(4), 4-6.

1. I use my tone of voice to reinforce what I am trying to say. 2. I don’t hear everything a person is saying, because I am thinking about what I want to

say.3. When talking to someone, I try to maintain eye contact. 4. My body language reinforces what I am trying to say. 5. I interrupt other people to say what I want to say before I forget it.6. I recognize when two people are trying to say the same thing, but in different ways.7. I try to watch other people’s body language to help me trying to say.8. I recognize when people are using their hands to reinforce what they are saying.9. I recognize when a person is listening to me, but not hearing what I am saying.10. I use my own experiences to let my friends know that I understand what they are going

through.11. When I am listening to someone, I try to understand what they are feeling.12. I try to see the other person’s point of view. 13. I change the way I talk to someone based on my relationship with them (i.e., friend,

parent, teacher, other adult, etc.)14. I try to respond to what someone is saying, rather than just reacting to their tone of voice.15. To help a person understand me, I change the way I speak based on how the other person

is talking to me.16. I find it easy to get my point across.


17. I use my hands to illustrate what I am trying to say. 18. I organize thoughts in my head before speaking. 19. I use body language to help reinforce what I want to say. 20. I make sure I understand what another person is saying before I respond.21. I rephrase what another person said, to make sure that I understood them.22. When someone gets mad, I change my tone of voice to help calm them down.23. I find ways to redirect the conversation when people talk too much.

Critical ThinkingPerkins, D. F., & Mincemoyer, C. C. (2002). Critical thinking. Educational material for the Life Skills Resources and Evaluation Program (25 pages). University Park, PA: The Pennsylvania State University.

1. I think of possible results before I take action. 2. I get ideas from other people when having a task to do. 3. I develop my ideas by gathering information. 4. When facing a problem, I identify options. 5. I can easily express my thoughts on a problem. 6. I am able to give reasons for my opinions. 7. It is important for me to get information to support my opinions.8. I usually have more than one source of information before making a decision.9. I plan where to get information on a topic. 10. I plan how to get information on a topic. 11. I put my ideas in order by importance. 12. I make decisions based upon the information that I have. 13. I listen to the ideas of others even if I disagree with them.14. I compare ideas when thinking about a topic. 15. I keep my mind open to different ideas when planning to make a decision.16. I am aware that sometimes there are no right or wrong answers to a question.17. I develop a checklist to help me think about an issue.18. I can easily tell what I did was right or wrong. 19. I am able to tell the best way of handling a problem.20. I make sure the information I use is correct.

Decision MakingMincemoyer, C. C., & Perkins, D. F. (2002). Decision making (25 pages). Educational material for the Life Skills Resources and Evaluation Program. University Park, PA: The Pennsylvania State University.

1. I easily identify my problem. 2. I think about the problem before I take action. 3. I look for information to help me understand the problem.4. I ask others to help me identify my problem. 5. I think about ways of dealing with my problem. 6. I think before making a choice. 7. I discuss choices with my friends before making a decision.


8. I discuss choices with my parent(s) or guardian(s) before making a decision.9. I look for positive points of possible choices. 10. I look for negative points of possible choices. 11. I consider the risks of a choice before making a decision. 12. I consider the benefits of a choice before making a decision.13. I make decisions based on what my parent(s) or guardian(s) tell me. 14. When faced with a decision, I realize that some choices are better than others.15. I make a decision by thinking about all the information I have about the different choices.16. I prioritize my choices before making a decision. 17. Before making another decision, I think about how the last one turned out.18. I do think of past choices when making new decisions. 19. If I experience negative consequences, I change my decision the next time.20. Decision-making is easy for me.

LeadershipChi, B., Jastrzab, J., & Melchior, A. (2006). Civic measurement models: Student survey and teacher rating forms. Retrieved from the following: http://civicyouth.org/PopUps/WorkingPapers/

1. Once I know what needs to be done, I am good at planning how to do it. 2. When I see something that needs to be done, I try to get my friends to work on it with me. 3. I am pretty good at organizing a team of kids to do a project. 4. If I’m the leader of a group, I make sure that everyone in the group feels important.5. I feel like I can stand up for what I think is right, even if my friends disagree. 6. When I see something that is wrong, I try to change it.

Problem SolvingBarkman, S., & Machtmes, K. (2002). Four-fold: A research model for designing and evaluating the impact of youth development programs. News and Views, 4(4), 4-6.

1. When I have a problem, I first figure out exactly what the problem is.2. I try to get all the facts before trying to solve a problem. 3. When I have a problem, I look at what is and what should be. 4. I look ahead and try to prevent problems before they happen. 5. When faced with a problem, I wait to see if it will go away. 6. I look at a problem from many different viewpoints (my own, my friends’, my parents’,

etc.)7. I keep an open mind about what caused a problem. 8. When faced with a problem, I try to determine what caused it. 9. When solving a problem, I do the first thing that comes into my head.10. I look at the likely results for each possible solution. 11. When solving a problem, I look at all possible solutions. 12. When I have a problem, I do what I have done in the past to solve it.13. I try to look at the long term results of each possible solution. 14. When comparing solutions, I look how each solution will affect the people involved.15. When I am solving a problem, I choose the easiest solution.


16. I compare each possible solution with the others to find the best one to solve my problem.17. After putting my solution into action, I forget about it. 18. After choosing a solution, I put it into action. 19. After selecting a solution, I think about it for a while before I put it into action20. I tend to doubt my decision after it has been made. 21. If my solution is not working, I will try another solution. 22. Once I carry out a solution, I never look back. 23. When a solution is not working, I try to figure out what is wrong.24. Once I have solved a problem, I step back to see how my solution is working.

Responsible CitizenshipFurco, A., Muller, P., & Ammon, M. S. (Producer). (1998) Civic Responsibility Survey for K-12 Students Engaged in Service-Learning. retrieved from http://www.peecworks.org/PEEC/ PEEC_Inst/S0038CEB0-0038CF0A

1. I feel like I am part of a community2. I pay attention to news events that affect the community3. Doing something that helps others is important to me.4. I like to help other people, even if it is hard work.5. I know what I can do to help make the community a better place.6. Helping other people is something everyone should do, including me.7. I know a lot of people in the community, and they know me.8. I feel like I can make a difference in the community.9. I try to think of ways to help other people.10. Everyone should pay attention to the news, including me.

Self-EsteemRosenberg, M. (1965). Society and the adolescent self-image. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

1. On the whole I am satisfied with myself.2. At times I think I am no good at all.3. I think that I have a number of good qualities.4. I am able to do things as well as most other people.5. I feel I do not have much to be proud of.6. I certainly feel useless at times.7. I feel that I am a person of worth, at least on an equal plane with others.8. I wish I could have more respect for myself.9. All in all, I am inclined to feel that I am a failure.10. I have a positive attitude towards myself.


Self-ResponsibilityAmerican Camping Association. (2007). Creating Positive Youth Outcomes. Monterey, CA: Healthy Learning.

1. I accept responsibility for my actions.2. I own up to my mistakes.3. I don’t blame others for my mistakes.4. If I mess something up, I try to make things right.5. If I make a mistake, I try to fix it. 6. If I hurt someone’s feelings, I apologize.

Teamwork American Camping Association. (2007). Creating Positive Youth Outcomes. Monterey, CA: Healthy Learning.

1. I can be a good group leader.2. I can help a group be successful.3. I can be happy even when my group has decided to do something I don’t want to do.4. I can appreciate opinions that are different from my own.5. I can place group goals above the things that I want.6. I can cooperate with others.7. I can be a team-player in a small group.8. I know I can get along with other people in a small group.


Appendix Two: Hierarchical Regression TablesCommunication (n = 240)Step/Predictor R2 ∆R2 ∆F B SE B Β

Constant 2.82 .211 Gender .00 .00 1.07 -.08 .07 -.062 Middle School .03 .02 2.72 .01 .09 .01

High School .23 .11 .15*3 African American .07 .05 5.97** .41 .17 .34*

Hispanic .14 .17 .124 At-Risk .10 .03 7.00* -.04 .10 -.035 Math TAKS Met .12 .02 2.90 .15 .11 .11

Reading TAKS Met .17 .10 .13*p < .05**p < .01***p < .05 These values apply to all tables in this section

Communication Short (n = 277)Step/Predictor R2 ∆R2 ∆F B SE B Β

Constant 3.13 .251 Gender .00 .00 .00 -.01 .09 -.012 Middle School .02 .02 2.15 -.06 .10 -.04

High School .07 .12 .043 African American .03 .01 1.69 .18 .21 .13

Hispanic -.04 .21 -.034 At-Risk .06 .03 9.21* -.04 .11 -.035 Math TAKS Met .09 .03 4.678 .26 .12 .17*

Reading TAKS Met .19 .12 .12

Altruism (n = 278)Step/Predictor R2 ∆R2 ∆F B SE B β

Constant 2.89 .281 Gender .00 .00 .08 -.04 .10 -.022 Middle School .00 .01 .96 -.08 .11 -.05

High School -.03 .14 -.013 African American .01 .02 2.42 .21 .23 .13

Hispanic -.05 .23 -.034 At-Risk .04 .03 9.40* -.11 .13 -.075 Math TAKS Met .05 .02 2.62 .21 .13 .12



Decision Making (n = 270)Step/Predictor R2 ∆R2 ∆F B SE B β

Constant 3.14 .241 Gender .00 .00 .02 .00 .08 .002 Middle School .01 .01 1.81 -.09 .10 -.07

High School -.18 .11 -.103 African American .03 .01 1.70 .25 .20 .18

Hispanic .12 .20 .094 At-Risk .09 .07 19.33*** -.21 .10 -.15*5 Math TAKS Met .12 .03 4.06* .03 .11 .02

Reading TAKS Met .30 .11 .20**

Decision Making (n = 265)Step/Predictor R2 ∆R2 ∆F B SE B β

Constant 3.42 .281 Gender .00 .00 .05 -.03 .09 -.022 Middle School .02 .02 3.13* -.15 .11 -.09

High School -.27 .13 -.13*3 African American .03 .00 .48 .17 .23 .10

Hispanic .11 .23 .074 At-Risk .13 .10 30.72*** -.37 .12 -.23**5 Math TAKS Met .15 .02 2.59 .07 .13 .04

Reading TAKS Met .26 .13 .15*

Responsible Citizenship (n = 258)Step/Predictor R2 ∆R2 ∆F B SE B β

Constant 3.84 .291 Gender .00 .00 .23 -.04 .10 -.022 Middle School .09 .09 11.96*** -.40 .11 -.24**

High School -.52 .14 -.23***3 African American .10 .01 1.62 .01 .23 .00

Hispanic -.21 .23 -.124 At-Risk .15 .06 16.34*** -.23 .13 -.145 Math TAKS Met .17 .01 1.91 .15 .14 .08



Teamwork (n = 251)Step/Predictor R2 ∆R2 ∆F B SE B β

Constant 3.97 .351 Gender .00 .00 .36 .07 .11 .042 Middle School .04 .04 5.24** -.29 .13 -.16*

High School -.31 .16 -.133 African American .05 .01 1.14 -.08 .30 -.05

Hispanic -.30 .30 -.174 At-Risk .14 .09 24.81*** -.36 .15 -.20*5 Math TAKS Met .15 .01 1.91 .27 .15 .14


Critical Thinking (n = 321)Step/Predictor R2 ∆R2 ∆F B SE B β

Constant 3.46 .181 Gender .03 .03 9.26** -.18 .06 -.17**2 Middle School .06 .03 5.83** -.19 .07 -.18**

High School -.13 .09 -.083 African American .07 .00 .41 .06 .13 .06

Hispanic .10 .13 .094 At-Risk .07 .01 3.33 -.07 .08 -.065 Math TAKS Met .08 .00 .59 .01 .09 .01


Critical Thinking Short (n = 308)Step/Predictor R2 ∆R2 ∆F B SE B β

Constant 3.48 .231 Gender .02 .02 6.50* -.19 .08 -.14*2 Middle School .05 .03 4.71* -.26 .09 -.18**


Hispanic .05 .17 .044 At-Risk .05 .00 .43 -.02 .11 -.025 Math TAKS Met .06 .01 1.23 -.08 .11 -.05



Problem Solving (n = 316)Step/Predictor R2 ∆R2 ∆F B SE B β

Constant 3.38 .191 Gender .02 .02 7.46* -.18 .06 -.15**2 Middle School .09 .07 11.96** -.31 .07 -.26***

High School -.22 .10 -.13*3 African American .09 .00 .05 .07 .14 .06



Problem Solving Short (n = 315)Step/Predictor R2 ∆R2 ∆F B SE B β

Constant 3.34 .231 Gender .01 .01 4.26* -.16 .08 -.11*2 Middle School .07 .05 9.06*** -.32 .09 -.22**


Hispanic .21 .18 .144 At-Risk .09 .02 6.56* -.13 .11 -.095 Math TAKS Met .10 .01 1.77 -.02 .12 -.01


Leadership (n = 303)Step/Predictor R2 ∆R2 ∆F B SE B β

Constant 3.56 .251 Gender .03 .03 10.71** -.28 .08 -.19**2 Middle School .07 .03 5.31** -.25 .09 -.16**




Self-Responsibility (n = 306)Step/Predictor R2 ∆R2 ∆F B SE B β


Constant 4.13 .261 Gender .01 .01 4.34* -.20 .09 -.12*2 Middle School .07 .06 9.25*** -.35 .10 -.21***

High School -.17 .14 -.083 African American .08 .01 .82 -.15 .20 -.09

Hispanic -.10 .20 -.064 At-Risk .10 .03 8.42** -.15 .12 -.095 Math TAKS Met .11 .01 1.11 .09 .13 .05


Self-Esteem (n = 301)Step/Predictor R2 ∆R2 ∆F B SE B β

Constant 3.33 .231 Gender .01 .01 2.86 -.12 .08 -.092 Middle School .03 .02 2.98 .23 .09 .17**

High School .19 .12 .103 African American .04 .01 1.38 .12 .18 .09

Hispanic -.03 .17 -.024 At-Risk .06 .02 6.03* -.14 .10 -.105 Math TAKS Met .06 .00 .33 .08 .11 .05


academic.csuohio.edu · web viewlife skills have been variously defined. there does not appear to...

Documents