APPLYING A YOUTH ENGAGEMENT FRAMEWORK TO PREDICTING COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT Michael A. Busseri, Linda Rose-Krasnor, Kelly Campbell, and Holly Stack Brock University (Canada) and the Centre of Excellence for Youth Engagement (Health Canada) - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Loading...

PPT – APPLYING A YOUTH ENGAGEMENT FRAMEWORK TO PREDICTING COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT Michael A. Busseri, Linda Rose-Krasnor, Kelly Campbell, and Holly Stack Brock University (Canada) and the Centre of Excellence for Youth Engagement (Health Canada) PowerPoint presentation | free to download - id: 460b12-NjM1N



Loading


The Adobe Flash plugin is needed to view this content

Get the plugin now

View by Category
About This Presentation
Title:

APPLYING A YOUTH ENGAGEMENT FRAMEWORK TO PREDICTING COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT Michael A. Busseri, Linda Rose-Krasnor, Kelly Campbell, and Holly Stack Brock University (Canada) and the Centre of Excellence for Youth Engagement (Health Canada)

Description:

APPLYING A YOUTH ENGAGEMENT FRAMEWORK TO PREDICTING COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT Michael A. Busseri, Linda Rose-Krasnor, Kelly Campbell, and Holly Stack – PowerPoint PPT presentation

Number of Views:233
Avg rating:3.0/5.0
Slides: 2
Provided by: engagemen
Learn more at: http://www.engagementcentre.ca
Category:

less

Write a Comment
User Comments (0)
Transcript and Presenter's Notes

Title: APPLYING A YOUTH ENGAGEMENT FRAMEWORK TO PREDICTING COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT Michael A. Busseri, Linda Rose-Krasnor, Kelly Campbell, and Holly Stack Brock University (Canada) and the Centre of Excellence for Youth Engagement (Health Canada)


1
APPLYING A YOUTH ENGAGEMENT FRAMEWORK TO
PREDICTING COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT Michael A.
Busseri, Linda Rose-Krasnor, Kelly Campbell, and
Holly Stack Brock University (Canada) and the
Centre of Excellence for Youth Engagement (Health
Canada)
The Centres of Excellence are a Health
Canada-funded program. The opinions expressed in
this poster do not necessarily reflect those of
Health Canada.
Multiple Regression Results Standardized beta
weights are shown in the prediction of community
involvement (CI) and next year intentions (NYI)
controlling for current involvement.
Note. Underlined
values indicate ps lt .05.
  • Introduction
  • Previous studies have linked youth activity
    involvement with positive developmental outcomes,
    including reduced risk behaviors, higher academic
    success, better psychological functioning, and
    stronger interpersonal bonds.
  • Comparatively fewer studies, however, have
    systematically examined predictors of youth
    involvement.
  • We have proposed a process-oriented framework for
    youth engagement, which we define as sustained,
    meaningful activity involvement.
  • As shown in the figure below, our Youth
    Engagement Framework comprises four primary
    components initiating factors expected to
    promote youth engagement sustaining factors
    expected to support and maintain engagement
    youth engagement itself and outcomes.
  • The present study focuses on relationships
    between initiating and sustaining factors and
    youth engagement, evaluated at three hypothesized
    levels of influence personal beliefs, attitudes,
    and predispositions (self-level) interpersonal
    relations (social-level) and society and
    institutions (systems-level).

Results Summary of Study Measures and
Correlations with Youth Involvement As shown in
the table below, with few exceptions, initiating
and sustaining factor indicators showed positive
bivariate associations with both current
community involvement (CI) and next year
intentions (NYI).
Note. N 190. Efficacy
composite combines scores from two systems-level
factors (self-level perceived efficacy, and
systems-level openness to change). Underlined
values indicate ps lt .05
Factor / Level Predictor Criteria Criteria
CI NYI
Initiating / Self Prosocial values .05 .08
Valuing ambition -.12 -.20
Introversion -.05 -.09
Open to new experience -.05 .17
Negative attitudes -.06 -.02
Interest in involvement .17 .01
Initiating / Social Social composite .18 .15
Initiating / System Involvement opportunities -.07 -.04
Neighborhood quality -.01 -.01
Societal climate -.13 -.03
Sustaining / Self Efficacy composite .29 .05
Perseverance -.06 .18
Volatility .15 .03
Positive attitudes .27 -.02
Sustaining / Social Social composite -.07 -.11
Sustaining / Systems Societal climate .07 -.01
Growth opportunities .01 -.02
Limits to responsibility .20 .01
Involvement Current involvement -- .48
Factor / Level Measure Scale properties Scale properties Correlations with Correlations with
Items Alpha CI NYI
Initiating / Self Prosocial values 4 .67 .22 .26
Valuing ambition 1 -- -.07 -.18
Introversion 2 -- -.12 -.20
Open to new experience 2 -- .12 .25
Negative attitudes 4 .71 -.14 -.16
Interest in involvement 1 -- .36 .30

Initiating / Social Social modeling 6 .71
Social expectations 6 .85
Social encouragement 6 .80
Social composite .36 .36

Initiating / System Involvement opportunities 4 .72 .09 .05
Neighborhood quality 4 .67 .03 .03
Societal climate 4 .68 .02 .04

Sustaining / Self Perceived efficacy 4 .73
Perseverance 3 .76 .18 .28
Volatility 1 -- .01 -.04
Positive attitudes 3 .74 .40 .33

Sustaining / Social Social support 6 .75
Social recognition 6 .83
Quality of social experience 6 .71
Social composite .25 .23

Sustaining / Systems Societal climate 6 .76 .35 .26
Growth opportunities 3 .60 .30 .21
Limits to responsibility 1 -- .14 .05
System openness to change 5 .80
Efficacy composite .46 .36

Involvement Current involvement (CI) 5 .67 -- .61
Next year intentions (NYI) 5 .65 .61 --
Youth Engagement Framework Note. The
layers surrounding initiating and sustaining
factors represent self, social, and systems-level
influences. Dashed box indicates components
assessed in the current study.
Initiating factors
Youth engagement
Outcomes
Sustaining factors
Predicting Next Year Intentions The
hierarchical regression model explained 50 of
the variance in next year intentions (NYI) R
.71, p lt .001. In step 1, current involvement
explained 37 of the variance (p lt .001). In step
2, the initiating and sustaining factor
indicators explained an additional 13 of the
variance (p .002). As shown in the table
above, in the final regression model five
predictors made significant, unique contributions
to the prediction of stronger intentions for next
year involvement more frequent current
involvement, less valuing of ambition, greater
openness to new experiences, stronger social
support, and greater perseverance.  
  • Participants and Procedures
  • Results were based on survey responses from 190
    youth female undergraduates ranging in age from
    17 to 19 years old (M 18.48 years, SD 0.53).
  • The study survey was completed at the
    participants convenience and encompassed
    questions related to each of the primary
    components of our Youth Engagement Framework.
  • Measures
  • Ten initiating factor indicators and eight
    sustaining factor indicators were derived from
    previous studies, as well as our conceptual work.
    Indicators were based on multi-item measures (see
    table in next column).
  • Community involvement was assessed by mean
    frequency of current involvement in five
    activities in the past year (volunteering/communit
    y service, political action, school clubs,
    community youth groups, conferences/workshops),
    as was a composite measure of involvement
    intentions for the coming year.
  • Analysis
  • Pairwise correlations initiating and sustaining
    factor indictors with youth involvement (current
    community involvement, next year intentions).
  • Multiple regression of current involvement on
    initiating and sustaining factor indicators.
  • Discussion
  • Initiating and sustaining factors both were
    associated with current community involvement and
    future intended involvement in bivariate and
    multivariate analyses.
  • Regression results support the unique role of two
    of three hypothesized levels of influence
    self-level and social-level variables.
  • No inferences can be made about causal influence
    including how relations among framework
    components unfold over time. Results may vary
    depending on the type of involvement examined and
    the specific initiating and sustaining factor
    indicators.
  • Conclusion
  • Our Youth Engagement Framework - comprising
    multiple types and levels of influence - holds
    promise for the study of youth engagement.

Predicting Community Involvement Together the
initiating and sustaining factors indicators
explained a total of 41 of the variance in
current community involvement (CI) was explained
(R .64, p lt .001). As shown in the table at
the top of the next column, several indicators
made significant and unique contributions to the
prediction of community involvement including
greater interest in getting involved, greater
social encouragement, higher perceived efficacy,
and more positive engagement attitudes.
About PowerShow.com