Running head: DEVELOPMENT OF SHORT PYD SCALES

The Creation and Validation of Short and Very

Short Measures of PYD

G. John Geldhof, Edmond P. Bowers, Michelle J. Boyd, Megan Kiely Mueller, Christopher M.

Napolitano, Kristina L. Schmid, Jacqueline V. Lerner, and Richard M. Lerner

Tufts University

Author Note

G. John Geldhof, Eliot-Pearson Department of Child Development, Tufts University;

Edmond P. Bowers, Eliot-Pearson Department of Child Development, Tufts University;

Michelle J. Boyd, Eliot-Pearson Department of Child Development, Tufts University; Megan

Kiely Mueller, Eliot-Pearson Department of Child Development, Tufts University; Christopher

M. Napolitano, Eliot-Pearson Department of Child Development, Tufts University; Kristina L.

Schmid, Eliot-Pearson Department of Child Development, Tufts University; Jacqueline V.

Lerner, Department of Counseling, Developmental, and Educational Psychology, Boston

College; Richard M. Lerner, Eliot-Pearson Department of Child Development, Tufts University.

This research was supported by a grant from the Thrive Foundation for Youth.

G. John Geldhof, Institute for Applied Research in Youth Development, Lincoln Filene

Center, Medford, MA 02155. E-mail: John.Geldhof@Tufts.edu.

 2

Abstract

As developmental scientists cease to perceive adolescence as a period of turmoil and

adopt the Positive Youth Development (PYD) perspective, psychometrically sound measurement

tools will be needed to assess adolescents’ positive attributes. Using a series of EFA and bifactor

CFA models, this research created short (PYD-SF) and very short (PYD-VSF) versions of the

PYD scale used in the 4-H Study of Positive Youth Development. We created separate forms for

early versus middle/late adolescents and ensured that items displayed sufficient conceptual

overlap across forms to support tests of factorial invariance.

 3

The Creation and Validation of Short and Very

Short Measures of PYD

The scientific study of adolescence over the past century has been framed largely by a

“deficit perspective” in which the second decade of life is considered a period of “storm and

stress” (Hall, 1904), developmental disturbance (Freud, 1969), or crisis (Erikson, 1968). Within

this view, adolescents were problems to be managed (Roth & Brooks-Gunn, 2003b) and positive

development during this period of life was indexed by absences of or decreases in problems. The

pervasive influence of the deficit perspective on research aims, policy, and practice is reflected in

the prevalence of measures of risk and problem behaviors used by program and service

organizations to assess youth functioning. Looking at the field of youth development in the early

years of this century, it appeared that it is easier to determine what youth should avoid (e.g.,

violence, drugs mental health problems) than to identify youth characteristics and experiences

that are indicators of thriving, positive development, or well-being (Moore, Lippman, & Brown,

2004).

Partly in response to this focus on the problems and deficits among young people, a new

approach to adolescent development has emerged over the past two decades – the positive youth

development (PYD) perspective (J. Lerner, Phelps, Forman, & Bowers, 2009; J. Lerner, Bowers

et al., in press; Lerner, Lerner et al., 2011). The PYD perspective moves beyond the negative,

deficit view of youth that has dominated developmental science, psychology, education,

sociology, public health, and other fields, toward a view that youth are resources to be

developed.

PYD has been conceptualized in a several ways and several theoretical frameworks have

been posited over the past few decades (for a review, see J. Lerner, Bowers et al., in press). As
 4

these models become more popular with individuals working to enhance the positive growth of

young people, it is important that they are empirically valid, can be widely applied, and include

constructs that are specific and measurable. However, these models are just beginning to be

tested. Recent work has attempted to evaluate youth development frameworks (Heck &

Subramaniam, 2009) and indicators of PYD (Dukakis, London, McLaughlin, & Williamson,

2009), but further investigation of suitable models is needed.

The Five Cs Model of PYD

The purpose of this report is to provide information about a questionnaire developed to

assess PYD based on the Lerner and Lerner Five Cs Model of PYD (Bowers et al., 2010; Jeličić

Bobek, Phelps, Lerner, & Lerner, 2007; Lerner et al., 2005; Phelps et al., 2009). The approach to

PYD used by Lerner and colleagues (2005) employed several measures to index PYD, which is

operationalized through the assessment of Five Cs—competence, confidence, character,

connection, and caring. The Five Cs were hypothesized as a way of conceptualizing PYD (and of

integrating all the separate indicators of it, such as academic achievement or self esteem), based

on both the experiences of practitioners and on reviews of the adolescent development literature

(Eccles & Gootman, 2002; Lerner, 2004; Roth & Brooks-Gunn, 2003a, b). Definitions of these

Cs are presented in Table 1. These domains are fully interactive, and PYD requires healthy

development in all of them (Dukakis et al., 2009).

The Five Cs were linked to the positive outcomes of youth development programs

reported by Roth and Brooks-Gunn (2003a, b). In addition, these “Cs” are prominent terms used

by practitioners, adolescents involved in youth development programs, and the parents of these

adolescents in describing the characteristics of a “thriving youth” (King et al., 2005). In turn,

when a youth manifests these Five Cs over the course of adolescence he or she is more likely to
 5

be on a life trajectory marked by mutually-beneficial person ↔ context relations that contribute

to self, family, community, and civil society (i.e., contribution – the sixth C – emerges; Lerner,

2004). The young person is also less likely to be on a trajectory of risk and problem behaviors,

such as substance abuse, delinquency, and depression. That is, as evidence for positive behavior

increases, the PYD perspective hypothesizes that there will be fewer indications of problematic

behaviors (e.g., Benson, Mannes, Pittman, & Ferber, 2004; Pittman, Irby, & Ferber, 2001).

Although recent research supports a general inverse relation between PYD and risk/problem

behaviors, these findings also indicate that a more complex pattern of positive and negative

developmental trajectories; these pathways are not simply inversely related (Lewin-Bizan et al.,

2010; Phelps et al., 2007). Nevertheless, PYD is associated across development with positive

indicators such as contribution, school engagement, successful intentional self regulation, and

hope.

Prior Measurement of the Five Cs Model of PYD

The 4-H Study of Positive Youth Development (e.g., Lerner et al., 2005) is a longitudinal

study spanning from Grade 5 to, at this writing, Grade 12, and has provided the primary

empirical support for the Five Cs Model. Using data from the first wave (Grade 5) of the study,

Lerner et al. (2005) proposed and tested a higher-order measure of PYD that consisted of five

first-order latent constructs, each representing one of the Cs. In a subsequent study, structural

equation models were constructed to test the validity of the Five Cs model (Jeličić et al., 2007).

Results suggested that the Five Cs can be cast in terms of latent constructs, which in turn load on

a higher-order PYD latent construct. This PYD construct has been found to be related to latent

constructs for contribution, depression, and risk/problem behaviors such as delinquency and

substance use (Jeličić et al., 2007). More recently, Phelps et al. (2009) extended Lerner et al.’s
 6

(2005) Grade 5 findings by assessing the structure and development of PYD from Grade 5 to

Grade 7 of the 4-H Study. The authors wanted to determine if there was evidence of a latent

construct of PYD that generalized across the early years of adolescent development and whether

it could be operationalized by lower-order latent constructs representing the Five Cs. Results

indicated that the Five Cs Model of PYD continued to be a robust construct that can be defined

comparably in Grades 6 and 7 as it was in Grade 5. Finally, Bowers et al. (2010) examined

whether the structure of PYD in middle adolescence (Grade 8 through 10) was comparable to the

structure of PYD identified in early adolescence. Using a hierarchy of second order confirmatory

factor analysis models to address this issue, they found that, while the overall structure of PYD

was maintained across Grade 8 to 10, the scales relevant to measuring the Five Cs were slightly

different for two of the Cs during middle adolescence than in early adolescence. That is,

reflective of developmental change, athletic competence was no longer a relevant indicator of

competence during middle adolescence; however, physical appearance significantly loaded on

the latent construct of confidence. Thus, the structural definition of PYD has been confirmed

within the 4-H Study data set from the beginning of the adolescent period through the middle

portion of this time of life.

Limitations of Prior Measurement Models of the Five Cs of PYD

The present research addresses limitations present in both the empirical and applied

realms of PYD. Although the PYD framework has become more popular among academics and

practitioners, because there are different theories of PYD (e.g., contrast the approaches of

William Damon, Peter Benson, Jacquelynne Eccles, Reed Larson. Margaret Spencer, Steven

Hamilton and Mary Agnes Hamilton, and Ann Masten; see J. Lerner, Bowers et al., in press, for

citations and a review of these models), the field has yet to agree upon a set of indicators of
 7

positive development that spans research, policy, and practice (Moore et al., 2004). Nevertheless,

more research uses the Five Cs model of Lerner and Lerner (e.g., Heck & Subramaniam, 2009),

and this model has the most empirical support within the youth development literature (see J.

Lerner, Bowers et al., for a review). Accordingly, it is timely and important to appraise and,

potentially, to enhance, the quality and use of this model and, perhaps most important, the

measure of PYD associated with this research. This enhancement is the goal of the present

research.

As we have just noted, prior research using data from the 4-H Study of PYD (Bowers et

al., 2010; Phelps et al., 2009) established the existence of a valid measure of PYD across early to

middle adolescence. The methodology of these studies, however, had limitations that require

further investigation. First, although results of Bowers et al. (2010) suggested that the initial Five

Cs model verified for Grades 5 to 7 should be modified for middle adolescents, the conclusion

was drawn based on results obtained with a sample that is different from the Phelps et al. (2009)

sample in terms of sample size. Although there is overlap in these two study samples, it is

possible that the original measurement structure does not fit middle adolescents because the

model was tested on data from a different sample.

In establishing measurement invariance to address earlier limitations, Bowers and

colleagues accomplished a critical step for further research and practice using the Five Cs model

of PYD. Unless measurement invariance is established, performing cross-group comparisons of

mean difference, regression coefficients, or other parameters is meaningless (Schmitt &

Kuljanin, 2008). However, the findings of Phelps et al. (2009) and Bowers et al. (2010) are

hindered by their reliance on only three waves of what is now a longitudinal study of eight waves

of data. In order to truly test the structure of the Five Cs Model of PYD and whether the model is
 8

invariant over time, one needs to derive a model based on the data from the same participants

across all eight waves of the data. As the PYD perspective is adopted in more youth-serving

programs, the need for a measure that can be utilized in different contexts becomes paramount.

In addition, measures used by researchers and practitioners must be practical and have

utility for users. Phelps et al. (2009) and Bowers et al. (2010) utilized a measure of the Five Cs

that included over 80 items. Therefore, the time and energy commitment by researchers,

practitioners, and youth may be exhausted in trying to index PYD for empirical and applied

purposes. Often researchers want to examine the relationship of several contexts to a wide

breadth of both positive and negative youth outcomes and only have access to their sample for a

relatively small amount of time due to the constraints of context (e.g., class time) or the

individual (e.g., age of participants). Youth-serving professionals are also often constrained by

time commitments to obtain data about their impact on youth. Often, these professionals are

volunteers with additional home and family commitments who also want to provide an enjoyable

and rewarding experience for the youth in their care. Even for the comprehensive model indexed

by the Five Cs PYD measure, 80 items may be too many to include in a survey to measure one

construct given these limiting factors.

Our goals in the present research are therefore to evaluate and potentially revise the PYD

measure, and to test the validity of short and very short forms of the PYD measure. By achieving

these goals, we will be able to offer a reliable, valid, and useful tool for both research and

application.

Method
Participants

We analyzed data from 7071 adolescents who participated in the 4-H Study (Table 2

specifies how many participants were included in each wave of data collection and how many
 9

participants overlapped across any two waves). As Table 3 shows, the mean age of participants

was 10.94 (SD = .42) in the Grade 5 assessment and 17.71 (SD = .76) in Grade 12. With respect

to race/ethnicity, the sample was 65.8% White; 7.6% Black; 9.4% Latino; and 14.4% other

(including Asian, Native American, Multiethnic/multiracial, or “other”). Participants resided in

diverse communities, with 35.7% living in rural areas; 16.3% in urban areas; and 25.7% in

suburban areas (22.2% had missing data for locale).

In addition, participants’ parents provided data regarding the socioeconomic status of

their families. In Grade 5, 20% of mothers attended or completed high school; 24.8% completed

some college; and 18.6% had a bachelor’s degree or higher (35.8% did not respond); average per

capita income at Grade 5 was about $13,657 (SD = $8,348), and ranged to $23,401 (SD =

$13,798) in Grade 12 (also see Table 4).

Measures

Positive Youth Development. We operationalized PYD by the Five Cs of PYD

discussed above. The Five Cs model identifies PYD as a higher-order latent construct indicated

by scores on each of the Five Cs discussed in Table 1. Our measure of PYD drew items from

several primary sources, including: the Search Institute’s Profiles of Student Life-Attitudes and

Behaviors (PSL-AB) scale (Benson, Leffert, Scales, & Blyth, 1998; Leffert et al., 1998); the

Self-Perception Profile for Children (Harter, 1983); the Self-Perception Profile for Adolescents

(Harter, 1986, 1988); Teen Assessment Project (TAP) Survey Question Bank (Small, & Rodgers,

1995); Eisenberg Sympathy Scale (Eisenberg et al., 1996); and the Empathic Concern Subscale

of the Interpersonal Reactivity Index (IRI; Davis, 1980). At Grades 5 through 7, we used the

Self-Perception Profile for Children (Harter, 1983). Beginning at Grade 8 and continuing through

Grade 12, we used the Self-Perception Profile for Adolescents (Harter, 1986, 1988; we used the
 10

1986 version for Grade 8 and the 1988 version for Grades 9 to 12).While previous research has

suggested that the structure of PYD changes across adolescence (e.g., Bowers et al., 2010), we

included all scales used to measure PYD in any wave of the 4-H study in our analyses to

maintain longitudinal consistency.

Competence. At Grades 5 through 7, we calculated the competence subscale using 19

items representing academic, social, and physical competence (6 items each) as well as academic

grades (1 item). The academic, social, and physical competence items asked participants to select

the type of person they were more like between two choices and then to decide if it was “really

true” or “sort of true” for him/her. Sample items are “Some kids feel that they are very good at

their school work, BUT Other kids worry about whether they can do the school work assigned to

them”; “Some kids have a lot of friends, BUT Other kids don't have very many friends”; and

“Some kids do very well at all kinds of sports, BUT Others don't feel that they are very good

when it comes to sports”. We assessed academic grades by asking youth to indicate the grades

they earned in school with options ranging from mostly As to mostly below Ds.

Beginning in Grade 8 and continuing through Grade 12, competence was comprised of 4

items measuring scholastic competence, 5 items measuring social acceptance, 5 items measuring

physical competence, and again academic grades. The scholastic, social, and physical

competence items asked participants to select the type of person they were more like between

two choices (e.g., “Some teenagers feel that they are just as smart as others their age, BUT Other

teenagers aren’t so sure and wonder if they are as smart”; or “Some teenagers are popular with

others their age, BUT Other teenagers are not very popular”) and then to decide if it was “really

true” or “sort of true” for him/her. We again assessed academic grades by asking youth to

indicate the grades they earned in school with options ranging from mostly As to mostly below
 11

Ds. Cronbach’s alphas for the competence subscale ranged from 0.80 to 0.86 across Grades 5

through 12.

Confidence. At Grades 5 through 7, we calculated the confidence subscale using items

that represent self-worth, physical appearance, and positive identity (6 items each). The self-

worth and physical appearance items asked respondents to select the type of person they were

more like between two choices (e.g., “Some kids like the kind of person they are, BUT Other

kids often wish they were someone else”) and then to decide if it was “really true” or “sort of

true” for him/her. Positive identity items were scored on a five-point Likert scale with response

options ranging from 1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree (e.g., “How much do you agree

or disagree with the following? On the whole, I like myself”). Beginning in Grade 8 and

continuing through Grade 12, the confidence subscale included items that measured self-worth (5

items), physical appearance (5 items), and positive identity (6 items) that had a similar structure

and response format. For the current study sample, the Cronbach’s alphas for the confidence

subscale ranged from 0.80 to 0.92 across Grades 5 through 12.

Character. At Grades 5 through 7 we measured character using 21 items representing

social conscience (6 items), values diversity (4 items), conduct behavior (6 items), and personal

values (5 items). A sample social conscience item stated, “How important is each of the

following to you in your life? Helping to make the world a better place to live in,” with response

options ranging from 1 = not important to 5 = extremely important. A sample values diversity

item instructed respondents to think about people who know them well and indicate how they

would rate the young person on characteristics including, “Respecting the values and beliefs of

people who are of a different race or culture than I am” with a response format ranging from 1 =

not at all like me to 5 = very much like me. The conduct behavior items asked respondents to
 12

select the type of person they were more like between two choices (e.g., “Some kids usually do

the right thing BUT Other kids often don't do the right thing”) and then to decide if it was “really

true” or “sort of true” for him/her. The personal values items assessed the importance of certain

values in the young person’s life, including “standing up for what I believe, even when it’s

unpopular to do” with response options ranging from 1 = not important to 5 = extremely

important.

Beginning at Grade 8 and continuing through Grade 12, the character subscale included

20 items with conduct behavior measured by only 5 items. The conduct behavior items again

asked participants to select the type of person they were more like between two choices (e.g.,

“Some teenagers usually act the way they know they are supposed to, BUT Other teenagers often

don’t act the way they are supposed to”) and then to decide if it was “really true” or “sort of true”

for him/her. For the current study sample, the Cronbach’s alphas for the character subscale

ranged from 0.89 to 0.93 across Grades 5 through 12.

Caring. At Grade 5, we measured caring using a 5 item sympathy scale. For each item,

the young person indicated the degree to which a statement described him or her (e.g., When I

see someone being picked on, I feel kind of sorry for them) with response options ranging from 1

= not like you to 3 = really like you. In Grades 6 through 12 the sympathy scale was replaced by

a measure of caring (although the sympathy scale was included in the Grade 6 questionnaire as

well). An example caring item stated, “How well does each of these statements describe you?

When I see someone being taken advantage of, I want to help them,” with a response format

ranging from 1 = not well to 5 = very well. Cronbach’s alphas for the caring subscale ranged

from 0.80 to 0.88 across Grades 5 through 12.

 13

Connection. We measured connection using items that represent connection to family (6

items in Grades 5 to 7; 5 items in grades 8-12), neighborhood (5 items), school (7 items), and

peers (4 items). A sample connection to family item stated, “How much do you agree or disagree

with the following? In my family, I feel useful and important.” A sample connection to

neighborhood item assessed respondents level of agreement with the following statement, “In my

neighborhood, there are lots of people who care about me.” A sample connection to school item

stated, “How much do you agree or disagree with the following? I care about the school I go to.”

All items were scored on a five-point Likert scale with response options ranging from 1 =

strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree, except the connection to peers scale. Items measuring

connection to peers asked respondents to indicate the accuracy of statements, including “I trust

my friends” with response options ranging from 1 = never true to 5 = always true. For the

current study sample, the Cronbach’s alphas for the connection subscale ranged from 0.89 to

0.92 across Grades 5 through 12.

Outcomes. To ensure that the factor structure of PYD remained stable (i.e., did not

change) in the presence of important outcomes, single-item composites for the following scales

were included in all confirmatory factor analyses1. Outcome measures were included for each

wave of data and, while not a primary focus of this research, the substantive relationships

between PYD and these outcomes are considered in the results below.

Contribution. At each grade of the 4-H Study, participants responded to twelve items

which were weighted and summed to create a composite measure of contribution. These items

were derived from existing instruments with known psychometric properties and used in large-

scale studies of adolescents, including the Search Institute’s Profiles of Student Life-Attitudes

1
Single-item composites were chosen to ensure that model fit was not negatively impacted by minor mis-
specification of the factor structure of the outcome scales.
 14

and Behaviors (PSL-AB) scale (Benson, Leffert, Scales, & Blyth, 1998; Leffert et al., 1998) and

the Teen Assessment Project (TAP) Survey Question Bank (Small & Rodgers, 1995).

Contribution was comprised of two equally weighted subscales – ideology and actions –

and each subscale included 6 items. The ideology subscale measured the extent to which

contribution was an important facet of youth’s identity and future self. An example ideology

subscale item stated, “It is important to me to contribute to my community and society” with

response options ranging from 1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree. An example item that

assessed one’s future ideological orientation gauged the perceived chances that the young person

would be involved in community service in the future, with a response format that ranged from 1

= very low to 5 = very high. The action subscale of contribution was comprised of three

components: helping, leadership, and service. Items from the helping, leadership, and service

components measured the frequency of time youth spent helping others (i.e., friends and

neighbors), acting in leadership roles (i.e., being a leader in a group or organization within the

last 12 months), and providing service to their communities (i.e., volunteering, mentoring/peer

advising, and participating in school government), respectively. The composite contribution

scores ranged from 0 to 100, with higher scores indicating higher levels of contribution. For the

current study sample, the Cronbach’s alphas for the contribution scale were .40 at Grade 5 and

.68 at Grade 6; however, the alphas ranged from .75 to .81 across Grades 7 through 12.

Depression. We measured depressive symptomatology using the 20-item, self-report

Center for Epidemiological Studies Depression scale (CES-D; Radloff, 1977). This scale

conceptualizes depressive symptomatology by several components: “depressed mood, feelings of

guilt and worthlessness, feelings of helplessness and hopelessness, psychomotor retardation, loss

of appetite, and sleep disturbance” (Radloff, 1977, p. 386). Respondents indicated how often
 15

they experienced particular symptoms during the past week. Example items included: “I was

bothered by things that usually don’t bother me” and “I felt sad.” Four items were positively

worded and included: “I felt hopeful about the future” and “I enjoyed life.” The response options

ranged from 0 = rarely or none of the time (less than 1 day) to 3 = most or all of the time (5-7

days). Items were summed for a total score, with a maximum value of 60, and higher scores were

indicative of higher depressive symptomatology (i.e., greater frequency and number of

symptoms of depression). Cronbach’s alphas for the CES-D scale ranged from 0.81 to 0.89

across Grades 5 through 12 in the present study.

Risk behaviors. We assessed indicators of substance use and delinquency derived from

items included in the Search Institute’s Profiles of Student Life-Attitudes and Behaviors (PSL-

AB) scale (Leffert et al., 1998) and the Monitoring the Future (2000) questionnaire to indicate

adolescent risk behaviors.

Substance use. At Grade 5, five items assessed the frequency of substance use during the

past 12 months. Specifically, we asked students whether or not they had ever smoked cigarettes;

used chewing tobacco or snuff; had any beer, wine, wine coolers, or liquor to drink – more than

just a few sips; used marijuana (grass, pot) or hashish (hash, hash oil); and used any other drug,

such as ecstasy, speed, LSD, heroin, crack or cocaine. In addition to the previously mentioned

items, students in Grades 6 through 12 indicated whether they had ever sniffed glues, sprays or

gases. We then added a final item asking whether respondents had ever taken steroid pills or

shots without a doctor’s prescription in Grades 7 through 12. The response options for all

substance use items ranged from 0 = never to 3 = regularly.

Delinquency. We assessed Grade 5 delinquency using four items that indicated the

frequency of delinquent behavior during the past 12 months. Specifically, we asked students how
 16

many times they had stolen something from a store; gotten into trouble with the police; hit or

beat up someone; and damaged property just for fun (such as breaking windows, scratching a

car, putting graffiti on walls, etc.). At Grade 7 and continuing through Grade 12, an additional

item assessed how many times the student carried a weapon (such as a gun, knife, club, etc.). The

response format for the delinquency items ranged from 0 = never to 4 = five or more times.

For consistency, the delinquency items were rescaled so that their values ranged from 0

to 3. The averages for the substance use and delinquency items, respectively, were calculated and

transformed to range from 0 to 15. A composite measure was then calculated by summing the

averages of both subscales for a maximum score of 30, with higher scores indicating higher

levels of risk behaviors. For the current study sample, the Cronbach’s alphas for the risk

behaviors scale were .65 at Grade 5 and .71 at Grade 6; the alphas ranged from 0.76 to 0.86

across Grades 7 through 12.

Analyses

Our goal was to analyze the factor structure of PYD and to reduce the 80+ item PYD

measure used in the 4-H Study into shorter formats that can be more easily implemented in larger

research studies. We accomplished this objective through a series of factor analyses and

invariance tests that resulted in four scales: separate short (34 items; PYD-SF) and very short (17

item; PYD-VSF) PYD scales for early and middle/late adolescents. These analyses emphasized

parsimonious representation of the Five Cs, utilized a consistent format across the early versus

middle/late adolescent forms, and underscored the importance of item heterogeneity (e.g.,

Cattell, 1961).

All analyses implemented full-information maximum likelihood (FIML), which produces

unbiased parameter estimates under the assumption that data are missing at random. The
 17

precision of a parameter’s estimate also depends on the number of cases that inform that

estimate, meaning the precision of a bivariate relationship will be strongly influenced by the

number of participants who responded to both items involved in that relationship (i.e., only data

from those participants who responded to both X and Y can inform the correlation between X

and Y). Table 5 presents the number of cases and average percentage of missing data for each

wave (see also Table 2 for participant overlap across waves). Coverage for individual bivariate

relationships can also be found in the Mplus output files that are included in the Supplemental

Appendix, which is available upon request.

Creating the PYD-SF. Because factor analysis produces robust parameter estimates in

the presence of non-extreme violations of data normality (Kline, 2005), our first task was to

selectively remove items that severely violated the normality assumption. We therefore selected

one early adolescent and one middle/late adolescent wave of data (Grades 6 and 11, respectively)

that would be analyzed using exploratory factor analysis (EFA)2. We examined skew and

kurtosis values for all PYD items within each wave (see Table 6), omitting items that displayed

absolute skew > 2 and/or absolute kurtosis > 10. These analyses resulted in the omission of one

item from the connection scale (“My parents often tell me they love me”). We also examined

item histograms (see Supplemental Appendix) to ensure the unimodality of all PYD items,

although this did not result in any items being dropped.

The Grade 6 and Grade 11 data were then analyzed using grade-specific EFAs, where

factors were extracted using maximum likelihood with geomin (oblique) rotation. All final

solutions were chosen based both on model fit (i.e., RMSEA ≤ .08; CFI ≥ .90) and on each

model’s ability to group items in a readily interpretable way. When the choice between two

2
Only two waves were selected for EFA so follow-up confirmatory analyses could be done using separate data.
 18

different solutions was ambiguous, the solution that specified the greatest number of factors was

accepted in order to obtain the finest level of aggregation that was reasonably parsimonious.

Our initial EFAs attempted to simultaneously examine all indicators of PYD within a

specific grade but these analyses failed to converge due to computer memory limitations. We

therefore simplified the EFAs such that each C was analyzed separately for the Grade 6 and

Grade 11 data, resulting in a total of 10 EFAs. These factor structures were then used to inform

which items would be selected for the 34-item PYD-SF measures.

We selected items for the PYD-SF according to the following criteria, listed in order of

importance: Any item retained in the PYD-SF had to display a strong factor loading onto at least

one construct in the EFAs, items in the early adolescent questionnaire that displayed strong

conceptual overlap with items in the middle/late adolescent questionnaire (and vice versa) were

preferred over items that did not display such overlap, two items from each subscale of each C

were retained to ensure construct heterogeneity, and items with strong target factor loadings were

preferred to items with weaker loadings.

We next performed a series of confirmatory factor analyses (CFAs) to test whether a

higher-order PYD construct (see Figure 1) fit the data, ensure that the factor structure of the

PYD-SF was longitudinally stable, and to determine whether responses to the early-adolescent

version of the PYD-SF could be compared to the middle/late-adolescent scale. The first set of

CFAs examined the structure of the PYD-SF in Grades 6 and 7 (early adolescent form in both

grades), and tested the longitudinal invariance of the scale across grades. This set of analyses

additionally tested whether the hypothesized structure of PYD (see Figure 1) was tenable. A

similar set of analyses was performed on the Grades 7 and 8 data (early-adolescent form in
 19

Grade 7, middle/late adolescent form in Grade 8) and on the Grades 9 and 12 data (middle/late

adolescent form for both grades).

We used results from the PYD-SF CFA models to create the PYD-VSF. To ensure strong

construct representation while maintaining construct heterogeneity, we retained one item from

each subscale of each C (see Figure 1), preferring items with stronger loadings to items with

weaker loadings. We fit PYD-VSF CFA models mirroring those for the PYD-SF (although not

testing longitudinal invariance) to ensure adequate model fit for the PYD-VSF, then assessed

whether the latent correlations of the PYD-VSF models were significantly different from the

latent correlations of their respective PYD-SF models. These tests ensured that dropping items to

form the PYD-VSF did not significantly impact the estimates of any latent relationship.

After establishing the item content and structure of the PYD-VSF, we implemented a

series of longitudinal CFA models that established the factorial invariance of the PYD-VSF

across all waves of the 4-H study. These analyses additionally examined longitudinal changes in

the means, variances, and correlations among the PYD constructs. Due to the very large model

size, we ran four sets of CFA models that considered Grades 5 through 7, Grades 7 through 9,

Grades 9 and 10, and Grades 10 through 12, respectively.

Results

Exploratory Factor Analyses

We performed separate EFAs for each of the Five Cs in the Grade 6 and Grade 11 data,

producing a total of 10 EFA models. All final EFA models displayed acceptable fit (see Table 7),

with factor loadings and correlations presented in Tables 8 through 17.

 20

The EFAs generally suggested one factor for each of the subscales listed in Figure 1, with

reverse-coded items3 tending to form method-effect factors or not loading onto any factor at all.

We also observed a tendency for the reverse-coded method effect to be stronger in the Grade 6

analyses than in the Grade 11 analyses. For example, the EFA of Grade 6 competence items

produced four easily identifiable factors: Academic Competence, Social Competence, Physical

Competence, and a Method Factor (see Table 8). Analysis of generally parallel items in Grade 11

produced only Academic Competence, Social Competence, and Physical Competence factors,

(see Table 13).

Creation of the PYD-SF

Using the procedures described above, we selected two items per subscale4 to represent

each of the Five Cs in the two PYD-SF surveys (one for early adolescents, one for middle/late

adolescents). Caring did not contain subscales, however, and six caring items were retained.

Caring items were selected such that three items in the early-adolescent PYD-SF closely

matched items in the sympathy scale used to represent caring in Grade 5 of the 4-H data set (and

were also included in the Grade 6 data).

Due to the unanticipated method effect for reverse-coded items, no items that loaded onto

a reverse-coded method factor were retained. In addition, when subscales clearly differentiated

into two separate factors we purposefully retained one item from each factor to ensure fully

heterogeneous construct measurement in the PYD-SF. For example, the Personal Values

subscale of character in Grade 11 (see Table 15) clearly differentiated into two factors: one

3
Items from Harter’s Self-Perception Profiles that loaded onto the ‘Reverse-Coded’ factor were actually those that
were not reverse-coded. These items presented negatively-valenced options before positively-valenced options;
however, this finding suggested that that participants responded to the reverse nature of the first response option that
they read.
4
We initially included GPA as an indicator of Academic Competence in analyses not presented here. While the
EFAs found that GPA strongly indicated Academic Competence, follow-up CFAs that included this indicator
suggested that GPA was a better measure of Connection than Competence. GPA was accordingly omitted from the
analyses presented here.
 21

representing the ability to do what is right even when others disapprove, and the other

representing one’s willingness to do what is right even when it is difficult. One item from each of

these constructs was retained in the PYD-SF to ensure that both facets of Personal Values were

retained. All items included in the final PYD-SF scales are presented in Appendix A.

Validation of the PYD-SF

We used three sets of CFA models to examine the validity of the PYD-SF and test

whether the early-adolescent PYD-SF can be directly compared to the middle/late adolescent

PYD-SF. These sets of analyses examined the factor structure of the PYD-SF in Grades 6 and 7,

Grades 7 and 8, and in Grades 9 and 12, respectively.

The first set of analyses included a series of CFA models that examined the Grade 6 and

Grade 75 data to validate the factor structure of the PYD-SF in early adolescence. These models

additionally allowed us to test (a) whether the sympathy items used to measure caring in Grade 5

of the 4-H study could be directly equated with the caring items used in subsequent waves, and

(b) whether a higher-order PYD construct adequately represented the Five Cs.

For the first set of PYD-SF analyses we estimated an initial CFA that examined the caring

and sympathy items in Grade 6 (the only wave of data in which both the sympathy and caring

scales were administered), specifying each as a latent construct and estimating residual

covariances between the matched caring and sympathy items. The CFA displayed acceptable

model fit (χ2(23) = 87.29, p < .001, RMSEA = .05 (.04, .06); CFI = .99, TLI = .98), although a

subsequent model indicated that the latent correlation between the constructs (.48) was

significantly different from 1.0 (Δ χ2(1) = 211.49, p < .001). Sympathy and caring were therefore

5
Despite reducing our PYD measure to 34 items per wave, the size of these models limited us to examining only 2
waves of data per model.
 22

modeled separately in the Grade 6 data, although both constructs were retained in the CFA

models.

A subsequent CFA of the PYD-SF specified six latent constructs for the Grade 6 data

(competence, confidence, caring, sympathy, character, connection) and five latent constructs for

the Grade 7 data (the Five Cs only). Single-indicator constructs representing contribution,

depression, and risk behaviors were included in each wave to ensure that the higher-order PYD

construct not only accounted for the correlations among the Cs but also accounted for the

relationship between each C and important outcomes. Because two indicators per subscale were

included in the PYD-SF, we freely estimated residual covariances among same-subscale

indicators within and across time.

Based on model modification indices we allowed a cross-loading between one character

item and competence (“Some kids usually act the way they know they are supposed to.”) and a

residual covariance between one competence item (“Some kids are popular with others their

age.”) and one confidence item (“Some kids think that they are attractive or good looking.”). The

resulting CFA displayed acceptable model fit (χ2(2647) = 5594.993, p < .001, RMSEA = .02

(.02, .02); CFI = .94, TLI = .93)6 and our next step was to determine whether a higher-order PYD

construct could parsimoniously represent the 5 Cs. Despite previous research that has found a

higher-order PYD construct, our results suggested that imposing a higher-order PYD factor

significantly reduced model fit, even after relaxing several model constraints (e.g., allowing

residual covariances among specific Cs; Δ χ2(54) = 209.71, p < .001).

Despite the existing work that treats PYD as a higher-order construct, other research has

suggested that a bifactor model might be more appropriate than a higher-order model (e.g., von

6
CFI and TLI values for all longitudinal CFAs presented in this manuscript were computed using an alternative null
model as suggested by Widaman & Thompson (2003)
 23

Eye, Martel, Lerner, Lerner, & Bowers, 2011). The bifactor model relaxes the assumption that

the relationships among lower-order factors and the relationships between these factors and

important criterion measures can be fully explained by a single construct. The bifactor model

also alleviates the assumption that indicators are only related to PYD because they indicate the

Five Cs. The bifactor model instead allows individual indicators to separately load onto their

respective lower-order constructs and the more general higher-order construct (see Figure 2).

The higher-order construct is modeled to be orthogonal to the lower-order constructs, such that

the lower-order constructs represent residual constructs after controlling for the higher-order

construct (e.g., competence that is not directly related to PYD). These lower-order constructs can

then be allowed to correlate with each other and with important criterion measures.

We compared the above PYD-SF five-factor model to a bifactor model, where the dual

loading and residual covariance specified in the five-factor CFA were included in the bifactor

model. Results indicated that the bifactor model fit the data very well (χ2(2563) = 4500.22, p <

.001, RMSEA = .02 (.02, .02); CFI = .96, TLI = .95) and suggested that the five-factor CFA fit

the data significantly worse than the bifactor model (Δ χ2(84) = 1094.77, p < .001), even after

adjusting for model parsimony (Δ BIC = 440.12; Δ aBIC = 707.00). Further, we established

longitudinal weak and strong factorial invariance for this model using the criterion suggested by

Cheung & Rensvold (2002; i.e., Δ CFI < .01 for each level of invariance). Details of the

invariance tests are presented in Table 18. Results from the strong invariance CFA are presented

in the following tables: Tables 19 and 20 present raw-metric and standardized factor loadings,

respectively, Table 21 presents raw-metric item intercepts, Tables 22 and 23 present latent

correlations among the PYD constructs and between the PYD constructs and the outcomes,

respectively, and Table 24 presents latent means and variances for the PYD constructs.
 24

A second set of models established the factor structure of the PYD-SF in Grades 7 and 8

of the 4-H study. As above, a bifactor model displayed good model fit (χ2(2366) = 4622.25, p <

.001, RMSEA = .02 (.02, .02); CFI = .95, TLI = .94) and fit the data significantly better than a

CFA without the PYD factor (Δ χ2(84) = 1210.09, p < .001) even after adjusting for model

parsimony (Δ BIC = 576.83; Δ aBIC = 834.19). Weak and strong factorial invariance were

established across time, and because participants completed the early-adolescent PYD-SF in

Grade 7 but the middle/late PYD-SF in Grade 8, these results indicate that the latent PYD

constructs are directly comparable across the two forms. As above, details of the invariance tests

are presented in Table 18. Results from the strong invariance CFA are presented in the following

tables: Tables 19 and 20 present raw-metric and standardized factor loadings, respectively, Table

21 presents raw-metric item intercepts, Tables 22 and 23 present latent correlations among the

PYD constructs and between the PYD constructs and the outcomes, respectively, and Table 24

presents latent means and variances for the PYD constructs.

A final set of PYD-SF CFA models then established the factor structure of the PYD-SF in

Grades 9 and 12 of the 4-H study and tested the structure’s factorial invariance across these

waves. The bifactor model again displayed good model fit (χ2(2366) = 4178.43, p < .001,

RMSEA = .02 (.02, .02); CFI = .93, TLI = .92) and fit the data significantly better than a CFA

without the PYD factor (Δ χ2(81) = 732.33, p < .001) even after adjusting for model parsimony

(Δ BIC = 126.34; Δ aBIC = 383.66). Weak and strong factorial invariance were established

across time, and details of the invariance tests are presented in Table 18. Results from the strong

invariance CFA are presented in the same tables as the prior CFA models: Tables 19 and 20

present raw-metric and standardized factor loadings, respectively, Table 21 presents raw-metric

item intercepts, Tables 22 and 23 present latent correlations among the PYD constructs and
 25

between the PYD constructs and the outcomes, respectively, and Table 24 presents latent means

and variances for the PYD constructs.

Analyzing the standardized factor loadings (Table 20) clearly shows that some items most

strongly represent domain-general PYD, others most strongly represent the residual C factors,

and still others load onto both constructs. PYD is indicated by items from all Five Cs although

the social competence, physical competence, and physical appearance do not attribute a

meaningful amount of variance to the PYD construct, for instance. Similarly, the residual Five C

constructs are indicated by nearly all of their respective indicators, but items from the conduct

behavior subscale do not meaningfully load onto the residual character construct. These

differences are discussed as they pertain to scale implementation in the discussion section below.

Creation of the PYD-VSF

We next selected one item per subscale to be retained in the PYD-VSF, using

standardized factor loadings from the PYD-SF CFA models (Table 20) as a guide. We omitted a

priori all items that displayed a dual loading or unexpected residual covariance with another

item. Because most items loaded more strongly onto the individual C constructs than on PYD,

items with stronger loadings onto PYD were preferred to items with weaker PYD loadings. As

before, the caring items were an exception in that caring was not comprised of any subscales.

Instead, we selected three caring items, one that displayed a stronger loading onto the general

PYD construct, one that displayed a stronger loading onto the residual caring construct, and one

that loaded strongly onto both constructs. All items retained in the PYD-VSF are presented in

Appendix A.

The PYD-VSF was examined in a series of bifactor CFA models that matched those used

for the PYD-SF, with the exception that factorial invariance was not tested in these models.
 26

Latent correlations for these PYD-VSF models were then fixed to equal the value of the same

parameters in their respective PYD-SF CFA models to ensure that both forms captured similar

latent constructs. Likelihood ratio tests for these models indicated invariance of the latent

correlations across forms (Grades 6 and 7: Δ χ2(133) = 120.97, p > .001; Grades 7 and 8: Δ

χ2(133) = 99.47, p > .001; Grades 9 and 12: Δ χ2(133) = 54.88, p > .001).

Validation of the PYD-VSF

The PYD-VSF was then validated in a series of longitudinal CFAs that, when taken as a

whole, included all eight waves of the 4-H dataset. Four set of models were run, examining

Grades 5 through 7, Grades 7 through 9, Grades 9 and 10, and Grades 10 through 12,

respectively. Unlike the PYD-SF models that separately established factorial invariance within

each model, the PYD-VSF models established factorial invariance across all waves of data. We

established longitudinal invariance for the first model (Grades 5 through 7) using standard

procedures, then established invariance for the three later models by fixing parameters in these

models to equal their counterparts in the model that examined Grades 5 through 7. Taking the

extra step of establishing invariance across all waves placed all latent means and variances in a

comparable metric and allowed us to then explore developmental trends in the latent parameters

across adolescence, despite the fact that different waves were examined in different models.

All initial CFAs for the PYD-VSF displayed acceptable model fit, and partial factorial

invariance was established across all waves of data (see Table 25). The finding of partial

invariance indicates that some factor loadings and intercepts changed over time and can be

interpreted to mean the item-construct relationships and the expected score of some items when

their respective latent construct was zero changed over time. To clarify these changes, Tables 26

and 27 present raw-metric and standardized factor loadings, respectively, from the strong
 27

invariance models and Table 28 presents raw-metric item intercepts from the same models. As

these tables show, a majority of the changes occur in Grade 9, suggesting that the qualitative

meaning of the latent constructs slightly changes as adolescents enter high school. Fewer than

half of the factor loadings or intercepts changed within any given wave, however, meaning that it

is still reasonable to compare latent parameters between any two concurrent waves.

Standardized factor loadings from the PYD-VSF CFA models also generally replicate the

factor structure of the PYD-SF. As above, PYD is indicated by items from all Five Cs, but is

weakly indicated by social competence, physical competence, and physical appearance. The

residual Five C constructs are also indicated by nearly all of their respective indicators, although

the conduct behavior item again did not meaningfully load onto the residual character construct.

In addition, the connection to peers item loaded weakly onto the residual peers construct,

suggesting that the residual connection construct emphasized connection to ecological resources

(family, neighborhood, and school).

Latent correlations for the PYD-VSF strong invariance model are presented in Tables 29

and 30, while latent means and variances are presented in Table 31. Because partial invariance

was established across all waves, latent means/variances can be directly compared across time

and these parameter estimates can be used to approximate developmental trajectories for each

construct across adolescence. The only exception is character, which seemed to qualitatively

change during high school (i.e., three out of four factor loadings and three out of four intercepts

were not invariant across the middle waves of data collection). The development of the character

construct must therefore be qualified by the fact that the values diversity subscale became more

important for character, while the conduct behavior (which only weakly indicated character) and

personal values subscales became less important for character over time.
 28

Discussion

This study used a series of EFA and bifactor CFA models to create short (PYD-SF) and

very short (PYD-VSF) versions of the PYD scale used in the 4-H Study of Positive Youth

Development. We created separate forms for early versus middle/late adolescents and ensured

that items displayed sufficient conceptual overlap across forms to support tests of factorial

invariance. Despite the parsimony of a shortened PYD scale and the psychometric benefits of

having strong conceptual overlap across forms, our scale’s bifactor factor structure is not as

straightforward as the structure of many research instruments. The following sections briefly

discuss how the PYD short versions can be most optimally analyzed.

Using the PYD-SF and PYD-VSF

Bifactor CFA. Our scale is best analyzed using the bifactor technique described above.

As with the results presented in this manuscript, researchers analyzing PYD with a bifactor

model should expect lower factor loadings than those generally found when utilizing CFA and

SEM because each loading only represents part of an item’s true score variance. An item’s C-

specific and the PYD factor loadings should be considered together when interpreting the quality

(i.e., reliability) of an individual item. While CFA or SEM is generally preferred, CFA is not the

optimal statistical method to answer every research question. In the following sections we

therefore consider how scale composites might be used to test substantive hypotheses using the

PYD-SF and PYD-VSF outside the framework of CFA/SEM.

PYD scale score. Not all items included in the PYD short versions adequately represent

PYD as a construct and should not be included when researchers compute an overall PYD

composite score. In particular, items from the physical competence, social competence, and

physical appearance subscales should be omitted from a PYD composite. Researchers computing
 29

an overall PYD scale score should also consider the fact that reliability estimates such as

Cronbach’s α represent the total amount of true score variance relative to a scale score’s total

variance, and therefore do not differentiate between true score variance at the level of PYD and

true score variance at the level of the Five Cs. Reliability estimates of a PYD scale score should

therefore be treated as potentially overestimating the PYD construct’s true reliability.

Scale scores for individual Cs. When the overlap between individual Cs and PYD is not

a problem, researchers can simply aggregate all items that theoretically represent each C,

regardless of whether the items loaded onto their respective C constructs in our models.

Including items that did not strongly represent the residual C constructs is justified by the fact

that those items simply represent the component of each C that is also related to PYD. The

resulting scale scores can then be analyzed individually or in the presence of a PYD composite

score. Including PYD as a covariate will produce results similar to those obtained with a bifactor

model, provided the Cs and PYD are not collinear. When collinearity arises, however,

researchers will have to implement one of several techniques for eliminating collinearity such as

Lance’s (1988) residual centering method or by omitting items from the individual C scales if

those items show especially low loadings onto their residual C factors (e.g., < .20) in Tables 20

and 27. As with PYD, researchers should also consider the reliability of individual C composites

as potentially inflated.

Limitations and future directions

While we made every effort to ensure the psychometric quality of the PYD-SF and PYD-

VSF, its administration is not without drawbacks. The scales’ primary limitation stems from the

fact that items were drawn from multiple sources and accordingly are scored using different

metrics. Future research is therefore needed to determine whether it would be appropriate to

 30

administer all items using a similar format (e.g., all items given on a 5-point Likert scale) or if

the differential scoring formats are integral to the structure of our scales.

Final Remarks

As developmental scientists cease to perceive adolescence a period of turmoil and adopt

the PYD perspective, psychometrically sound measurement tools will be needed to assess

adolescents’ positive attributes. The PYD-SF and PYD-VSF provide such measurement

instruments. Use of these measures can be easily implemented by researchers and practitioners

alike. Accordingly, these scales stand to make important contributions to science and practice in

the field of youth development.

 31

References

Benson, P. L., Leffert, N., Scales, P. C., & Blyth, D. A. (1998). Beyond the “village” rhetoric:

Creating healthy communities for children and adolescents. Applied Developmental

Science, 2(3), 138-159.

Benson, P. L., Mannes, M., Pittman, K., & Ferber, T. (2004). Youth development,

developmental assets, and public policy. In R. M. Lerner, L. Steinberg, R. M. Lerner, L.

Steinberg (Eds.) , Handbook of adolescent psychology (2nd ed.) (pp. 781-814). Hoboken,

NJ US: John Wiley & Sons Inc.

Bowers, E. P., Li, Y., Kiely, M. K., Brittian, A., Lerner, J. V., & Lerner, R. M. (2010). The Five

Cs model of positive youth development: A longitudinal analysis of confirmatory factor

structure and measurement invariance. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 39, 720-735.

Cattell, R. B. (1961). Theory of situational, instrumental, second order, and refraction factors in

personality structure research, Psychological Bulletin, 58, 160-174.

Davis, M. (1980). A multidimensional approach to individual differences in empathy. Catalog of

Selected Documents in Psychology, 10(4), 1-17.

Dukakis, K., London, R. A., McLaughlin, M., & Williamson, D. (2009). Positive youth

development: Individual, setting and system level indicators. (Issue brief: Positive youth

development indicators). Stanford, CA: John W. Gardner Center for Youth and Their

Communities.

Eccles, J., & Gootman, J. (Eds). (2002). Community programs to promote youth development.

Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.

Eisenberg, N., Fabes, R. A., Murphy, B. C., Karbon, M., Smith, M., & Maszk, P. (1996). The

relations of children’s dispositional empathy-related responding to their emotionality,

 32

regulation, and social functioning. Developmental Psychology, 32, 195-209.

Erikson, E.H. (1968). Identity: youth and crisis. Oxford, England: Norton & Co.

Freud, A. (1969). Adolescence as a developmental disturbance. In G. Caplan & S. Lebovici

(Eds.), Adolescence (pp. 5-10). New York: Basic Books.

Hall, G. S. (1904). Adolescence: Its psychology and its relations to physiology, anthropology,

sociology, sex, crime, religion, and education (Vols. 1 & 2). New York: Appleton.

Harter, S. (1983). Supplementary description of the Self-Perception Profile for Children:

Revision of the Perceived Competence Scale for Children. Unpublished manuscript,

University of Denver.

Harter, S. (1986). Manual for the Self-Perception Profile for Adolescents. Denver, CO:

University of Denver.

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

Denver.

Heck, K. E., & Subramaniam, A., (2009). Youth development Frameworks. [Monograph]. Davis,

CA: 4-H Center for Youth Development, University of California.

Jeličić, H., Bobek, D., Phelps, E., D., Lerner, J. V., Lerner, R. M. (2007). Using positive youth

development to predict contribution and risk behaviors in early adolescence: Findings

from the first two waves of the 4-H Study of Positive Youth Development. International

Journal of Behavioral Development, 31(3), 263-273.

King, P. E., Dowling, E. M., Mueller, R. A., White, K., Schultz, W., Osborn, P., Dickerson, E.,

Bobek, D. L., Lerner, R. M., Benson, P. L., & Scales, P. C. (2005). Thriving in

Adolescence: The voices of youth-serving practitioners, parents, and early and late

adolescents. Journal of Early Adolescence, 25(1), 94-112.

Kline, R. B. (2005). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (2nd ed.). New York:
 33

Guilford Press.Lance, C. E. (1988). Residual centering, exploratory and confirmatory

moderator analysis, and decomposition of effects in path models containing interactions.

Applied Psychological Measurement, 12, 163-175.

Leffert, N., Benson, P. L., Scales, P. C., Sharma, A. R., Drake, D. R., & Blyth, D. A. (1998).

Developmental assets: Measurement and prediction of risk behaviors among adolescents.

Applied Developmental Science, 2(4), 209-230.

Lerner, J. V., Bowers, E. P., Minor, K., Boyd, M. J., Mueller, M. K., Schmid, K. L., Napolitano,

C. M., Lewin-Bizan, S., & Lerner, R. M. (In press). Positive youth development:

Processes, philosophies, and programs. In R. M. Lerner, M. A., Easterbrooks, & J. Mistry

(Eds.), Handbook of Psychology, Volume 6: Developmental Psychology (2nd edition).

Editor-in-chief: I. B. Weiner. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

Lerner, J. V., Phelps, E., Forman, Y., & Bowers, E. P. (2009). Positive youth development. In R.

M. Lerner, L. Steinberg, R. M. Lerner, L. Steinberg (Eds.), Handbook of adolescent

psychology, Vol 1: Individual bases of adolescent development (3rd ed.) (pp. 524-558).

Hoboken, NJ US: John Wiley & Sons Inc.

Lerner, R. M. (2004). Liberty: Thriving and civic engagement among American youth. Thousand

Oaks, CA: Sage.

Lerner, R. M., Lerner, J. V., Almerigi, J., Theokas, C., Phelps, E., Gestsdottir, S. Naudeau, S.,

Jeličić, H., Alberts, A. E., Ma, L., Smith, L. M., Bobek, D. L., Richman-Raphael, D.,

Simpson, I., Christiansen, E. D., & von Eye, A. (2005). Positive youth development,

participation in community youth development programs, and community contributions

of fifth grade adolescents: Findings from the first wave of the 4-H Study of Positive

Youth Development. Journal of Early Adolescence, 25(1), 17-71.

 34

Lerner, R. M., Lerner, J. V., Lewin-Bizan, S., Bowers, E. P., Boyd, M., Mueller, M., Schmid, K.,

Napolitano, C. (2011). Positive youth development: Processes, programs, and

problematics. Journal of Youth Development, 6(3), 40-64.

Lewin-Bizan, S., Lynch, A. D., Fay, K., Schmid, K., McPherran, C., Lerner, J. V., & Lerner, R. M.

(2010). Trajectories of positive and negative behaviors from early- to middle-adolescence.

Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 39(7), 751-763.

Monitoring the Future (2000). National survey on drug use, 1975-2000. Bethesda, MD: National

Institute on Drug Abuse.

Moore, K. A., Lippman, L., & Brown, B. (2004). Indicators of child well-being: The promise for

Positive Youth Development. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social

Science. Special Issue: Positive Development: Realizing the Potential of Youth, 591, 125-

145.

Phelps, E., Balsano, A., Fay, K., Peltz, J., Zimmerman, S., Lerner, R., M., & Lerner, J. V.

(2007). Nuances in early adolescent development trajectories of positive and of

problematic/risk behaviors: Findings from the 4-H Study of Positive Youth Development.

Child and Adolescent Clinics of North America, 16(2), 473–496.

Phelps, E., Zimmerman, S., Warren, A. E. A., Jeličič, H., von Eye, A., & Lerner, R. M. (2009).

The structure and developmental course of Positive Youth Development (PYD) in early

adolescence: Implications for theory and practice. Journal of Applied Developmental

Psychology, 30(5), 571-584.

Pittman, K., Irby, M., & Ferber, T. (2001). Unfinished business: Further reflections on a decade

of promoting youth development. In P. L. Benson & K. J. Pittman (Eds.), Trends in youth

development: Visions, realities and challenges (pp. 4-50). Norwell, MA: Kluwer.
 35

Radloff, L. S. (1977). The CES-D scale: A self-report depression scale for research in the general

population. Applied Psychological Measurement, 1(3), 385-401.

Radloff, L.S. (1991). The use of the Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale in

adolescents and young adults. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 20(2), 149-166.

Roth, J. L., & Brooks-Gunn, J. (2003a). What is a youth development program? Identification

and defining principles. In. F. Jacobs, D. Wertlieb, & R. M. Lerner (Eds.), Enhancing the

life chances of youth and families: Public service systems and public policy perspectives:

Vol. 2 Handbook of applied developmental science: Promoting positive child, adolescent,

and family development through research, policies, and programs (pp. 197-223).

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Roth, J. L., & Brooks-Gunn, J. (2003b). What exactly is a youth development program? Answers

from research and practice. Applied Developmental Science, 7, 94-111.

Schmitt, N., & Kuljanin, G. (2008). Measurement invariance: Review of practice and

implications. Human Resource Management Review, 18, 210-222.

Small, S. A., & Rodgers, K. B. (1995). Teen Assessment Project (TAP) Survey Question Bank.

Madison: University of Wisconsin-Madison.

von Eye, A., Martel, M. M., Lerner, R. M., Lerner, J. V., Bowers, E. P. (2011). Integrating

theory and method in the study of Positive Youth Development: The sample case of

gender-specificity and longitudinal stability of the dimensions of intention self-regulation

(Selection, Optimization, and Compensation). In R. M. Lerner, J. V. Lerner, & J. B.

Benson (Eds.). Advances in Child Behavior and Development: Positive Youth

Development: Research and Applications for Promoting Thriving in Adolescence (pp.

352-403). Amsterdam: Elsevier.

 36

Widaman, K. F., & Thompson, J. S. (2003). On specifying the null model for incremental fit

indices in structural equation modeling. Psychological Methods, 8, 16-37.

 37

Table 1
Definitions of the Five Cs of Positive Youth Development

C Definition

Competence Positive view of one’s actions in domain specific areas including social,

academic, cognitive, and vocational. Social competence pertains to interpersonal

skills (e.g., conflict resolution). Cognitive competence pertains to cognitive

abilities (e.g., decision making). School grades, attendance, and test scores are

part of academic competence. Vocational competence involves work habits and

career choice explorations, including entrepreneurship.

Confidence An internal sense of overall positive self-worth and self-efficacy; one’s global

self-regard, as opposed to domain specific beliefs.

Connection Positive bonds with people and institutions that are reflected in bidirectional

exchanges between the individual and peers, family, school, and community in

which both parties contribute to the relationship.

Character Respect for societal and cultural rules, possession of standards for correct

behaviors, a sense of right and wrong (morality), and integrity.

Caring A sense of sympathy and empathy for others.

Note. Derived from Lerner et al. (2005) and Roth & Brooks-Gunn (2003a).
 38

Table 2
Number of participants in each Wave, and number of participants overlapping by grade

Grade 5 1594

Grade 6 821 1432

Grade 7 665 974 1549

Grade 8 409 689 820 1266

Grade 9 275 401 508 455 972

Grade 10 175 297 383 189 373 1472

Grade 11 172 202 220 1077 162 329 890

Grade 12 131 170 202 172 158 277 267 630

Grade 5 Grade 6 Grade 7 Grade 8 Grade 9 Grade 10 Grade 11 Grade 12

 39

Table 3
Participant demographics in the 4-H Study of PYD, by Grade
Grade 5 Grade 6 Grade 7 Grade 8 Grade 9 Grade 10 Grade 11 Grade 12
Age M(SD) 10.94 12.01 13.00 14.02 14.98 15.82 16.83 17.71
(0.42) (0.43) (0.47) (0.53) (0.57) (0.70) (0.76) (0.76)
Mother’s Education (%)
High School or Less 20.8 18.2 13.2 6.4 2.8 1.2 1.0 1.6
Some College 24.8 22.1 19.4 9.9 9.1 4.2 4.3 1.4
BA or Higher 18.6 17.8 18.2 10.3 8.5 6.8 4.4 3.2
% Missing 35.8 42.0 49.3 73.4 79.6 87.8 90.3 93.8
Mean Per Capita Income 13656.86 13635.81 16553.42 19137.40 19981.29 24331.31 24981.29 23401.44
(SD) (8348.46) (8621.05) (10631.93) (13216.27) (12938.41) (18664.92) (17316.31) (13798.49)
 40

Table 4
Participant demographics aggregated across all grades
Characteristic Percentage

Female 60
Race/Ethnicity
White 65.8
Black 7.4
Latino 9.4
Other 14.4
Missing 3.1
Locale
Rural 35.7
Urban 16.3
Suburban 25.7
Missing 22.2
 41

Table 5
Percent missing data for each construct, by Grade
Grade 5 Grade 6 Grade 7 Grade 8 Grade 9 Grade 10 Grade 11 Grade 12

Contribution 39.52 21.65 6.91 5.69 10.25 5.71 10.65 5.24

CES-D 14.99 8.38 6.65 4.50 8.63 5.16 9.66 6.83

Risk Behavior 7.40 3.49 14.53 4.50 18.23 9.58 9.21 6.35

PYD Items

Minimum 8.85 3.84 0.52 0.87 6.04 0.95 6.29 0.95

Maximum 55.27 24.65 18.72 11.45 42.29 11.24 10.45 9.21

Ave. % Missing 22.90 9.77 10.36 5.72 20.51 4.13 7.75 3.55
 42

Table 6
Skew and Kurtosis for Grade 6 and 11 items

Variable Skew Kurtosis Variable Skew Kurtosis Variable Skew Kurtosis

W2yhart1 -0.840 0.064 W2abme23 -0.726 -0.224 W2yneigh2 -0.505 -0.293
W2yhart7 -0.733 -0.466 W2abme24 -0.888 0.127 W2yneigh3 -0.408 -0.283
W2yhart13 -0.441 -0.736 W2abme25 -0.922 0.088 W2yneigh4 -0.305 -0.498
W2yhart19 -0.128 -0.887 W2abme19 -0.425 -0.621 W2yneigh6 -0.284 -0.313
W2yhart25 -0.979 0.464 W2abme39 -0.894 0.002 W2yclas04 -0.740 0.295
W2yhart31 -0.320 -0.843 W2abme40 -0.512 -0.364 W2yclas05 -0.748 0.159
W2yhart2 -0.803 -0.394 W2abme41 -0.728 -0.182 W2yclas06 -0.542 -0.016
W2yhart8 -1.137 0.398 W2yhart5 -0.598 -0.581 W2yclas07 -1.580 2.581
W2yhart14 -0.582 -0.425 W2yhart11 -0.924 0.336 W2yclas10 -1.051 0.682
W2yhart20 -0.525 -0.521 W2yhart17 -0.789 0.000 W2abme14 -1.065 0.675
W2yhart26 -0.268 -1.038 W2yhart23 -0.465 -0.787 w2yschen1 0.259 -0.640
W2yhart32 -0.462 -0.591 W2yhart29 -0.535 -0.658 w2ypeer5 -1.226 1.387
W2yhart3 -0.699 -0.535 W2yhart35 -0.903 0.258 w2ypeer6 -1.664 2.408
W2yhart9 -0.241 -1.276 W2abme26 -0.848 0.100 w2ypeer7 -1.424 1.612
W2yhart15 -0.463 -0.496 W2abme27 -0.845 0.119 w2ypeer8 -1.417 1.387
W2yhart21 -0.241 -0.618 W2abme28 -0.847 0.038 w7harttn01 -0.803 -0.446
W2yhart27 -0.594 -0.749 W2abme29 -0.865 0.130 w7harttn10 -0.373 -0.939
W2yhart33 -0.359 -0.652 W2abme30 -0.861 0.139 w7harttn37 -0.866 0.396
W2yhart6 -0.362 -0.838 W2ycare1 -0.768 -0.737 w7harttn19 -1.093 0.770
W2yhart12 -0.709 -0.473 W2ycare2 -0.787 -0.371 w7harttn02 -0.797 -0.471
W2yhart18 -0.933 0.788 W2ycare3 -0.929 -0.164 w7harttn11 -0.917 -0.016
W2yhart24 -0.914 0.100 W2ycare4 -0.472 -0.707 w7harttn20 -0.800 0.229
W2yhart30 -0.730 -0.324 W2ycare5 -0.939 -0.428 w7harttn38 -0.898 0.496
W2yhart36 -0.565 -0.579 W2ycare6 -0.712 -0.539 w7harttn29 -0.486 -0.359
W2yabme8 -1.227 1.475 W2ycare7 -0.857 -0.135 w7harttn03 -0.078 -1.226
W2yabme9 -0.276 -0.991 W2ycare8 -0.837 -0.237 w7harttn12 -0.078 -1.068
W2abme10 -1.376 1.901 W2ycare9 -0.852 -0.175 w7harttn21 0.012 -0.953
W2abme11 -0.816 -0.361 W2ysymp1 -1.311 0.425 w7harttn30 -0.262 -0.700
W2abme12 -0.691 -0.613 W2ysymp2 -1.086 0.033 w7harttn39 -0.041 -1.103
W2abme13 -1.014 0.749 W2ysymp3 -1.138 0.081 w7harttn09 -0.448 -0.680
W2yhart4 -0.709 -0.299 W2ysymp4 -1.094 0.004 w7harttn18 -0.944 0.195
W2yhart16 -0.152 -1.130 W2ysymp5 -1.250 0.357 w7harttn27 -0.945 0.561
W2yhart22 -0.105 -1.027 W2yfam1 -1.542 2.542 w7harttn36 -1.002 0.685
W2yhart34 -0.320 -0.425 W2yfam2 -1.781 3.350 w7harttn45 -0.924 0.342
W2yhart10 -0.429 -0.968 W2yfam3 -2.155 5.113 w7yabme04 -1.144 2.023
W2hart28 -0.082 -1.104 W2yfam4 -1.252 1.054 w7yabme05 -0.228 -1.089
W2abme20 -0.759 -0.193 W2yfam5 -1.428 1.726 w7yabme06 -1.472 3.042
W2abme21 -0.733 -0.235 W2ypardrg -0.908 -0.380 w7yabme07 -1.065 0.339
W2abme22 -0.586 -0.236 W2yneigh1 -0.191 -0.555 w7yabme08 -0.731 -0.707
 43

Variable Skew Kurtosis Variable Skew Kurtosis

w7yabme09 -0.792 0.724 w7yneigh5 -0.562 -0.178
w7yharttn04 -0.432 -0.576 w7yclas02 -1.025 1.236
w7yharttn13 -0.072 -0.995 w7yclas03 -0.979 0.918
w7yharttn22 -0.062 -0.918 w7yclas04 -0.807 0.633
w7yharttn31 -0.450 -0.201 w7yclas05 -0.933 0.503
w7yharttn40 -0.360 -0.418 w7yclas07 -0.984 0.833
w7yabme16 -1.375 1.994 w7yabme10 -1.195 1.024
w7yabme17 -1.095 0.911 w7yschen1 0.059 -0.651
w7yabme18 -0.941 0.085 w7ypeer1 -1.130 1.809
w7yabme19 -0.885 0.169 w7ypeer2 -1.192 1.633
w7yabme20 -1.265 1.673 w7ypeer3 -1.108 1.148
w7yabme21 -1.135 0.972 w7ypeer4 -1.108 1.099
w7yabme15 -0.437 -0.637 w7yclas01 -1.487 1.987
w7yabme33 -1.081 0.764
w7yabme34 -0.095 0.640
w7yabme35 -0.574 -0.321
w7yharttn25 -0.828 0.630
w7yharttn07 -1.085 0.643
w7yharttn43 -0.859 0.563
w7yharttn16 -0.583 -0.536
w7yharttn34 -0.296 -0.900
w7yabme22 -1.573 3.250
w7yabme23 -1.443 2.417
w7yabme24 -1.109 1.204
w7yabme25 -1.301 1.794
w7yabme26 -1.355 1.899
w7ycare1 -1.491 1.409
w7ycare2 -1.192 1.397
w7ycare3 -1.542 2.377
w7ycare4 -0.411 -0.277
w7ycare5 -1.807 2.534
w7ycare6 -0.469 -0.588
w7ycare7 -1.155 1.074
w7ycare8 -1.165 0.862
w7ycare9 -1.095 0.795
w7yfam1 -1.372 1.657
w7yfam2 -1.530 2.235
w7yfam3 -1.379 1.218
w7yfam4 -1.168 0.808
w7yfam5 -1.176 0.807
w7ypardrg -0.691 -0.778
w7yneigh1 -0.248 -0.619
w7yneigh2 -0.556 -0.132
w7yneigh3 -0.498 -0.217
w7yneigh4 -0.435 -0.319
 44

Table 7
Model fit for 10 EFA Models
# Factors χ2 df RMSEA (90% C.I.) CFI TLI
Grade 6
Competence 4 291.435 101 .037 (.032, .042) 0.969 0.948
Confidence 4 346.061 87 .046 (.041, .051) 0.964 0.936
Character 3 1241.865 150 .073 (.069, .076) 0.923 0.893
Caring 2 505.544 64 .072 (.066, .077) 0.951 0.930
Connection 4 384.551 132 .037 (.032, .041) 0.980 0.968
Grade 11
Competence 3 361.401 63 .065 (.059, .072) 0.947 0.912
Confidence 4 286.324 62 .066 (.058, .074) 0.966 0.934
Character 5 610.637 100 .050 (.044, .056) 0.976 0.954
Caring 2 91.595 19 .068 (.054, .082) 0.973 0.950
Connection 4 471.124 149 .049 (.044, .055) 0.975 0.961
 45

Table 8.
Factor Structure and Latent Correlations for Grade 6 Competence EFA Model*
1 2 3 4
Academic Social Reverse-Coded Physical
Academic Competence
HART01 0.67
HART07 0.62
HART13 0.42 0.37
HART19 0.47 0.36
HART25 0.63
HART31 0.52 0.43
CLAS01 0.64
Social Competence
HART02 0.53 0.40
HART08 0.67
HART14 0.31 0.49
HART20 0.49
HART26 0.47 0.51
HART32 0.55
Physical Competence
HART03 0.73
HART09 0.45 0.44
HART15 0.43
HART21 0.63
HART27 0.51 0.39
HART33 0.58 0.45
*Factor loadings less than 0.3 are not included in the table

Correlations among Latent Factors for Grade 6 Competence EFA Model

1 2 3 4
1 1.00
2 0.29*** 1.00
3 0.16*** 0.01 1.00
*** ***
4 0.23 0.48 -0.02 1.00
**
p < .01 *** p < .001
 46

Table 9.
Factor Structure and Latent Correlations for Grade 6 Confidence EFA Model*

1 2 3 4
Reverse Self Positive Reverse
(About Me) Worth Identity (Harter)

Self-Worth
HART06 0.35 0.37
HART12 0.36 0.38
HART18 0.50
HART24 0.49
HART30 0.67
HART36 0.47
Positive Identity
ABME08 0.77
ABME09 0.68
ABME10 0.81
ABME11 0.78
ABME12 0.82
ABME13 0.62
Physical Appearance
HART04 0.55
HART16 0.63
HART22 0.63
HART34 0.50
HART10 0.49
HART28 0.49
*Factor loadings less than 0.3 are not included in the table

Correlations among Latent Factors for Grade 6 Confidence EFA Model

1 2 3 4
1 1.00
2 0.28*** 1.00
3 0.48*** 0.43*** 1.00
4 0.34*** 0.38*** 0.28*** 1.00
**
p < .01 *** p < .001
 47

Table 10
Factor Structure and Latent Correlations for Grade 6 Character EFA Model*
1 2 3
Social Conscience Values Diversity Conduct Behavior
Social Conscience
ABME20 0.76
ABME21 0.84
ABME22 0.84
ABME23 0.83
ABME24 0.86
ABME25 0.83
Values Diversity
ABME19 0.52
ABME39 0.62
ABME40 0.77
ABME41 0.86
Conduct Behavior
HART05 0.44
HART11 0.61
HART17 0.68
HART23 0.69
HART29 0.67
HART35 0.39
Personal Values
ABME26 0.75
ABME27 0.74
ABME28 0.71
ABME29 0.73
ABME30 0.75
*Factor loadings less than 0.3 are not included in the table

Correlations among Latent Factors for Grade 6 Character EFA Model

1 2 3
1 1.00
2 0.54*** 1.00
3 0.40*** 0.24*** 1.00
**
p < .01 *** p < .001
 48

Table 11
Factor Structure and Latent Correlations for Grade 6 Caring EFA Model*
1 2
Sympathy Caring
Sympathy
SYMP1 0.81
SYMP2 0.77
SYMP5 0.75
SYMP3 0.83
SYMP4 0.77
Caring
CARE1
CARE2 0.80
CARE3 0.82
CARE4 0.74
CARE5
CARE6 0.68
CARE7 0.86
CARE8 0.81
CARE9 0.87
*Factor loadings less than 0.3 are not included in the table

Correlations among Latent Factors for Grade 6 Caring EFA Model

1 2
1 1.00
2 0.45*** 1.00
**
p < .01 *** p < .001
 49

Table 12
Factor Structure and Latent Correlations for Grade 6 Connection EFA Model*
1 2 3 4
Family Neighborhood School Peers
Connection to Family
FAM1 0.76
FAM2 0.84
FAM4 0.79
FAM5 0.75
PARDRG 0.33
Connection to Neighborhood
NEIGH1 0.49
NEIGH2 0.71
NEIGH3 0.87
NEIGH4 0.81
NEIGH6 0.71
Connection to School
CLAS04 0.80
CLAS05 0.81
CLAS06 0.50
CLAS07 0.60
CLAS10 0.75
ABME14 0.42
SCHEN1
Connection to Peers
PEER5 0.80
PEER6 0.83
PEER7 0.85
PEER8 0.81
*Factor loadings less than 0.3 are not included in the table

Correlations among Latent Factors for Grade 6 Connection EFA Model

1 2 3 4
1 1.00
2 0.41*** 1.00
3 0.47*** 0.53*** 1.00
4 0.20*** 0.29*** 0.32*** 1.00
**
p < .01 *** p < .001
 50

Table 13
Factor Structure and Latent Correlations for Grade 11 Competence EFA Model*
1 2 3
Academic Social Physical
Academic Competence
HART01 0.61
HART10 0.56
HART37 0.70
HART19 0.78
CLAS01 0.66
Social Competence
HART02 0.73
HART11 0.80
HART20 0.59
HART38 0.68
HART29 0.71
Physical Competence
HART03 0.87
HART12 0.86
HART21 0.87
HART30 0.54
HART39 0.75
*Factor loadings less than 0.3 are not included in the table

Correlations among Latent Factors for Grade 11 Competence EFA Model

1 2 3
1 1.00
2 0.29*** 1.00
3 0.15*** 0.45*** 1.00
**
p < .01 *** p < .001
 51

Table 14
Factor Structure and Latent Correlations for Grade 11 Confidence EFA Model*
1 2 3 4
Self-Worth Positive Phys. Appear. Physical
Identity Reversed Appearance
Self-Worth
HART09 0.38 0.31
HART18 0.59 -0.31
HART27 0.70
HART36 0.82
HART45 0.87
Positive Identity
ABME04 0.37
ABME05 0.59
ABME06 0.41
ABME07 0.73
ABME08 0.77
ABME09 0.45
Physical Appearance
HART04 0.61
HART13 0.91
HART22 0.78
HART31 0.65
HART40 0.68
*Factor loadings less than 0.3 are not included in the table

Correlations among Latent Factors for Grade 11 Confidence EFA Model

1 2 3 4
1 1.00
2 0.71*** 1.00
3 0.64*** 0.50*** 1.00
4 0.56*** 0.30*** 0.49*** 1.00
**
p < .01 *** p < .001
 52

Table 15
Factor Structure and Latent Correlations for Grade 11 Character EFA Model*
1 2 3 4 5
Social Values Conduct Pers.Val Pers. Val.
Conscience Diversity Behavior (Standing Up) (Difficult)
Social Conscience
ABME16 0.74
ABME17 0.82
ABME18 0.87
ABME19 0.85
ABME20 0.66
ABME21
Values Diversity
ABME15 0.34 0.48
ABME33 0.59
ABME34 0.73
ABME35 0.89
Conduct Behavior
HART25 0.39
HART07 0.61
HART43 0.70
HART16 0.74
HART34 0.74
Personal Values
ABME22 0.90
ABME23 0.82
ABME24 0.69
ABME25 0.95
ABME26 0.42
*Factor loadings less than 0.3 are not included in the table

Correlations among Latent Factors for Grade 11 Character EFA Model

1 2 3 4 5
1 1.00
2 0.53*** 1.00
3 0.22*** 0.12** 1.00
4 0.53*** 0.34*** 0.33*** 1.00
5 0.47*** 0.32*** 0.39*** 0.62*** 1.00
**
p < .01 *** p < .001
 53

Table 16
Factor Structure and Latent Correlations for Grade 11 Caring EFA Model*
1 2
Caring Reverse-Code
Caring
CARE1 0.36
CARE2 0.58
CARE3 0.47
CARE4 0.50
CARE5 0.88
CARE6 0.51
CARE7 0.83
CARE8 0.84
CARE9 0.91
*Factor loadings less than 0.3 are not included in the table

Correlations among Latent Factors for Grade 11 Caring EFA Model

1 2
1 1.00
2 0.32*** 1.00
**
p < .01 *** p < .001
 54

Table 17
Factor Structure and Latent Correlations for Grade 11 Connection EFA Model*
1 2 3 4
Family Neighborhood School Peers
Connection to Family
FAM1 0.86
FAM2 0.90
FAM3 0.84
FAM4 0.88
FAM5 0.85
PARDRG 0.43
Connection to Neighborhood
NEIGH1 0.57
NEIGH2 0.71
NEIGH3 0.96
NEIGH4 0.92
NEIGH5 0.90
Connection to School
CLAS02 0.84
CLAS03 0.88
CLAS04 0.57
CLAS05 0.60
CLAS07 0.86
ABME10 0.35
SCHEN1
Connection to Peers
PEER1 0.87
PEER2 0.93
PEER3 0.89
PEER4 0.87
*Factor loadings less than 0.3 are not included in the table

Correlations among Latent Factors for Grade 11 Connection EFA Model

1 2 3 4
1 1.00
2 0.31*** 1.00
3 0.32*** 0.43*** 1.00
4 0.27*** 0.29*** 0.34*** 1.00
**
p < .01 *** p < .001
 55

Table 18
Fit for PYD-SF CFA Models

Grades 6 and 7 χ2 df RMSEA CFI TLI Δ χ2 df p Δ CFI

Bifactor 4500.22 2563 .02 (.02, .02) 0.96 0.95
Five Factor 5594.99 2647 .02 (.02, .02) 0.94 0.93 1094.78 84 < 0.001
Weak Invariance 4699.09 2631 .02 (.02, .02) 0.96 0.95 198.87 68 < 0.001 0.003
Strong Invariance 4929.79 2662 .02 (.02, .02) 0.95 0.94 230.70 31 < 0.001 0.004

Grades 7 and 8 χ2 df RMSEA CFI TLI Δ χ2 df p Δ CFI

Bifactor 4622.25 2366 .02 (.02, .02) 0.95 0.94
Five Factor 5832.34 2447 .02 (.02, .02) 0.92 0.91 1210.09 81 < 0.001
Weak Invariance 4758.04 2429 .02 (.02, .02) 0.94 0.94 135.79 63 < 0.001 0.002
Strong Invariance 4931.82 2457 .02 (.02, .02) 0.94 0.93 173.78 28 < 0.001 0.003

Grades 9 and 12 χ2 df RMSEA CFI TLI Δ χ2 df p Δ CFI

Bifactor 4178.43 2366 .02 (.02, .02) 0.93 0.92
Five Factor 4878.07 2447 .02 (.02, .02) 0.90 0.89 699.64 81 < 0.001
Weak Invariance 4273.88 2429 .02 (.02, .02) 0.93 0.92 95.45 63 0.005 0.001
Strong Invariance 4372.64 2457 .02 (.02, .02) 0.92 0.92 98.76 28 < 0.001 0.003
 56

Table 19
Raw Factor Loadings from the Strong Invariance PYD-SF Models*
Target PYD Target PYD Target PYD
Grade 6 7 6 7 7 8 7 8 9 12 9 12
Competence
HART07 0.37 0.37 0.30 0.30 0.31 0.31 0.31 0.31 0.34 0.34 0.22 0.22
HART25 0.35 0.35 0.33 0.33 0.26 0.26 0.36 0.36 0.21 0.21 0.33 0.33
HART08 0.47 0.47 0.04 0.04 0.44 0.44 0.10 0.10 0.51 0.51 0.08 0.08
HART32 0.54 0.54 -0.10 -0.10 0.53 0.53 0.01 0.01 0.58 0.58 -0.04 -0.04
HART15 0.42 0.42 0.03 0.03 0.49 0.49 0.04 0.04 0.58 0.58 -0.13 -0.13
HART21 0.48 0.48 -0.08 -0.08 0.46 0.46 0.00 0.00 0.51 0.51 -0.12 -0.12
HART17 0.27 0.27 0.19 0.19 0.21 0.21
Confidence
HART18 0.41 0.41 0.21 0.21 0.40 0.40 0.33 0.33 0.51 0.51 0.28 0.28
HART30 0.54 0.54 0.19 0.19 0.52 0.52 0.30 0.30 0.56 0.56 0.28 0.28
ABME10 0.42 0.42 0.28 0.28 0.34 0.34 0.40 0.40 0.45 0.45 0.34 0.34
ABME13 0.29 0.29 0.24 0.24 0.21 0.21 0.30 0.30 0.33 0.33 0.30 0.30
HART34 0.54 0.54 -0.12 -0.12 0.56 0.56 0.06 0.06 0.57 0.57 -0.01 -0.01
HART10 0.47 0.47 0.10 0.10 0.59 0.59 0.14 0.14 0.66 0.66 0.07 0.07
Character
ABME21 0.80 0.80 0.21 0.21 0.64 0.64 0.34 0.34 0.54 0.54 0.45 0.45
ABME22 0.81 0.81 0.20 0.20 0.72 0.72 0.32 0.32 0.59 0.59 0.46 0.46
ABME40 0.51 0.51 0.09 0.09 0.49 0.49 0.15 0.15 0.43 0.43 0.19 0.19
ABME41 0.53 0.53 0.14 0.14 0.47 0.47 0.20 0.20 0.44 0.44 0.30 0.30
HART17 0.05 0.05 0.40 0.40 0.05 0.05 0.40 0.40 -0.10 -0.10 0.49 0.49
HART29 0.07 0.07 0.51 0.51 0.04 0.04 0.50 0.50 -0.16 -0.16 0.72 0.72
ABME26 0.65 0.65 0.29 0.29 0.44 0.44 0.37 0.37 0.37 0.37 0.42 0.42
ABME29 0.64 0.64 0.31 0.31 0.43 0.43 0.38 0.38 0.35 0.35 0.44 0.44
Caring
Care2 0.81 0.81 0.22 0.22 0.63 0.63 0.36 0.36 0.56 0.56 0.43 0.43
Care4 0.81 0.81 0.23 0.23 0.64 0.64 0.36 0.36 0.52 0.52 0.44 0.44
Care6 0.85 0.85 0.15 0.15 0.69 0.69 0.26 0.26 0.65 0.65 0.34 0.34
Care7 0.97 0.97 0.22 0.22 0.85 0.85 0.37 0.37 0.83 0.83 0.40 0.40
Care8 0.98 0.98 0.22 0.22 0.91 0.91 0.35 0.35 0.86 0.86 0.41 0.41
Care9 0.98 0.98 0.20 0.20 0.89 0.89 0.36 0.36 0.87 0.87 0.41 0.41
Connection
FAM4 0.51 0.51 0.27 0.27 0.37 0.37 0.47 0.47 0.45 0.45 0.37 0.37
FAM5 0.49 0.49 0.29 0.29 0.33 0.33 0.47 0.47 0.46 0.46 0.41 0.41
NEIGH3 0.63 0.63 0.17 0.17 0.61 0.61 0.34 0.34 0.58 0.58 0.33 0.33
NEIGH4 0.62 0.62 0.15 0.15 0.63 0.63 0.30 0.30 0.61 0.61 0.31 0.31
CLAS05 0.48 0.48 0.26 0.26 0.39 0.39 0.45 0.45 0.44 0.44 0.41 0.41
CLAS10 0.45 0.45 0.26 0.26 0.34 0.34 0.43 0.43 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40
PEER6 0.25 0.25 0.23 0.23 0.22 0.22 0.36 0.36 0.27 0.27 0.34 0.34
PEER7 0.32 0.32 0.24 0.24 0.29 0.29 0.38 0.38 0.32 0.32 0.32 0.32
Sympathy
SYMP1 0.85 0.15
SYMP2 0.98 0.22
SYMP5 0.98 0.20

*Item labels represent the Early Adolescent item labels. See Appendix A for corresponding labels in the middle/late
adolescent forms
 57

Table 20
Standardized Factor Loadings from the Strong Invariance Model of the PYD-SF
Target PYD Target PYD Target PYD
Grade 6 7 6 7 7 8 7 8 9 12 9 12
Competence
HART07 0.41 0.41 0.33 0.36 0.35 0.36 0.35 0.36 0.36 0.37 0.23 0.21
HART25 0.42 0.43 0.40 0.44 0.32 0.32 0.45 0.46 0.27 0.30 0.42 0.40
HART08 0.54 0.54 0.04 0.05 0.51 0.55 0.12 0.13 0.60 0.59 0.09 0.08
HART32 0.59 0.59 -0.10 -0.11 0.58 0.62 0.01 0.01 0.67 0.70 -0.05 -0.04
HART15 0.49 0.48 0.03 0.04 0.54 0.52 0.05 0.05 0.55 0.57 -0.13 -0.11
HART21 0.54 0.54 -0.09 -0.09 0.53 0.52 0.00 0.00 0.50 0.53 -0.11 -0.10
HART17 0.33 0.32 0.23 0.24 0.22 0.28
Confidence
HART18 0.56 0.58 0.29 0.29 0.52 0.54 0.42 0.42 0.59 0.61 0.32 0.31
HART30 0.60 0.65 0.22 0.23 0.59 0.65 0.34 0.36 0.61 0.65 0.30 0.30
ABME10 0.47 0.49 0.32 0.33 0.37 0.44 0.44 0.49 0.51 0.50 0.38 0.34
ABME13 0.32 0.35 0.26 0.28 0.24 0.27 0.34 0.36 0.37 0.37 0.34 0.31
HART34 0.65 0.69 -0.14 -0.15 0.67 0.73 0.07 0.07 0.64 0.66 -0.01 -0.01
HART10 0.46 0.51 0.10 0.11 0.58 0.72 0.14 0.16 0.70 0.72 0.07 0.07
Character
ABME21 0.76 0.67 0.20 0.22 0.62 0.61 0.33 0.36 0.55 0.61 0.46 0.42
ABME22 0.76 0.67 0.19 0.21 0.68 0.66 0.31 0.34 0.58 0.59 0.46 0.40
ABME40 0.46 0.39 0.08 0.09 0.44 0.42 0.14 0.15 0.39 0.36 0.18 0.14
ABME41 0.50 0.43 0.13 0.14 0.45 0.45 0.19 0.21 0.42 0.42 0.29 0.24
HART17 0.06 0.05 0.49 0.51 0.06 0.05 0.48 0.49 -0.11 -0.14 0.53 0.56
HART29 0.07 0.06 0.55 0.58 0.04 0.04 0.53 0.52 -0.15 -0.17 0.65 0.63
ABME26 0.62 0.54 0.28 0.30 0.44 0.43 0.37 0.41 0.40 0.46 0.46 0.45
ABME29 0.64 0.55 0.31 0.33 0.45 0.42 0.40 0.42 0.36 0.42 0.46 0.46
Caring
CARE2 0.68 0.65 0.18 0.20 0.57 0.57 0.33 0.37 0.53 0.53 0.40 0.40
CARE4 0.68 0.62 0.19 0.21 0.55 0.54 0.31 0.34 0.46 0.43 0.38 0.35
CARE6 0.69 0.62 0.12 0.13 0.56 0.54 0.22 0.24 0.55 0.51 0.29 0.26
CARE7 0.83 0.79 0.19 0.21 0.75 0.76 0.33 0.37 0.77 0.77 0.37 0.37
CARE8 0.82 0.75 0.19 0.20 0.74 0.76 0.29 0.34 0.75 0.74 0.36 0.35
CARE9 0.85 0.81 0.18 0.20 0.79 0.79 0.32 0.36 0.79 0.79 0.37 0.36
Connection
FAM4 0.51 0.49 0.27 0.27 0.35 0.34 0.45 0.49 0.42 0.39 0.34 0.28
FAM5 0.54 0.48 0.32 0.30 0.32 0.31 0.46 0.49 0.43 0.40 0.38 0.31
NEIGH3 0.59 0.62 0.16 0.18 0.59 0.58 0.32 0.36 0.54 0.52 0.31 0.26
NEIGH4 0.55 0.61 0.14 0.16 0.60 0.57 0.28 0.30 0.57 0.55 0.29 0.25
CLAS05 0.49 0.49 0.27 0.28 0.39 0.38 0.45 0.49 0.43 0.44 0.41 0.37
CLAS10 0.43 0.44 0.25 0.27 0.33 0.33 0.41 0.46 0.39 0.40 0.39 0.35
PEER6 0.26 0.29 0.24 0.28 0.24 0.22 0.40 0.41 0.29 0.31 0.37 0.34
PEER7 0.32 0.35 0.24 0.27 0.30 0.28 0.39 0.42 0.35 0.36 0.35 0.32
Sympathy
SYMP1 0.67 0.23
SYMP2 0.76 0.34
SYMP5 0.76 0.31

*Item labels represent the Early Adolescent item labels. See Appendix A for corresponding labels in the middle/late
adolescent forms
 58

Table 21
Item Intercepts from the Strong Invariance PYD-SF Models
Grade 6 7 7 8 9 12
Competence
HART07 3.137 3.137 3.188 3.188 3.309 3.309
HART25 3.221 3.221 3.268 3.268 3.411 3.411
HART08 3.331 3.331 3.363 3.363 3.399 3.399
HART32 2.865 2.865 2.926 2.926 3.142 3.142
HART15 2.919 2.919 2.856 2.856 2.856 2.856
HART21 2.734 2.734 2.723 2.723 2.717 2.717

Confidence
HART18 3.319 3.319 3.287 3.287 3.338 3.338
HART30 3.120 3.120 3.163 3.163 3.297 3.297
ABME10 4.262 4.262 4.200 4.200 4.270 4.270
ABME13 4.120 4.120 4.071 4.071 4.158 4.158
HART34 2.793 2.793 2.772 2.772 2.925 2.925
HART10 2.865 2.865 2.807 2.807 2.956 2.956

Character
ABME21 3.949 3.949 4.017 4.017 3.943 3.943
ABME22 3.716 3.716 3.768 3.768 3.719 3.719
ABME40 3.508 3.508 3.399 3.399 3.312 3.312
ABME41 3.888 3.888 3.89 3.89 3.754 3.754
HART17 3.158 3.158 3.152 3.152 3.247 3.247
HART29 2.913 2.913 2.797 2.797 2.734 2.734
ABME26 3.990 3.990 4.125 4.125 4.200 4.200
ABME29 3.981 3.981 4.062 4.062 4.104 4.104

Caring
CARE2 3.872 3.872 3.944 3.944 3.969 3.969
CARE4 3.55 3.55 3.549 3.549 3.514 3.514
CARE6 3.747 3.747 3.671 3.671 3.483 3.483
CARE7 3.912 3.912 3.961 3.961 3.915 3.915
CARE8 3.901 3.901 3.971 3.971 3.916 3.916
CARE9 3.931 3.931 3.995 3.995 3.917 3.917

Connect
FAM4 4.174 4.174 3.977 3.977 3.953 3.953
FAM5 4.300 4.300 4.051 4.051 3.980 3.980
NEIGH3 3.569 3.569 3.295 3.295 3.164 3.164
NEIGH4 3.458 3.458 3.216 3.216 3.087 3.087
CLAS05 3.854 3.854 3.671 3.671 3.768 3.768
CLAS10 4.032 4.032 3.865 3.865 3.811 3.811
PEER6 4.362 4.362 4.225 4.225 4.136 4.136
PEER7 4.291 4.291 4.183 4.183 4.154 4.154

Sympathy
SYMP1 3.747
SYMP2 3.901
SYMP5 3.931
*Item labels represent the Early Adolescent item labels. See Appendix A for corresponding labels in the middle/late
adolescent forms
 59

Table 22
Stability and Latent Correlations among the 5 Cs - Strong Invariance PYD-SF Models
Grade 6 Grade 7 Grade 7 Grade 8 Grade 9 Grade 12
Competence with
Stability 0.67*** 0.70*** 0.69***
***
Confidence 0.84 0.83*** 0.80 ***
0.78*** 0.87 ***
0.80***
Character 0.22*** 0.21*** 0.13* 0.15* 0.30*** 0.23***
Caring 0.12** 0.11** 0.02 0.08 0.11 0.18**
Connection 0.53*** 0.51*** 0.43*** 0.43*** 0.62*** 0.60***

Confidence with
Stability 0.63*** 0.57*** 0.54***
***
Character 0.29 0.24*** 0.08 0.09 0.18 **
0.11
Caring 0.10* 0.08* -0.05 -0.03 -0.05 -0.01
Connection 0.60*** 0.57*** 0.40*** 0.38*** 0.47*** 0.60***

Character with
Stability 0.51*** 0.72*** 0.37**
***
Caring 0.51 0.63*** 0.59 ***
0.58*** 0.51 ***
0.52***
Connection 0.61*** 0.62*** 0.54*** 0.52*** 0.45*** 0.26**

Caring with
Stability 0.65*** 0.51*** 0.43***
***
Connection 0.31 0.47*** 0.39 ***
0.32*** 0.19 **
0.11

Connection with
Stability 0.83*** 0.86*** 0.76***

PYD with
Stability 0.72*** 0.78*** 0.71***

* p < .05 ** p < .01 *** p < .001

 60

Table 23
Latent Correlations Between PYD-SF and Key Outcomes - Strong Invariance Models

Grade 6 Grade 7 Grade 7 Grade 8 Grade 9 Grade 12

PYD with
Contribution 0.25*** 0.23*** 0.35*** 0.41*** 0.50*** 0.51***
Depression -0.40*** -0.37*** -0.47*** -0.53*** -0.39*** -0.32***
Risk -0.46*** -0.42*** -0.47*** -0.53*** -0.56*** -0.56***

Competence with
Contribution 0.36*** 0.33*** 0.26*** 0.27*** 0.25*** 0.30***
Depression -0.34*** -0.33*** -0.27*** -0.30*** -0.37*** -0.50***
Risk 0.02 -0.03 0.04 0.11* 0.06 0.02

Confidence with
Contribution 0.31*** 0.21*** 0.11* 0.09* 0.11* 0.14**
Depression -0.43*** -0.46*** -0.37*** -0.35*** -0.45*** -0.57***
Risk -0.02 -0.05 0.06 0.18*** 0.20*** 0.08

Character with
Contribution 0.49*** 0.60*** 0.55*** 0.56*** 0.42*** 0.37***
Depression -0.06 -0.01 0.09* 0.14** 0.12* 0.07
Risk -0.08* -0.19*** -0.13*** -0.07 0.03 0.16**

Caring with
Contribution 0.28*** 0.43*** 0.37*** 0.35*** 0.20*** 0.21***
Depression -0.04 0.06* 0.15*** 0.20*** 0.12** 0.02
Risk -0.10** -0.10*** -0.04 -0.02 0.05 0.07

Connection with
Contribution 0.50*** 0.58*** 0.53*** 0.48*** 0.43*** 0.39***
Depression -0.33*** -0.32*** -0.18*** -0.08 -0.32*** -0.52***
Risk -0.11** -0.16*** -0.03 0.00 -0.09 0.05

Contribution with
Depression -0.19*** -0.12*** -0.12*** -0.15*** -0.16*** -0.21***
Risk -0.16*** -0.18*** -0.19*** -0.20*** -0.25*** -0.21***

Depression with
Risk 0.28*** 0.27*** 0.28*** 0.21*** 0.24*** 0.20***
* p < .05 ** p < .01 *** p < .001
 61

Table 24
Latent Means and Variances for Strong Invariance PYD-SF Models

Latent Means
Grade 6 Grade 7 Grade 7 Grade 8 Grade 9 Grade 12
Competence 0.000 0.022 0.000 0.054 0.000 -0.473
Confidence 0.000 -0.055 0.000 0.049 0.000 -0.240
Character 0.000 0.061 0.000 -0.198 0.000 0.177
Caring 0.000 0.030 0.000 -0.086 0.000 0.102
Connection 0.000 -0.427 0.000 -0.159 0.000 -0.007
PYD 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.007 0.000 0.290
Sympathy -1.367

Latent Variances
Grade 6 Grade 7 Grade 7 Grade 8 Grade 9 Grade 12
Competence 1.000 0.995 1.000 1.211 1.000 0.938
Confidence 1.000 1.181 1.000 1.399 1.000 0.777
Character 1.000 0.721 1.000 0.968 1.000 0.936
Caring 1.000 0.824 1.000 0.957 1.000 0.693
Connection 1.000 1.019 1.000 0.994 1.000 0.866
PYD 1.000 1.128 1.000 1.245 1.000 0.675
Sympathy 0.256
 62

Table 25
Model fit for PYD-VSF Models

Grades 5, 6, and 7 χ2 df RMSEA CFI TLI Δ χ2 Δ df p Δ CFI

CFA 1985.02 1194 .02 (.01, .02) 0.96 0.94
Weak Invariance 2132.95 1245 .02 (.01, .02) 0.95 0.94 147.93 51 < 0.001 -0.005
Strong Invariance 2187.09 1264 .02 (.01, .02) 0.95 0.94 54.15 19 < 0.001 -0.002
Final 2215.24 1276 .02 (.01, .02) 0.95 0.94 28.15 12 0.005 -0.001

Grades 7, 8, and 9 χ2 df RMSEA CFI TLI Δ χ2 Δ df p Δ CFI

CFA 2424.79 1311 .02 (.02, .02) 0.95 0.93
Weak Invariance 2682.44 1401 .02 (.02, .02) 0.94 0.92 257.66 90 < 0.001 -0.008
Strong Invariance 2919.64 1437 .02 (.02, .02) 0.93 0.91 237.20 36 < 0.001 -0.009
Final 2942.74 1451 .02 (.02, .02) 0.93 0.91 23.09 14 0.059 0.000

Grades 9 and 10 χ2 df RMSEA CFI TLI Δ χ2 Δ df p Δ CFI

CFA 1115.71 562 .02 (.02, .02) 0.96 0.94
Weak Invariance 1230.86 607 .02 (.02, .02) 0.95 0.93 115.15 45 < 0.001 -0.006
Strong Invariance 1327.47 626 .02 (.02, .02) 0.94 0.93 96.61 19 < 0.001 -0.006
Final 1340.32 634 .02 (.02, .02) 0.94 0.93 12.84 8 0.117 0.000

Grades 10, 11, and 12 χ2 df RMSEA CFI TLI Δ χ2 Δ df p Δ CFI

CFA 2303.42 1311 .02 (.02, .02) 0.95 0.92
Weak Invariance 2555.19 1400 .02 (.02, .02) 0.94 0.92 251.77 89 < 0.001 -0.009
Strong Invariance 2750.86 1439 .02 (.02, .02) 0.93 0.91 195.66 39 < 0.001 -0.009
Final 2778.83 1458 .02 (.02, .02) 0.93 0.91 27.97 19 0.084 0.000
 63

Table 26
Raw-Metric Factor Loadings from the PYD-VSF Strong Invariance Models*
Grade 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Competence
HART25 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30
HART08 0.42 0.42 0.42 0.42 0.42 0.43 0.43 0.43
HART21 0.48 0.48 0.48 0.48 0.48 0.48 0.48 0.48
Confidence
HART18 0.39 0.39 0.39 0.39 0.39 0.38 0.38 0.38
ABME10 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.36 0.27 0.27 0.27
HART10 0.46 0.46 0.46 0.46 0.46 0.46 0.46 0.46
Character
ABME21 0.74 0.74 0.74 0.74 0.74 0.74 0.74 0.74
ABME41 0.43 0.43 0.43 0.43 0.67 0.67 0.67 0.67
HART29 0.00 0.00 -0.04 -0.04 -0.17 -0.17 -0.17 -0.17
ABME29 0.62 0.62 0.62 0.62 0.62 0.44 0.44 0.44
Caring
CARE2 na 0.77 0.77 0.77 0.58 0.58 0.58 0.58
CARE7 na 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
CARE9 na 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Connection
FAM5 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.40 0.40 0.40
NEIGH3 0.61 0.61 0.61 0.61 0.61 0.61 0.61 0.61
CLAS05 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.45
PEER6 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20
PYD
HART25 0.31 0.31 0.31 0.31 0.20 0.31 0.31 0.31
HART08 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.09 0.16 0.16 0.16
HART21 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02
HART18 0.26 0.26 0.26 0.26 0.26 0.26 0.39 0.26
ABME10 0.42 0.42 0.42 0.42 0.30 0.34 0.34 0.34
HART10 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.11 0.17 0.17 0.17
ABME21 0.39 0.39 0.39 0.39 0.39 0.39 0.39 0.39
ABME41 0.28 0.28 0.28 0.28 0.28 0.28 0.28 0.28
HART29 0.41 0.41 0.41 0.41 0.60 0.41 0.41 0.41
ABME29 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40
CARE2 na 0.36 0.36 0.36 0.36 0.36 0.36 0.36
CARE7 na 0.41 0.41 0.41 0.41 0.41 0.41 0.41
CARE9 na 0.42 0.42 0.42 0.42 0.42 0.42 0.42
FAM5 0.46 0.46 0.46 0.46 0.46 0.46 0.46 0.46
NEIGH3 0.36 0.36 0.36 0.36 0.36 0.36 0.36 0.36
CLAS05 0.39 0.39 0.39 0.39 0.39 0.39 0.39 0.39
PEER6 0.32 0.32 0.32 0.32 0.32 0.20 0.20 0.20
Estimates from analyses where target grade is earliest (e.g., Grade 7 comes from the model of Grades 7, 8, and 9)
Bold indicates a temporary change in the factor loading
Bold and underlined represents relatively stable changes in a factor loading
*Item labels represent the Early Adolescent item labels. See Appendix A for corresponding labels in the middle/late
adolescent forms
 64

Table 27
Standardized Factor Loadings from the PYD-VSF Strong Invariance Models*
Grade 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Competence
HART25 0.32 0.36 0.36 0.34 0.33 0.32 0.33 0.35
HART08 0.45 0.48 0.48 0.48 0.45 0.44 0.44 0.46
HART21 0.47 0.55 0.55 0.48 0.41 0.46 0.44 0.46
Confidence
HART18 0.50 0.55 0.52 0.59 0.58 0.55 0.58 0.60
ABME10 0.28 0.31 0.29 0.38 0.52 0.37 0.38 0.39
HART10 0.42 0.45 0.47 0.61 0.64 0.64 0.63 0.65
Character
ABME21 0.68 0.70 0.55 0.54 0.50 0.51 0.54 0.56
ABME41 0.34 0.41 0.31 0.31 0.42 0.41 0.42 0.43
HART29 0.00 0.00 -0.03 0.00 -0.10 -0.12 -0.12 -0.12
ABME29 0.61 0.61 0.48 0.46 0.41 0.31 0.32 0.36
Caring
CARE2 na 0.64 0.59 0.60 0.50 0.52 0.50 0.51
CARE7 na 0.79 0.71 0.72 0.77 0.76 0.74 0.77
CARE9 na 0.79 0.72 0.72 0.76 0.76 0.74 0.74
Connection
FAM5 0.28 0.32 0.25 0.27 0.27 0.31 0.31 0.32
NEIGH3 0.57 0.57 0.52 0.58 0.56 0.50 0.50 0.50
CLAS05 0.44 0.45 0.39 0.44 0.44 0.41 0.40 0.41
PEER6 0.12 0.12 0.11 0.12 0.23 0.22 0.22 0.22
PYD
HART25 0.33 0.37 0.42 0.41 0.29 0.43 0.39 0.42
HART08 0.17 0.19 0.21 0.22 0.13 0.22 0.19 0.20
HART21 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02
HART18 0.34 0.37 0.40 0.37 0.34 0.38 0.51 0.36
ABME10 0.43 0.48 0.52 0.55 0.37 0.44 0.41 0.42
HART10 0.16 0.17 0.20 0.21 0.13 0.23 0.20 0.21
ABME21 0.36 0.37 0.43 0.45 0.46 0.47 0.43 0.45
ABME41 0.22 0.27 0.30 0.32 0.30 0.29 0.27 0.27
HART29 0.38 0.44 0.49 0.46 0.61 0.49 0.43 0.45
ABME29 0.40 0.39 0.46 0.47 0.46 0.49 0.46 0.50
CARE2 na 0.30 0.36 0.38 0.39 0.40 0.40 0.41
CARE7 na 0.35 0.41 0.44 0.42 0.42 0.42 0.44
CARE9 na 0.36 0.43 0.46 0.42 0.42 0.43 0.43
FAM5 0.44 0.50 0.50 0.51 0.49 0.45 0.41 0.42
NEIGH3 0.33 0.33 0.40 0.40 0.37 0.38 0.34 0.34
CLAS05 0.38 0.38 0.44 0.45 0.43 0.45 0.40 0.41
PEER6 0.32 0.33 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.28 0.25 0.25
Estimates from analyses where target grade is earliest (e.g., Grade 7 comes from the model of Grades 7, 8, and 9)
Bold indicates a temporary change in the raw-metric factor loading
Bold and underlined represents relatively stable changes in the raw-metric factor loading
*Item labels represent the Early Adolescent item labels. See Appendix A for corresponding
labels in the middle/late adolescent forms
 65

Table 28
Raw-Metric Intercepts from the PYD-VSF Strong Invariance Models*
Grade 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Competence
HART25 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.38 3.38 3.38
HART08 3.32 3.32 3.32 3.32 3.32 3.32 3.32 3.32
HART21 2.73 2.73 2.73 2.73 2.55 2.73 2.73 2.73
Confidence
HART18 3.39 3.39 3.39 3.39 3.39 3.39 3.39 3.39
ABME10 4.30 4.30 4.30 4.30 4.24 4.38 4.38 4.38
HART10 2.96 2.96 2.96 2.96 2.96 2.96 2.96 2.96
Character
ABME21 4.03 4.03 4.03 4.03 4.03 4.03 4.03 4.03
ABME41 3.47 3.93 3.89 3.85 3.85 3.85 3.85 3.85
HART29 2.89 2.89 2.89 2.89 2.73 2.73 2.73 2.73
ABME29 4.04 4.04 4.04 4.04 4.04 4.17 4.17 4.17
Caring
CARE2 na 3.78 3.78 3.78 3.95 3.95 3.95 3.95
CARE7 na 3.80 3.80 3.80 3.80 3.80 3.80 3.80
CARE9 na 3.82 3.82 3.82 3.82 3.82 3.82 3.82
Connection
FAM5 4.31 4.31 4.31 4.31 4.31 4.31 4.31 4.31
NEIGH3 3.74 3.74 3.74 3.74 3.74 3.74 3.74 3.74
CLAS05 3.99 3.99 3.99 3.99 3.99 4.09 4.09 4.09
PEER6 4.36 4.36 4.36 4.36 4.36 4.47 4.47 4.47
Estimates from analyses where target grade is earliest (e.g., Grade 7 comes from the model of Grades 7, 8, and 9)
Bold indicates a temporary change in the intercept
Bold and underlined represents relatively stable changes in the intercept
*Item labels represent the Early Adolescent item labels. See Appendix A for corresponding labels in the
middle/late adolescent forms
 66

Table 29
Stability and Latent Correlations among the PYD Constructs
Grade 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Competence with
Competence (at T-1) na 0.44*** 0.47*** 0.53*** 0.76*** 0.83*** 0.66*** 0.83***
Confidence 1.00† 0.80*** 0.76*** 0.78*** 1.00*** 0.83*** 0.92*** 0.75***
Character 0.25*** 0.17** 0.06 0.06 0.24*** 0.02 0.24** 0.25**
Caring na -0.01 -0.06 0.01 -0.04 -0.13* -0.12 0.10
Connection 0.42*** 0.46*** 0.40*** 0.33*** 0.56*** 0.66*** 0.63*** 0.55***

Confidence with
Confidence (at T-1) na 0.39*** 0.66*** 0.43*** 0.83*** 0.87*** 0.70*** 0.70***
Character 0.25*** 0.17* -0.15* -0.06 0.12*** -0.16** -0.01 -0.04
Caring na -0.06 -0.24*** -0.19*** -0.12* -0.20*** -0.19** -0.14*
Connection 0.42*** 0.39*** 0.17* 0.32*** 0.34*** 0.43*** 0.42*** 0.52***

Character with
Character (at T-1) na 0.25** 0.43*** 0.62*** 0.64*** 0.69*** 0.79*** 0.62***
Caring na 0.56*** 0.44*** 0.48*** 0.50*** 0.51*** 0.55*** 0.52***
Connection 0.30*** 0.54*** 0.35*** 0.41*** 0.42*** 0.10 0.18* 0.16

Caring with
Caring (at T-1) na na 0.31*** 0.50*** 0.53*** 0.38*** 0.51*** 0.49***
Connection na 0.18** 0.24*** 0.20*** 0.14* 0.10 -0.06 -0.06

Connection with
Connection (at T-1) na 0.59*** 0.78*** 0.64*** 0.78*** 0.62*** 0.72*** 0.93***

PYD
PYD (at T-1) na 0.81*** 0.70*** 0.78*** 0.81*** 0.90*** 0.82*** 0.81***

* p < .05 ** p < .01 *** p < .001 † fixed parameter

Estimates from analyses where target grade is earliest (e.g., Grade 7 comes from the model of Grades 7, 8, and 9)
 67

Table 30
PYD-VSF Correlations with Outcomes
Grade 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
PYD with
Contribution 0.21*** 0.41*** 0.41*** 0.44*** 0.53*** 0.58*** 0.56*** 0.57***
Depression -0.68*** -0.55*** -0.52*** -0.52*** -0.49*** -0.40*** -0.47*** -0.47***
Risk -0.46*** -0.52*** -0.50*** -0.54*** -0.60*** -0.61*** -0.57*** -0.66***

Competence with
Contribution 0.19*** 0.27*** 0.20*** 0.20*** 0.25*** 0.15*** 0.21*** 0.27***
Depression -0.18*** -0.23*** -0.21*** -0.26*** -0.42*** -0.38*** -0.40*** -0.41***
Risk 0.03 0.12** 0.09* 0.15** 0.10 0.02 0.08 0.09

Confidence with
Contribution 0.19*** 0.17** -0.01 0.01 0.06 -0.05 -0.02 0.06
Depression -0.18*** -0.28*** -0.34*** -0.38*** -0.44*** -0.46*** -0.43*** -0.52***
Risk 0.03 0.15** 0.13** 0.25*** 0.21*** 0.13*** 0.12** 0.17***

Character with
Contribution 0.33*** 0.39*** 0.47*** 0.49*** 0.36*** 0.38*** 0.31*** 0.34***
Depression 0.11* 0.09* 0.23*** 0.22*** 0.22*** 0.31*** 0.21*** 0.24***
Risk -0.03 0.02 -0.05 -0.01 0.00 0.12** 0.07 0.26***

Caring with
Contribution na 0.18*** 0.32*** 0.30*** 0.15*** 0.15*** 0.17*** 0.15**
Depression na 0.09* 0.24*** 0.26*** 0.21*** 0.20*** 0.28*** 0.13**
Risk na -0.03 0.04 0.03 0.08 0.06* 0.05 0.14**

Connection with
Contribution 0.35*** 0.37*** 0.50*** 0.44*** 0.38*** 0.24*** 0.29*** 0.29***
Depression 0.01 -0.11 -0.06 -0.05 -0.16** -0.35*** -0.38*** -0.40***
Risk 0.03 0.06 0.07 0.01 -0.03 0.00 0.12* 0.16*

Contribution with
Depression -0.09** -0.19*** -0.11*** -0.14*** -0.16*** -0.14*** -0.16*** -0.22***
Risk -0.08* -0.17*** -0.19*** -0.21*** -0.27*** -0.27*** -0.25*** -0.22***

Depression with
Risk 0.25*** 0.29*** 0.27*** 0.20*** 0.23*** 0.27*** 0.12*** 0.23***

* p < .05 ** p < .01 *** p < .001

Estimates from analyses where target grade is earliest (e.g., Grade 7 comes from the model of Grades 7, 8, and 9)
 68

Table 31
Latent Means and Variances for Strong Invariance PYD-VSF Models

Latent Means

Grade 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Competence 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.181 0.293 -0.280 -0.417 -0.417
Confidence 0.000 -0.288 -0.288 -0.150 0.000 -0.448 -0.448 -0.448
Character 0.000 -0.257 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
Caring 0.000 0.000 0.174 0.174 0.174 0.174 0.174 0.174
Connection 0.000 -0.392 -0.737 -0.737 -0.737 -0.737 -0.862 -0.862
PYD 0.000 0.214 0.000 -0.168 0.000 0.000 0.246 0.246

Latent Variances

Grade 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Competence 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.763 0.763 0.763 0.763
Confidence 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.701 1.679 1.375 1.375 1.375
Character 1.000 1.000 0.574 0.574 0.430 0.430 0.430 0.430
Caring 1.000 1.000 0.751 0.751 0.846 0.846 0.608 0.608
Connection 1.000 1.000 0.743 1.000 1.000 0.748 0.748 0.748
PYD 1.000 1.000 1.277 1.444 1.277 1.277 0.998 0.998

Estimates from analyses where target grade is earliest (e.g., Grade 7 comes from the model of Grades 7, 8, and 9)
 69

PYD PYD

5 Cs Competence Confidence Character Caring Connection

Social Consc. Family

Academic Self-Worth
Subscales Social Positive ID
Value Divers. Sympathy Neighbor.
Conduct Beh. Caring School
Physical Physical Ap.
Pers. Values Peers

Figure 1. Hypothesized structure of PYD.

 70

1.0

Competence

1.0

Confidence

1.0 1.0

Connection PYD

1.0

Character

1.0

Caring

Figure 2. A hypothetical bifactor model of PYD

 71

Appendix A
PYD Short Form: Younger Adolescents (34 items)
PYD Very Short Form items indicated in red (17 items)
The following pairs of sentences are talking about two kinds of kids. We’d like you to decide whether you are more
like the kids on the left side, or you are more like the kids on the right side. Then we would like you to decide
whether that is only sort of true for you or really true for you and mark your answer.

FILL IN ONLY ONE CIRCLE FOR EACH PAIR OF SENTENCES.

Sample
Really Sort of Sort of Really
True True True True
for me for me for me for me
○ ○ Some kids would rather BUT Other kids would rather ○ ○
(a) play outdoors in their watch T.V.
spare time

Really Sort of Sort of Really

True True True for True
for me for me me for me
[4] [3] [2] [1]
1. hart07 ○ ○ Some kids feel like they BUT Other kids aren't so sure ○ ○
are just as smart as other and wonder if they are as
kids their age. smart.
2. hart08 ○ ○ Some kids have a lot of BUT Other kids don't have very ○ ○
friends. many friends.
3. hart10 ○ ○ Some kids are happy with BUT Some kids are not happy ○ ○
their height and weight. with their height and
weight.
4. hart15 ○ ○ Some kids think they could BUT Other kids are afraid they ○ ○
do well at just about any might not do well at
new outdoor activity they outdoor things they
haven't tried before. haven't ever tried.
5. hart17 ○ ○ Some kids usually act the BUT Other kids often don't act ○ ○
way they know they are the way they are supposed
supposed to. to.
6. hart18 ○ ○ Some kids are happy with BUT Other kids are often not ○ ○
themselves most of the happy with themselves.
time.
7. hart21 ○ ○ Some kids feel that they BUT Other kids don't feel they ○ ○
are better than others their can play as well.
age at sports.
8. hart25 ○ ○ Some kids do very well at BUT Other kids don't do very ○ ○
their class work. well at their class work.
9. hart29 ○ ○ Some kids do things they BUT Other kids hardly ever do ○ ○
reverse know they shouldn't do. things they know they
code shouldn't do.
10. hart30 ○ ○ Some kids are very happy BUT Other kids wish they were ○ ○
being the way they are. different.
11. hart32 ○ ○ Some kids are popular BUT Other kids are not very ○ ○
with others their age. popular.
12. hart34 ○ ○ Some kids think that they BUT Other kids think that they ○ ○
are attractive or good are not very attractive or
 72

looking. good looking.

How much do you agree or disagree with the following? Strongly Not Strongly
agree Agree sure Disagree disagree
[5] [4] [3] [2] [1]

13. All in all, I am glad I am me. ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

abme10
14. When I am an adult, I’m sure I will have a good life. ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
abme13

How important is each of the following to you in your life?

Not Somewhat Not Quite Extremely

important important sure important Important
[1] [2] [3] [4] [5]

15. Helping to make the world a better place to live in. ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

abme21
16. Giving time and money to make life better for other people. ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
abme22
17. Doing what I believe is right even if my friends make fun of me. ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
abme26
18. Accepting responsibility for my actions when I make a mistake
or get in trouble. ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
abme29

Think about the people who know you well. How do you think they would rate you on each of these?

Not at all A little Somewhat Quite like Very much

like me like me like me me like me
[1] [2] [3] [4] [5]

19. Knowing a lot about people of other races. ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

abme40
20. Enjoying being with people who are of a different race
than I am. ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ abme41
 73

How well do each of these statements describe you?

Not 2 3 4 Very
well well
1 5

21. When I see someone being taken advantage of, I want to help them. ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
care2
22. It bothers me when bad things happen to any person. ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
care4
23. I feel sorry for other people who don’t have what I have. ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
care6
24. When I see someone being picked on, I feel sorry for them. ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
care7
25. It makes me sad to see a person who doesn’t have friends. ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
care8
26. When I see another person who is hurt or upset, I feel sorry for them. ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
care9

How much do you agree or disagree with the Strongly Not Strongly
following? agree Agree sure Disagree disagree
[5] [4] [3] [2] [1]

27. I get a lot of encouragement at my school. ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

clas05
28. Teachers at school push me to be the best I can be. ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
clas10
29. I have lots of good conversations with my parents. ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
fam4
30. In my family I feel useful and important. ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
fam5
31. Adults in my town or city make me feel important. ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
neigh3
32. Adults in my town or city listen to what I have to say. ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
neigh4
 74

How true is each of these statements for you?

Always Usually Sometimes Seldom Almost never
true true true true true or never
true
5] [4] [3] [2] [1]

33. I feel my friends are good friends. ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

peer6
34. My friends care about me. ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
peer7

PYD Short Form Items for the Five Cs:

Competence
Academic hart07 hart25
Social hart08 hart32
Physical hart15 hart21
Confidence
Self-Worth hart18 hart30
Positive Identity abme10 abme13
Appearance hart34 hart10
Character
Social Conscience abme21 abme22
Values Diversity abme40 abme41
Conduct Behavior hart17 hart29
Personal Values abme26 abme29
Caring
care2 care4
care6 care7
care8 care9
Connection
Family fam4 fam5
Neighborhood neigh3 neigh4
School clas05 clas10
Peer peer6 peer7
Note: PYD Very Short Form items listed in red.
 75

PYD Short Form: Older Adolescents (34 items)

PYD Very Short Form items indicated in red (17 items)

The following pairs of sentences are talking about two kinds of kids. We’d like you to decide whether you are more
like the kids on the left side, or you are more like the kids on the right side. Then we would like you to decide
whether that is only sort of true for you or really true for you and mark your answer.

FILL IN ONLY ONE CIRCLE FOR EACH PAIR OF SENTENCES.

Sample
Really Sort of Sort of Really
True True True True
for me for me for me for me
○ ○ Some kids would rather BUT Other kids would rather ○ ○
(a) play outdoors in their watch T.V.
spare time

Really Sort of Sort of Really

True True True True
for me for me for me for me
[4] [3] [2] [1]
1. hart01 ○ ○ Some teenagers feel that BUT Other teenagers aren’t so ○ ○
they are just as smart as sure and wonder if they are
others their age. as smart.
2. hart11 ○ ○ Some teenagers have a lot BUT Other teenagers don’t have ○ ○
of friends. very many friends.
3. hart12 ○ ○ Some teenagers think they BUT Other teenagers are afraid ○ ○
could do well at just about they might not do well at a
any new athletic activity. new athletic activity.
4. hart19 ○ ○ Some teenagers do very BUT Other teenagers don’t do ○ ○
well at their class work. very well at their class
work.
5. hart21 ○ ○ Some teenagers feel that BUT Other teenagers don't feel ○ ○
they are better than others they can play as well.
their age at sports.
6. hart27 ○ ○ Some teenagers are happy BUT Other teenagers are often ○ ○
with themselves most of the not happy with themselves.
time.
7. hart29 ○ ○ Some teenagers are popular BUT Other teenagers are not ○ ○
with others their age. very popular.
8. hart31 ○ ○ Some teenagers think that BUT Other teenagers think that ○ ○
they are good looking. they are not very good
looking.
9. hart34 ○ ○ Some teenagers do things BUT Other teenagers hardly ○ ○
reverse they know they shouldn’t ever do things they know
code do. they shouldn’t do.
10. hart40 ○ ○ Some teenagers really like BUT Other teenagers wish they ○ ○
their looks. looked different.
11. hart43 ○ ○ Some teenagers usually act BUT Other teenagers often don’t ○ ○
the way they know they are act the way they are
supposed to. supposed to.
12. hart45 ○ ○ Some teenagers are very BUT Other teenagers wish they ○ ○
happy being the way they were different.
are.
 76

How much do you agree or disagree with the following? Strongly Not Strongly
agree Agree sure Disagree disagree
[5] [4] [3] [2] [1]

13. All in all, I am glad I am me. ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

abme06
14. When I am an adult, I’m sure I will have a good life. ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
abme09

How important is each of the following to you in your life?

Not Somewhat Not Quite Extremely

important important sure important Important
[1] [2] [3] [4] [5]

15. Helping to make the world a better place to live in. ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

abme17
16. Giving time and money to make life better for other people. ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
abme18
17. Doing what I believe is right even if my friends make fun of me. ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
abme22
18. Accepting responsibility for my actions when I make a mistake
or get in trouble. ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
abme25

Think about the people who know you well. How do you think they would rate you on each of these?

Not at all A little Somewhat Quite like Very much

like me like me like me me like me
[1] [2] [3] [4] [5]

19. Knowing a lot about people of other races. ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

abme34
20. Enjoying being with people who are of a different race
than I am. ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ abme35
 77

How well do each of these statements describe you?

Not 2 3 4 Very
well well
1 5

21. When I see someone being taken advantage of, I want to help them. ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
care2
22. It bothers me when bad things happen to any person. ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
care4
23. I feel sorry for other people who don’t have what I have. ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
care6
24. When I see someone being picked on, I feel sorry for them. ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
care7
25. It makes me sad to see a person who doesn’t have friends. ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
care8
26. When I see another person who is hurt or upset, I feel sorry for them. ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
care9

How much do you agree or disagree with the Strongly Not Strongly
following? agree Agree sure Disagree disagree
[5] [4] [3] [2] [1]

27. I get a lot of encouragement at my school. ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

clas03
28. Teachers at school push me to be the best I can be. ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
clas07
29. I have lots of good conversations with my parents. ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
fam4
30. In my family I feel useful and important. ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
fam5
31. Adults in my town or city make me feel important. ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
neigh3
32. Adults in my town or city listen to what I have to say. ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
neigh4

How true is each of these statements for you?

 78

Always Usually Sometimes Seldom Almost never

true true true true true or never
true
5] [4] [3] [2] [1]

33. I feel my friends are good friends. ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

peer6
34. My friends care about me. ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
peer7

PYD Short Form Items for the Five Cs:

Competence
Academic hart01 hart19
Social hart11 hart29
Physical hart12 hart21
Confidence
Self-Worth hart27 hart45
Positive Identity abme06 abme09
Appearance hart31 hart40
Character
Social Conscience abme17 abme18
Values Diversity abme34 abme35
Conduct Behavior hart43 hart34
Personal Values abme22 abme25
Caring
care2 care4
care6 care7
care8 care9
Connection
Family fam4 fam5
Neighborhood neigh3 neigh4
School clas03 clas07
Peer peer6 peer7
Note: PYD Very Short Form items listed in red.