PROTOCOL: Youth empowerment programs for improving self-efficacy and self-esteem of adolescents

Introduction

The largest waves of young people in history will soon transition into adulthood. Understanding the most effective approaches for reaching out to adolescents ¹ —a population of over 1.2 billion (UNFPA, 2003)—is a critical challenge that merits global attention. The period of adolescence is particularly important given its instrumental role in the development of habits and competencies that will affect young people's wellbeing and resilience throughout their lives. Adolescence is also a vulnerable time in which emotions and risk-taking tendencies are amplified (Call et al., 2002; Dahl, 2004; Rutter, 2001; World Bank, 2006).

This systematic review aims to increase empirical understanding of the use of youth empowerment as a strategy for developing psychosocial assets among adolescents. Despite the increasing popularity of involving young people in the processes that affect their lives and communities, little is known about the demonstrated impacts that such participatory programming has on young people (Gray & Hayes, 2008; Zeldin, 2000).

Nevertheless, youth empowerment has been promoted internationally. The African Union, European Union, United Nations, World Bank, numerous national governments (e.g., United Kingdom's Youth Matters), and the philanthropic community are only a few examples of prominent institutions to have explicitly endorsed strategies to increase participation of young people in policy and programming (AU, 2006; EU, 1999; UN, 2005; World Bank, 2006; UKDCSF, 2005; Rosen & Maureen, 2001).

To some extent, the argument for youth empowerment is based on rights (Freeman, 2005). The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC), which assures children the right to be heard and form their own views (Article Twelve), commonly encapsulates the ‘rights approach’. This view emphasizes redistribution of power given a perceived injustice embedded in inabilities of young people to exercise their own voice and influence in matters that affect them.

Another approach espouses an instrumental argument. This perspective frames youth empowerment not as a right to be protected, but as a modality for improving youths' developmental outcomes and strengthening institutions and communities by way of young people's contributions (Altman & Feighery, 2004; Jennings, 2006; Suleiman, et al., 2006). The rights-based argument for youth empowerment involves a philosophical and political debate. The instrumental argument—i.e., ‘empowerment leads to positive developmental outcomes’—is an evaluative question of causality, which a systematic review of impact studies is better suited to address.

Concepts and Definitions

Defining YEPs. This review defines youth empowerment programs (YEPs) as interventions that regularly involve young people as partners and participants in the decision-making processes that determine program goals, planning and/or implementation. With the support of caring adults, YEPs engage young people in program leadership as a characteristic of their involvement in safe, positive, and structured activities outside of formal education.

Common examples of YEPs are found in particular youth councils, teen centers, community-based participatory research programs, social action and advocacy groups, peer education models, and informal and non-formal education programs that regularly integrate youth participation in program decision-making, as stated above. Structurally, this participation within programs usually takes the form of advisory councils, committees, youth on boards, workgroups, or staff positions. Sometimes, young people and adults serve together in formal leadership capacities such as committees; other times, membership is reserved exclusively for youths with adults acting in more of a supportive role.

Youth empowerment involves a collective, democratic, and pro-social process of engagement, which implies group interaction (Cargo, et al., 2003; Jennings, 2006). Consequently, exclusively one-to-one youth development interventions, such as most mentoring schemes, would not meet inclusion criteria.

Like YEPs, many non-empowerment-based out-of-school programs involve structured activities and safe spaces during hours that adolescents need them most. They do not qualify as YEPs, however, if youths are not systematically involved with program decision-making. Some peer education models, for example, may only activate adolescents in content delivery rather than shaping program planning and implementation (Shiner, 1999).

Often, youth centers and after-school program schedules, objectives, and activities are adult-driven. Youths may be asked for their input or sporadically involved in programmatic decision-making, but if their involvement is not structured so as to ensure opportunity for real influence and regular participation in programmatic decision-making processes, the intervention is not empowerment-based.

While some formal education systems also employ increasingly participatory approaches (Hannam, 2001), this review will focus on youth empowerment initiatives outside of formal schooling. An analysis of effectiveness evidence and unique implementation issues for youth empowerment within formal education would be a valuable undertaking meriting a separate review.

Positive youth development. Much of the youth empowerment literature in North America has been linked to the positive youth development (PYD) movement. The general aims of PYD are encapsulated by the phrase coined by Karen Pittman and colleagues, “problem free is not fully prepared” (Pittman & Irby, 2000). In other words, PYD directs the strategy of interventions from problem-solving, prevention, and deterrence towards “youth preparation and development” (Roth & Brooks-Gunn, 2003).

Exponents generally agree that PYD involves an asset-based approach to working with youth, which emphasizes the presence of positive environments, pro-social activities, and supportive relationships in young people's lives. PYD links the process of a youth's involvement in the intervention with developmental outcomes (Roth & Brooks-Gunn, 2003a).

While some definitions of PYD explicitly stress the participation of young people in organizational decision-making and program design as a critical feature in the PYD process (NCFY, 2007; Small & Memmo, 2004; USDHHS, 2001; Youth Development Strategy Aotearoa, 2002), others do not (Catalano, et al., 2004; National Research Council, 2002; Roth, 2004). The PYD movement represents a broader trend towards strength-based approaches to youth and children of which YEPs represent one facet. In other words, while all YEPs are necessarily PYD, not all PYD programs are necessarily youth empowerment.

Levels of participation. Lofquist's (1989) ‘Spectrum of Attitudes’ articulates a typology of relationships with youths that illustrates attitudes of young people as objects, recipients, or resources (roughly, things done ‘to youth’, ‘for youth’, and ‘with youth’, respectively). Hart's Ladder went a step further to delineate a continuum of eight levels at which young people can participate as resources (Hart, 1992). These levels—the last three considered non-participation—included the following:

young people and adults share decision-making

This review aims to capture evaluations of programs that fall within the first three degrees of participation, which integrate adolescents into program decision-making.

Terminology. Academics and practitioners use a number of terms to describe YEPs. Popular alternatives include variations of youth participation, youth-led, youth-driven, youth voice, youth engagement, and, in some cases, positive youth development. All of these terms, including youth empowerment, can be interpreted loosely if not carefully defined. Moreover, vocabulary invariably shifts across cultures and programming areas. The authors elected to use youth empowerment, as empowerment indicates power transfer while leaving room for youth-adult partnerships, which can be highly participatory for adolescents.

Moreover, the term youth empowerment—at least in United States literature—is arguably more closely associated with process constructs that better incorporate the supports, resources, and opportunities necessary to make participation meaningful rather than nominal (see, for example, Blanchard, et al., 1996; Brown, 2009; Cargo et al., 2003; Chinman & Linnery, 1998). The authors do not assert that youth empowerment should replace parallel vocabulary, and the review's search terms will be sensitive to the diverse intervention terms used to describe YEPs.

Theory of Change

Youth Empowerment Programs aspire to develop critical psychosocial assets among participating youths. Supportive relationships, affirming environments, skill-building, and the integrated experiences of ownership, challenge, and mastery associated with meaningful youth participation are hypothesized to impact strength-based competencies and behaviors among youth participants.

In turn, youth development literature expects that these assets serve as pathways to distal indicators of success and wellbeing (e.g., academic achievement) and as protective factors against consequences of social exclusion (e.g., antisocial behavior). This basic theory of change is illustrated in figure 1.1. The outcomes of interest for this review are discussed below (measures are discussed in the Methodology section).

Positive youth development frameworks for programming goals, such as the Five C's (Roth & Brooks-Gunn 2003) and the Forty Developmental Assets (Search Institute, 2008) have helped set the stage for an attention to strength-based outcomes in YEPs' theory of change. The Search Institute defines developmental assets as relationships, opportunities and personal qualities that young people need to avoid risks and to thrive. The OECD's establishment of Key Competencies reinforced concern for developmental assets (OECD, 2005). While the first OECD competency category is largely technology and knowledge-based, the remaining two categories—‘interacting in heterogeneous groups’ and ‘acting autonomously’—outline critical competencies included in or closely related to the developmental outcomes described below.

Primary outcomes. Self-efficacy and self-esteem constitute the primary outcomes for this review. As Bandura explained, “perceived efficacy is a judgment of capability; self-esteem is a judgment of self-worth” (Bandura, 2006, pp. 309). By engaging young people as valued partners, YEPs aim to improve young people's belief in their own worth as well as in their ability to shape their lives and environments (Kirby & Bryson, 2002, pp.24).

While self-efficacy and self-esteem are distinct concepts (Gilad, et al., 2004), Judge and colleagues (2002) have demonstrated that the two traits are highly related and the combination of the two can yield better prediction, for example, of job satisfaction and performance (Judge, et al., 2002). Moreover, the frequent co-presence of the two constructs as suggested outcomes in literature involving youth empowerment reinforces the sensibility of pairing self-efficacy and self-esteem as primary outcomes from an evaluative perspective (Anderson & Sandmann, 2009; Jennings, 2006; Oliver, et al., 2006; Roth & Brooks-Gunn, 2003b; Sinclair, 2000).

High self-efficacy ² has been shown to predict better performance in work, academics, and sports; increased happiness, job satisfaction, and persistence; improved safe sex practices; and successful smoking cessation and prevention (de Vries, et al., 1988; Judge & Bono, 2001; Kalichman & Nachimson, 1999; Martin & Gill, 1991; Multon, et al., 1991; Natvig, et al., 2003). A meta-analysis conducted by Stajkovic and Luthans (1998) found that self-efficacy accounted for a 28% improvement in work-related performance. Lower self-efficacy, on the other hand, appears to predict higher levels of depression among young people (Bandura 1999) and is associated with higher alcohol use (Taylor, 2000).

Evidence suggests that high self-esteem is related to high social support and resilience (Dumont & Provost, 1999; Hoffman, et al., 1988) whereas low self-esteem is related to depression, anxiety, and suicidal ideation (Overholser, et al., 1995; Rosenberg, et al., 1995). Boden and colleagues (2008) found self-esteem to be an important “risk marker variable, with low self-esteem being associated with a range of negative outcomes”, and they found high self-esteem at age 15 to be a significant predictor of life satisfaction and peer attachment at ages 18, 21, and 25. Research by Baldwin & Hoffman (2002) indicates that self-esteem changes dramatically during adolescence, emphasizing the special importance of interventions that foster higher and more stable self-regard through this volatile life period.

Secondary outcomes. Several other areas of impact have been conceptually linked to youth empowerment. As such, an attention to self-efficacy and self-esteem renders an important but partial picture of possible program effects. Several other relevant variables will be considered under secondary outcomes so as to capture a fuller understanding of the impacts of YEPs in this review. Domains of secondary outcomes of interest in this review include strengthening other personal developmental assets conceptually associated with youth development as well as academic performance and antisocial behavior, which may be indirectly impacted through YEPs.

Youth empowerment and youth development literature conceptually links developmental assets (e.g., self-efficacy and self-esteem) as proximal outcomes to distal performance and behavioral outcomes (e.g., academic performance and antisocial behavior), suggesting causal interactions between variables. Testing this mediator relationship through a multivariate model would require a large number of studies that report the full covariance matrix for primary data. At this time, preliminary searches by the authors indicate that the review will not likely identify an adequate base of included studies to enable such testing. Should a sufficient number of studies be identified through the searches, such testing will be conducted.

Notably, these outcomes only consider effects on participating adolescents. Given the social action and community-integrated nature of many YEPs, the literature frequently suggests that the programs may also affect positive impacts on organizations, communities, and societies as a result of youth action (Jennings, 2006; Kirby & Bryson, 2002; Nygreen, et al., 2006). While not the subject of this review, the evidence for these assertions should be critically reviewed and analyzed in future research.

Antisocial Behavior

YEPs approach young people from a strengths-based perspective that translates to a primary focus on recognizing and enhancing youths' personal assets. As stated by Roth and Brooks-Gunn (2003a), “The goals of youth development programs promote positive development, even when seeking to prevent problem behaviors.” As the statement by Roth and Brooks-Gunn implies, however, the focus of YEPs on young people's strengths does not necessarily preclude YEPs from having an impact on antisocial behaviors of frequent concern to communities and policy-makers.

Research by Oman and colleagues (Aspy et al., 2004; Oman, et al., 2004a; Oman et al., 2004b), among others, indicates that enhancing adolescents' assets can be an effective course for reducing problem behaviors. By enhancing psychosocial protective factors, engaging youth in constructive activities after school hours (those of highest delinquency rates), and strengthening young people's stake in their environments, proponents contend that YEPs may be at least as effective as those directly and primarily aimed at curtailing antisocial behavior.

OPEN IN VIEWER

1.1

Youth empowerment programs—basic theory of change diagram

Considering Harm and Null Results

While the literature on youth empowerment overwhelmingly assumes positive benefits, it is possible that YEPs may be ineffective or even backfire. Some research, for instance, has shown that programs that aggregate deviant youth together—even if for the purpose of positive interactions—can unintentionally reinforce deviant behavior (Dishion, et al., 1999). Other studies have found that higher hostility has correlated with higher self-esteem scores, and offenders have reported higher emotional intelligence scores than non-offenders (Baumeister, et al., 1996; Hemmati, et al., 2004). While these studies do not establish causality between self-esteem and hostility or emotional intelligence and offending, they leave the possibility nonetheless that developing such assets may have unintended consequences for antisocial behavior. The modalities of YEPs may well curtail any such unfavorable effects, but certainty requires a robust evidence base.

Moreover, YEPs might unsuccessfully strive to improve developmental assets. Programs focused on increasing the role of young people as leaders in program decision-making might in practice downplay or neglect valuable expertise of adult youth workers. By consequence, programmatic decisions made by youths could lead to null or negative intervention effects. Attempts at empowerment might ultimately reinforce traditional power relationships, enter adolescents into challenges that leave them feeling inadequate and disillusioned, or elevate some youths over others, circumventing the growth potential of many participants.

Notably, positive youth development places a heavy emphasis on human resources, which can drive up the cost of youth interventions ⁴ . The expenditures of the Quantum Opportunities Program (QOP), for example, a multi-component, multi-stage youth development intervention for youths from welfare dependent families, are more than $10,000 USD per participant over four years of involvement ⁵ (AYPF, 1994).

On the other hand, if YEPs can circumvent the long-term consequences of social behavioral problems, the cost-savings to tax payers may be substantial (Scott, et al., 2001). Whether YEPs show effective or ineffective results, the economic implications underscore the need for rigorous evaluation to ensure that resources are invested in interventions and practices that produce intended outcomes for intended populations.

Recent Reviews of Evidence

No systematic review, to the authors' knowledge, has been published that specifically addresses the impacts of youth empowerment. This section discusses two reviews synthesizing research for positive youth development and empowerment broadly, which provide relevant insights informing the planned review.

The Catalano and colleagues (2004) review on positive youth development (PYD) was commissioned by the US Department of Health & Human Services, completed in 2002, and conducted by a team of researchers at the University of Washington (Catalano, et al., 2004). The review ultimately included twenty-five program evaluations, and findings indicate promising results for strength-based programs serving youth and children.

The study, however, did not report a systematic search strategy, extend beyond the United States, nor prospectively state sought-after outcomes. It did not include evaluations revealing null effects or significant effects that did not favor the intervention. The last characteristic is particularly concerning given that past research has demonstrated unintended harm caused by some well-intended youth interventions, which underscores the importance of understanding the consequences–positive, negative, or neutral–of youth development programs (Arnold & Hughes, 1999).

The review's definition of PYD is very broad, including any intervention that meets at least one of fifteen constructs ⁶ ; none of which stipulated involvement of young people in program decisions or design. The broad inclusion criteria for PYD programs coupled with a lack of predetermined outcomes largely explain why so many evaluations were included in the review. In contrast to the Catalano and colleagues review, the forthcoming review will focus on youth empowerment, reduce program heterogeneity, and minimize the chance of spurious conclusions due to a lack of predetermined outcomes.

The Wallerstein (2006) review, conducted for the World Health Organization, was the only review identified by the authors that directly addressed empowerment strategies. The review explores empowerment broadly for all age groups and with an interest in health outcomes. Wallerstein gives a useful overview of various themes within the broader empowerment movement and gives a framework for empowerment that includes multiple levels of outcomes. The broad, international review of outcomes linked to empowerment offers valuable context for this protocol. The resulting framework includes a heavy emphasis on self-efficacy, community engagement, and social bonding, which reinforce their importance as outcomes of interest in the planned review.

A brief section of the review is devoted to youth empowerment. The author, however, does not discuss the quality of the evidence behind listed outcomes linked to youth empowerment, nor is it clear that the studies actually evaluate a YEP as defined by this review, versus less participatory youth development programs. The planned review will employ a search strategy for empowerment studies specific to youth and controlled impact evaluations.

The Wallerstein review was not conducted according to systematic procedures, no specific outcomes were identified for study inclusion, virtually all types of studies were acceptable for assessing effectiveness with no distinction was made between study designs in discussing findings, and again there is no indication that the review made an effort towards including null or harmful effects. The author defends the review's approach with a dismissal of the use of systematic review methods and experimental designs to assess empowerment programs. As the present protocol runs contrary to this perspective, the authors briefly address assertions stated by Wallerstein:

“Empowerment projects by their nature are complex and do not easily fit into an experimental design…causal relationships may be too complex to uncover within a changing social environment.” While many experimental designs in practice are not sufficiently sophisticated to isolate the effects of different program components within an intervention, they are still capable of determining the impacts that participation in YEPs has on youths for outcomes of concern. The Zief and colleagues (2006) Campbell Collaboration review, for example, assesses the evidence for after-school programs, which can be comparably complex and heterogeneous. Conceivably, moreover, a controlled trial could compare youth empowerment with an active comparison in which adolescents participate in a non-participatory though otherwise similar intervention (e.g., youth-driven smoking cessation campaign versus didactic smoking cessation education classes). In other cases, complementary process and qualitative studies can help clarify active ingredients within multi-component programs (Miller et al., 2003; Morton, 2009).

“Expectations for individual health status changes may be unrealistic in short time frames…” For this reason, it is important that program evaluations delineate clear theories of change. While ambitious health changes may indeed take much time, proximal psychosocial outcomes mentioned by Wallerstein and earlier in this protocol may arise in shorter time periods. Such short-term impacts have been documented by other evaluations of positive youth development programs broadly (Catalano et al., 2004; Tierney et al, 2000).

“Evaluation should…use a mix of methodologies and designs – rather than randomized control trials…” The author appears to treat mixed methods and RCTs as mutually exclusive. To the contrary, experimental designs of social interventions are often used within a mixed methods approach and are most useful when complemented by other forms of research addressing process and implementation (Mayo-Wilson, 2007; Oakley et al., 2006). Experimental designs of social interventions are increasingly an area of interest for participatory research approaches as well (Jones et al., 2008). Experimental and quasi-experimental trials are best suited to answer a specific type of research question concerning causality and effectiveness. This is not the only type of question of concern for youth empowerment, but it is the primary focus of the planned review.

Study Inclusion Criteria

This review will include evaluation studies of youth programs and councils outside of formal education that regularly involve young people in program planning and implementation, primarily include adolescents (over 75%), meet certain methodological standards, and measure at least one outcome of interest.

Intervention and setting. This review will investigate the impacts of YEPs that regularly involve adolescents in determining program design, activities, and/or implementation. Structurally, this participation often takes the form of democratic decision-making processes involving youth councils, committees, youth on boards, workgroups, staff positions or other youth groups with regular opportunities for program decision-making. Sometimes, youths and adults serve together in formal leadership capacities such as committees; other times, membership is reserved exclusively for youths with adults acting in more of a supportive role. Programs must involve regular access to a supportive adult or older youth leader, though this need not involve one-to-one mentoring.

Delivery may take place in community-based or school-based settings so long as the intervention occurs regularly and outside of formal education. Interventions primarily within formal education, juvenile justice, residential programs, therapeutic interventions, class-based or university activities, conferences, or workshops will not be included. Includable programs must convene regularly (i.e., not a one-off event).

Comparison groups. This review will accept trials involving control groups with no service provided and/or trials with comparison groups that involve alternative services. Alternative services should not facilitate youth involvement in program decision-making or active leadership roles. Basic recreational or educational activities, such as informational sessions or presentations, games, and informal athletic activities, for example, might constitute a comparison to youth empowerment programming. Any absolute and relative effects obtained will be separated in the review's analysis. In the event of multiple comparison groups, the reviewers will compute effect sizes using results from the trial's intervention group with the biggest effect size and the comparison group with the smallest effect size.

Characteristics of the target population. The target population is adolescents. The age definition of adolescence is not consistent across institutions and cultures. This review follows the definition of adolescence as ages 10–19 as classified by the World Health Organization, United Nations, and World Bank (UNFPA, 2008; WB, 2003; WHO, 2009). The authors use adolescents, youths, and young people interchangeably throughout the protocol unless otherwise stated.

Types of studies. The evaluation must involve either an experimental or quasi-experimental design with a prospectively assigned control group. We will only include quasi-experiments that use matching or statistical methods (e.g., propensity scores) to ensure that the control group is similar to the intervention group at baseline. Quasi-experimental studies should take reasonable steps to establish a counterfactual that is as similar as possible to the intervention group on relevant observable variables. Such steps could include matching on known confounders for the population under study. Typically, these might include age, gender, and family income.

Outcome measures. Studies need to measure at least one of the review's primary or secondary outcomes. Outcomes may be measured by way of self-reports, third party or researcher observations, interviews, or official records. The review will accept measures that are and are not well validated; validation information will be reported in the review.

Primary outcomes include measures of self-efficacy and self-esteem.

Self-efficacy: The topic of self-efficacy measurement has drawn a rift between those espousing domain or task-specific self-efficacy and those championing a generalized or global self-efficacy. Proponents of specific self-efficacy argue that judgments of self-efficacy are context dependent and caution against general measures that allegedly fail to correspond to a particular set of performance tasks (Bandura, 1986; Pajares, 1996). General self-efficacy (GSE), however, offers validated instruments that have shown GSE to predict performance and satisfaction outcomes, particularly when the performance of concern involves broader and more complicated tasks (Chen, et al., 2001; Gilad et al., 2004) ⁷ .

While both specific and general self-efficacy measures will be included in this review, they will be distinguished in the analysis, and only comparable measures will be aggregated. Popular examples of GSE measures include Schwarzer et al.'s (1995) and Chen et al.'s (2001) general self-efficacy scales, which consist of 8 to 10 items. Both instruments have been validated internationally and with adolescents (Scholz, et al., 2002).

Self-esteem: Self-esteem is most commonly assessed by the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale (Rosenberg, 1989), consisting of 10 items. Some research has delineated between global self-esteem (e.g., measured by the Rosenberg scale) and specific self-esteem (e.g., measured by the area-specific Hare Self-Esteem Scale) (Shoemaker, 1980). Nevertheless, specific self-esteem measures are less common and tested. Specific self-esteem measures will be included, but results will not be aggregated with general self-esteem in meta-analysis. Self-esteem is also occasionally measured as a component of multi-facted scales, such as in the case of the self-regard component of Bar-On's (1997) Emotional Quotient Inventory for emotional intelligence (Mavroveli, et al., 2008).

Secondary outcomes include social supports and connections, social skills, emotional intelligence, coping and problem-solving, civic engagement, academic performance, and antisocial behavior.

Social supports and connections: Examples of measures capturing youths' social supports and connections include: Blum and Ireland's (2004) measures of connectedness to family, neighborhood, and school; the Social Support Appraisal Scale (Dubow & Ullman, 1989); the Family Relations Test—Children's Version (Bene & Anthony, 1985); the READY Tool (Sabaratna & Klein, 2006); the Network of Relationships Inventory (Furman & Buhrmester, 1985); the Psychological Sense of School Membership scale (Goodenow, 1993); and Witherspoon and colleagues' measure of neighborhood connectedness (Witherspoon et al., 2009).

Social skills: Example measures include the Social Skills Rating System (SSRS) (Gresham & Elliot, 1990) including parent, teacher, and child versions; the Social Skills Questionnaires (SSQ) with parent, teacher, and young person versions (Spence, 1995); the Matson Evaluation of Social Skills for Youngers (Matson, et al., 1983); the READY Tool (Sabaratna & Klein, 2006); the Youth Leadership Life Skills Development Scale (YLLSD) (Seevers, et al., 1995); and social competence subscales within the School Social Behavior Scales (Merrell, 1993).

Emotional intelligence: Recent scholarship on EI distinguishes between trait-EI (generally self-report measures more linked to personality) and ability-EI (with judgments made by others and EI more aligned with general intelligence) (O'Connor & Little, 2003; Qualter et al., 2007). Examples of trait-EI measures for adolescents include the Trait Emotional Intelligence Questionnaire-Child Form (TEIQue-CF) (Mavroveli et al., 2008), the Bar-On Emotional Quotient Inventory: Youth Version (EQ-i: YV) (Bar-On & Parker, 2000), and the Schutte Self Report Inventory (SSRI) (Schutte et al., 1998). The Adolescent Multifactor Emotional Intelligence Scale provides an example of an ability-EI measure (Salovey, et al., 2002).

Coping and problem-solving: Examples of coping and social problem-solving measures include the Coping Scale for Children and Youth (Brodzinsky et al., 1992), the Adolescent Coping Scale (Frydenberg & Lewis, 1993); the Problem Solving Scale (Heppner & Petersen, 1982), the Social Problem-Solving Inventory for Adolescents (SPSI-A) (Frauenknecht & Black, 1995), and the Open-Middle Interview (Polifka, et al., 1981).

Civic engagement: Civic engagement can be expressed through volunteering, membership in civil society clubs and organizations, beliefs concerning the importance of civic engagement, expectations of future community involvement, and voting and political participation. The Community Connections Index (Mancini, et al., 2003); READY Tool (Sabaratna & Klein, 2006) and the National Household Education Survey—Civic Involvement Component (US Department of Education, 1996) are examples of relevant survey instruments.

Academic performance: Standardized test scores, grades, or level or school completion can measure academic performance.

Antisocial behavior: Antisocial behavior can include expressions of criminal behavior (e.g., arrests or detention) or school misconduct (e.g., truancy or suspensions) measured by self-report or official records. Official records might include juvenile justice or school records. Instruments assessing behavioral difficulties can also capture softer aspects of antisocial behavior. Examples include the Strengths & Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ) (Goodman, 1997), the Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL) (Achenbach, 1991a, 1991b), and a subscale of the School Social Behavior Scales (Merrell, 1993). The SDQ may be particularly relevant for YEPs given its assessment of both strengths and challenges.