Aim: This study assesses the impact of political social motivation, trust in government, political efficacy, and personal motivation on political engagement behavior among young adult college students. Study design: Quasi-experimental One-shot Case Study Design. Methodology: Survey data of indicators of the five latent constructs was collected from college students. Exploratory principal component factor analysis and Cronbach's alpha test were performed to identify the factorial structure of the each of the political engagement scales. Structural equation modeling analysis was performed to estimate the overall model fit indices and the magnitude of effects of political social motivation, trust in government, political efficacy, and personal motivation on political engagement behavior among the young adult college students. Results: The analysis found that internal political efficacy had a large significant negative impact on political engagement behavior. External political efficacy had a large significant positive influence on political engagement behavior. Trust in government had a small positive insignificant effect on political engagement behavior. Political social motivation and personal motivation had no meaningful impact on political engagement behavior of the young adult college students. Conclusion: Collectively, these findings suggest that to sustain American democracy, proponents should focus on promoting internal and external political efficacy, and to a less extent trust in government, not on political motivation of young adult college students.

Objective With the emergence of Covid-19, the field of assessment had to adapt immediately to telehealth administration without the typical rigorous standardization procedures neuropsychologists are accustomed to. This study will provide some support for reliability of scores obtained on the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale (WAIS-IV) and Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children (WISC-V) utilizing telehealth in a largely Pacific Islander sample. Method Participants were all individuals who had completed a psychological evaluation with the principal author in either a community health care clinic or a nearby independent assessment practice. Testing had to have taken place a minimum to one year prior and participant’s had to be within the age range to repeat the same test that was previously administered. Thus far, there are 16 total participants. Results Paired samples t-tests indicated that there were no significant differences between the Verbal Comprehension Index (VCI), Fluid Reasoning Index (FRI), and Working Memory Index (WMI) on the WISC-V for those administered in person and through telehealth VCI (t(4) = 2.08, p = 0.106) FRI (t(4) = −0.86, p = 0.439); and WMI (t(3) = −0.104, p = 0.924). Findings were similar for the WAIS-IV with non-significant scores on the VCI (t(5) = −0.1.3, p = 0.903) or WMI (t(5) = −0.1.3, p = 0.903). Conclusion Although telehealth is not the gold-standard for psychological assessment, telehealth administration can provide reliable scores and important information for diagnostic clarity. As such, telehealth administration remains a valuable tool for psychologists to generate diagnoses and provide recommendations for treatment.