Validation of Positive Youth Development Scale and Implications for Adolescent in Hong Kong Community

Psychometric Properties and Measurement Invariance of the Positive Youth Development Scale – Turkish Version

“…These findings are consistent with previous studies conducted in diverse cultural contexts, such as China (Su et al, 2017), the Philippines (Buenconsejo et al, 2022), Ghana (Kabir et al, 2021), Spain (Gomez-Baya et al, 2021), Croatia (Gomez-Baya et al, 2022), Iceland (Gestsdottir et al, 2017), Norway (Holsen et al, 2016), Portugal (Tome et al, 2019), and Slovenia (Gonzalez et al, 2017), which have all reported that the 34-item Short Form of the scale showed sufficient data fit. Similarly, the 17-item Very Short Form has been found to have adequate construct validity for use in the Philippines (Buenconsejo et al, 2022), Hong Kong (Wong et al, 2021), and Iran (Babaee et al, 2018). These findings suggest that the Short and Very Short Forms of the scale are reliable measures of positive youth development, with adequate construct validity in diverse cultural contexts.…”

“…For instance, the competency and character dimensions in the Iranian sample (Babaee et al, 2018), and the competency and connection dimensions in the Philippines sample (Buenconsejo et al, 2022) have shown insufficient reliability. Moreover, reliability values were not reported in studies conducted in the Hong Kong sample (Wong et al, 2021). Therefore, it is important to examine the psychometric properties of both the Short and Very Short Forms of the Positive Youth Development Scale in additional different samples.…”

“…The 34-item Short Form of the Positive Youth Development Scale has undergone external validation and has been accepted for numerous national samples based on established validity and reliability assessments, including those in China (Su et al, 2017), the Philippines (Buenconsejo et al, 2022), Ghana (Kabir et al, 2021), Spain (Gomez-Baya et al, 2021), Croatia (Gomez-Baya et al, 2022), Iceland (Gestsdottir et al, 2017), Norway (Holsen et al, 2016), Portugal (Gaspar de Matos et al, 2018; Tome et al, 2019), El Salvador (Tirrell et al, 2019), and Slovenia (Gonzalez et al, 2017). Meanwhile, the 17-item Short Form, developed in the same year as the 34-item Short Form, has also been translated and accepted in samples from the Philippines (Buenconsejo et al, 2022), Hong Kong (Wong et al, 2021), and Iran (Babaee et al, 2018). It is worth noting, however, that the short form has been subjected to more rigorous validation and reliability assessments compared to the very short form, possibly due to the lower reliability values of the latter.…”

“…Translating the scales to different samples is crucial for revealing cultural differences in the interpretations of the scales (Duda & Allison, 1990). However, differences between individualistic and collectivist cultures, particularly between Eastern and Western cultures, may lead to varying interpretations of the scales by participants (Wong et al, 2021).…”

The Five Cs of Positive Youth Development: Configurations of Thriving in Four U.S. Adolescent Samples

“…However, there is variation in this pattern. For example, in some studies, the difference in correlations between Caring–Character and Competence–Confidence was small (e.g., Bowers et al., 2012; Geldhof et al., 2014; Kozina et al., 2020), whereas in other studies Character and Caring were not correlated with Confidence and Competence or were negatively correlated (e.g., Ferrer‐Wreder et al., 2021; Wong et al., 2021). The role of Connection also varies; some studies show a weak, positive correlation with each of the four other Cs (e.g., Bowers et al., 2012; Geldhof et al., 2014), whereas other studies show a strong, positive correlation with Caring and Character or Competence and Confidence (e.g., Ferrer‐Wreder et al., 2021).…”