View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

Validation of the French-Canadian Version of the Positive Youth Development Scale-Short Form (PYD-SF)

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Validation of the French-Canadian Version of the Positive Youth Development Scale-Short Form (PYD-SF)
Language: English
Authors: Jiseul Sophia Ahn (ORCID 0000-0001-9613-7607), André Plamondon (ORCID 0000-0002-1169-2669), Maxim Bouchard (ORCID 0000-0002-3249-3466), Anne-Sophie Denault (ORCID 0000-0002-0325-7472)
Source: Applied Developmental Science. 2024 28(3):361-374.
Availability: Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 530 Walnut Street Suite 850, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Tel: 215-625-8900; Fax: 215-207-0050; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 14
Publication Date: 2024
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Education Level: High Schools
Secondary Education
Grade 9
Junior High Schools
Middle Schools
Descriptors: Foreign Countries, Late Adolescents, High School Students, Grade 9, Student Development, Test Validity, French Canadians
Geographic Terms: Canada
DOI: 10.1080/10888691.2023.2215988
ISSN: 1088-8691
1532-480X
Abstract: The Positive Youth Development Scale-Short Form (PYD-SF) is a 34-item questionnaire assessing the Five Cs model of PYD that has received little interest in contexts outside of the United States. This study aimed to validate the PYD-SF for use with older adolescents in a French-Canadian context, by testing the bifactor structure and examining its reliability and validity with respect to important adolescent outcomes (e.g., vitality, depression, substance use). The French-Canadian version of the scale was administered to 359 ninth-grade students (M[subscript age] = 14.39; 50% girls) attending two schools in the province of Quebec. The results found support for the bifactor model. Likewise, the global PYD showed moderate associations with the adolescent outcomes in expected directions with high internal consistency estimates. These findings suggest the French-Canadian version of PYD-SF reliably measures the global construct of PYD, but caution is needed in calculating the C-specific subscale scores.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2024
Accession Number: EJ1429022
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwGjPYcth8HfP5Lo0wPH9vkWAAAA4jCB3wYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHRMIHOAgEAMIHIBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDAyN_rWWp2lqC30JRwIBEICBmitQweL7duULQavJX6jNhaytSPryTZ-01EVqqnaEBDRj0Czc1BLPwai69ML66RQA_FRVXXLBdVS-jFrovjcWokS5Sd66B9atcgHqTLQx6jppMnq3poerq3MAQfmp1l1_HyXA6Pvl_nx53-ikxVtSpoueGmv1vBwxSkVV474XrI4FsZiVGEyD-LbkyrFzOmGXuDIDbHSvZThgSoQ=
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0178134251;7lf01jul.24;2024Jul01.06:28;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0178134251-1">Validation of the French-Canadian Version of the Positive Youth Development Scale-Short Form (PYD-SF) </title> <p>The Positive Youth Development Scale-Short Form (PYD-SF) is a 34-item questionnaire assessing the Five Cs model of PYD that has received little interest in contexts outside of the United States. This study aimed to validate the PYD-SF for use with older adolescents in a French-Canadian context, by testing the bifactor structure and examining its reliability and validity with respect to important adolescent outcomes (e.g., vitality, depression, substance use). The French-Canadian version of the scale was administered to 359 ninth-grade students (M<sub>age</sub> = 14.39; 50% girls) attending two schools in the province of Quebec. The results found support for the bifactor model. Likewise, the global PYD showed moderate associations with the adolescent outcomes in expected directions with high internal consistency estimates. These findings suggest the French-Canadian version of PYD-SF reliably measures the global construct of PYD, but caution is needed in calculating the C-specific subscale scores.</p> <p>Positive Youth Development (PYD) is a theoretical framework that focuses on the potential of youth to grow, flourish, and thrive in a holistic manner (Lerner et al., [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref1">26</reflink>]). As an alternative to a deficiency-oriented perspective of adolescence (e.g., focusing on problematic and risky behaviors), the PYD framework orients practitioners toward identifying youths' personal strengths and creating social environments that foster such developmental potential. One way to operationalize PYD is the Five Cs model (Bowers et al., [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref2">4</reflink>]), which includes five qualities of flourishing youths, namely, Competence, Confidence, Connection, Character, and Caring. When adolescents develop these Five Cs with the support of their social contexts, they are less likely to exhibit problem behaviors (e.g., substance use, depression) and more likely to grow into happy and flourishing individuals that contribute to society (Erentaitė & Raižienė, [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref3">14</reflink>]; Geldhof et al., [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref4">16</reflink>]; Holsen et al., [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref5">18</reflink>]). Despite the growing interests in PYD around the world (Dimitrova & Wiium, [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref6">12</reflink>]), there are few validated questionnaires for use outside the United States.</p> <p>To bolster research efforts on PYD globally, one key asset is a questionnaire that is easy to administer (i.e., shorter) and has been validated for use in its respective cultural context. One widely used questionnaire is the Positive Youth Development Scale (Bowers et al., [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref7">4</reflink>]) and its short form (Geldhof et al., [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref8">15</reflink>]), both of which were validated, but predominantly among youth in the USA. A few existing studies have examined the cross-cultural validation of these scales, such as in Norway (Holsen et al., [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref9">18</reflink>]), Lithuania (Erentaitė & Raižienė, [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref10">14</reflink>]), Ireland (Conway et al., [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref11">8</reflink>]), and Taiwan (Yang & McGinley, [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref12">35</reflink>]). These studies found partial support for the factor structure of the Five Cs model of PYD and its association to developmental outcomes, some differences were also observed. For instance, a study among Norwegian adolescents found that two subscales of Character—personal values and social conscience—formed two separate factors, rather than forming a single Character factor (Holsen et al., [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref13">18</reflink>]). Given that cultural contexts can influence the perceptions of what constitutes "positive" youth development (Dimitrova & Wiium, [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref14">12</reflink>]; Lerner et al., [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref15">26</reflink>]), it is important to test, rather than assume, the generalizability of the existing scale in diverse cultural contexts. Additionally, most, if not all, of the existing cross-cultural studies used the original 78-item scale, rather than the 34-item Positive Youth Development Scale-Short Form (PYD-SF; Geldhof et al., [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref16">16</reflink>]), which is easier to administer. The purpose of this study is thus to validate the French-Canadian version of the PYD-SF for use with older adolescents in Quebec, Canada. To do so, this study tests the factor structure of the Five Cs and examines its reliability as well as its external validity with respect to important adolescent outcomes.</p> <hd id="AN0178134251-2">Measuring the five Cs of PYD: a bifactor model</hd> <p>The Five Cs is a model that operationalizes PYD. Each of the Five Cs represents a quality of a holistically developing youth, such as being happy with oneself ("Confidence"), having skills to achieve goals ("Competence"), behaving according to a well-internalized set of moral values ("Character"), having concerns for others ("Caring"), and feeling connected to and supported by social contexts ("Connection"). These Five Cs are theoretically assumed to represent different domains of adolescent life that develop distinctively from one other, while, when taken together, they paint a holistic picture of what thriving youth look like. Initially, the Five Cs was modeled as a five-factor model (Bowers et al., [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref17">4</reflink>]), where the Five Cs are modeled simply as <emph>interrelated</emph> constructs (by allowing correlations between these factors; see Figure 1, left panel for the graphical representation).</p> <p>Graph: Figure 1. Graphical representations of the hypothesized model. Note. S-factor = specific factors; G-factor = global factor. Residual variances and covariances are omitted from the figures.</p> <p>Recent empirical work, however, suggested a bifactor structure as a modeling strategy that aligns well with the theoretical conceptualization of PYD—as a multi-domain whole-person development (Erentaitė & Raižienė, [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref18">14</reflink>]; Geldhof et al., [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref19">15</reflink>]; Holsen et al., [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref20">18</reflink>]; Yang & McGinley, [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref21">35</reflink>]). One strength of bifactor modeling is that such models explicitly estimate a general factor (or a g-factor) that captures all the common variance in the Five Cs, thereby representing a score of holistic positive youth development. Specific factors (s-factors), on the other hand, capture variance that is unique to each of the Five Cs. In most applications of bifactor modeling, s-factors are estimated to be orthogonal (i.e., to be unrelated) to the g-factor and to each other (Chen et al., [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref22">6</reflink>]; Markon, [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref23">27</reflink>]; Reise, [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref24">31</reflink>]). As a result, s-factors represent scores <emph>un</emph>related to the global positive youth development. For instance, the s-factor score of Confidence would indicate scoring excessively higher or lower on Confidence than what would be expected given the global score of PYD.</p> <p>The first study that tested the bifactor structure of PYD was among American adolescents in Grades 6 through 12 who completed the PYD-SF (Geldhof et al., [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref25">15</reflink>]). They found that the items loaded onto both the g-factor of PYD and the s-factors of the Five Cs, while noting that some items (e.g., for physical competence, social competence, and physical appearance) were more reflective of (i.e., loaded more strongly on) their s-factors than of the g-factor. Similar patterns of findings that support the bifactor structure of PYD were replicated in other cultural contexts, such as in Lithuania (Erentaitė & Raižienė, [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref26">14</reflink>]), Norway (Holsen et al., [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref27">18</reflink>]), and Taiwan (Yang & McGinley, [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref28">35</reflink>]). However, most studies assessed the Five Cs using the full-length 78-items scale, which may be less practical to administer due to its length. To the best of our knowledge, this study is the first to examine the bifactor structure of the PYD-SF using a sample outside the USA.</p> <hd id="AN0178134251-3">Specific factors: correlated versus uncorrelated</hd> <p>In bifactor modeling, the g-factor and the s-factors are supposed to be orthogonal, meaning the correlations between g- and s-factors, as well as between s-factors, are constrained to be 0 (Chen et al., [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref29">6</reflink>]; Markon, [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref30">27</reflink>]; Reise, [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref31">31</reflink>]). However, all existing studies on the PYD-SF allowed correlations between s-factors. Examining correlations between the s-factors, (Geldhof et al., [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref32">15</reflink>]) suggested two groups of Cs: (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref33">1</reflink>) "Efficacious Cs" that include Competence and Confidence; and (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref34">2</reflink>) "Socioemotional Cs" that include Caring and Character, while Connection was positively correlated with both groups of Cs. Although correlations between s-factors may reveal interesting insights, such correlations are problematic from a psychometric point of view. In bifactor models, s-factors are supposed to capture sources of variance beyond what is explained by the g-factor. However, including such correlations suggest "the presence of additional and unmodeled general factors" (Reise, [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref35">31</reflink>], p. 692), blurring the interpretability of the factors in the model. For this reason, this study will test a bifactor structure where specific factors are uncorrelated with each other. This allows for accurately capturing g- and s-factors, which respectively represent global versus domain-specific development of youth.</p> <hd id="AN0178134251-4">Examining reliability</hd> <p>From the perspective of a classical test theory (Miller, [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref36">29</reflink>]), the reliability of a scale indicates the extent to which the scores derived from the scale reflect a true score, free from noise and errors. One index of reliability is internal consistency. A scale is said to be internally consistent when it comprises a set of homogeneous items that all measure the same construct. A frequently used index of internal consistency is Cronbach's alpha, whose main drawback is that it treats all items in the scale to have equal contributions in assessing the construct—also called the tau-equivalency assumption (Cho & Kim, [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref37">7</reflink>]; McNeish, [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref38">28</reflink>]). An alternative index is the omega coefficient, which relaxes the strict assumption of tau-equivalency and considers the weight of each item (i.e., factor loading) in calculating an internal consistency index.</p> <p>Geldhof et al. ([<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref39">15</reflink>])'s study reported omega coefficients for each of the Five C subscales, which ranged from.72 to.90. These coefficients, however, do not account for the bifactor structure, and do not consider the multiple sources of variance in the true score (i.e., general PYD factor and specific-C factor). This may obscure the interpretability and accuracy of these estimates. In addition, no information was provided about the reliability of the scale in assessing the global PYD score (but only in assessing the Five Cs). If researchers and practitioners are to use the scale to derive a composite score of PYD, we believe that ensuring the reliability of the complete scale is important. Therefore, in this study, we examined the internal consistency of the entire scale, accounting for its multidimensionality.</p> <hd id="AN0178134251-5">Examining criterion validity</hd> <p>As important as reliability is validity. A scale is said to be valid when it measures the construct it is purported to measure. One way to establish validity of a construct is by examining the correlations between the construct assessed by the scale and external criterion (also called criterion validity; Cronbach & Meehl, [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref40">10</reflink>]). Leveraging the advantages of bifactor models, previous studies often demonstrated criterion validity by examining how g- and s-factors are uniquely associated with adolescents' developmental outcomes, such as contribution to society and depressive symptoms (Erentaitė & Raižienė, [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref41">14</reflink>]; Geldhof et al., [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref42">15</reflink>]; Holsen et al., [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref43">18</reflink>]; Yang & McGinley, [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref44">35</reflink>]). Across studies, some consistent findings emerge. First, the g-factor of PYD generally relates to key developmental outcomes more strongly than s-factors do, all in expected directions (e.g., positive associations with contribution, negative associations with depressive symptoms). Second, s-factors show unique associations with outcome variables in distinct patterns. One example is the counterintuitive <emph>positive</emph> associations between depressive or anxiety symptoms and Socioemotional Cs (Caring and Character). Though less consistently observed, another example is the <emph>positive</emph> associations between Efficacious Cs (Competence and Confidence) and risk behaviors in mid-adolescence (Geldhof et al., [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref45">15</reflink>]). These findings on criterion validity highlight an added value of bifactor models, given the differential associations of g- and s-factors with key adolescent outcomes. This can, in turn, lead to some reflections on the underlying theory. In this study, we also verified criterion validity of the PYD-SF in a sample outside of the US context.</p> <p>Particularly, this study was conducted among French-speaking Canadians adolescents in the province of Quebec, Canada, whose cultural identity is demarcated by its linguistic and historical heritage. Moreover, Quebec's distinct educational and socioeconomic institutions serve as the backdrop of youth development, making this population of adolescents a culturally distinct group from the English-speaking North Americans and European French.</p> <hd id="AN0178134251-6">Current study</hd> <p>Despite the growing interests in PYD in the global context, few validated scales exist that reliably measure PYD outside the US context. While a handful of studies were conducted in other cultural contexts, most studies used the full battery of PYD scale with 78 items. Given the importance of a short and valid measurement tool in any cross-cultural research and intervention, the purpose of this study was to validate the French-Canadian version of the PYD-SF (Geldhof et al., [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref46">15</reflink>]) for use with older adolescents.</p> <p>Three specific objectives guided this study. First, we aimed to test the bifactor structure of the PYD-SF among a sample of French-Canadian adolescents. One contribution we aimed to make was to use different specifications of the bifactor model in which s-factors were constrained to be unrelated to each other, thus making the g- and s-factors more interpretable and in line with their conceptual definitions. Despite different model specifications, we expected that a bifactorial model of the PYD would fit the data better than a first-order model. Second, we aimed to examine the reliability of the scale, specifically its internal consistency. Third, we aimed to examine the criterion validity of the scale with respect to important adolescent outcomes; namely, vitality, disruptive classroom behaviors, delinquent behaviors, depressive symptoms, and substance use. We expected to replicate most of previous findings; that is, the g-factor of PYD was expected to be more strongly associated with key developmental outcomes than the s-factors. We also expected some distinct patterns of associations between s-factors and developmental outcomes, such as positive associations between Caring and depressive symptoms. Despite some cultural particularities of the French-Canadian adolescents, no hypotheses were put forward regarding cultural differences on the Five C's model of PYD because this was beyond the realm of the present study's objective, which was to validate a measurement tool in the French-Canadian language for use in future research.</p> <hd id="AN0178134251-7">Method</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0178134251-8">Participants, design, and procedure</hd> <p>This study is part of a larger longitudinal research project on extracurricular activities and school perseverance among high school students. Participants were recruited in two high schools in the province of Quebec, Canada: one school was in a suburban area (High School 1 [HS1]), and the other one was in a rural area (High School 2 [HS2]). Data were collected in the Fall of 2018 and 2019 for HS1 and HS2, respectively. For both schools, students were asked to complete an online survey in the school computer labs during an in-class period. All students were in Grade 9. Ethics approval was obtained from the Research Ethics Board of Université Laval before conducting the study.</p> <p>Overall, a total of 359 ninth-grade students (<emph>M</emph><subs>age</subs> = 14.39, <emph>SD</emph> = 0.63; 49.6% identified as girls; HS1 = 263, HS2 = 96) participated in the study. The sociodemographic characteristics of the participants are presented in Table 1. As reported by the students, most were living in a two-parent family (59.9%). Their parents were mostly from North America (mothers = 87.7%, fathers = 87.2%) and had a postsecondary diploma (mothers = 63.2%; fathers = 48.3%). Recent province-wide census showed that 74.4% of the children of all ages were living in a two-parent family in 2016 (Institut de la statistique du Québec, [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref47">21</reflink>]); 14% of the population were immigrants in 2016, meaning 86% non-immigrants (Institut de la statistique du Québec, n.d.); and 59.4% and 47.9% of women and men had a postsecondary diploma in 2018 (Institut de la statistique du Québec, [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref48">23</reflink>]). Given these results, our sample is comparable to the population, except for the family type where there is a less representation of a two-parent family.</p> <p>Table 1. Participant sociodemographic characteristics.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><td>Variable</td><td>School 1</td><td>School 2</td><td>Total</td></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td>N</td><td>263</td><td>96</td><td>359</td></tr><tr><td>Gender (identified as girls)</td><td>128 (48.7%)</td><td>50 (52.1%)</td><td>178 (49.6%)</td></tr><tr><td>Most of the time, I live with:</td><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>Both biological/adoptive parents</td><td>151 (57.4%)</td><td>64 (66.7%)</td><td>215 (59.9%)</td></tr><tr><td>One of my parents and his/her partner</td><td>32 (12.2%)</td><td>8 (8.3%)</td><td>40 (11.1%)</td></tr><tr><td>My mother or my father (shared custody)</td><td>47 (17.9%)</td><td>16 (16.7%)</td><td>63 (17.5%)</td></tr><tr><td>Only one of my parents (no partner)</td><td>21 (8.0%)</td><td>8 (8.3%)</td><td>29 (8.1%)</td></tr><tr><td>A legal guardian</td><td>8 (3.0%)</td><td>0 (0.0%)</td><td>8 (2.2%)</td></tr><tr><td>Other</td><td>4 (1.5%)</td><td>0 (0.0%)</td><td>4 (1.1%)</td></tr><tr><td>Mothers' education</td><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>Primary school</td><td>2 (0.8%)</td><td>1 (1.0%)</td><td>3 (0.8%)</td></tr><tr><td>High school diploma</td><td>58 (22.1%)</td><td>12 (12.5%)</td><td>70 (19.5%)</td></tr><tr><td>Pre-university diploma</td><td>74 (28.1%)</td><td>22 (22.9%)</td><td>96 (26.7%)</td></tr><tr><td>University diploma</td><td>85 (32.3%)</td><td>46 (47.9%)</td><td>131 (36.5%)</td></tr><tr><td>I don't know</td><td>44 (16.7%)</td><td>15 (15.6%)</td><td>59 (16.5%)</td></tr><tr><td>Father's education</td><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>Primary school</td><td>7 (2.7%)</td><td>1 (1.1%)</td><td>8 (2.2%)</td></tr><tr><td>High school diploma</td><td>92 (35.0%)</td><td>27 (28.4%)</td><td>119 (33.2%)</td></tr><tr><td>Pre-university diploma</td><td>74 (28.1%)</td><td>24 (25.3%)</td><td>98 (27.4%)</td></tr><tr><td>University diploma</td><td>52 (19.8%)</td><td>23 (24.2%)</td><td>75 (20.9%)</td></tr><tr><td>I don't know</td><td>38 (14.4%)</td><td>21 (21.0%)</td><td>59 (16.3%)</td></tr><tr><td>Mothers' origin</td><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>North America</td><td>225 (85.6%)</td><td>90 (93.8%)</td><td>315 (87.7%)</td></tr><tr><td>West European</td><td>8 (3.0%)</td><td>1 (1.0%)</td><td>9 (2.5%)</td></tr><tr><td>Africa</td><td>11 (4.2%)</td><td>0 (0.0%)</td><td>11 (3.1%)</td></tr><tr><td>First nations</td><td>6 (2.3%)</td><td>1 (1.0%)</td><td>7 (1.9%)</td></tr><tr><td>Other</td><td>13 (9.1%)</td><td>4 (4.2%)</td><td>17 (4.8%)</td></tr><tr><td>Fathers' origin</td><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>North America</td><td>224 (85.2%)</td><td>88 (92.6%)</td><td>312 (87.2%)</td></tr><tr><td>West European</td><td>6 (2.3%)</td><td>3 (3.2%)</td><td>9 (2.5%)</td></tr><tr><td>Africa</td><td>12 (4.6%)</td><td>0 (0.0%)</td><td>12 (3.4%)</td></tr><tr><td>First nations</td><td>5 (1.9%)</td><td>0 (0.0%)</td><td>5 (1.4%)</td></tr><tr><td>Other</td><td>16 (6.0%)</td><td>5 (4.2%)</td><td>21 (5.5%)</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <hd id="AN0178134251-9">Measures</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0178134251-10">Positive youth development</hd> <p>Adolescents completed the 34-item French-Canadian version of the PYD-SF (Geldhof et al., [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref49">15</reflink>]). This scale measures the Five C's of PYD: Competence (6 items), Confidence (6 items), Character (8 items), Caring (6 items), and Connection (8 items). The instrument was translated in French-Canadian, following the back-translation procedure to enhance cultural sensitivity (International Test Commission, [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref50">25</reflink>]). First, the 34 items were translated from English to French by accredited translators. Second, a reading of the French items was conducted independently by two of the authors of this study to adjust and harmonize the labeling of the items. The modifications were then compared, and any discrepancies identified were resolved through discussion and consultation. Third, the French version of the instrument was back-translated into English by accredited translators to ensure linguistic equivalence between the original and the French versions of the PYD-SF. Finally, cognitive interviews were conducted with a small number of adolescents to verify the comprehension of the items, and final minor modifications were made accordingly (e.g., making the items shorter and easier to understand; use of colloquial expressions local to Quebec French).</p> <p>It is important to note that we made one change to the scale in the process. In line with previous work (Holsen et al., [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref51">18</reflink>]), we rephrased all items so that they could be answered on the same response scale, namely a 5-point Likert rating scale ranging from 1 (<emph>Strongly disagree</emph>) to 5 (<emph>Strongly agree</emph>). In the original version, items were measured in different rating scales and response formats. For example, in the original version, items on the competence subscale asked participants to select between two descriptions (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") one that best describes them and then to indicate if it was <emph>really true</emph> or <emph>sort of true</emph> for them (Geldhof et al., [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref52">15</reflink>]). In contrast, in our study, participants only read one item (e.g., I feel I am as smart as others my age) and rated their response on the 5-point Likert scale. This change was made to render items more comparable across subscales as well as to lessen the cognitive load of the respondents and increase the chance of completing the questionnaire. Descriptive statistics for each item are presented in Table 2, and the items in French can be found in Appendix A.</p> <p>Table 2. Descriptive statistics for the items ordered by scale (<emph>n</emph> = 359).</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><td>Items</td><td><italic>M</italic></td><td><italic>SD</italic></td><td>skew</td><td>kurtosis</td></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td><bold>Competence</bold> (Cronbach's α =.71)</td><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>1. I feel I am as smart as others my age.</td><td char=".">3.79</td><td char=".">1.05</td><td char=".">−0.73</td><td char=".">0.04</td></tr><tr><td>2. I have a lot of friends.</td><td char=".">3.87</td><td char=".">1.01</td><td char=".">−1.08</td><td char=".">1.03</td></tr><tr><td>3. I think I could do well at just any new athletic activity.</td><td char=".">3.15</td><td char=".">1.26</td><td char=".">−0.25</td><td char=".">−0.91</td></tr><tr><td>4. I do very well at my class work.</td><td char=".">3.69</td><td char=".">0.92</td><td char=".">−0.62</td><td char=".">0.38</td></tr><tr><td>5. I am better than others my age at sports.</td><td char=".">2.91</td><td char=".">1.29</td><td char=".">0.03</td><td char=".">−0.98</td></tr><tr><td>6. I am popular with others my age.</td><td char=".">2.93</td><td char=".">1.12</td><td char=".">−0.08</td><td char=".">−0.73</td></tr><tr><td><bold>Confidence</bold> (Cronbach's α =.87)</td><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>7. I am happy with myself most of the time.</td><td char=".">3.66</td><td char=".">0.93</td><td char=".">−0.71</td><td char=".">0.44</td></tr><tr><td>8. I think I am good looking.</td><td char=".">3.39</td><td char=".">1.08</td><td char=".">−0.68</td><td char=".">−0.00</td></tr><tr><td>9. I really like my look.</td><td char=".">3.42</td><td char=".">1.12</td><td char=".">−0.55</td><td char=".">−0.33</td></tr><tr><td>10. I am very happy to be me.</td><td char=".">3.91</td><td char=".">1.04</td><td char=".">−0.86</td><td char=".">0.29</td></tr><tr><td>11. All in all, I am glad I am me.</td><td char=".">3.94</td><td char=".">0.97</td><td char=".">−0.75</td><td char=".">0.00</td></tr><tr><td>12. When I am an adult, I'm sure I will have a good life.</td><td char=".">4.01</td><td char=".">0.79</td><td char=".">−0.49</td><td char=".">−0.02</td></tr><tr><td><bold>Character</bold> (Cronbach's α =.69)</td><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>13 R. I do things I know I shouldn't do.</td><td char=".">3.23</td><td char=".">1.20</td><td char=".">−0.26</td><td char=".">−0.87</td></tr><tr><td>14. I usually act the way I know I am supposed to.</td><td char=".">3.70</td><td char=".">0.97</td><td char=".">−0.70</td><td char=".">0.39</td></tr><tr><td>15. I want to help make the world a better place to live in.</td><td char=".">3.74</td><td char=".">1.05</td><td char=".">−0.78</td><td char=".">0.21</td></tr><tr><td>16. I am willing to give my time and money to make life better for other people.</td><td char=".">3.69</td><td char=".">1.09</td><td char=".">−0.58</td><td char=".">−0.38</td></tr><tr><td>17. I do what I believe is right even if my friends make fun of me.</td><td char=".">3.82</td><td char=".">0.94</td><td char=".">−0.81</td><td char=".">0.79</td></tr><tr><td>18. I accept responsibility for my actions when I make a mistake.</td><td char=".">4.00</td><td char=".">0.87</td><td char=".">−0.81</td><td char=".">0.79</td></tr><tr><td>19. I know a lot about people of other races.</td><td char=".">3.17</td><td char=".">1.04</td><td char=".">−0.07</td><td char=".">−0.41</td></tr><tr><td>20. I enjoy being with people who are of a different race than I am.</td><td char=".">4.21</td><td char=".">0.84</td><td char=".">−1.07</td><td char=".">1.21</td></tr><tr><td><bold>Caring</bold> (Cronbach's α =.89)</td><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>21. When I see someone being taken advantage of, I want to help them.</td><td char=".">4.04</td><td char=".">0.94</td><td char=".">−0.95</td><td char=".">0.76</td></tr><tr><td>22. It bothers me when bad things happen to any person.</td><td char=".">3.70</td><td char=".">1.13</td><td char=".">−0.77</td><td char=".">−0.00</td></tr><tr><td>23. I feel sorry for other people who don't have what I have.</td><td char=".">3.43</td><td char=".">1.25</td><td char=".">−0.52</td><td char=".">−0.65</td></tr><tr><td>24. When I see someone being picked on, I feel sorry for them.</td><td char=".">3.94</td><td char=".">1.06</td><td char=".">−0.98</td><td char=".">0.51</td></tr><tr><td>25. It makes me sad to see a person who doesn't have friends.</td><td char=".">3.76</td><td char=".">1.24</td><td char=".">−0.84</td><td char=".">−0.22</td></tr><tr><td>26. When I see another person who is hurt or upset, I feel sorry for them.</td><td char=".">3.83</td><td char=".">1.09</td><td char=".">−0.75</td><td char=".">−0.15</td></tr><tr><td><bold>Connection</bold> (Cronbach's α =.78)</td><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>27. I get a lot of encouragement at my school.</td><td char=".">3.35</td><td char=".">1.04</td><td char=".">−0.34</td><td char=".">−0.33</td></tr><tr><td>28. Teachers at school push me to be the best I can be.</td><td char=".">3.40</td><td char=".">1.08</td><td char=".">−0.35</td><td char=".">−0.48</td></tr><tr><td>29. I have lots of good conversations with my parents.</td><td char=".">3.75</td><td char=".">1.02</td><td char=".">−0.74</td><td char=".">0.23</td></tr><tr><td>30. In my family I feel useful and important.</td><td char=".">4.03</td><td char=".">1.01</td><td char=".">−1.19</td><td char=".">1.24</td></tr><tr><td>31. Adults in my town or city make me feel important.</td><td char=".">3.18</td><td char=".">0.99</td><td char=".">−0.32</td><td char=".">−0.18</td></tr><tr><td>32. Adults in my town or city listen to what I have to say.</td><td char=".">2.97</td><td char=".">1.21</td><td char=".">−0.21</td><td char=".">−0.92</td></tr><tr><td>33. I feel my friends are good friends.</td><td char=".">4.33</td><td char=".">0.87</td><td char=".">−1.49</td><td char=".">2.38</td></tr><tr><td>34. My friends care about me.</td><td char=".">4.01</td><td char=".">0.90</td><td char=".">−0.90</td><td char=".">0.86</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>1 <emph>Note.</emph> Items from Geldhof et al., [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref53">15</reflink>]; © Tufts University 2022. All rights reserved.</p> <hd id="AN0178134251-11">Adolescent outcomes</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0178134251-12">Vitality</hd> <p>Adolescents completed the 7-item Subjective Vitality Scale (Ryan & Frederick, [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref54">33</reflink>]; e.g., "I feel alive and vital," "I look forward to each new day," "I have energy and spirit"), using a 7-point Likert rating scale from 1 (<emph>Strongly disagree</emph>) to 7 (<emph>Strongly agree</emph>). The scale has been validated and demonstrates good psychometric properties (Bostic et al., [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref55">3</reflink>]). The aggregate score was calculated by averaging the scores on the 7 items (α =.89), one of which was reverse coded given its negative wording (i.e., "I don't feel very energetic"). This internal consistency coefficient is similar to what have been reported in the original study ranging from.84 to.92 (Ryan & Frederick, [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref56">33</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0178134251-13">Disruptive classroom behaviors</hd> <p>Adolescents completed five items from the Teenagers' Online Questionnaire (TOQ), developed for and administered in the Québec Longitudinal Study of Child Development (QLSCD; Institut de la statistique du Québec, [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref57">20</reflink>]; e.g., "I have disrupted the class on purpose," "I have been rude to my teacher," "I have skipped a class while I was at school"), using a 4-point Likert rating scale from 1 (<emph>Never</emph>) to 4 (<emph>Quite often</emph>) and referring to the ongoing school year. The aggregate score was calculated by averaging the scores on the 5 items (α =.83). Internal consistency for this scale ranged from.51 to.70 in the original validation study (Institut de la statistique du Québec, [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref58">22</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0178134251-14">Delinquent behaviors</hd> <p>Adolescents completed three items from the Conduct Disorders Breaking Rules' Scale of the Mental Health and Social Inadaptation Assessment for Adolescents (MIA; Côté et al., [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref59">9</reflink>]), referring to the past 12 months ("I stayed out at night much later than I was allowed to," "I stayed out all night without my parents' permission," "I ran away from home"), using a 3-point Likert rating scale from 1 (<emph>Never true</emph>) to 3 (<emph>Often true</emph>). The aggregate score was calculated by averaging the scores on the three items (α =.76). The original study showed adequate internal validity and reliability of the MIA. The initial four-item scale showed good internal consistency (α = 0.85) as well as good convergent and discriminant validity (<emph>r</emph> =.48; Côté et al., [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref60">9</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0178134251-15">Depressive symptoms</hd> <p>Adolescents completed three items from the Depression scale of the MIA (Côté et al., [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref61">9</reflink>]; "I felt sad and unhappy," "I lost interest in things I usually like, "I felt I couldn't do anything well"), using a 3-point Likert rating scale from 1 (<emph>Never true</emph>) to 3 (<emph>Often true</emph>). The aggregate score was calculated by averaging the scores on the three items (α =.68). Based on the same original study as the previous measure, the initial eight-item scale demonstrated excellent internal consistency (α = 0.90) and good convergent and discriminant validity (<emph>r</emph> =.57; Côté et al., [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref62">9</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0178134251-16">Substance use</hd> <p>Adolescents completed three items that assess the frequency of their consumption of alcohol, cigarettes, and cannabis in the last 12 months, using a 7-point Likert rating scale from 1 (<emph>Never in the last 12 months</emph>) to 7 (<emph>Everyday</emph>). The aggregate score was calculated by averaging the scores on the three items (α =.78). The aggregate score of these items relates to the other outcome variables in expected directions, |rs| =.39 to.66, except for −0.20 with vitality, hence providing support for the validity of this scale.</p> <hd id="AN0178134251-17">Data analysis</hd> <p>To test the theoretical structure of the French-Canadian version of the PYD-SF (objective 1), a hypothesized bifactor model was estimated with no factor correlations (between s- and g-factors as well as between s-factors) and then compared to the first-order five-factor model using the exploratory structural question modeling (ESEM) with the target rotation. The first-order model was estimated following the procedure in the original validation study; that is, estimating residual covariances among items from the same subscale (e.g., two items for Academic Competence; Geldhof et al., [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref63">15</reflink>]). ESEM relaxes CFA's overly restrictive assumption of zero cross-loadings, while making it possible to test the hypothesized factor structure. To do so, target loadings are specified for each item based on theoretical judgment of which item is to load on which factor, while cross-loadings on non-target factors are also allowed (Asparouhov & Muthén, [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref64">2</reflink>]). A previous study found that ESEM, compared to CFA, not only improves the model fit but also better estimates factor correlations when modeling the Five Cs of PYD (Chen et al., [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref65">5</reflink>]). For direct comparability with previous studies, CFA was also conducted to estimate both the first-order five-factor model and the bifactor model.</p> <p>To assess model fit, cutoff criteria suggested by Hu and Bentler ([<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref66">19</reflink>]) was used: Comparative fit index (CFI) greater than.95, combined with RMSEA smaller than.06 and SRMR smaller than.08, were indicative of excellent model fit. To compare the two models, changes (Δ) in the model fit indices as well as information criterion (e.g., Bayesian information criterion [BIC]) were used. When comparing non-nested models, BIC is particularly useful because it evaluates model fit while penalizing model complexity, with smaller values indicating a greater model fit.</p> <p>To examine the reliability of the scale (objective 2), three types of omega coefficients were calculated based on the equation found in (Rodriguez et al., [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref67">32</reflink>]): (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref68">1</reflink>) an overall omega (omega), which reflects <emph>all</emph> sources of common variance in both g- and s-factors (that is, the global PYD scale as well the Five Cs subscales); (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref69">2</reflink>) an omega-hierarchical coefficient (omega-H), which reflects variance in the composite total scores that is attributable to individual differences on the g-factor of PYD (while treating variance in scores due to C-specific factors as measurement errors); and (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref70">3</reflink>) an omega hierarchical-subscale (omega- H<subs>SS</subs>), which reflects variance attributable to differences on the C-specific factors. For direct comparability with previous findings, we also calculated omega coefficients of the Five Cs subscale from the first-order 5-factor model.</p> <p>To examine criterion validity (objective 3), factor scores (estimated in standardized units with <emph>M</emph> = 0, <emph>SD</emph> = 1) were saved from the measurement model and were correlated with concurrent outcome variables (e.g., vitality, delinquent behaviors). Factor scores partially control for the measurement errors by giving more weight to more reliable items while preserving the underlying factor structure (Skrondal & Laake, [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref71">34</reflink>]). Model estimations were conducted in Mplus 8.3, while descriptive statistics and correlations were conducted using the Psych Package in R.</p> <hd id="AN0178134251-18">Results</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0178134251-19">Descriptive analyses</hd> <p>Table 1 presents the item-level descriptive statistics. The skewness and kurtosis of the items were within an acceptable range of values for normality, s < |2| and k < |7| (Curran et al., [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref72">11</reflink>]). However, given their deviations from 0, a robust maximum likelihood estimation (MLR) was used in subsequent analyses. Table S2 shows correlations between items in each subscale. In our sample, some of the items in the Competence and Character scales showed very weak associations (<emph>r <.</emph>10) with other items in the respective scale. In the Competence scale, the item "I do very well at my class work" was weakly correlated with other items. The same was true for the reverse-coded item in the Character scale, "I do things I know I shouldn't do." Table S3 shows the correlations between the outcome variables. All outcome variables showed weak to moderate associations in the expected directions (e.g., vitality negatively associated with disruptive behaviors and depressive symptoms; the two latter variables positively associated with each other).</p> <hd id="AN0178134251-20">Testing the theoretical structure of the PYD-SF in a French-Canadian sample</hd> <p>Table 3 presents the fit indices of all tested models. According to the CFA results, fit indices of both the first-order and bifactor models indicated a poor model fit, despite a slight model improvement in the bifactor model. In the ESEM, both the first-order and the bifactor models yielded excellent model fit. Some model fit indices favored the bifactor model over the first-order model (ΔSRMR = −0.003, ΔAIC = −24.89, ΔaBIC = −4.278), while others favored the first-order model (ΔRMSEA = +.001, ΔBIC = +87.724) or suggested no difference (ΔCFI). The results provide partial support for the hypothesized bifactor model of PYD (over the first-order model).</p> <p>Table 3. Model fit indices of positive youth development.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><td>Model</td><td>χ²</td><td><italic>df</italic></td><td>CFI</td><td>RMSEA [90% CI]</td><td>SRMR</td><td>AIC</td><td>BIC</td><td>aBIC</td></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td>M1. First-order CFA</td><td char=".">1025.29</td><td char=".">503</td><td char=".">0.878</td><td char=".">0.054 [.049,.058]</td><td char=".">0.071</td><td char=".">30989.497</td><td char=".">31478.796</td><td char=".">31079.061</td></tr><tr><td>M2. Bifactor CFA</td><td char=".">987.995</td><td char=".">479</td><td char=".">0.881</td><td char=".">0.054 [.050,.059]</td><td char=".">0.081</td><td char=".">30761.126</td><td char=".">31558.017</td><td char=".">31082.142</td></tr><tr><td>M3. First-order ESEM</td><td char=".">592.978</td><td char=".">387</td><td char=".">0.952</td><td char=".">0.039 [.032,.045]</td><td char=".">0.031</td><td char=".">30664.280</td><td char=".">31604.044</td><td char=".">30836.299</td></tr><tr><td>M4. Bifactor ESEM</td><td char=".">562.582</td><td char=".">358</td><td char=".">0.952</td><td char=".">0.040 [.033,.046]</td><td char=".">0.028</td><td char=".">30639.388</td><td char=".">31691.768</td><td char=".">30832.021</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>2 <emph>Note.</emph> CFA = confirmatory factor analysis; ESEM = exploratory structural equation modeling. <emph>χ</emph><sups>2</sups> = chi-square test of exact fit; <emph>df</emph> = degrees of freedom; RMSEA = root mean square error of approximation; SRMR = standardized root mean square residual; CFI = comparative fit index; AIC = Aikaine information criterion, BIC = Bayesian information criterion; aBIC = sample-size adjusted BIC.</p> <p>The standardized factor loadings (λ) of the bifactor ESEM model (see Table 4) showed moderate to strong factor loadings of all items on the g-factor, |λ| =.27 to.70; <emph>M</emph> =.44, suggesting that g-factor of PYD is relatively well-defined in our sample. Some items, however, had higher loadings on s-factors than on the g-factor; namely, items assessing Competence, Confidence, and Caring. All items assessing Confidence and Caring loaded on their respective target factors, |λ| =.24 to.66; <emph>M</emph> =.45 for Confidence and |λ| =.52 to.75; <emph>M</emph> =.67 for Caring, suggesting that these two factors retained additional factor-specific variance even after accounting for the g-factor. The Competence factor was relatively well-defined, |λ| =.43 to.74; <emph>M</emph> =.54, except for two items assessing academic competence (PYD01 and PYD04), which showed negative factor loadings, λs = −0.08 and −0.31. Such negative loadings alter the nature and thereby the interpretation of the factor, a nuance that is further examined in the Discussion section.</p> <p>Table 4. Standardized factor loadings of the bifactor ESEM.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><td /><td>GlobalPYD</td><td>Specific Factors</td></tr><tr><td>Items</td><td>Competence</td><td>Confidence</td><td>Character</td><td>Care</td><td>Connect</td></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td>PYD01</td><td char="."><bold>0.46</bold>*</td><td char=".">−0.08</td><td char=".">0.03</td><td char=".">−0.06</td><td char=".">−0.03</td><td char=".">0.05</td></tr><tr><td>PYD02</td><td char="."><bold>0.34</bold>*</td><td char="."><bold>0.52</bold>*</td><td char=".">0.05</td><td char=".">−0.09</td><td char=".">−0.09</td><td char="."><bold>0.32</bold>*</td></tr><tr><td>PYD03</td><td char="."><bold>0.35</bold>*</td><td char="."><bold>0.43</bold>*</td><td char=".">0.22*</td><td char=".">0.07</td><td char=".">−0.11</td><td char=".">−0.09</td></tr><tr><td>PYD04</td><td char="."><bold>0.49</bold>*</td><td char=".">−<bold>0.31</bold>*</td><td char=".">0.07</td><td char=".">0.03</td><td char=".">−0.11*</td><td char=".">−0.12</td></tr><tr><td>PYD05</td><td char="."><bold>0.38</bold>*</td><td char="."><bold>0.47</bold>*</td><td char=".">0.08</td><td char=".">0.03</td><td char=".">−0.22*</td><td char=".">−0.21</td></tr><tr><td>PYD06</td><td char="."><bold>0.35</bold>*</td><td char="."><bold>0.74</bold>*</td><td char=".">−0.02</td><td char=".">−0.02</td><td char=".">−0.12*</td><td char=".">0.06</td></tr><tr><td>PYD07</td><td char="."><bold>0.61</bold>*</td><td char=".">−0.12*</td><td char="."><bold>0.32</bold>*</td><td char=".">0.04</td><td char=".">−0.25*</td><td char=".">0.13</td></tr><tr><td>PYD08</td><td char="."><bold>0.48</bold>*</td><td char=".">0.20*</td><td char="."><bold>0.41</bold>*</td><td char=".">0.03</td><td char=".">−0.14*</td><td char=".">0.07</td></tr><tr><td>PYD09</td><td char="."><bold>0.51</bold>*</td><td char=".">0.11*</td><td char="."><bold>0.46</bold>*</td><td char=".">0.01</td><td char=".">−0.15*</td><td char=".">−0.15</td></tr><tr><td>PYD10</td><td char="."><bold>0.55</bold>*</td><td char=".">0.01</td><td char="."><bold>0.66</bold>*</td><td char=".">−0.05</td><td char=".">−0.08*</td><td char=".">0.11</td></tr><tr><td>PYD11</td><td char="."><bold>0.62</bold>*</td><td char=".">0.01</td><td char="."><bold>0.62</bold>*</td><td char=".">0.01</td><td char=".">−0.09*</td><td char=".">0.02</td></tr><tr><td>PYD12</td><td char="."><bold>0.49</bold>*</td><td char=".">0.05</td><td char=".">0.24*</td><td char=".">0.00</td><td char=".">0.02</td><td char=".">0.12</td></tr><tr><td>PYD13</td><td char="."><bold>0.32</bold>*</td><td char=".">−<bold>0.34</bold>*</td><td char=".">−0.04</td><td char=".">0.10</td><td char=".">−0.02</td><td char=".">−0.09</td></tr><tr><td>PYD14</td><td char="."><bold>0.60</bold>*</td><td char=".">−0.18*</td><td char=".">0.08</td><td char=".">0.18</td><td char=".">−0.10</td><td char=".">−0.19</td></tr><tr><td>PYD15</td><td char="."><bold>0.48</bold>*</td><td char=".">−0.04</td><td char=".">−0.11</td><td char=".">0.29</td><td char="."><bold>0.35</bold>*</td><td char=".">−0.09</td></tr><tr><td>PYD16</td><td char="."><bold>0.41</bold>*</td><td char=".">0.05</td><td char=".">−0.07</td><td char=".">0.27</td><td char="."><bold>0.41</bold>*</td><td char=".">−0.01</td></tr><tr><td>PYD17</td><td char="."><bold>0.39</bold>*</td><td char=".">0.06</td><td char=".">0.11</td><td char="."><bold>0.41</bold></td><td char=".">0.14</td><td char=".">−0.05</td></tr><tr><td>PYD18</td><td char="."><bold>0.30</bold>*</td><td char=".">−0.04</td><td char=".">0.10</td><td char=".">0.02</td><td char=".">0.12</td><td char=".">0.06</td></tr><tr><td>PYD19</td><td char="."><bold>0.33</bold>*</td><td char=".">0.15*</td><td char=".">−0.10</td><td char=".">0.14</td><td char=".">0.12</td><td char=".">−0.18</td></tr><tr><td>PYD20</td><td char=".">0.27*</td><td char=".">0.01</td><td char=".">0.05</td><td char=".">0.15</td><td char=".">0.28*</td><td char=".">0.10</td></tr><tr><td>PYD21</td><td char="."><bold>0.38</bold>*</td><td char=".">−0.01</td><td char=".">−0.04</td><td char=".">0.40</td><td char="."><bold>0.52</bold>*</td><td char=".">0.19</td></tr><tr><td>PYD22</td><td char="."><bold>0.38</bold>*</td><td char=".">−0.06</td><td char=".">−0.08</td><td char=".">0.04</td><td char="."><bold>0.66</bold>*</td><td char=".">−0.01</td></tr><tr><td>PYD23</td><td char="."><bold>0.33</bold>*</td><td char=".">0.00</td><td char=".">−0.02</td><td char=".">−0.09</td><td char="."><bold>0.61</bold>*</td><td char=".">−0.11</td></tr><tr><td>PYD24</td><td char=".">0.28*</td><td char=".">−0.09*</td><td char=".">−0.09*</td><td char=".">0.14</td><td char="."><bold>0.75</bold>*</td><td char=".">0.08</td></tr><tr><td>PYD25</td><td char="."><bold>0.31</bold>*</td><td char=".">−0.09</td><td char=".">−0.11</td><td char=".">−0.02</td><td char="."><bold>0.75</bold>*</td><td char=".">−0.10</td></tr><tr><td>PYD26</td><td char="."><bold>0.32</bold>*</td><td char=".">−0.11*</td><td char=".">−0.09*</td><td char=".">0.05</td><td char="."><bold>0.73</bold>*</td><td char=".">0.14</td></tr><tr><td>PYD27</td><td char="."><bold>0.66</bold>*</td><td char=".">0.02</td><td char=".">−0.08</td><td char=".">−0.09</td><td char=".">0.09</td><td char=".">0.19</td></tr><tr><td>PYD28</td><td char="."><bold>0.53</bold>*</td><td char=".">−0.05</td><td char=".">−0.02</td><td char=".">0.18</td><td char=".">−0.04</td><td char=".">0.01</td></tr><tr><td>PYD29</td><td char="."><bold>0.46</bold>*</td><td char=".">−0.10</td><td char=".">0.06</td><td char=".">−0.10</td><td char=".">−0.04</td><td char=".">0.05</td></tr><tr><td>PYD30</td><td char="."><bold>0.58</bold>*</td><td char=".">−0.07</td><td char=".">0.07</td><td char=".">−0.14</td><td char=".">0.01</td><td char=".">0.19</td></tr><tr><td>PYD31</td><td char="."><bold>0.70</bold>*</td><td char=".">0.17*</td><td char=".">−0.09</td><td char=".">−0.16</td><td char=".">0.06</td><td char=".">−0.01</td></tr><tr><td>PYD32</td><td char="."><bold>0.52</bold>*</td><td char=".">0.08</td><td char=".">−0.10</td><td char=".">0.07</td><td char=".">0.07</td><td char=".">0.01</td></tr><tr><td>PYD33</td><td char=".">0.27*</td><td char=".">0.10</td><td char=".">0.18</td><td char=".">−0.09</td><td char=".">0.05</td><td char="."><bold>0.48</bold>*</td></tr><tr><td>PYD34</td><td char="."><bold>0.39</bold>*</td><td char=".">0.18*</td><td char=".">0.06</td><td char=".">−0.02</td><td char=".">0.14*</td><td char="."><bold>0.44</bold>*</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <ulist> <item>3 <emph>Note.</emph> The shaded boxes refer to target loadings. Coefficients greater than.30 are in bold.</item> <item>4 * <emph>p</emph> <.05.</item> </ulist> <p>In contrast to the aforementioned three s-factors, some items had higher loadings on the g-factor than s-factors in our sample. Specifically, items assessing Character and Connection showed weak loadings on their target factor, |λ| =.02 to.41; <emph>M</emph> =.20 for Character and |λ| = −0.01 to.48; <emph>M</emph> =.07 for Connection This suggests that most of the variance in these items are captured by the g-factor and that there is no factor-specific variance. Only two items assessing connection to friends (PYD33 and PYD34) substantially loaded on Connection, λ<emph>s</emph> ≥.44, while one item assessing Character (PYD17 "do what I believe is right") showed a substantial loading, λ =.41.</p> <hd id="AN0178134251-21">Evaluating the reliability of the PYD-SF in a French-Canadian sample</hd> <p>Table 5 presents all omega coefficients from the bifactor ESEM. Omega-H of the scale in our sample was.82, meaning 82% of the reliable variance in a composite score of PYD-SF was due to the individual differences in the global PYD score. Comparing omega-H with the overall omega of.93, an estimate that reflects <emph>all</emph> sources of common variance (in g- and s-factors), most of the reliable variance in the composite score of the PYD-SF (.82/.93 =.88 or 88% of the variance) is due to individual differences in the g-factor. Only 5% (.93−.87 =.05) of the reliable variance in the composite score was due to individual differences in s-factors. The omega- H<subs>SS</subs> of the s-factors ranged from.05 (for Connection) to.42 (for Care), suggesting that only 5% to 42% of the composite score of PYD-SF reflects reliable variance in the s-factors. These estimates are very low (except for Care) and are not surprising given that these estimates reflect the proportion of variance in the composite score that is attributable to the s-factors, <emph>after</emph> accounting for variances due to a g-factor of PYD. In contrast, Omega coefficients in the first-order ESEM are generally more acceptable: the Confidence and Care subscales were satisfactory (.83 and.86, respectively), but omega for Connection, Competence, and Character were not satisfactory (.65,.49, and.39, respectively). These results thus provide partial support for the internal consistency of the PYD-SF scale.</p> <p>Table 5. Omega coefficients of the PYD-SF.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><td /><td>Bifactor ESEM</td><td>5-factor ESEM</td></tr><tr><td /><td>Overall omega</td><td>Omega-H/S</td><td>Omega</td></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td>PYD</td><td char=".">0.93</td><td char=".">0.82</td><td char=".">–</td></tr><tr><td>Competence</td><td char=".">0.32<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn7">a</xref></td><td char=".">0.11<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn8">b</xref></td><td char=".">.49</td></tr><tr><td>Confidence</td><td char=".">0.49<sup>a</sup></td><td char=".">0.20<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn8">b</xref></td><td char=".">.83</td></tr><tr><td>Character</td><td char=".">0.39<sup>a</sup></td><td char=".">0.08<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn8">b</xref></td><td char=".">.39</td></tr><tr><td>Care</td><td char=".">0.52<sup>a</sup></td><td char=".">0.42<sup>b</sup></td><td char=".">.86</td></tr><tr><td>Connection</td><td char=".">0.50<sup>a</sup></td><td char=".">0.05<sup>b</sup></td><td char=".">.65</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <ulist> <item>5 <emph>Note.</emph> Omega coefficients for bifactor ESEM were calculated based on the equations in Rodriguez et al. ([<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref73">32</reflink>]). Omega-H/S = Omega-hierarchical or hierarchical-subscales.</item> <item>6 Omega-H/S is a reliability estimate useful for the bifactor model because it reflects the variance in PYD scores that is attributable to g-factor while treating variability in scores in s-factors as measurement errors. Overall omega, on the other hand reflects all sources of common variance attributable to both g- and s-factors, without considering the bifactor structure.</item> <item>7 <sups>a</sups>These estimates were calculated using a subset of items belonging to the subscale.</item> <item>8 <sups>b</sups>These estimates indicate coefficients omega-hierarchical-subscales, which reflect reliability of a subscale score after controlling for the variance due to the g-factor.</item> </ulist> <hd id="AN0178134251-22">Evaluating the criterion validity of the PYD-SF in a French-Canadian sample</hd> <p>Table 6 presents the correlations between developmental outcomes and the factor scores of the Five Cs (s-factors) and PYD (g-factor) from the bifactor model. As expected, the g-factor of PYD showed strong correlations with all developmental outcomes in expected directions: positive associations with vitality and negative associations with disruptive behaviors, delinquency, depression, and substance use (see Table 5). In line with our hypothesis, the s-factors also had distinct patterns of correlations with the outcomes. One of the Socioemotional Cs, Caring, had positive associations with depressive symptoms, but Character was associated with disruptive classroom behaviors only. One of the Efficacious Cs, Competence, had positive associations with externalizing behaviors (i.e., disruptive classroom behaviors, delinquent behaviors, substance use), |<emph>r</emph>| =.29 to.40, <emph>p</emph>s <.001. Confidence, on the other hand, was positively associated with vitality, while negatively associated with depression, and substance use. Unexpectedly, we found that Connection had a pattern of correlations similar to that of Competence: positive associations with externalizing behaviors, albeit to a weaker degree, |<emph>r</emph>| =.15 to.16, <emph>p</emph>s ≤.004. Taken together, the global PYD factor related to optimal adolescent development in consistent manners, while the s-factors of the Five Cs, after accounting for the global PYD, related to adolescent outcomes generally in expected directions. These findings provide support for the criterion validity of the French-Canadian version of PYD-SF.</p> <p>Table 6. Correlations with the key adolescent outcomes.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><td /><td>Vitality</td><td>Disruptive</td><td>Delinquent</td><td>Depression</td><td>Substance Use</td></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td>PYD</td><td char="."><bold>0.65***</bold></td><td char=".">−<bold>0.30***</bold></td><td char=".">−<bold>0.23***</bold></td><td char=".">−<bold>0.43***</bold></td><td char=".">−<bold>0.24***</bold></td></tr><tr><td>Competence</td><td char=".">−0.03</td><td char="."><bold>0.40***</bold></td><td char="."><bold>0.29***</bold></td><td char=".">0.04</td><td char="."><bold>0.40***</bold></td></tr><tr><td>Confidence</td><td char="."><bold>0.13</bold>*</td><td char=".">−0.09</td><td char=".">−0.05</td><td char=".">−<bold>0.39***</bold></td><td char=".">−<bold>0.10</bold></td></tr><tr><td>Character</td><td char=".">0.07</td><td char=".">−<bold>0.14**</bold></td><td char=".">−0.07</td><td char=".">0.09</td><td char=".">−0.08</td></tr><tr><td>Caring</td><td char=".">0.02</td><td char=".">−0.06</td><td char=".">0.04</td><td char="."><bold>0.21***</bold></td><td char=".">−0.02</td></tr><tr><td>Connection</td><td char=".">0.08</td><td char="."><bold>0.15**</bold></td><td char="."><bold>0.15**</bold></td><td char=".">0.00</td><td char="."><bold>0.19***</bold></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <ulist> <item>9 <emph>Note. r</emph> ≥.10 represent small effect sizes and are considered outcomes to be interpreted (boldface).</item> <item>10 * <emph>p</emph> <.05; ** <emph>p</emph> <.01; *** <emph>p</emph> <.001.</item> </ulist> <hd id="AN0178134251-23">Discussion</hd> <p>The PYD framework highlights the strengths and actualizing potentials of youths to develop into flourishing individuals that contribute to societies (Lerner et al., [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref74">26</reflink>]). Youths on this positive developmental trajectory are characterized by five qualities, namely the Five Cs, which include Competence (having skills to achieve goals), Confidence (being happy with oneself, Character (behaving according to a well-internalized set of moral values), Caring (having concerns for others) and Connection (feeling connected to and supported by social contexts). Despite the growing interest on the Five Cs model of PYD, cross-cultural generalizability has received little scrutiny, which may be explained by the scarcity of validated translation of an easy-to-administer well-validated assessment tool, such as the PYD-SF (Geldhof et al., [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref75">15</reflink>]). To fill this gap, this study aimed to validate the French-Canadian version of the PYD-SF for use with older adolescents, by examining its factor structure, reliability, and validity. To our best knowledge, this is the first study to test the cross-cultural validation of the PYD-SF. The findings of this study contribute to the growing empirical evidence on the factor structure and cross-cultural generalizability of the Five Cs model of PYD, particularly by adopting a bifactorial model specification that allows the s-factors to be more interpretable in line with the theoretical conceptualizations.</p> <hd id="AN0178134251-24">Bifactor structure of PYD-SF</hd> <p>As part of our first objective, we tested the factor structure of the French-Canadian version of the PYD-SF and found some support for its bifactor structure. This finding is in line with previous empirical evidence (Erentaitė & Raižienė, [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref76">14</reflink>]; Geldhof et al., [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref77">15</reflink>]; Holsen et al., [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref78">18</reflink>]; Yang & McGinley, [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref79">35</reflink>]) and the theoretical conceptualization of the Five Cs model of PYD, which suggests confidence, competence, caring, connection, and character as strengths that can be observed in youths on a positive developmental trajectory (Bowers et al., [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref80">4</reflink>]). That is, the global PYD factor determines, to some extent, the manifestations of these Five Cs in French-Canadian adolescents. At the same time, the presence of s-factors in the bifactor model of PYD suggests that there are variations specific to some (but not all) of the Five Cs, beyond what is explained by global PYD. That is, s-factors retain C-specific information, which relates to some important development outcomes, independent of global PYD. To illustrate this, items assessing Care loaded both on global PYD and on their specific target factor, a finding observed in previous studies (Erentaitė & Raižienė, [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref81">14</reflink>]; Geldhof et al., [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref82">15</reflink>]; Holsen et al., [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref83">18</reflink>]). Youth reporting an elevated level of concerns and empathy for others may be an indication of positive development, while at the time same, representing an unmodeled source of influence, such as emotional hypersensitivity or excessive concerns for others (Geldhof et al., [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref84">17</reflink>]). We discuss the interpretation and implication of the s-factors in the PYD framework in the next section.</p> <p>Some differences were observed in the factor loadings of our study and of Geldhof et al. ([<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref85">15</reflink>])'s validation study among adolescents in the USA. For instance, the manifestations of Character and Connection were determined mostly by the global PYD factor (with close to zero loadings on the specific factors) in our study, a finding not found among the US adolescents. Likewise, all facets of competence (i.e., academic, physical, and social) loaded positively on PYD in our study, similar to Erentaitė and Raižienė ([<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref86">14</reflink>])'s results among Lithuanian adolescents, while only academic competence loaded on PYD among the US adolescents. While these different results across studies may be, in part, interpreted in light of cultural differences, another confounding factor is a methodological issue of bifactor model specification: S-factors were estimated to be orthogonal in our study, but not in Geldhof et al. ([<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref87">15</reflink>])[<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref88">1</reflink>]. A cultural difference—in how respectively societies define the role of competence in youth's development—may explain such diverging results. However, one needs to be prudent so as not to extrapolate these findings to cultural differences, which was not the objectives of the current study. Further research is needed to test cross-cultural generalizability of PYD and to explore the cultural nuances, as was done in previous cross-cultural studies (Holsen et al., [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref89">18</reflink>]; Yang & McGinley, [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref90">35</reflink>]). For instance, could it be that in the USA, PYD is perceived to be more academically oriented, while in Québec, PYD envelops not just academic but also social and physical competence? This is one hypothesis that future studies can directly test.</p> <p>As for bifactor specifications, some leading researchers in bifactor modeling raised concerns about estimating correlations among s-factors, primarily because such a practice complicates the interpretation of the factors (Markon, [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref91">27</reflink>]; Reise, [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref92">31</reflink>]). This critique is best captured in the question: "What does the <emph>G</emph>-factor mean if the s-factors are correlated indicating that there is a common source of variance in addition to <emph>G</emph>?" (Eid et al., [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref93">13</reflink>], p. 546). In our study, we found an average factor loading of.44 on the global PYD factor, slightly stronger than the average loading of.32 in Geldhof et al. ([<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref94">15</reflink>]). To render the g-factor of PYD more interpretable as an indicator of the Five Cs, future studies could consider estimating bifactor models <emph>without</emph> correlations between all factors, as was done in the present study, which showed that such a bifactor model specification (i.e., with orthogonal s-factors) showed an excellent fit to the data in ESEM (M4 in Table 3), but not in CFA (M2). One caveat is that the use of ESEM undercuts some of the benefits that can be gained from specifying orthogonal s-factors in bifactor models (discussed more in the Strengths and Limitations section). Despite different model specifications (orthogonal vs. correlated s-factors), we found some support for the bifactor structure among the French-Canadian youth, contributing to the empirical evidence on the Five Cs model of PYD and its cross-cultural applicability.</p> <hd id="AN0178134251-25">Validity of the French-Canadian version of PYD-SF</hd> <p>The second and third aims of this study was to validate the French-Canadian version of PYD-SF, by examining how reliably the items are assessing PYD (internal consistency) and how PYD assessed by the scale relates to important development outcomes (criterion validity). PYD-SF showed great internal consistency in assessing PYD, with 82% of the individual differences in the composite score of PYD attributable to the true score difference in global PYD. Given this result, when using the PYD-SF, it would be a justifiable practice to simply calculate a composite score of PYD. Moreover, concurring with previous studies (Erentaitė & Raižienė, [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref95">14</reflink>]; Geldhof et al., [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref96">15</reflink>]), global PYD shows moderate to strong associations to key adolescents' outcomes, such as vitality, depression, and delinquency, all in expected directions. That is, youth scoring high on global PYD are more likely to experience greater vitality, are less likely to be depressed and to engage in delinquent behaviors, or vice versa. However, caution is needed in calculating the subscale scores of the Five Cs using the French-Canadian version of the PYD-SF, given the low internal consistency of certain subscales (i.e., Connection, Competence, and Character) and counterintuitive associations between the specific C-factors and adolescent outcomes.</p> <p>One example of such associations is the positive association between Caring and depression, a finding not unique to our study (Geldhof et al., [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref97">15</reflink>]; Geldhof et al., [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref98">15</reflink>]). Recent empirical study examined this issue (Geldhof et al., [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref99">17</reflink>]) and found that the specific factor of Caring, after accounting for the global PYD, likely captures "emotional hypersensitivity or an anxiety-producing overconcern for others" (Geldhof et al., [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref100">15</reflink>], p. 944). Similar explanations can be offered about other specific factors. In our study, Competence showed positive associations with problem behaviors (e.g., substance use, disruptive classroom behaviors). Given the pattern of its factor loadings in our study (strong loadings of items assessing social acceptance and negative loadings of items assessing scholastic competence), Competence, after controlling for global PYD, likely reflects the darker facet of peer popularity, which is associated with engagement in risky behaviors (e.g., substance use) to gain peer approval (Allen et al., [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref101">1</reflink>]). In the US samples, Geldhof and colleagues found the specific factor of Confidence, and not Competence, to be positively associated with risky behaviors. Given accumulating evidence of counterintuitive findings on the associations between the specific factors and the developmental outcomes, more studies are needed to uncover the nature of the specific factors of the Five C's model of PYD, with more specific hypotheses, as was done in Geldhof et al. ([<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref102">17</reflink>])'s study. In particular, future research may examine this bifactorial model of the Five Cs among youth from diverse cultural groups, to distinguish findings that are attributable to methodological choices (e.g., bifactor model with or without correlations) and cultural differences. The French-Canadian version of the PYD-SF validated in our study hopefully contributes to and stimulates research on the Five Cs of PYD in diverse cultural groups.</p> <p>In sum, the French-Canadian version of the PYD-SF proved to be a valid questionnaire, particularly for assessing <emph>global</emph> PYD, which represents <emph>holistic</emph> youth development where all Five Cs are developed in a balanced way. Specific C-factors, on the other hand, may represent disproportionate or imbalanced youth development; more studies are needed to investigate this issue of the Socioemotional vs. Efficacious Cs. Future studies may consider bifactor model specifications that constrain s-factor correlations, for stable estimation and interpretability of both g- and s-factors.</p> <hd id="AN0178134251-26">Strengths and limitations</hd> <p>One strength of this study is that we examined the psychometric properties and factor structure of the PYD-SF in a new cultural context, the French-Canadian culture unique to the province of Quebec, which is embedded in a mostly English-speaking Canada. In our study, we uniformized the response format and rating scale to reduce the cognitive load of respondents and to assess all items on the same metrics (the 5-point Likert-type rating scale). We also provided the reliability of the entire scale in assessing PYD while taking its dimensionality into account. Despite these strengths, the study's findings need also to be evaluated in light of limitations.</p> <p>First, despite our attempt to make the factors more interpretable by shifting from a model with correlated s-factors to a model with orthogonal s-factors, fitting an ESEM (i.e., allowing all items to indicate all factors) still undermines the interpretability of the factors. This is because difficult-to-explain covariations observed between correlated s-factors are now manifested in the factor loading matrix. For instance, looking at some significant and two substantial cross-loadings in Table 4, the Care factor cannot be interpreted as strictly representing the responses to the Care items after controlling for the g-factor. Instead, the Care factor represents variance shared across items representing Care and Character in a positive direction. When interpreting s-factors in bifactor ESEM, cross-loadings with <emph>substantial</emph> magnitude need to be considered. That said, we observed some statistically significant yet small cross-loadings of the items representing Competence and Confidence (in a negative direction) on the Care factor. Allowing small and substantively irrelevant cross-loadings do not "taint the constructs" but rather allow us to capture the factors more accurately under consideration (Muthen & Asparouhov, [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref103">30</reflink>], p. 1563).</p> <p>Relatedly, the use of the ESEM may have contributed to model over-fitting, as can be seen in the low reliability (and low factor loadings) of certain Cs (e.g., Character and Connection). Our decision to fit a bifactor model with five s-factors conforms to the theoretical model of the Five Cs. However, some items representing Character and Connect do not have any C-specific variance after controlling for the general PYD. Caution is therefore needed in calculating subscales scores of the Five Cs using the PYD-SF among French-Canadian youth. Moreover, this finding poses a theoretical question about the Five C model and its cross-cultural generalizability: Do the Five Cs have equal contributions to PYD among the French-Canadian youth? One possibility raised in this present study is that Character or Connection represent the core characteristics of PYD. Future studies might consider the bifactor s-1 model (Eid et al., [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref104">13</reflink>]) to examine and determine an anchoring C element in the PYD and its generalizability. Having said this, it is important to point out that the ESEM is somewhat exploratory in nature, despite the use of the target rotation to test the hypothesized structure. Therefore, more studies are needed to determine whether the pattern of cross-loadings observed in our study reveals something innate about the factor themselves or whether it is something unique to our study's sample or whether it is culture-specific.</p> <p>Third, our study used data collected from adolescents in two schools only, whose parents were mostly white and highly educated. Although these characteristics were comparable to the population of their region, our findings may not be applicable to youths from marginalized backgrounds, as in other validation studies (e.g., high school dropout, lower family SES; Geldhof et al., [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref105">15</reflink>]). One exception is the Lithuanian study that found group invariance of the Five Cs model of PYD across students from low vs. medium to high SES (Erentaitė & Raižienė, [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref106">14</reflink>]). Last, due to the sample size and the reliance on a sample of 9<sups>th</sups> graders exclusively, we could not test the measurement invariance of the scale across time (longitudinal invariance) and across groups (multiple group invariance). Future studies could recruit participants from diverse socioeconomic backgrounds to test group invariance (e.g., Erentaitė & Raižienė, [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref107">14</reflink>]) and use longitudinal data (Geldhof et al., [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref108">15</reflink>]) to test longitudinal invariance.</p> <hd id="AN0178134251-27">Conclusion</hd> <p>This study aimed to validate the French-Canadian version of the PYD-SF for use with older adolescents. Consistent with previous findings, we found support for the bifactor structure of PYD among French-Canadian adolescents, suggesting that youth manifesting the Five Cs are likely on a positive developmental trajectory, experiencing better well-being with lower chances of engaging in problem behaviors. The findings also suggest that the French-Canadian version of the PYD-SF is a reliable and valid tool, with relatively short length and a consistent response format. Having a reliable and valid assessment tool is a prerequisite to cross-cultural application of PYD. The validation of this scale hopefully will serve as impetus for the application of PYD research among diverse groups of youth.</p> <hd id="AN0178134251-28">Acknowledgements</hd> <p>We are grateful to the students who participated in the research. This research was supported by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (<reflink idref="bib435" id="ref109">435-2017-0723</reflink>).</p> <hd id="AN0178134251-29">Data availability statement</hd> <p>Data available on request from the authors.</p> <hd id="AN0178134251-30">Disclosure statement</hd> <p>The authors report there are no competing interests to declare.</p> <hd id="AN0178134251-31">Appendix A</hd> <p> <emph>Items in French</emph> </p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> Je trouve que je suis aussi intelligent que les jeunes de mon âge.</item> <p></p> <item> J'ai beaucoup d'amis.</item> <p></p> <item> Je pense que je réussirais dans presque n'importe quel nouveau sport.</item> <p></p> <item> Je réussis très bien le travail que je dois faire en classe.</item> <p></p> <item> Je suis meilleur que les jeunes de mon âge en sport.</item> <p></p> <item> Je suis populaire auprès des jeunes de mon âge.</item> <p></p> <item> Je suis content de moi la plupart du temps.</item> <p></p> <item> Je me trouve beau/belle.</item> <p></p> <item> J'aime vraiment mon apparence physique.</item> <p></p> <item> Je suis très heureux d'être comme je suis.</item> <p></p> <item> Dans l'ensemble, je suis content d'être moi.</item> <p></p> <item> Je suis sûr que j'aurai une belle vie quand je serai adulte.</item> <p></p> <item> 13R. Je fais parfois des choses que je ne devrais pas faire.</item> <p></p> <item> En général, je sais quel comportement est attendu de moi et j'agis de cette façon.</item> <p></p> <item> Je veux contribuer à rendre le monde Meilleur.</item> <p></p> <item> Je suis prêt à donner du temps et de l'argent pour aider les autres à vivre une vie meilleure.</item> <p></p> <item> Je fais ce que je crois être juste, même si mes amis se moquent de moi.</item> <p></p> <item> J'accepte la responsabilité de mes actions quand je fais des erreurs ou que je m'attire des ennuis.</item> <p></p> <item> J'en sais beaucoup sur les autres cultures.</item> <p></p> <item> J'apprécie côtoyer des gens d'autres cultures.</item> <p></p> <item> Quand je vois une personne se faire profiter d'elle, j'ai envie de l'aider.</item> <p></p> <item> Ça me dérange quand des choses fâcheuses arrivent aux autres.</item> <p></p> <item> J'ai de la peine pour les gens qui n'ont pas ce que j'ai.</item> <p></p> <item> J'ai de la peine pour les gens qui se font « écœurer ».</item> <p></p> <item> Je suis triste pour les gens qui n'ont pas d'amis.</item> <p></p> <item> Quand je vois que quelqu'un est bouleversé ou vexé, j'ai de la peine pour lui.</item> <p></p> <item> Je reçois beaucoup d'encouragements à l'école.</item> <p></p> <item> Mes enseignants me poussent à donner le meilleur de moi-même.</item> <p></p> <item> J'ai beaucoup de bonnes conversations avec mes parents.</item> <p></p> <item> Je suis utile et important dans ma famille.</item> <p></p> <item> J'ai l'impression d'être important dans ma communauté.</item> <p></p> <item> Dans mon quartier, les adultes écoutent ce que j'ai à dire.</item> <p></p> <item> Je trouve que j'ai de bons amis.</item> <p></p> <item> Mes amis prennent soin de moi.</item> </ulist> <p>For those interested in the original items and the response scale, we direct the interested readers to this link, given the copyright concerns: https://cyfar.org/sites/default/files/Positive%20youth%20development%20student%20short%20(10%20yrs%20and%20older)_0.pdf.</p> <ref id="AN0178134251-32"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref33" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Allen, J. P., Porter, M. R., McFarland, F. C., Marsh, P., & McElhaney, K. B. (2005). The two faces of adolescents' success with peers: Adolescent popularity, social adaptation, and deviant behavior. Child Development, 76 (3), 747 – 760. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2005.00875.x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref34" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Asparouhov, T., & Muthén, B. (2009). Exploratory structural equation modeling. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 16 (3), 397 – 438. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705510903008204</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref55" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Bostic, T. J., McGartland Rubio, D., & Hood, M. (2000). A validation of the subjective vitality scale using structural equation modeling. Social Indicators Research, 52 (3), 313 – 324. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1007136110218</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref2" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> 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 (7), 720 – 735. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-010-9530-9</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref65" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Chen, B.-B., Wiium, N., & Dimitrova, R. (2018). Factor structure of positive youth development: Contributions of exploratory structural equation modeling. Personality and Individual Differences, 124, 12 – 15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2017.11.039</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref22" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Chen, F. F., Hayes, A., Carver, C. S., Laurenceau, J. P., & Zhang, Z. (2012). Modeling general and specific variance in multifaceted constructs: A comparison of the bifactor model to other approaches. Journal of Personality, 80 (1), 219 – 251. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.2011.00739.x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref37" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Cho, E., & Kim, S. (2015). Cronbach's coefficient alpha: Well known but poorly understood. Organizational Research Methods, 18 (2), 207 – 230. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428114555994</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref11" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Conway, R. J., Heary, C., & Hogan, M. J. (2015). An evaluation of the measurement properties of the five Cs model of positive youth development. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 1941. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01941</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref59" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Côté, S. M., Orri, M., Brendgen, M., Vitaro, F., Boivin, M., Japel, C., Séguin, J. R., Geoffroy, M.-C., Rouquette, A., Falissard, B., & Tremblay, R. E. (2017). Psychometric properties of the Mental Health and Social Inadaptation Assessment for Adolescents (MIA) in a population-based sample. International Journal of Methods in Psychiatric Research, 26 (4), e1566. https://doi.org/10.1002/mpr.1566</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cronbach, L. J., & Meehl, P. E. (1955). Construct validity in psychological tests. Psychological Bulletin, 52 (4), 281 – 302. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0040957</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Curran, P. J., West, S. G., & Finch, J. F. (1996). The robustness of test statistics to nonnormality and specification error in confirmatory factor analysis. Psychological Methods, 1 (1), 16 – 29. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.1.1.16</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dimitrova, R., & Wiium, N. (2021). Handbook of positive youth development: Advancing research, policy, and practice in global contexts. Springer.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Eid, M., Geiser, C., Koch, T., & Heene, M. (2017). Anomalous results in G-factor models: Explanations and alternatives. Psychological Methods, 22 (3), 541 – 562. https://doi.org/10.1037/met0000083</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Erentaitė, R., & Raižienė, S. (2015). Lithuanian version of measure of positive youth development based on the Five Cs model. European Journal of Developmental Psychology, 12 (6), 701 – 717. https://doi.org/10.1080/17405629.2015.1091772</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Geldhof, G. J., Bowers, E. P., Boyd, M. J., Mueller, M. K., Napolitano, C. M., Schmid, K. L., Lerner, J. V., & Lerner, R. M. (2014). Creation of short and very short measures of the five Cs of positive youth development. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 24 (1), 163 – 176. https://doi.org/10.1111/jora.12039</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Geldhof, G. J., Bowers, E. P., Mueller, M. K., Napolitano, C. M., Callina, K. S., & Lerner, R. M. (2014). Longitudinal analysis of a very short measure of positive youth development. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 43 (6), 933 – 949. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-014-0093-z</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Geldhof, G. J., Larsen, T., Urke, H., Holsen, I., Lewis, H., & Tyler, C. P. (2019). Indicators of positive youth development can be maladaptive: The example case of caring. Journal of Adolescence, 71, 1 – 9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2018.11.008</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Holsen, I., Geldhof, J., Larsen, T., & Aardal, E. (2017). The five Cs of positive youth development in Norway. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 41 (5), 559 – 569. https://doi.org/10.1177/0165025416645668</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6 (1), 1 – 55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Institut de la statistique du Québec. (2013). Québec Longitudinal Study of Child Development. https://<ulink href="http://www.jesuisjeserai.stat.gouv.qc.ca/informations%5fchercheurs/outils%5fcollecte/outils%5fcollecte%5fan.html">www.jesuisjeserai.stat.gouv.qc.ca/informations%5fchercheurs/outils%5fcollecte/outils%5fcollecte%5fan.html</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Institut de la statistique du Québec. (2018, September 12). Children of all ages by family structure, Québec, 1951-2016 (in French only). https://statistique.quebec.ca/en/document/families-in-quebec/tableau/children-of-all-ages-by-family-structure-quebec-1951-2016</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Institut de la statistique du Québec. (2021). Alphas de Cronbach des variables dérivées – Parties A et B et celles issues du questionnaire sur la santé mentale et l'inadaptation à l'adolescence (MIA). Retrieved May 9, 2023 from https://statistique.quebec.ca/fr/fichier/alpha-cronbach-e1-e18.pdf</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Institut de la statistique du Québec. (2022, August 16). Distribution of population aged between 25 and 64, by highest level of education attained, administrative region, sex and age group, Québec (in French only). https://statistique.quebec.ca/en/document/distribution-of-population-aged-between-25-and-64-by-highest-level-of-education-attained-administrative-region-sex-and-age-group-quebec/tableau/distribution-of-population-aged-between-25-and-64-by-highest-level-of-education-attained-administrative-region-sex-and-age-group-quebec#tri_tertr=50040000000000000&tri_sexe=5&tri_age=365&tri_stat=8404</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Institut de la statistique du Québec. (n.d). La population immigrante au Québec en 2016 [The immigrant population in Quebec in 2016]. Retrieved from December 15, 2022, from https://statistique.quebec.ca/fr/fichier/la-population-immigrante-au-quebec-en-2016.pdf</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> International Test Commission. (2017). The ITC Guidelines for Translating and Adapting Tests (Second edition). <ulink href="http://www.InTestCom.org">www.InTestCom.org</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lerner, R. M., Lerner, J. V., Bowers, E. P., & Geldhof, G. J. (2015). Positive youth development and relational-developmental-systems. In Handbook of child psychology and developmental science: Theory and method (Vol. 1, 7th ed., pp. 607 – 651). John Wiley & Sons, Inc. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118963418.childpsy116</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Markon, K. E. (2019, May 7). Bifactor and hierarchical models: Specification, inference, and interpretation. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 15, 51 – 69. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-clinpsy-050718-095522</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> McNeish, D. (2018). Thanks coefficient alpha, we'll take it from here. Psychological Methods, 23 (3), 412 – 433. https://doi.org/10.1037/met0000144</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Miller, M. B. (1995). Coefficient alpha: A basic introduction from the perspectives of classical test theory and structural equation modeling. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 2 (3), 255 – 273. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519509540013</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Muthen, B., & Asparouhov, T. (2012). Bayesian structural equation modeling: A more flexible representation of substantive theory. Psychological Methods, 17 (3), 313 – 335. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0026802</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Reise, S. P. (2012). Invited paper: The rediscovery of bifactor measurement models. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 47 (5), 667 – 696. https://doi.org/10.1080/00273171.2012.715555</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rodriguez, A., Reise, S. P., & Haviland, M. G. (2016). Evaluating bifactor models: Calculating and interpreting statistical indices. Psychological Methods, 21 (2), 137 – 150. https://doi.org/10.1037/met0000045</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ryan, R. M., & Frederick, C. (1997). On energy, personality, and health: Subjective vitality as a dynamic reflection of well‐being. Journal of Personality, 65 (3), 529 – 565. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.1997.tb00326.x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Skrondal, A., & Laake, P. (2001). Regression among factor scores. Psychometrika, 66 (4), 563 – 575. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02296196</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Yang, P.-J., & McGinley, M. (2021). Commonalities and specificities of positive youth development in the US and Taiwan. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 73, 101251. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appdev.2021.101251</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <ref id="AN0178134251-33"> <title> Footnotes </title> <blist> <bibtext> For comparability, we estimated a model with the same specifications as in Geldfhof and colleagues' study (i.e., bifactor CFA with correlations among specific factors). With comparable model specifications, there were two key observations: (1) Items assessing Character and Connections loaded on their target factors, making these two specific factors meaningful (in line with Geldhof and colleagues' findings); (2) the factor loadings of the items assessing Competence did not change significantly, except for social competence not loading on the global PYD (still at odds with Geldhof and colleagues' findings).</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Jiseul Sophia Ahn; André Plamondon; Maxim Bouchard and Anne-Sophie Denault</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author; Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref1"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref3"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref4"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref5"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref6"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref8"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref12"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref23"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref24"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref36"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref38"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref40"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref47"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref48"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref50"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref54"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref57"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref58"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref66"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref67"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref71"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref72"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref84"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref93"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref103"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib435" firstref="ref109"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1429022
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Validation of the French-Canadian Version of the Positive Youth Development Scale-Short Form (PYD-SF)
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Jiseul+Sophia+Ahn%22">Jiseul Sophia Ahn</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9613-7607">0000-0001-9613-7607</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22André+Plamondon%22">André Plamondon</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1169-2669">0000-0002-1169-2669</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Maxim+Bouchard%22">Maxim Bouchard</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3249-3466">0000-0002-3249-3466</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Anne-Sophie+Denault%22">Anne-Sophie Denault</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0325-7472">0000-0002-0325-7472</externalLink>)
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Applied+Developmental+Science%22"><i>Applied Developmental Science</i></searchLink>. 2024 28(3):361-374.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 530 Walnut Street Suite 850, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Tel: 215-625-8900; Fax: 215-207-0050; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 14
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2024
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research
– Name: Audience
  Label: Education Level
  Group: Audnce
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22High+Schools%22">High Schools</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Secondary+Education%22">Secondary Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Grade+9%22">Grade 9</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Junior+High+Schools%22">Junior High Schools</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Middle+Schools%22">Middle Schools</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Foreign+Countries%22">Foreign Countries</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Late+Adolescents%22">Late Adolescents</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22High+School+Students%22">High School Students</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Grade+9%22">Grade 9</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Student+Development%22">Student Development</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Test+Validity%22">Test Validity</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22French+Canadians%22">French Canadians</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Geographic Terms
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Canada%22">Canada</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1080/10888691.2023.2215988
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 1088-8691<br />1532-480X
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: The Positive Youth Development Scale-Short Form (PYD-SF) is a 34-item questionnaire assessing the Five Cs model of PYD that has received little interest in contexts outside of the United States. This study aimed to validate the PYD-SF for use with older adolescents in a French-Canadian context, by testing the bifactor structure and examining its reliability and validity with respect to important adolescent outcomes (e.g., vitality, depression, substance use). The French-Canadian version of the scale was administered to 359 ninth-grade students (M[subscript age] = 14.39; 50% girls) attending two schools in the province of Quebec. The results found support for the bifactor model. Likewise, the global PYD showed moderate associations with the adolescent outcomes in expected directions with high internal consistency estimates. These findings suggest the French-Canadian version of PYD-SF reliably measures the global construct of PYD, but caution is needed in calculating the C-specific subscale scores.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2024
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1429022
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1429022
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1080/10888691.2023.2215988
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 14
        StartPage: 361
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Foreign Countries
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Late Adolescents
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: High School Students
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Grade 9
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Student Development
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Test Validity
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: French Canadians
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Canada
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Validation of the French-Canadian Version of the Positive Youth Development Scale-Short Form (PYD-SF)
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Jiseul Sophia Ahn
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: André Plamondon
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Maxim Bouchard
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Anne-Sophie Denault
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 01
              Type: published
              Y: 2024
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 1088-8691
            – Type: issn-electronic
              Value: 1532-480X
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 28
            – Type: issue
              Value: 3
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Applied Developmental Science
              Type: main
ResultId 1