Youth as Co-Designers: Critiquing Mental Health Surveys from the Ground Up

• In Event: Towards Equitable Access to Mental Health Services in School: Teamwork Across Interdisciplinary Scholars and Professionals

Abstract

Objectives
This study investigates how youth navigating adversity interpret the mental health and wellness assessments embedded in a community-based, school-referred family support program. Specifically, it asks: (1) How do youth make sense of the constructs and language used in standardized assessments? (2) Where do these instruments reflect—or fail to reflect—cultural and contextual relevance? and (3) What are the implications of youth critique for rethinking validity and coherence in school-based systems of care?
Theoretical Framework
This study is grounded in Sameroff’s transactional model of development (2009) and Yosso’s community cultural wealth framework (2005), which together position youth as active participants in the interpretation and navigation of their ecological systems. Rodríguez and Brown’s (2009) youth participatory framework informs the study’s stance, emphasizing youth as co-constructors of knowledge and legitimate critics of institutional tools. From this perspective, assessment validity is not merely a psychometric concern but a question of interpretive legitimacy, grounded in youth voice, power, and lived experience.
Methods
This qualitative study employs cognitive interviewing with middle school students who previously completed a comprehensive intake survey as part of their participation in a trauma-informed intervention designed to support youth and their families. Each student participated in a structured review of the survey items via Zoom, during which they were invited to reflect on wording, relevance, and meaning. Rather than re-rating items, participants responded to interpretive prompts (e.g., “What do you think this is asking?” “Does this match your life?” “How would you change this?”) and identified perceived gaps in what the assessments measured. Interviews were transcribed and analyzed using reflexive thematic analysis.
Data Sources
Participants are youth from a public school district on California’s Central Coast, the majority of whom are of Mexican origin. All had prior exposure to the intake battery through their engagement with the intervention. The survey instruments included brief screeners and multi-item scales focused on individual risk and protective factors. Analysis focused on identifying moments of interpretive dissonance, resistance, emotional disengagement, and youth-authored reframing of constructs.
Results
Pilot data (n = 4) suggest that many assessment items were experienced as vague, culturally disconnected, or developmentally misaligned. Items addressing emotional states were often interpreted through familial, cultural, or structural lenses that the assessments did not account for. Rather than disengaging, participants offered alternative framings rooted in their lived realities and named coping strategies and strengths overlooked by the tools. Some youth expressed skepticism toward assessments that offered no visible feedback or follow-up.
Scholarly Significance
This study critiques dominant definitions of validity in school-based assessment by centering youth perspectives. Findings highlight that even brief, widely used screeners embed cultural assumptions that can obscure or pathologize resilience among youth navigating adversity. This study treats interpretation as a site of power and voice, and argues that assessment must be accountable to those it seeks to measure. In alignment with the AERA 2026 theme, this paper reframes validity as a participatory and relational practice grounded in equity, legitimacy, and shared authority.

Authors

• Jean Pauline Serrano, University of California - Santa Barbara

• Jill D. Sharkey, University of California - Santa Barbara