Phase 2 Testing Latent Change Score Model

• In Event: Symposium | Testing a Dynamic and Iterative Process of Leadership Identity and Competency Development in Youth

Short Description

The purpose of this presentation within the symposium is to discuss the upcoming latent change score modeling phase (Phase 2) utilizing an accelerated longitudinal design.

Detailed Abstract

Again utilizing positive youth leadership identity (PYLI; [Author] & [Author], 2018, 2019) and student leadership competencies (SLC; [Author], 2018) as variables of interest, Phase 2 seeks to longitudinally test the dynamic and iterative processes of leadership identity and competency development in youth, addressing Hypotheses 2, 2a, and 2b highlighted in the first symposium presentation:

Hypothesis 2: Paying recognition to the expected curvilinear trajectory of development among youth (Day & Liu, 2019) and the hypothesized spiraling development of leader identity (Day & Sin, 2011), it is expected that developmental trajectories of positive youth leadership identity and leadership competencies will be positively related.

Specifically, we hypothesize that the development of positive youth leadership identity and leadership competency might have a spiraling effect – the development of positive leadership identity predicts leadership competency growth and that competency growth predicts further gains in leadership identity over time. Thus, we offer the following sub-hypotheses:

Hypothesis 2a: Positive youth leadership identity is positively related to the developmental trajectory of leadership competency.

Hypothesis 2b: Leadership competency is positively related to the developmental trajectory of positive youth leadership identity.

Thus, we expect the level of positive youth leadership identity at T1 will predict the rate of change in leadership competency between T1 and T2. Leadership competency level at T2 will then predict rate of change in positive youth leadership identity between T2 and T3.

Prior studies have been concerned with modeling change in attributes of leadership (e.g. leadership “trajectories”) over time and either (a) covarying these changes with changes in other variables (e.g. goal orientation) or (b) identifying latent subgroups via mixture modeling that explain different trajectories (Day & Sin, 2011). In contrast, Phase 2 of the present study will examine how time-lagged states affect change attainment of SLCs and PYLI. Using a dynamic model (i.e., a latent difference score structural model, McArdle, 2001), the two factors will be represented as a coupled system that represents how the growth processes of each are inter-related over time.

This model is able to capture a spiraling effect (Hypothesis 2) in which the development of positive leadership identity predicts competency growth in leadership and then that competency growth predicts further gains in leadership identity over time. For examples of the use of these models in similar context, see Ferrer et al. (2010) and Ferrer and McArdle (2004).

Data collection intended for use in modeling dynamic systems over long periods of time (several years) typically has issues with missing data; that is, high participant dropout is the rule and not the exception. This study intends to use an accelerated longitudinal design to mitigate this risk. Rather than use a single cohort measured across 10 years, the study is broken into four cohorts that each participate in for the duration of the four-year study. Because the missing data are now design-based, the analysis of these data becomes a simpler task (McArdle & Hamagami, 2001).

As an added benefit, this design enables the studying a 10-year timespan with a four-year study. This does pose a trade-off where certain cohort effects may be undetectable, but generally the benefits outweigh these risks (Duncan et al., 1996), and these designs are becoming increasingly common in the study of youth development.

Early leadership development experiences will become increasingly important in light of a sizeable upcoming leadership transfer in the U.S. Examining the relationship between leadership identity and competency development offer important understandings of overall youth leadership development. Additionally, the methodological process presented in this paper for both Phase 1 and 2 answer the call for more true longitudinal research via three or more waves of data, outcome tracking over time, and practical time metrics (Day, 2011). Precise understandings of how youth experience developmental trajectories of leadership identity and competency will allow for stronger design, delivery, and evaluation of youth leadership development programs.

Participants

• Lindsay Hastings, University of Nebraska-Lincoln
  Presenter

• Alex Brodersen, University of Notre Dame
  Co-Author

• Corey Seemiller, Wright State University
  Presenter

• L.J. McElravy, University of Nebraska-Lincoln
  Presenter