BackHome
Refresh: OffView Personal Schedule
Individual Submission Summary
Share...

Direct link:

Profiles of Youth Strengths and PYD Outcomes for Salvadoran Youth

Sat, March 23, 12:45 to 2:15pm, Baltimore Convention Center, Floor: Level 3, Room 325

Integrative Statement

Research has demonstrated that religion/spirituality (R/S), hope for one’s future, and intentional self-regulation skills are important strengths associated with positive developmental outcomes across adolescence (King, Carr, & Boitor, 2011; Lerner et al., 2015; Schmid & Lopez, 2011; Schmid et al., 2011). This study examined the particular profiles of youth’s strengths using a Latent Profile Analysis (LPA), and the associations with developmental outcomes and predictors in a sample of Salvadoran youth. Many youth in El Salvador live in impoverished and violent context. Given substantial literature describing the negative impact of ecological adversity on youth development (Masten, 2014), it is important to identify the potential determinants to promote the optimal development for disadvantaged youth.
The data were collected from the first wave of the Compassion International (CI) Study of Positive Youth Development (Tirrell et al., 2018). A total of 888 Salvadoran youth aged 9-15 participated in the study (female = 444). About half of the participants were involved in CI-supported church-based programs (n = 443). Participants completed a survey with measures of religious event participation, the Measure of Diverse Adolescent Spirituality (MDAS), Intentional Self-Regulation (ISR), and Hopeful Future Expectations (HFE) for profiles, and the “Five Cs” of Positive Youth Development (PYD) for outcomes. CI enrollment status, gender, and age were used as predictors of each profile. To test the profiles and its relations to predictors and outcomes, LPA, BCH, and R3STEP methods were used (Bakk & Vermunt, 2016; Asparouhov & Muthén, 2013) in Mplus.
This study was designed to investigate (1) the profiles of youth strengths; (2) the association between profiles and PYD as outcomes; and (3) the association between profiles and predictors (e.g., CI enrollment, gender, age). Several criteria (e.g., BIC, AIC, and LMR) were used to determine the number of latent profiles. We found the three-class model solution provided the best fit to the data. Results showed that the profiles of youth strengths indicated three types (see Figure 1): (Profile 1) religious but low strengths (elevated level of religious engagement and low levels of spirituality, ISR, HFE); (Profile 2) nonreligious and average strengths (lower level of religious engagement, modest levels of spirituality, ISR, HFE); and (Profile 3) religious and high strengths (higher levels of religious engagement, spirituality, ISR, HFE). Regarding PYD outcomes associated with the profiles, youth in Profile 3 exhibited significantly higher levels of Caring, Character, Competence, Confidence, and Connection than those in Profile 1 (see Table 1). For the results of the predictors, Profile 1 included fewer CI-supported and younger aged youth than Profile 3 (β = -.71; β = -.22, p < .05, respectively), and Profile 2 included more female youth than Profile 3 (β = .40, p < .05).
These findings suggest that youth with religious engagement and individual strengths of spirituality, regulation, and hope tend to establish higher levels of positive youth development. These results support existing literature, which has reported the importance of both ecological assets and youth strengths as indicators of positive youth development. Further investigation is needed to test longitudinal outcomes.

Authors