DEVELOPMENTAL ASSETS PROFILE

USER MANUAL Fall, 2005

Developmental Assets Profile
User Manual

Revised Fall, 2005

Copyright 2005 by Search Institute. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced in any manner whatsoever, mechanical or electronic, without prior permission from the publisher except in brief quotations or summaries in articles or reviews, or as individual charts or graphs for education use. For additional permission, write to Permissions at Search Institute.

For more information, contact:
Search Institute 615 First Avenue NE, Suite 125 Minneapolis, MN 55413 Phone: 612-376-8955 Toll-free 800-888-7828 Fax: 612-376-8956 Web: www.search-institute.org E-mail: si@search-institute.org Search Institute is a nonprofit organization whose mission is to provide leadership, knowledge, and resources to promote healthy children, youth, and communities.

Preface
The Developmental Assets Profile (DAP) was developed in response to numerous requests over the years for an individual or small group measure of Development Assets. The goal was to develop a new measure that would complement and extend the utility of existing asset measures, particularly the Search Institute Profiles of Student Life: Attitudes and Behavior (“A&B”) survey, which has been used in hundreds of communities across North America with literally millions of youth over the last 10 years. The DAP was developed to complement the A&B survey: the two measures differ substantially and have distinct applications. The DAP and A&B are complementary measures of Developmental Assets that differ in important ways and fulfill different assessment needs. The A&B is a 156 item survey covering Developmental Assets, risk behaviors, thriving indicators, and even a few deficits. It takes about 40-50 minutes to complete and is intended for large-scale survey projects. It is not an individual measure, but yields aggregate reports for groups of youth. It provides detailed assessment of the presence or absence of each of the 40 Developmental Assets. It was not designed for measuring changes in assets over time or for purposes of program evaluation. The DAP is a 58 item survey that takes about 10 minutes to complete and is focused exclusively on assets. It is an individual measure that yields quantitative scores for asset categories and context areas portrayed in a profile format. It cannot be used to determine the presence or absence of each of the 40 assets. It is designed to be sensitive to changes in reported assets over time and it is suited to research and program evaluation.

i

Qualifications for Use of the DAP as an Individual Assessment Tool
Administration
The DAP is designed to provide a standardized description of an individual’s Developmental Assets as they see them. The survey form is self-explanatory and requires no special training or qualifications for administration. The survey requires no more than a 6th grade reading level. If a respondent has poor reading skills, the items may be administered orally. The form takes an average of 5-7 minutes to complete. Allow 10-15 minutes for group administration.

Scoring
Materials and procedures for hand-scoring the DAP are available. Alternatively, internetbased data entry and scoring are available. Prior to scoring, the DAP is checked for data quality problems (too many blanks, multiple responses, etc.) according to instructions in the Manual.

Interpretation
Proper interpretation and use of the DAP requires familiarity with the Developmental Assets framework; background in the theory and methodology of standardized assessment; a basic understanding of data analysis and interpretation, and statistical analyses of group differences. Training requirements differ according to use (for example, research, program evaluation, individual clinical assessment). Graduate training at the Master’s level or higher (or equivalent experience) is expected for most applications.

Statement of User Qualifications
To purchase and use these materials, users must furnish evidence of their qualifications by completing a Statement of User Qualifications (contact Search Institute for further information).

ii

Table of Contents

Page Preface......................................................................................................................................... i Qualifications for Use ................................................................................................................. ii Index of Tables ........................................................................................................................... vi Index of Figures .......................................................................................................................... vii Section 1: Overview................................................................................................................... 1 Background ......................................................................................................... 2 Applications ........................................................................................................ 2 Summary ............................................................................................................. 4 Section 2: Materials and Procedures.......................................................................................... 5 Description of the DAP....................................................................................... 5 Response Scale.................................................................................................... 6 Time Frame......................................................................................................... 7 Reading Level ..................................................................................................... 7 Section 3: Administration Instructions ...................................................................................... 9 Rating Procedure................................................................................................. 10 Time Requirements............................................................................................. 10 Special Administration Issues............................................................................. 10 Mail Surveys ........................................................................................... 10 Reading Problems ................................................................................... 10 Comprehension Issues ............................................................................ 11 Section 4: Scoring ...................................................................................................................... 13 Screening Completed DAPs ............................................................................... 13 Incoherent Responses.............................................................................. 13 Missing Data ........................................................................................... 13 Response Patterns ................................................................................... 14 Multiple Responses................................................................................. 14 Ambiguous Responses ............................................................................ 15 Scoring Procedures ............................................................................................. 15 Computing Scale Scores ......................................................................... 16 Errors to Avoid ....................................................................................... 16 External and Internal Asset Scores ......................................................... 16 Total Score .............................................................................................. 17 Hand Scoring .......................................................................................... 17

iii

Table of Contents (continued) Page Section 5: Interpretation............................................................................................................. 18 Theoretical vs. Empirical Approaches................................................................ 18 Interpretive Ranges ............................................................................................. 19 External and Internal Assets ................................................................... 20 Total Asset Score .................................................................................... 20 Statistically-Based Norms................................................................................... 20 Strategies for Interpretation ................................................................................ 20 A Top-Down Approach .......................................................................... 20 Total Asset Score ........................................................................ 20 External and Internal Asset Scores ............................................. 22 Asset Categories...................................................................................... 23 Support........................................................................................ 23 Empowerment ............................................................................. 24 Boundaries and Expectations...................................................... 24 Constructive Use of Time ........................................................... 25 Commitment To Learning........................................................... 26 Positive Values............................................................................ 26 Social Competencies................................................................... 27 Positive Identity .......................................................................... 27 Context Areas.......................................................................................... 27 Personal....................................................................................... 27 Social........................................................................................... 28 Family ......................................................................................... 28 School ......................................................................................... 28 Community ................................................................................. 28 How to Use the Asset Category Scales and Context Scales Together .................................................................................................. 29 Developmental Trends in Asset Experiences ......................................... 30 Section 6: Development and Psychometric Properties .............................................................. 31 Initial Design........................................................................................... 31 Pilot Testing ............................................................................................ 31 Field Testing ........................................................................................... 32 Psychometric Properties...................................................................................... 32 Reliability................................................................................................ 32 Internal Consistency................................................................................ 32 Test-Retest Reliability ............................................................................ 34 One-year Reliability................................................................................ 34 Standard Error and Reliable Change....................................................... 35 Validity ............................................................................................................... 35 Relations to the A&B Scale .................................................................... 35 Total Asset Scores................................................................................... 36 External and Internal Asset Scores ......................................................... 38

iv

Asset Category Scales............................................................................. 38 Context Area Scales................................................................................ 39 Convergent Validity................................................................................ 40 Criterion Validity .................................................................................... 40 Preliminary Normative Comparisons ................................................................. 41 Summary ................................................................................................. 41 Section 7: Practical Applications of the DAP............................................................................ 43 Research Tool ..................................................................................................... 43 Program Evaluation Tool.................................................................................... 44 Clinical and Professional Use ............................................................................. 46 Bibliography ............................................................................................................................... 47

v

Index of Tables
Table 1 Table 2. Table 3. Table 4. Table 5. Table 6. Table 7. Page DAP items and Their Alignment with the Eight Asset Categories............ 49-50 DAP Items Aligned to the Five Context Areas.......................................... 51-52 Reading Levels of the DAP Items (Flesch-Kincaid grade equivalent)...... 53-54 Summary of Rules for Handing Multiple Item Responses. .............................55 Example of Manually Computing a Scale Score for an Asset Category. ........56 Item Mapping onto the Category and Context Scales ....................................57 Summary of Interpretive Ranges for DAP Asset Category, Context Area, and External and Internal Asset Scales............................................................58 Internal Consistencies of DAP Asset Category Scales and Context Areas Scales By Gender and Grade. ..........................................................................59 Internal Consistencies of DAP Asset Category Scales and Context Areas Scales By Race/Ethnicity.................................................................................60 Test-retest Reliabilities of the DAP Asset Category and Context Area Scales. ..............................................................................................................61 Stability and Change in DAP Scores over One Year.......................................62 Standard Error of Measurement (SEM) and Reliable Change Index (RCI) for each DAP Scale..........................................................................................63 Correlations Between Summary Scores Derived from the DAP and A&B Survey and Risk Behaviors, Thriving Indicators, and Grades.........................64 Correlations Between the DAP and A&B Surveys for Asset Category Scales. ..............................................................................................................65 Average Number of Assets in Each Range of the DAP Asset Category Scales. ..............................................................................................................66 Test of Criterion Validity: Mean Differences Between Relatively More Asset Rich vs. Less Asset Rich Middle Schools..............................................67 Inter-Quartile Ranges for DAP Scales Based on Preliminary Normative Sample..............................................................................................................68 Comparisons of the A&B with the DAP ..........................................................69

Table 8a.

Table 8b.

Table 9a.

Table 9b. Table 9c.

Table 10.

Table 11.

Table 12.

Table 13.

Table 14.

Table 15.

vi

Index of Figures
Page Developmental Patterns in Reported Assets ....................................................70 Mean DAP Total Asset Score by Number of Assets (A&B) for males and females ......................................................................................71 Mean Differences in DAP Total Asset Score for Four Ranges of Assets (A&B) for Males and Females .............................................................72 Mean Differences in DAP Total Asset Score for Four Ranges of Assets (A&B) for Males and Females .............................................................73 Mean Number of Thriving Indicators (A&B), by DAP Total Asset Score Ranges for Males and Females ..............................................................74 Mean Number of External Assets (A&B), by DAP External Asset Score Ranges, for Males and Females ...................................................75 Mean Differences in Number of Internal Assets (A&B), by DAP Internal Asset Score Ranges for Males and Females..............................76 Mean number of Risk Behavior Patterns For Males and Females by DAP External Assets Score ........................................................................77 Mean Differences in Self-Reported Grades in School, by DAP Internal Asset Score Ranges for Males and Females.......................................78 Mean scores on the DAP Boundaries and Expectations Scale, by Number of B&E Assets from A&B Survey.....................................................79 Mean Differences on Rosenberg’s Self-Esteem Scale by DAP Personal Identity Ranges ................................................................................................80

Figure 1 Figure 2.

Figure 3.

Figure 4.

Figure 5.

Figure 6.

Figure 7.

Figure 8.

Figure 9.

Figure 10.

Figure 11.

vii

SECTION 1 - OVERVIEW
The Developmental Assets Profile (DAP) provides an assessment of the Developmental Asset categories for youth ages 11-18. Based on Search Institute’s Developmental Assets framework, the DAP provides a quick, simple, valid, and reliable self-report of the Developmental Asset categories currently being experienced by adolescents. The DAP provides a way to document, quantify, and portray adolescent’s reports of the types and levels of Developmental Assets working in their lives. The DAP was not designed to yield information about the presence or absence of each of the 40 Developmental Assets. Instead, the DAP yields quantitative scores on the eight asset categories, as well as five context areas. The DAP can be a useful descriptive tool in a wide range of settings including schools, mental health practices, family services organizations, and youth programs; and for diverse purposes including individual assessment, research, and program evaluation. The DAP uses a 58-item questionnaire as a standard way of eliciting and quantifying information on the Developmental Assets as seen by the adolescents themselves. The same DAP form is used for boys and girls ages 11-18 (grades 6-12). Completed DAP forms can be scored on standardized profiles that portray the types and degree of Developmental Assets each adolescent reports. There are two alternative ways of scoring and portraying reported assets. The Asset View portrays scores on the eight asset categories: • Support • Empowerment • Boundaries and Expectations • Constructive Use of Time • Commitment To Learning • Positive Values • Social Competencies • Positive Identity The Context View portrays scores on five contexts: • Personal • Social • Family • School • Community

1

Background
Developmental Assets are “developmental vitamins” – positive experiences and qualities identified by Search Institute as being essential to healthy psychological and social development in childhood and adolescence. These assets have the power to influence young people’s developmental trajectories, protect them from a range of negative outcomes, and help them become more productive, caring, and responsible adults. The Developmental Assets framework includes 40 assets: 20 external assets and 20 internal assets. External assets are positive experiences, relationships, and encouragement and support young people receive from peers, parents, teachers, neighbors, and other adults in the community. They include positive role models, boundaries and expectations, as well as young people’s constructive use time. Internal assets are characteristics and behaviors that reflect positive personal and psychological development in young people. They include strengths such as positive values, positive identity, social competencies, and commitment to learning. (See the Search Institute website www.search-institute.org and resources listed in the Bibliography for further information.) Developmental Assets are powerfully related to a range of outcomes among children and youth. Low levels of assets are related to increased risk for negative outcomes including academic underachievement and school problems; alcohol, tobacco, and illicit drug use; precocious sexual activity; and antisocial behavior and violence. High levels of assets are related to positive outcomes including academic achievement, leadership, thriving, and well being. (See Search Institute’s Insights & Evidence news briefs for updates regarding research on the 40 Developmental Assets at http://www.search-institute.org/research/Insights/.)

Applications
Assessment of such powerful influences on child and adolescent development can be extremely valuable for educators, medical and social service professionals, counselors, social workers, psychologists, therapists and mental health professionals, juvenile justice workers, and many others concerned with the healthy development of children and youth. Measures of Developmental Assets can provide important information in developmental research, in community and family studies, and in the evaluation of programs designed to boost assets and enhance youth outcomes. The DAP is designed to provide professionals and other qualified users with the means to quickly and easily measure Developmental Assets in a small group setting in a reliable and valid way. The DAP yields easily interpretable information that can be useful for: • • Describing and quantifying levels and patterns of reported asset categories Identifying relative patterns of asset strengths and weaknesses

2

• • • • • •

Differentiating among individuals in terms of their reported levels and/or patterns of reported assets in different categories or contexts Identifying youth at increased risk for negative outcomes due to low reported asset levels in specific categories or contexts Selecting and prioritizing categories or contexts with the highest potential for improvement and asset building Identifying individual youth with strengths in specific assets categories or contexts Balancing predominantly deficit-based assessments with more positive, strength-based measures Enhancing communication among parents, teachers, youth, and child and family professionals regarding strengths and weaknesses across different asset categories and contexts

In addition, because the DAP provides quantitative indices of asset categories and contexts, it can be used to determine stability and changes in reported assets over time and in response to different developmental influences. The DAP is well suited, for example, to studying effects of youth programs, curricula, and interventions that are designed to enhance youth development and reduce negative outcomes. The DAP is most obviously relevant when interventions are targeted on enhancing specific assets areas, such as building self-esteem, resisting negative peer pressure, or learning peaceful conflict resolution, etc. In these situations the DAP provides quantitative indices of outcomes that are proximally related to the goals of the intervention itself. Even when an intervention is not focused explicitly on building assets, information from the DAP might reveal that assets moderate intervention effects. That is, the effects of an intervention might depend on levels and patterns of assets. Youth with strengths in particular asset categories or contexts, for example, might profit even more from a given program or intervention. The DAP can also be useful in addressing a new and exciting kind of research question: Do assets mediate program effects? Even with youth programs having proven effects, the mechanism underlying those effects are often unknown. In other words, the program alters outcomes, but why? How does it work? An important type of research question to address: Are proven programs effective because they enhance assets in various categories or contexts? For instance, does a drug resistance education program work because it builds social competencies and positive identity? Combining both mediation and moderation hypotheses we might first ask: Is a program effective because it builds assets in specific areas? Then ask: Is it even more effective among youth with certain patterns or levels of assets in other areas? For example: first, is a drug resistance education program effective because it builds social competencies and positive identity? Second, does it have even greater benefits among youth who experience high levels of adult support and clear boundaries and expectation at home and at school?

3

Summary
In summary, the DAP provides a quick and easy way of obtaining reliable and valid self-report of Developmental Asset categories among youth ages 11-16. Assessment of assets is relevant to all youth, not just those considered to be at risk for negative outcomes. The DAP is a descriptive tool that provides a standard portrayal of reported assets across the eight asset categories (Asset View) and, alternatively, across five contexts (Context View). The quantitative indices derived from the DAP can be useful in a wide variety of settings and for diverse applied and research purposes.

4

SECTION 2 - MATERIALS AND PROCEDURES Description of the DAP
The DAP items are based on Search Institute’s Developmental Asset framework (see Bibliography for the origins and definitions of the 40 assets). Two or more items are required to cover different facets of some of the 40 assets, resulting in a total of 58 items in the current version of the DAP. Instead of providing in-depth assessment of each of the 40 assets, the goal was to develop the most efficient set of simply-worded items that could represent the content of the eight asset categories. In other words, the DAP items are not aimed at precise assessment of the presence or absence of each of the 40 assets, but rather to provide a set of items that adequately cover the content of the asset categories (and the five context areas). Of 58 items, 26 tap external assets, and the remaining 32 tap internal assets. The items and their alignment with the asset categories are shown in Table 1. On the external asset side, the DAP scales are: I. Support—support from parents, family and other adults; parentadolescent communication; advice and help from parents; helpful neighbors; and caring school environment. Empowerment—feeling safe at home, at school and in the neighborhood; feeling valued; and having useful jobs and roles. Boundaries and Expectations—having good role models; clear rules at home and school; encouragement from parents and teachers; and monitoring by family and neighbors. Constructive Use of Time—participation in religious or spiritual activity; involvement in a sport, club, or group; creative activities; and quality time at home.

II. III.

IV.

On the internal asset side, the DAP scales are V. VI. Commitment to Learning—enjoys reading and learning; caring about school; doing homework; and being encouraged to try new things. Positive Values—standing up for one’s beliefs; taking responsibility; avoiding alcohol, tobacco and drugs; valuing honesty; healthy behaviors; being encouraged to help others; and helping, respecting, and serving others. Social Competencies—building friendships; properly expressing feelings; planning ahead; resisting negative peer pressure; being sensitive to and accepting others; and resolving conflicts peacefully. Positive Identity—optimism; locus of control; and self-esteem.

VII.

VIII.

The 58 items can also be grouped according to five context areas, as shown in Table 2. As shown in this table, the context areas scales are:

5

A.

B.

C.

D.

E.

Personal Assets—individual psychological and behavioral strengths such as self esteem, valuing honesty, taking responsibility, planning ahead, managing frustration, enjoying reading, and feeling in control of one’s life. Social Assets—assets based on social relationships with one or more people outside of the family, such as friendships, positive peer and adult role models, resisting pressure from others, resolving conflicts peacefully, being sensitive to others, and feeling valued by others. Family Assets—positive family communication and support, clear family rules, quality time at home, advice and encouragement from parents, and feeling safe at home. School Assets—clear and fair school rules, encouragement from teachers, a caring school environment, feeling safe at school, caring about school, being motivated to learn, and being actively engaged in reading and learning. Community Assets—activities and involvements in the larger community such as sports, clubs, groups and religious activities, creative activities such as music and the arts, having good neighbors, accepting others, and helping in the community.

Response Scale
The DAP uses a simple four-step response scale for all 58 items. Respondents are asked to check if the item is true: Not At All or Rarely / Somewhat or Sometimes / Very of Often / Extremely or Almost Always. Responses are coded 0-1-2-3, respectively. This scale combines both frequency and intensity in order to accommodate different kinds of items, and is similar to the approach in other widely used self-report measures for adolescents. Achenbach’s Child Behavior Checklist (1991) - the most widely used deficit measure for children and adolescents, for example, uses a three-step scale combining frequency and intensity. Although the DAP’s four-step scale is not common in questionnaires and rating scales, the lack of a middle rating may be an advantage in reducing a “down the middle” response set sometimes seen in adolescent self-reports. Pilot testing with more complex response scales resulted in increased variability of scores, but greater measurement error resulted in decreased reliability overall. Four distinct rating steps might be as fine-grained a rating system as is feasible with these types of items and respondents as young as 11 or 12 years of age.

6

Time Frame
The DAP survey items are defined within the context of a three month time frame. Thus, respondents are instructed to describe themselves “now or within the past three months” (see Administration below). Previous research has shown that respondents do not adhere precisely to time frames, but are influenced by aspects of past events such as recency and salience and by memory distortions such as telescoping (recalling past events as occurring more recently than they actually occurred). These problems are universal and are not limited to questionnaires and ratings scales, but also arise in other assessment methods such as interviews. Despite these limitations, it is important to use some time frame to provide uniformity across respondents and avoid extreme variability in interpretation (lifetime vs. current state). A three month time frame was selected to cover a long enough span to reduce short-term temporal variability that could radically affect adolescent reporting, but short enough to both reflect current developmental influences and permit repeated assessments to detect change. The use of a three month time frame implies that the DAP should be readministered no more frequently than quarterly to detect meaningful changes in patterns and levels of reported assets. For purposes of detecting changes over time and in response to interventions, the DAP is recommended for repeated administration annually (at 12 month intervals) or semi-annually (every six months), and as a lower limit no more frequently than quarterly (every three months), or 4 times a year.

Reading Level
Reading level is a critically important but often ignored consideration for any paper-and-pencil measure. A key goal in developing the DAP was to design a measure that could be easily read and understood by the vast majority of youth ages 11-18. To do so, items were developed with the aim of achieving an average reading level at or below sixth grade and few items with reading levels above middle school. This is difficult because many of the Developmental Assets represent abstract psychological, behavioral, and social concepts and are largely defined by college level vocabulary. The challenge is to develop simply worded instructions and items, yet maintain fidelity to the theoretical definitions of the assets (see Development below). Two methods were used to evaluate the reading level of the DAP, one based on word familiarity, the other based on syntactic complexity. Virtually all of the words used in the DAP appear on modern familiar word lists for high school and middle school students, and no words appear to be particularly difficult or unfamiliar for a significant number of respondents. Evaluation of syntactic complexity of the DAP items was completed using the Flesch-Kinkaid index in the Grammatik computer program. The Flesch-Kinkaid index is a widely used index of reading level appropriate for secondary school students, based on word and sentence length.

7

Results of the reading level analyses for the DAP items are shown in Table 3. As seen in this table, the average reading level for the 58 DAP items is grade 5.7. Of 58 items, 44 have a reading level below seventh grade, and a total of 54 items have a reading level below ninth grade. In other words, 93% of the DAP items have a middle school reading level or lower. Only 4 items have Flesch-Kincaid grade equivalents above eighth grade. This is due to either sentence length or a single difficult word. Item 36. I am given useful roles and responsibilities, for example, is rated above a high school reading level, but is entirely due to the multi-syllable word “responsibilities.” Fortunately, almost all students in grades 6-12 are familiar with the word “responsibilities” and have no trouble reading and comprehending the item. Taking into account this one complex word, the reading level of item 36 would be 6.4. Likewise, item 20. I resolve conflicts without anyone getting hurt, has a Flesch-Kincaid index at advanced high school level (grade 10.8), due to the string of five two-syllable words. None of these words are difficult or unfamiliar to middle school or high school students and such items do not appear to present comprehension problems for respondents. This is the case also with the other two DAP items scored at a high school level: item 15. I overcome challenges in positive ways, and item 37. I am developing respect for other people. The remaining 54 items have FleschKincaid indices at the middle school level (grades 6-8) or lower. Overall, the DAP items have an average reading level of 5.7 and are comprised almost entirely of words familiar to American youth in grades 6-12. Nevertheless, some respondents will have difficulty reading and comprehending the DAP. An estimated 1015% of adolescents ages 11-18 cannot complete the DAP on their own due to reading limitations. The percentages will likely be higher among younger respondents and among at-risk and special needs populations, including those served in mental health, juvenile justice, and special education settings. These limitations are not specific to the DAP, but would apply to all but the simplest self-report questionnaires or rating scales designed to be completed by middle school- and high school-age students. Alternative administration procedures may be used with respondents who lack the required reading skills to complete the DAP by themselves (see Administration below).

8

SECTION 3 - ADMINISTRATION INSTRUCTIONS
The DAP has simple instructions at the beginning of the form that state:
Below is a list of positive things that you might have in yourself, your family, friends, neighborhood, school, and community. For each item that describes you now or within the past 3 months, check if the item is true: Not At All or Rarely, Somewhat or Sometimes, Very or Often, or Extremely or Almost Always. If you do not want to answer an item, leave it blank. But please try to answer all items as best you can.

The instructions do not use the phrase “Developmental Assets,” which is not necessarily familiar to all respondents, but substitutes the generic phrase “positive things,” and adds that these involve “yourself, your family, friends, school, and community”. This helps set the stage for the scope and content of the items to follow. The respondents are instructed to describe themselves now or in the past three months, as mentioned above (see Time Frame). Respondents are instructed to check how true each item is of themselves using the four-step response scale described previously. Respondents are not required to answer all items, but may leave items blank if they choose. They are asked to complete all items as best they can. As a general assessment principle, it is unwise to force respondents to complete items if they are unsure or unwilling to do so. Doing so increases the risk of invalid responses for those items the respondent initially balked at completing. See “Scoring” below for instructions on handling blank items. In addition to the instructions at the beginning of the form, at the bottom of the first page appears the phrase: PLEASE TURN OVER AND COMPLETE THE BACK, and at the bottom of the second page is: THANK YOU FOR COMPLETING THIS FORM. These are obviously intended to alert respondents to the second page of items, and to provide some acknowledgment and appreciation for completing the entire questionnaire. The DAP is designed to be self-explanatory for respondents with the requisite reading ability. As such, it can be administered individually like any other self-report questionnaire or rating scale. It can be included in larger packets of self-report measures or mailed to respondents, if they are known to have the reading skills to complete the DAP by themselves. Most respondents require little or no additional explanations other than the standard instructions printed on the DAP. Special situations may arise, however, that might necessitate altering and/or augmenting the standard instructions and administration procedures (see Special Administration Issues below).

9

Rating Procedure
Respondents mark checkboxes in columns corresponding to the four steps in the response scale. Most respondents quickly grasp the rating procedure without additional instructions and complete the items on their own. For the standard paper-and-pencil version of the DAP, scoring simply requires legible, unambiguous marks. Marks may be made with pen, pencil or any other writing instrument and may be a check, a line through the box, an “X”, etc. It is implied, but not stated in the instructions, that only one box should be checked for each item. Occasionally, a respondent will check two or more response alternatives or place a mark between two alternatives. Within limits, such multiple and ambiguous responses do not threaten the overall validity of the DAP (see Scoring below).

Time Requirements
Most adolescents complete the DAP in 10 minutes or less, but of course, some take longer. In pilot testing, the average completion time for individual administration was 5-7 minutes, with 1 respondent in 10 taking 10 minutes or longer, and less than 1 in 30 taking 15 minutes or longer. For small group administration, allow 5-7 minutes for distribution and general instructions and 10-15 minutes for completion and collection (at least 15-22 minutes overall). With larger groups and younger respondents, 25-30 minutes will usually be more than enough time for 100% completion. Allow 30-45 minutes for oral administration to youth who cannot complete the DAP independently (see next section on Special Administration Issues).

Special Administration Issues
The vast majority of adolescents complete the DAP quickly and easily, but there are several situations and populations that raise special administration issues. These include the use of the DAP in mail surveys, and administration to youth with reading and/or comprehension challenges. Mail Surveys. As a paper-and-pencil questionnaire, the DAP may be mailed to respondents separately or with other self-report measures. It is of course best to determine in advance if the respondent has the required reading skills to complete the DAP (and any other measures) independently. If there are significant doubts about this, the DAP should not be mailed and should be given in person so the administrator can insure that it is properly understood and completed. Reading Problems. For respondents who lack the required sixth grade reading level, the DAP may be administered orally by anyone familiar with the instructions, items, and rating procedure. The standard instructions should be read aloud and repeated as necessary to insure comprehension. The four response alternatives should be read carefully. The respondent should be told that the response options are the same for all of

10

the DAP items. It is usually best to repeat the response options for the first several items, until the administrator is sure that they are well understood and remembered. It often works well for the administrator to hold the DAP, read the items aloud as if it were a structured interview, and mark the respondent’s oral responses on the form. It usually takes at least twice as long to administer the DAP orally, compared to the standard selfadministration–so allow 30-45 minutes. If you are unsure if a respondent can read and complete the DAP on his or her own, you might ask the respondent to read the instructions aloud before starting the ratings. This is a good test to determine if she/he can proceed with the rest of the DAP. If the respondent has obvious difficulty reading the instructions, she/he should probably not complete the DAP independently. In one-on-one administration, the administrator may assist the respondent in reading the items and making the ratings, or the DAP may be administered orally. If a respondent can complete the DAP with some assistance, it often works well for the respondent to mark his/her own responses on the form, and for the administrator to limit their help to reading the items. It is very important in this situation to avoid influencing the ratings themselves and to allow the respondent to make her/his own judgments. Comprehension Issues. Some respondents with limited reading skills also have difficulty in comprehending instructions and items that are read to them. Obviously, if a respondent cannot understand the DAP instructions, items, and response scale, the measure cannot be used to obtain a valid description of their Developmental Assets. In this case, it will be necessary to obtain information about assets from other informants such as family members or teachers, using alternative assessment procedures. The current version of the DAP is designed for self-reports only and is not intended for informants other than adolescents reporting about themselves. Parallel forms for other informants may be developed in the future. Within limits, some supplementary instructions and explanations may be offered to respondents who have difficulty understanding the DAP. Administrators may try to clarify and explain the instructions for example, and may demonstrate how the ratings are made. It is often sufficient to simply reread or reword the instructions if someone does not initially understand what to do. Administrators may provide limited clarifications and answers to respondent questions about the DAP, particularly the instructions, less so about the items, and even less about the response scale. A recommended sequence for dealing with general questions is to first reread aloud the relevant text of the DAP with the respondent. Second, try to identify the specific problem or question. Third, reword or rephrase the relevant DAP text. Lastly, offer short examples or explanations to address the question, being careful not to alter the meaning intended in the DAP. There is relatively wider latitude when rewording and explaining the basic instructions. More judgment is required when answering questions about items because of the risk of altering the meaning of the item or influencing the respondent’s rating. It is best here to stick to rereading the item and, only if necessary, very carefully rewording the item. It is particularly important to use the response scale as

11

defined in the DAP and avoid any amplifications, explanations, or examples that might redefine the response alternatives and thus affect all of the item ratings. Minimal help may be offered here, only reiterating the response options and encouraging the respondent to use the scale as best they can.

12

SECTION 4 - SCORING
Screening Completed DAP forms
Competed DAP forms should be screened to determine their suitability for scoring. DAPs are screened to help weed out and resolve problems related to (a) incoherent responses, (b) missing data, (c) response patterns, (d) multiple responses, and (e) ambiguous responses. Incoherent Responses. A DAP should not be scored in the case of an obvious incoherent pattern of responses suggesting that the respondent could not read or did not understand the instructions or items (see Reading Problems and Comprehension Problems above). Respondents who lack reading and comprehension skills will often complete measures in unusual ways. They might make grossly inappropriate marks, such as circling item numbers instead of response options, writing in inappropriate areas of the form, checking grossly contradictory answers to different items, and so forth. These are clear signals that the respondent did not understand the instructions or items and that the responses, if scored, could be invalid and misleading. Missing Data. A DAP should not be scored if too many items are left blank, which can be due to skipped sections – defined as several contiguous items left incomplete – or too many blanks scattered across the 58 items. In field testing with a sample of 1,355 youth in grades 6 through 12, a total of 33 respondents (1.4%) completed the first page only (despite the reminder at the bottom of the page to turn the page over and complete the back). This was by far the most common reason why a completed DAP could not be scored. This problem is almost always unintentional: the adolescent did not realize that there was another page to complete. Of the remaining DAPs, 84.7% had no missing items, and 97.6% had three or fewer missing items. Fortunately, the issue of blank items is easy to correct by checking to see that both pages are completed when the form is turned in. With rare exceptions, respondents will readily complete the second page if the error is pointed out. As a screening criterion, DAPs with more than six blank items, which corresponds to more than 10% missing data, have questionable validity and in most cases should not be scored. In field tests, only 1.4% of DAPs had seven or more missing items (other than those where the second page was skipped entirely). The risk is that with more than seven missing items, scale scores can be significantly distorted resulting in invalid and misleading results. The distortion caused by too many missing items can be particularly damaging if several missing items fall in the same scale, and the risk of that happening increases sharply above 10% missing data. With six or fewer blanks, the scoring procedures automatically adjust for missing items and there is little chance of significant distortion in scale scores (see Scoring Procedures below).

13

Response Patterns. Completed forms should also be screened for extreme response patterns that raise questions about the validity of the responses. In field tests, most youth made an honest effort to complete the DAP. On rare occasions, however, someone may complete the form in an extreme or frivolous manner that almost certainly does not reflect a valid picture of their Developmental Assets. Fortunately, many of these response patterns are easy to spot, and thus the scoring and false interpretation of such invalid responses can be avoided. An example of a suspect response pattern is the drawing of a line down a column of responses or drawing diagonally across columns to mark four items with one stroke. The most extreme example, which was quite uncommon in the field tests but did occur, is the marking of an entire page with one vertical line down a column of responses. Such responses patterns should not be scored. Other obvious patterns, such as marking all items identically, alternating responses from one extreme to the other, or an ordered sequence of responses (for example 0-1-2-3-2-1-0, etc.), are highly questionable and generally should not be scored unless there is compelling evidence to suggest that they are valid. Multiple Responses. Completed forms should also be screened for multiple responses. A small percentage of completed DAPs will have one or more items with multiple responses--that is, where two or more response alternatives are indicated for the same item. This typically occurs when the respondent sees the asset described by the item as either multi-faceted or variable over time and thus feels that two or more responses are warranted. If too many items have multiple responses, validity of the entire DAP becomes questionable and it should be discarded. As a general rule of thumb, six or fewer items with multiple responses are not a significant threat to validity. In such cases, the items may be recoded and the DAP scored and interpreted. DAPs with between seven and 13 items with multiple responses are questionable and, although items may be recoded and the DAP scored, interpretation should be applied with caution. If 14 or more items have multiple responses, the DAP has questionable validity and should be discarded. Rules for recoding all possible multiple responses are summarized in Table 5. As described previously, the DAP items have four response alternatives coded 0-1-2-3. If three or four of the alternatives are checked the item should be recoded as missing. Likewise, if the two extreme responses are both checked (0 and 3), recode the item as missing. The rationale here is that the true level of Developmental Asset represented by such confusing multiple responses is unknown, and (b) it is impossible to assign a meaningful value to such multiple responses. Note that recoding the above multiple responses as missing could result in discarding the DAP due to too many missing items. The most common multiple response involves two of the four alternatives being checked. If two contiguous alternatives are checked, recode the item to the higher of the two responses (see Table 4). For example, if responses coded 1 and 2 are both checked, recode the item as 2. If response codes 2 and 3 are both checked, recode the item as 3, etc. The assumption here is that the respondent was unsure about their rating and felt, for

14

example, that the true level of the asset varied between two response alternatives. Coding contiguous responses as the higher of the two is basically giving the respondent the benefit of the doubt and crediting them with an incrementally higher versus lower level of asset. In other words, if there is any bias in recoding this type of multiple response, it is toward slightly higher levels of asset scores. If two responses are checked with a non-checked response between them, recode the item as the middle (unchecked) response (see Table 5). There are only two such possibilities: responses coded both 0 and 2 (recode as 1), and responses coded both 1 and 3 (recode as 2). The reasoning here is that the respondent was unsure of his/her rating or felt the asset varied between two more distinct levels. The compromise is to recode the responses as the average of the two. Ambiguous Responses. DAP forms with ambiguous responses should also be screened and recoded. One type of ambiguity is a mark that is close to, but not within, a checkbox. If it can be reasonably inferred that the respondent was just inaccurate in marking an answer and they meant to check the box, then by all means code the item as if that box were checked (the DAP is not a manual dexterity test!). If a mark is between two checkboxes, code the response as the higher of the two. For example, a mark made between checkboxes coded 2 and 3 should be coded as 3. The same “benefit of the doubt” rationale applies here as with two contiguous responses as described above. If two marks are made - one to the left and one to the right of a checkbox - code the response as if the box was checked. This is analogous to averaging the two responses, as described above. Marks to the right of the highest checkbox or to the left of the lowest checkbox may or may not reflect the intention to mark a valid but extreme “off the scale” response. For example, an adolescent who is extraordinarily involved in musical theater might respond to item 40. I am involved in creative things such as music, theater, or art by placing a mark to the right of the Extremely or Almost Always response. It would be a waste of important information to code such a response as missing. In many situations, therefore, it is reasonable to code such extreme marks as appropriately high (3) or low (0), but only if they appear to be valid responses and not stray or frivolous marks. This is best judged within the context of the rest of the responses. If a completed DAP has one or two such ambiguous marks, but all other items are properly completed and appear appropriate and valid, there is less risk in recoding these ambiguous responses and they will, in fact, have relatively little impact on the overall results. On the other hand, if such ambiguous marks occur in the context of numerous other blanks, multiple responses, and otherwise confusing or inappropriate responses, it may be inadvisable to proceed further with scoring.

Scoring Procedures
After screening for validity and completeness, and recoding any problematic responses, a batch of completed DAPs can be scored.

15

Computing Scale Scores. There are two scoring schemes available for the DAP. The Asset View portrays scores on eight scales representing the asset categories, whereas the Context View comprises scales representing five context areas. For either view, scores are computed for each scale by averaging the scores for completed items on the scale. As described previously, responses to each DAP item are scored 0, 1, 2, or 3 (or missing). Items left blank or recoded as missing are ignored when computing the average. The raw average, which ranges from 0 to 3, is then multiplied by 10 and rounded off to the nearest integer (round .5 up to the next highest integer). This results in scale scores that are integers ranging from 0 to 30. An example of scale score computation is shown in Table 5. This example demonstrates the scoring of scale II. Empowerment, which has six items. This table lists the item numbers and summary label for each of the six items comprising the scale. The table also shows the item scores (0, 1, 2, or 3) for each of the six items. For example, the response to item 17 was “Extremely or Almost Always” true, so it is scored “3.” The response to item 21 was “Very or Often” true, so it is scored “2,” and so on. In this example, there were no missing items. To compute the scale score, add up the item scores to get a raw sum. In this example, 3 + 2 + 3 + 2 + 1 + 2 = 13. Compute the average by dividing the raw sum by the number of completed items: 13/6 = 2.16. Next, multiply the average by 10: 2.16 X 10 = 21.6. Lastly, round the result off to the nearest integer to obtain the scale score: 21.6 rounds to 22. If one or more items are blank (or recoded as missing) they are not computed in either the raw sum or the number of items used for averaging. In other words, blank items are ignored when computing scale scores. In the example shown in Table 5, if item 36 had been left blank, the raw sum would be reduced to12 and the number of completed items would be 5 instead of 6. The average of completed items would be 12/5 = 2.40, which when multiplied by 10 equals a scale score of 24. Errors to Avoid. There are three potential errors to avoid when computing scale scores by hand. First, and most importantly, do not include missing items – neither in the raw sum nor the count of number of items completed – when calculating the average. Scoring blank items as “0" and including them in the calculation of the average will reduce the scale score and make the reported level of assets look artificially low. Second, do not round the score until after multiplying by 10. Rounding the average before multiplying by 10 will result in an incorrect scale score that is either too high or too low. In the example in Table 5, if the average of 2.16 were prematurely rounded to 2, and then multiplied by 10, it would result in a scale score of 20. This is significantly lower than the correct scale score of 22 (2.16 X 10 = 21.6, which rounds to 22). Third, always round scores ending in the decimal .5 up to the next highest integer – rounding down will reduce a scale score and artificially lower the reported asset level. External and Internal Asset Scores. Once scale scores have been computed for the eight asset categories in the Asset View, it is easy to compute composite scores for external assets and internal assets. The External Asset Score is the average of the scale scores for the four internal asset categories: I. Support, II. Empowerment, III. Boundaries

16

and Expectations, and IV. Constructive Use of Time. If scores on these four scales were 20, 25, 24, and 22, respectively, the average would be 22.7 (20 + 25 + 24 + 22 = 91, divided by 4 = 22.7). Again, round the average to the nearest integer, and round decimal .5 up (i.e., 22.7 becomes 23). The Internal Asset Score is the average of the scale scores for the four internal asset categories: V. Commitment To Learning, VI. Positive values, VII. Social Competencies, and VIII. Positive Identity, computed and rounded as above. Both the External Asset Score and the Internal Asset Score range from 0 to 30, just like the asset category scores. Because they are based on the average of four asset category scale scores, each of the four scores contributes equally to the composite score. For example, both scale II. Empowerment and scale III. Boundaries and Expectations are weighted equally when computing the External Asset Score, despite the fact that one scale has six items and the other has nine. If the External Asset Score were computed by simply adding up all of the internal asset items, for example, Boundaries and Expectations would contribute 50% more to the composite score than Empowerment. Averaging the scale scores for the four external asset categories to yield the composite External Asset Score weights the four asset categories equally. The same applies to the Internal Asset Score. Total Score. A total score can also be computed from the DAP to provide a global index of reported Developmental Assets. The Total Asset Score is computed by adding together the External Asset Score and the Internal Asset Score. For example, if the External Asset Score were 26 and the Internal Asset Score were 25, the Total Asset Score would be 26 + 25 = 51. The range of Total Asset Scores is 0 to 60. The Total Asset Score is not equivalent to adding up all 58 DAP items. That procedure would overly weight asset areas with relatively more items, and under weight asset areas with relatively fewer items. Instead, the Total Asset Score is a more balanced index: external and internal assets contribute equally to the total score. Moreover, the External and Internal Asset Scores that comprise the Total Asset Score are balanced in that they equally weight the four asset categories they each comprise. So, in a sense, the Total Asset Score is “doubly balanced” at the level of asset categories and at the level of external vs. internal assets. This is considered a more representative and valid overall index of reported assets than afforded by “unbalanced” scoring procedures.

Hand Scoring. The DAP can be hand-scored for immediate results by computing scale scores manually and entering them into hand-scoring profiles. Two hand-scoring profiles have been developed. The Asset View is for computing and portraying scores on the eight asset categories, plus External and Internal Assets Scores, and Total Asset Score; whereas the Context View is for computing and portraying scores on the five context areas. Additional automated scoring methods and services are also being developed (see below).

17

SECTION 5 - INTERPRETATION
Theoretical vs. Empirical Approaches
There are two major approaches to developing guidelines for interpreting assessments: theoretical and empirical. The theoretical approach involves developing rational interpretive standards, independent of the empirical distribution of scores in the population. Alternatively, the empirical approach involves the development of statistically-based norms based on representative standardization samples. Both approaches are aimed at providing a frame of reference for interpreting the meaning of scores on a continuum, but they do so in different ways. The theoretical approach represents a more subjective but absolute definition of the interpretive frame of reference, whereas the empirical approach is more objective but relative, and – being based on data obtained on a standardization sample – is more dependent upon the context, time period, and population sampled (which is why measures are re-standardized periodically). Statistical approaches to standardization predominate in modern psychological and behavioral measurement. Most psychological and behavioral measures, including those for children and youth, are interpreted relative to statistically-based norms (see Sattler, 2002). Despite their acceptance as the default method of standardization, statistical approaches to standardization have fundamental limitations and unresolved issues, which are little discussed. Although the statistical approach is quantitative and empirically-based, it can provide only a relative frame of reference for interpreting assessment results. To draw an analogy from physical health: on an island where everyone is extremely nearsighted, “average” visual acuity (locally defined “20/20 vision”) would be woefully inadequate. As another example, as the American populace have gotten fatter over the decades, the definition of “average” weight for a given height has shifted upwards. The obvious problem illustrated in these examples is that statistically-based norms are relativistic and, in fact, can make the average look better than it should. To carry these issues to the area of Developmental Assets, if the standardization of the DAP were based only on statistically-based norms, the average level of assets for a given scale would look, well...”average.” This can easily be interpreted as acceptable or satisfactory, or even desirable and good. More than a decade of research, however, has shown that the average level of assets among America’s youth is not very good and may be inadequate for promoting healthy development and well-being. For this reason, the DAP employs both approaches to standardization. Theoretically-based guidelines are the primary framework for interpreting DAP scores. But statistically-based norms based on representative samples of the general population, are also being constructed. This dual approach to standardization is unusual, to say the least, but the obvious goal is to try to capitalize on the advantages of each approach.

18

Interpretive Ranges
As a frame of reference for interpreting scores, the DAP asset category and context area scales are divided into four ranges labeled: Excellent, Good, Fair, and Low. (See Table 7 for a summary). These ranges are theoretically-based and thus somewhat subjective. Nevertheless, they are far from arbitrary and are justified by the following rationale: Scores of the DAP asset category and context area scales range from 0 to 30, corresponding to the 0-3 item response scale multiplied by 10. For example, an adolescent reporting 3's on all items on a scale, would get a scale score of 30 (average of all item=3.0 X 10 = 30). This means that all of the items were rated “Extremely or Almost Always” true, which is the highest possible score and represents the upper limit of the range of scores. A score of 20 would correspond on average, to all 2's. Likewise, a score of 10 would correspond on average to all 1's, etc. A score of zero, of course, corresponds to all items being rated as “Not At All or Rarely True,” and represents the bottom limit of the range of scores. Scores from 26-30 represent on average item responses of all 2's and 3's, with mostly 3's. In other words, most of the items on the scale were rated “Extremely or Almost Always” true, with most of the remaining items rated “Very or Often true. This represents the highest range of scores that can be obtained and this, by almost any standard, represents abundant levels of assets. Next, scores in the range of 21-25 are considered Good. Scores in this range correspond on average to a mixture of 2's and 3's, but mostly 2's. In other words, many assets are rated “Extremely or Almost Always” true, but most are rated “Very or Often” true. Scores in this range are still the upper half of the distribution of raw scores. Most assets would be fairly strong or frequent in the adolescent’s life, but there is room for improvement. Scores in the range of 15-20 fall in the middle of the range of possible raw scores and represent a mixture of 1's and 2's, with mostly 2's. So, although many items are rated as “Very or Often” true, more are rated as true only “Somewhat or Sometimes.” This would raise concerns about low and infrequently experienced assets in the adolescent’s life. Not only is there room for improvement, but it may be important to try to build assets in areas with scores this low. Scores in this range are therefore considered only Fair. Lastly, scores from 0-14 represent the low end of the possible range of scores and correspond on average to a mix of 0's, 1's and 2's. This means that few, if any, of the items on the scale were rated 3's and, in fact, most items were rated “1". This would clearly be interpreted as relatively low levels of assets at work in a child’s life, with considerable opportunities for improvement in many asset areas. The bottom of this low range, scores 0-8, represents extraordinarily low levels of reported assets and would be cause for major concern and, if valid, imply that most assets on the scale are absent or infrequently experienced. Scores in this range are relatively rare in the population, and are truncated in the DAP profiles to make room to differentiate among the scores more

19

commonly obtained. That is, scores of 0-8 are still reported, but are collapsed in the graphic display because they are so rarely obtained. External and Internal Assets. The broader scales reflecting external and internal assets also range from 0-30, just like the asset category and context area scales. The same interpretive ranges defined above, therefore, would apply to both. Total Asset Score. The Total Asset Score derived from the DAP is the sum of scores on the external and internal asset scales and thus ranges from 0-60. Since the range of scores is double that of the individual asset scales, the interpretive ranges are also double. Namely, the Excellent range would be 51-60, Good would be 41-50, Fair would be 30-40, and Low would be 0-29.

Statistically-Based Norms
To augment the theoretically based interpretive guidelines, statistical norms are also being constructed. When completed, these statistically-based norms will be added to the DAP scoring profiles by depicting the range of scale scores corresponding to percentiles obtained in a normative standardization sample. For example, the interquartile range for each scale can be added to the DAP scoring profiles. These ranges will vary somewhat from scale to scale according to the obtained distribution of scores in the standardization sample. Nevertheless, they are likely to map onto the theoretically based interpretive ranges in a fairly uniform way. Norms based on a nationally representative sample of youth are planned for the future (see Preliminary Normative Comparisons below).

Strategies for Interpretation A Top-Down Approach
The DAP yields scores at several different levels ranging from the most global summary of total reported assets, to broad external and internal asset scales, to more circumscribed asset category and context area scales, all the way down to individual items. In general, a “top down” approach is recommended as a strategy for interpreting DAP scores. That is, start by considering the total asset score as the most global index derived from the DAP, then work down toward narrower scales that convey more specific information, ending with individual items that comprise the scales. Total Asset Score. Begin with the Total Asset Score and consider where it falls in the range from 0-60. First determine if the score is extreme, which might raise questions about its validity. Although DAP forms should already have been screened and discarded for problem scoring situations, that does not mean that all remaining scored DAPs are valid. Of particular concern are extreme scores representing unusually high or

20

low levels of reported assets. An extraordinarily high score in the range of 55-60 is rare and can be obtained only by marking almost all items as “Extremely or Almost Always” true. Such a score could be valid, of course, but it is worth trying to verify against other information, if possible. For example, adolescents with total asset scores of 55-60 would be expected to be quite exceptional individuals with, for example, very high levels of internal and external assets in virtually all areas. They would, for instance, have very high commitment to learning and are likely to have relatively high academic performance. Likewise, they are likely to be very involved in a range of extra-curricular activities such as music, arts, sports, clubs, or organization and even demonstrate leadership in those contexts. It is often easy to validate such extremely high scores against other information. If other information about the adolescent does square with the extraordinarily high total score, the validity of the DAP might be called into question. Conversely, extremely low total scores in the range from 0-20 are unusual. If valid, they would represent extreme levels of asset depletion in almost all areas. It would be reasonable, of course, to expect the opposite of such youth than those with high asset scores. Again, if independent information does not verify such expectations, the validity of the DAP can be called into question. If the total asset score is not extreme or is otherwise corroborated, it can be interpreted using the following guidelines. As described in the following section on Validity, low total asset scores are significantly related to a range of negative youth outcomes, including alcohol, tobacco, and drug use, academic and school problems, peer conflict, antisocial behavior and violence, sexual activity and teen pregnancy. Conversely, higher total asset scores are significantly related to increasing protection against such negative behaviors and positive outcomes such as school success, thriving, and leadership. In general, the broad scales derived from the DAP (External, Internal, and Total Assets) have significant general relationships to both positive and negative youth outcomes. More specific relationships, for example predicting alcohol and drug use vs. other risk behaviors, emerge at the asset category and context area level, and at the level of specific items. Total scores in the range from 52-60 represent excellent levels of assets overall and imply abundant assets in most if not all asset categories and context areas. Adolescents with total assets scores in this range have low risk of all types of negative outcomes such as alcohol and drug abuse, antisocial behavior and violence, and school problems and academic failure; and excellent prospects for high academic achievement, thriving, and leadership (see Validity section below). Adolescents with scores in this high range, however, usually show strengths across almost all areas and contexts and they raise very few concerns about risk for negative outcomes. Because they have, for example strengths in areas such as Positive Identity, Positive Values, and Social Competencies, they are candidates for peer leadership, community service, and youth engagement activities. Likewise, with strengths in areas such as Empowerment and Constructive Use of Time, they often have considerable potential to engage in larger neighborhood and community roles and responsibilities.

21

Total asset scores in the range from 42-51 represent moderately high levels of reported assets overall, but levels vary across asset categories and context areas. It may be important therefore to examine the pattern of scores across the specific asset category and context area scales. Scores in the range of 30-40 are relatively low and it is unlikely that there are significant strengths in many asset areas or contexts. The low score overall may reflect the lack of assets generally or more significant asset depletion in some areas and contexts. Again it will be critical to example both the levels and patterns of scores on the asset category and context area scales. Speaking generally, adolescents with total scores in this range have significantly higher risk of negative outcomes compared to other youth. Identifying areas of asset strengths, as well as areas of asset depletion, is an important next step in interpretation. Areas of depletion are linked to risks of specific risk behaviors and negative outcomes (see below), but at the same time represent opportunities for change. Conversely, high scores in specific scales represent strengths on which to build. Total asset scores below 30 are low and represent lack of reported assets overall and/or very significant asset depletion in one or more asset areas or contexts. It is important to check for asset strengths in any areas that can potentially provide a base on which to build positive change. Such strengths, however are not common in this group. It is more common that most asset categories and contexts are low. This is associated with greatly increased risk for negative outcomes, including a variety of risk behavior patterns, academic under-achievement and failure, peer conflict and antisocial behaviors, to name a few. If valid, total asset scores in this area are very concerning and present a major challenge to those who work with adolescents and their families. External and Internal Asset Scores. After reviewing the Total Asset Score, it often useful to examine the levels and pattern of scores on the External and Internal Asset scales. Scores on these two global scales range from 0-30, and can be interpreted using the guidelines for delineating Excellent, Good, Fair, and Low ranges, as described previously (See Table 7). Scores in the Excellent range on external assets, for example, signal abundant levels of reported assets in the component areas of Support, Empowerment, Boundaries and Expectations, and Constructive Use of Time. Conversely, External Asset scores in the Low range suggest inadequate and possibly depleted assets these four asset categories. In parallel fashion, scores on Internal Assets reflect levels of reported assets in Commitment To Learning, Positive Values, Social Competencies, and Positive Identity. For both External and Internal Assets, scores in the Good and Fair ranges, suggest the possibility of marked patterns of strengths and weaknesses across the four asset categories that each broad scale encompasses. For example, scores on Internal Assets in the middle Fair to Good ranges might represent very different patterns of reported assets in the four internal asset categories. An adolescent with a good level of internal assets, for example, might have an excellent score in one area such as Social

22

Competencies, but a low score in other areas such as Commitment To Learning. Likewise, youth with a score on external assets in the “Fair” range, would not necessarily have scores in this range on all four external asset areas, but could score higher or lower in some areas versus others. The levels and patterns of scores on internal and external assets can be used to make a simple, but useful classification. Defining relatively high scores as those in the Good and Excellent range and low scores as those in the Fair and Low ranges, leads to a four-fold grouping (i.e., adolescents have either high or low scores on either external and internal assets, or both). The “High-High” group and the “Low-Low” group are likely to parallel high and low scores on Total Asset score, respectively, as discussed above. More interesting, of course, are the more discrepant patterns of scores (High-Low and LowHigh). An adolescent with high external, but low internal assets, for example, reported relative strengths in areas such as Support, Boundaries and Expectations, and Constructive Use Of Time, but lack of assets in areas such as Positive Identity, Social Competencies, and Commitment To Learning. This group represents unique challenges and opportunities for growth, as we seek ways to capitalize on the strengths in the external areas and build more assets in the internal areas. Certain types of curricula and interventions, such as social skills training and self-esteem building, might be also be warranted for this particular group. On then other hand, youth with relatively low external asset scores and relatively high internal asset scores present different challenges and opportunities and might be more amenable to different types of asset building efforts. Asset Categories After considering the broad external and internal assets scores, the next step is to examine in more detail the level and patterns of scores in the asset categories. Scores on the DAP asset category scales range from 0-30 and can be interpreted using the guidelines discussed previously (see Table 7). The following section provides some additional guidelines for interpreting scores on these scales. Support. Excellent scores on the Support scale suggest diverse asset-based strengths involving parent-adolescent communication, family support, as well as caring, encouragement and support extending outside the family to the neighborhood, school, and community. This is associated with high academic performance and thriving among both males and females. Low scores would indicate the lack or infrequency of most or all of Support assets, which is associated among both males and females with increased risk for a range of negative outcomes, particularly school problems. Scores in the Fair to Good range might reflect either moderate assets overall or a mixture of strengths and weaknesses across the specific assets in this category. A key consideration is how much the adolescent has reported support from parents. The Support scale includes several items reflecting the adolescent’s views of parental support. These include item 13. I seek advice from my parents; item 47. I have parent(s) who try to help me succeed; item 54. I have a family that gives me love and support; and item 56. I have parent(s) who are good at talking with me about things.

23

First determine if responses to these items were fairly consistent or not. If consistent, determine the level of reported parent-related support across these four items. For example, does the adolescent report low levels of support for all four items? Or are they consistently reporting high parental support? One goal is to determine if parental support and communication is a specific area to target for improvement, or an area of existing strength to build on. If responses to these four items are inconsistent, for example, some rated as low as 0's and others rated as high as 3's, it may be worthwhile determining, if possible, why such inconsistencies were reported. For instance, it would be worth discussing with an adolescent how or why they have good communication with their parents, but do not seek advice from them, etc. Of course, radically inconsistent patterns of responses within an asset category might signal random and haphazard completion of the DAP and thus raise questions about validity. Empowerment. Scores in the Excellent range on Empowerment suggest that an adolescent feels safe across many contexts, and valued and respected by others. This is associated with reduced risk of depression, suicidal and self-injurious behaviors, and violence. Low scores, would, of course, suggest the absence of assets of this kind and are associated with increased risk for many negative outcomes, particularly depression, suicidal behavior, and violence. Again, scores in the Fair to Good range can represent a mixture of strengths and weaknesses within this asset category. Take a closer look at certain items in this scale. An important subset of items reflect feelings of safety and security. These include item 17. I feel safe and secure at home; item 25. I feel safe at school; and item 46. I have a safe neighborhood. Consistently low ratings across these three items, for instance, might identify significant psychological concerns and worries that are impairing healthy development. Unlike discrepant reports about parental support, lack of agreement across the three safety items is not unusual or questionable in terms of validity. Obviously there may be valid cause for concern about safety in one setting (home, school, or neighborhood) that does not carry over to other settings. Boundaries and Expectations. Scores in the Excellent range for the Boundaries and Expectations scale suggest reporting of consistently clear rules and consequences at home, school and in the neighborhood, plus positive role models among friends, family, and outside the family. This asset category is most strongly and consistently related to a variety of youth outcomes, particularly high academic achievement. Low scores on this scale suggest a significant lack of these important assets and are associated with increased risk of depression, suicidal behavior, and antisocial behavior among all youth, and drug use and school problems among males. Scores in the Fair and Good range could be a consequence of moderate to low assets across all B&E areas, or a pattern of assets within the category. Examine the subset of items that reflect B&E at home including item 52. I have a family that provides me with clear rules; item 53. I have parent(s) who urge me to do well in school, and item 58. I have a family that knows where I am and what I am doing. Again, consistently high scores across these three items suggest particular strengths in B&E at home, while low scores suggest the need for building these types of assets.

24

Another subset of items to look at closely involve B&E at school, including item 44. I have a school that gives students clear rules; item 50. I have teachers who urge me to develop and achieve; and item 57. I have a school that enforces rules fairly. Uniformly high scores for these three items imply a base of school-based B&E assets from which to build. A subset of two items reflect role models: item 43. I have friends who set good examples for me; and item 45. I have adults who are good role models for me. The presence of positive role models, both peers and adults, is a powerful developmental influence on young people. Lastly, a particularly important B&E asset is reflected in item 58. I have a family that knows where I am and what I am doing. Parental monitoring of adolescent behavior is critically important for healthy development and has been shown in many research studies to significantly reduce risk of negative youth outcomes, particularly alcohol, tobacco, and drug use, and teen sexual activity. Constructive Use of Time. Scores in the Excellent range on Constructive Use of Time indicate a high degree of reported extra-curricular involvement in four areas (1) religious or spiritual activity, (2) a sport, club, or other group, (3) creative activities and (4) family life. In fact, the only way to obtain a score in the Excellent range is to rate all four items as “Extremely or Almost Always” true (or just one of the four items rated Very or Often true). Increasing the amount of involvement within an area can increase the scale score, but only up to a point. For example, for an adolescent minimally involved in a creative activity, increasing the level of involvement can result in a higher rating for item 40. I am involved in creative things such as music, theater, or art. But once the item is rated a 3, increasing involvement even further would not translate into a higher scale score. Likewise, increasing the diversity of involvements within an area would not necessarily increase the scale score. For a young person already extremely involved in a club or organization, for example, becoming involved in a sport could not increase their response to item 34. I am involved in a sport, club, or other group, because both types of activities are covered in one item. The assumption here, of course, is that constructive use of time in these four basic areas of adolescent life contribute to healthy development and well-being, but after some point, escalating depth or breadth of involvements is not necessarily more beneficial. That does not mean that extreme involvement in any one activity, or highly diversified involvement in many different activities, is harmful—it may be valuable for some youth. High scores on Constructive Use of Time are strongly associated with thriving. Scores in the Low range indicate little breadth or depth of involvement across the four areas, and may present opportunities for building assets in this category. Low scores are associated with increased risk for alcohol, tobacco, and drug problems, and school problems among males A key goal might be to initiate or build involvement in one or more of the low rated areas, especially where the adolescent has interest or talent. It may also be worthwhile to determine if certain barriers, such as distance, transportation, etc., are preventing the young person’s participation, then work toward overcoming those barriers.

25

Commitment To Learning. Items in the Commitment To Learning scale covers both the motivation and rewards related to learning (items 5, 7, 10, and 38) and active engagement in learning (items 8 and 26). Some items are tied directly to school (items 7 and 8), but others such as 5. I enjoy reading or being read to, and 10. I enjoy learning, extend outside of the school context. Scores in the Excellent range thus reflect high degree of reported motivation to learn and active engagement in learning both in and out of school. As one would expect, such high scores are powerfully related to academic achievement and are protective against school failure, dropout, and school-related behavior and discipline problems (see Validity section). Scores in the Low range, of course, are associated with poor academic performance, under-achievement, and increased risk of dropout and school-related problems, as well as antisocial behavior among males. Scores in the Good to Fair ranges may represent uniformly weak to moderate commitment to learning across all items, or a combination of strengths and weakness in different areas. One pattern to look for is youth who report high motivation to learn (items 5, 7, 10, and 38), but low learning engagement (items 8 and 26). For example, someone who reports they enjoy learning, but does not do their homework. It is certainly worthwhile to explore and try to understand and resolve such discrepancies. Positive Values. This asset category includes personal virtues such as honesty, integrity, responsibility and restraint, as well as caring about others and working for equality and social justice. Scores in the Excellent range on this scale indicate reported abundance of assets in this area which can powerfully guide the young person’s current and future decision making. Not surprisingly, this asset category is strongly associated with thriving and increased likelihood of significant community service and volunteerism. Adolescents with scores in this range have significant protection against unhealthy behaviors such as alcohol, tobacco, and drug use. Adolescents with high scores in this area can be expected to be responsible and trustworthy and may therefore be good candidates for youth leadership positions. In contrast, scores in the Low range on this scale suggest a lack of personal values which is related to increased risk for alcohol, tobacco, and drug use, school problems, violence, and antisocial behaviors. Scores in the middles Fair and Good ranges correspond to weak to moderate assets in this area and could be due to either moderate ratings on all items, or combinations of strengths and weakness in different sub-areas. It may be worth examining the subset of items reflecting positive values including item 1. I stand up for what I believe in, item 22. I take responsibility for what I do, and item 23. I tell the truth even when it is not easy. Low ratings on this subset of items may signal significant lack of personal values pertaining to honesty and integrity. In addition, inspect the subset of items reflecting caring and serving others, including items 16. I think it is important to help other people, 30. I am helping to make my community a better place, 33. I am encouraged to help others, 35. I am trying to help solve social problems, 37. I am developing respect for other people, 41. I am serving others in my community.

26

Lastly, two items reflect personal restraint: item 9. I stay away from tobacco, alcohol, and other drugs, and item 32. I am developing good health habits. Social Competencies. This scale covers assets pertaining to planning and decision making, cultural competence, and social skills involving the ability to build friendships, resist negative peer pressure, and resolve conflicts peacefully. Scores in the Excellent range on this scale indicate a rich set of social competencies that reduce risk of a range of negative youth outcomes and promote thriving, particularly in affirmation of diversity and in leadership. Scores in the Low range are associated with significantly increased risk behaviors including, peer conflict, antisocial behavior and violence. A reported lack of resistance and decision making skills (items 4. I avoid things that are dangerous or unhealthy, 18. I plan ahead and make good choices, and 19. I resist bad influences) are strongly associated with teen alcohol, tobacco, and drug abuse and other risk behaviors. Lack of interpersonal skills, reflected in low ratings on items 6. I build friendships with other people, 11. I express my feelings in proper ways, 20. I resolve conflicts without anyone getting hurt, and 39. I am sensitive to the needs and feelings of others, are related to peer conflict and rejection. Youth with this latter pattern of asset weaknesses may be good candidates for interventions aimed at strengthening social cognition and social skills. Positive Identity. This scale reflects several strengths in an adolescent’s emerging identity, including self-esteem, internal locus of control, optimism, and a growing sense of purpose in life. High scores on this scale are associated with increased psychological resilience and reduced risk for psychological distress including anxiety and depression. Scores in the Low range reflects the absence of these important assets working in a young person’s life, which is associated with increased risk for anxiety, depression, and in extreme cases, suicidal and self-injurious behavior. Context Areas The Context View provides an alternative way of scoring and interpreting the DAP according to five context areas: Personal, Social, Family, School, and Community. Scores on the DAP context scales also range from 0-30 and may be interpreted using the guidelines discussed previously (see Table 7). Additional guidelines for interpreting scores for these context scales are provided below.

Personal. The Personal context scale reflects individual characteristics, particularly assets from the Positive Values and Positive Identity asset categories, as well as certain assets from the Social Competencies category. Scores in the Excellent range on this scale (25-30), indicate a young person with a high degree of honesty, responsibility and integrity, as well as high self-esteem and sense of purpose. These personal assets are likely to help make the youth resilient to a range of risk factors, particularly if assets are lacking in the larger family, school, and community contexts. High scores on the Personal scale are associated with lower involvement in a wide range of risk behaviors and significantly increased thriving.

27

In contrast, low scores on the Personal scale (0-14) reflect a youth reporting few individual strengths related to positive values and identity. Such youth are at increased risk for a range of negative behaviors and outcomes, particularly if they also lack assets in other context areas. Depression and anxiety are particular risks among youth scoring low on the Personal scale. Social. The Social scale reflects assets related to relationships with others, both adults and peers. It includes many assets related to the Social Competencies asset category, but also characteristics such as support, role models, and helping others, from other asset categories. High scores on the Social scale indicate a young person with many assets related to social relationships working in their lives. Such youth would have the support, encouragement, and role models necessary for healthy development and thriving. In contrast, youth with low scores on the Social scale lack essential relationships and role models in their lives. They may have difficulty making friends and expressing their feelings. Such youth may lack basic social skills. They might also lack positive relationships with adults, other than family members, in their lives. Family. The Family scale obviously reflects assets related to home and family. This scale combines assets from all four external asset categories, drawing particularly from Support and Boundaries and Expectations. High scores on this scale suggest a young person with a safe, warm, and supportive family, with good parent-child communication. It also suggests that parents are active in providing advice, setting and enforcing rules, and monitoring their child’s behavior. Low scores, of course, suggest a lack of these essential family assets. Not surprisingly, low scores on the Family scale are associated with increased risk behaviors, including alcohol and drug use, and violence and antisocial behavior. School. The School context scale combines assets related to the school environment, relationships with teachers, and the young person’s attitude toward school. High scores on this scale indicate a safe and caring school environment with clear rules that are fairly enforced, combined with a personal commitment to learning. The combination of personal assets related to learning, with the external assets related to the school environment serve to protect and promote healthy development related to school. Specifically, youth with high scores on the School scale are likely to have high academic achievement and have very low risk of school related behavior and discipline problems. Conversely, those with low scores on this scale are at increased risk for academic underachievement and failure, school dropout, and a range of school discipline problems. Community. The Community context scale combines external assets related to neighborhood and community support, empowerment, and positive use of time in the larger community. High scores on this scale reflect a combination of safe and supportive neighborhood, youth service to the community, and youth empowerment and engagement at the community level. Low scores reflect weak community assets for youth and may reflect poor community attitudes towards youth, lack of after-school activities, or few youth service opportunities.

28

How to use the Asset Category Scales and Context Scales Together One of the unique properties of the DAP is that it can be scored in different but complementary ways. This can be accomplished in numerous ways—two examples will be provided here for illustration. Table 6 shows how each of the items maps onto both the asset category scales and the context scales. Looking at the first set of items which comprises the Support category scale—you can see how these Support items cross-load with the Family, School, Community, and Social context scales. Thus, one way to use these different perspectives complementarily is to look at a category scale with heterogeneous context scale items. For example, the Boundaries & Expectations asset category scale is predominantly made up of Family and School items (7 of the 9 items are from these 2 context scales). Looking at these 3 scales (one asset category, 2 context scales) together may shed more light as to your respondents’ experiences. For example, if there is a group of students who have average scores in the Boundaries and Expectations asset category scale, an examination of the Family and School context scales may provide greater context for these B&E scores. It’s possible that there will be a group of students whose middling B&E scores are a function of many positive family experiences, but very poor school experiences. Likewise, another group of youth with average B&E scores may be because of low scores on the Family scale but high scores in the School scale. Finally, there is likely a group of youth who have average scores across all three (B&E, Family, & School) scales. This level of distinction would not be possible without comparing the scores across the asset category and context scales. Conversely, one can also look at a category scale with many overlapping but not completely redundant items. For example, the Commitment to Learning asset category scale is comprised mostly of School context scale items, yet there are 6 School items that are not part of the Commitment to Learning scale. Thus, if there is any meaningful difference between Commitment to Learning and School scales (e.g., the former has an average score of 18, while the latter has an average score of 24, you can inspect the nonoverlapping items to see how groups of youth are responding differently for different aspects of the school and learning environment. Finally, from a correlational perspective, one can look for relations among DAP scales across asset category and context views of interest. For example, Positive Identity scores may be correlated with Family, Community, and School scale scores to see which of these three (or all) contexts is most closely related to students’ perceptions of identity. Note, though, that NO analyses should be conducted across scales with overlapping items. For example, the Social Competencies asset category scale is mostly comprised of Personal and Social context scale items, but also has a Community context scale item. For this reason, Social Competencies scores should never be statistically analyzed in the context of the Personal, Social, or Community context scales.

29

Ultimately, data interpretation is about finding meaningful patterns among constructs and among groups of individuals. Using the asset category and context scales complementarily allows for greater precision in identifying these patterns, and may lead to a deeper understanding of what your participants are telling you about the positive experiences in their lives. Developmental Trends in Asset Experiences A note here on the developmental patterns in how adolescents report on asset experiences: both cross-sectional and longitudinal data using the A&B survey indicate that youth report a decline in asset experiences with age. From 6th grade, youth report fewer assets in their lives up to about 9th grade, at which the number of assets typically plateaus, with a slight uptick around 12th grade (see Figure 1). We have seen this phenomenon in every community that included a wide range of youth respondents, and there is every reason to suspect this is a normative developmental trend. At this point we do not have sufficient developmental data on the DAP to confirm this pattern, though the data we do possess (from a single site) indicate similar trends. When interpreting your data, it is important to remember this age-graded pattern.

30

SECTION 6 - DEVELOPMENT AND PSYCHOMETRIC PROPERTIES
The development of the DAP has followed what have been called SERVE assessment principles, which call for a measure that is: Simple – Short and focused Easy – Quick and easy to administer Reliable – Low measurement error Valid – Accurate and true Efficient – High information yield Development of the DAP, which began in 2002 and is ongoing, has proceeded through several phases, including initial design, pilot testing, and field trials. Initial Design. In the initial design phase, the basic structure and content of the DAP were determined and decisions were made about the time frame, instructions, and scoring methods. Several different questionnaire formats and types of response scaling were considered and were pilot tested with small samples of adolescents (see below). An initial item pool was generated to operationalize the definitions of the 40 assets in simple language suitable for a self-report measure for 11-18 year-olds. Pilot Testing. In the piloting phase, different questionnaire formats and response options were evaluated with small focus groups of adolescents. Key considerations included clarity and comprehension of the items and instructions, ease of use, acceptability, and time requirements. Some participants in the pilot studies were debriefed after completing a draft measure to determine how they interpreted the items and what decision making process went into their ratings. Feedback lead to changes in item content and wording to increase fidelity with the asset definitions and improve clarity. Another important goal during this phase was to carefully evaluate the reading level of the instructions, items, and response scale. Preliminary reading level analyses identified several items that were too difficult for self-reports with respondents as young as sixth or seventh grade. Many items were revised to reduce reading level, while trying to maintain fidelity with the original definitions of the assets. Initial piloting also evaluated alternative types of response scaling. The results of these preliminary tests helped identify the best response scaling for these types of items. A three-step scale (Not At All/Somewhat or Sometime/Very or Often), for example, yielded scale scores with substantially less differentiation among individuals, particularly among higher reported asset levels. On the other hand, a five-step scale yielded scale scores with more differentiation among individuals, but reliability was reduced due to increased measurement error at the item level. The four-step scale was chosen as the best compromise between reliability and the ability to maximally differentiate among individuals across the entire range of reported assets.

31

Field Testing. With the items revised and the format, instructions, and response scaling finalized, development of the DAP entered a phase of larger field testing. In the initial field test, a sample of over 1,300 sixth through 12th grade participants from a public school district in Minnesota completed both the DAP and the A&B survey. These data were used to determine age and gender differences in DAP scores, the relations between the two asset measures, internal consistency of DAP scales, as well as concurrent validity of the DAP with respect to other measures of assets, risk behaviors, and thriving indicators. A subsample of over 200 students also completed the DAP twice over a two week interval to determine test-retest reliability. In a second field test, a sample of more than 1,110 sixth- through eighth-grade students in Oregon completed the DAP and A&B survey. This sample broadened geographic representation, and increased racial and ethnic diversity to include more Hispanic, American Indian, Asian, and Multi-racial youth. In addition, this sample was drawn from two public middle schools, one of which was, according to independent criteria, more asset rich than the other. Comparisons between the two schools thus provided an important test of criterion validity for the DAP. Lastly, the second field test also included two widely used measures of self-esteem, which provided tests of convergent validity from key DAP scales. Several other validity and reliability studies of the DAP are planned to rapidly build the knowledge base about the psychometric properties of this new measure of Developmental Assets. The DAP is also being made available to researchers and program evaluators who can accelerate this testing and validation process.

Psychometric Properties
Initial tests of the reliability and validity of the DAP were based on the field tests described above. Additional reliability and validity studies are ongoing. The following results should be considered preliminary. They are promising, but considerable work remains to be done to adequately test this new self-report measure of Developmental Assets. Reliability. Two types of reliability have been examined: internal consistency and test-retest reliability. Internal consistency refers to homogeneity of item responses within a multi-item scale. Test-retest reliability refers to the stability of scores over a short time interval, which provides a way to estimate the proportion of variance in scores that is due to measurement error. A third type of reliability, inter-rater reliability, cannot be tested with the DAP because it is designed only for adolescent self-reports (and we would not necessarily expect different informants such as parents and teachers to agree with youth about their levels of Developmental Assets). Internal Consistency. High internal consistency is desirable, but not essential or sufficient for establishing the reliability of a measure. High internal consistency would be expected when all items on a scale reflect a unidimensional construct, which is not

32

necessarily the case with the Developmental Assets. Also, because it is computed from a single administration, internal consistency sidesteps important sources of measurement error, such as temporal and situational variations, that certainly reduce reliability in real world use. Nevertheless, low internal consistency is problematic for any multi-item scale. Why aggregate items into a single scale score if they do not appear to be measuring something in common? These caveats aside, internal consistencies computed from the field trial of approximately 1,300 middle- and high-school youth are reported in Table 8. Cronbach’s coefficient alpha was used to quantify internal consistency. Alpha is a correlational metric of scale homogeneity ranging from 0 to 1, corresponding to no internal consistency to perfect internal consistency, respectively. Internal consistency rules of thumb suggest that alphas above .80 are excellent, alphas .70-.79 are adequate, and alphas .60-.69 are still acceptable but should be interpreted cautiously, and alphas below .60 should be re-examined, including an analysis of heterogeneous item content (e.g., the Constructive Use of Time category - see below). As shown in Table 8, internal consistencies for the DAP scales were relatively high, and averaged .81 for the eight asset category scales and .88 for the five context scales. Internal consistency was .93 for internal assets, .95 for external assets, and .97 for total assets. Results did not vary significantly between groups. Internal consistencies were uniformly high among boys and girls, middle school and high school youth, and white and non-white youth. Internal consistency was relatively low for one scale: Constructive Use Of Time (.59). Internal consistency might be a less relevant consideration for a scale reflecting involvement in a variety of enriching activities. This scale also has only four items, the fewest of any scale scored from the DAP. It is difficult to add more items, however, and still maintain fidelity to the definition of this category. For example, item 34. I am involved in a sport, club, or other group, covers a range of possible activities and closely parallels the original definition of Asset 18. Young person spends time in sports, clubs, or organizations at school and/or in community organizations. Item 34 could be split into several different items reflecting involvement in a sport, involvement in a club, involvement in a group, etc. However, the goal is not to assess how many different activities an adolescent is involved in, but rather–in keeping with the definition of the asset–assess involvement in any one or more youth activities. Furthermore, adding more fine-grained items reflecting Constructive Use of Time might reduce, rather than improve, internal consistency and possibly reduce validity. After all, even youth who have very high constructive use of time, are not necessarily involved in a wide range of different activities. Table 8b shows internal consistencies for the second field trial sample of 1,133 middle school students. Alpha coefficients are reported separately for White, Hispanic, American Indian, Asian, and Multi-racial subgroups. For the overall sample (n=1,133), internal consistencies were moderately high and averaged .77 for the eight asset category scales and .86 for the five context area scales. Internal consistency was .92 for internal assets, .94 for external assets, and .96 for total assets. Again, internal consistencies did not vary significantly between groups and were uniformly high for the five race/ethnicity

33

subgroups. Overall, results of the second field trial closely replicated those of the first trial. In sum, internal consistencies were moderately high for the DAP scales, including the asset category scales, context scales, and broader summary scales. Internal consistencies did not vary appreciably for males and females, younger vs. older respondents, or white vs. nonwhite respondents, or specific race/ethnicity subgroups. Constructive Use of Time had relatively low internal consistency, but this may be intrinsic to the nature and definition of this particular asset category. The more important consideration for this and the other DAP scales is test-retest reliability, which is reported next. Test-Retest Reliability. Two-week test-retest reliability for a sample of sixth through 12 graders (n=225) is reported in Table 9. Reliabilities, as indexed by the correlation coefficient, were moderately high and averaged r=.79 for the eight asset categories scales. Test-retest reliability for the Internal Assets Score was r=.86 and for External Assets Score was r=.84. Test-retest reliability for the DAP Total Asset Score was r=.87. As shown in Table 9, test-retest reliabilities were uniformly high for males and females and for grades 6-8 and 9-12. Reliabilities were incrementally higher for females compared to males for 13 of the 16 DAP scales, a pattern of results that is significant by sign test (p<.05). Reliabilities were also incrementally higher for older versus younger respondents for 13 of the 16 scales, a pattern that is also significant (p<.05 by sign test). In accordance with our expectations Constructive Use of Time had moderately high test-retest reliability, especially among females (r=.79) and high school youth (r=.75), despite relatively low internal consistency (alpha=.59). We expected this because even though the items that comprise the Constructive Use of Time scale are heterogeneous (e.g., there’s no reason to suspect that a youth involved in community activities will also be involved in religious activities), indexing whether youth are involved in any type of community activity should be related to outcomes. One-year Stability. A one-year longitudinal follow-up study was conducted on 161 students in the initial field trial. This sample of 7th-12th graders was 44% males and 56% males. Stability and mean change in DAP scores are reported in Table 9A. As shown in this table, there was considerable stability in DAP scores over the one-year interval. Average stability for the eight asset category scales was r=.61, with a range from r=.52 to .67. Stability was r=.69 for external assets, r=.64 for internal assets, and r=.68 for total assets (all r’s p<.001). Stabilities averaged r=.65 for the five context area scales (range r=..63 to .69, p<.001 for all r’s). Paired t-tests between Time 1 and Time 2 showed no significant mean changes in DAP scores over one year. Despite significant stability and lack of mean change for the group as a whole, some individuals showed substantial changes in reported asset scores over one year. For any given asset category or context area scale, approximately one person in five increased five points or more, whereas one in five decreased five points or more over one year. Overall, there appears to be considerable stability in rank ordering of DAP scores over one year, and little change on average. However, some youth show substantial changes in reported asset scores in specific areas over this time interval.

34

Standard Errors and Reliable Change. A Reliable Change Index (RCI) is a guideline for determining how much change in an individual score is required to represent true change, as opposed to measurement error. RCIs differ from scale to scale and are based on the scale’s standard error of measurement, which in turn is based on the reliability and the standard deviation of the scale. The standard error of measurement and RCI for each DAP scale are shown in Table 9B. These results are based on the testretest reliabilities (Table 9) and standard deviations derived from the initial field trial. Standard errors averaged 1.09 and the resulting RCIs averaged 2.14. This implies that for almost all DAP scales, a change of 1 or 2 points could easily be attributed to measurement error, whereas a change of 3 or more points is likely to represent true change. The one exception to this rule of thumb is the Constructive Use of Time scale, where a change of 4 or more points is required. For many scales with higher reliability (and smaller standard deviations) a change of only 2 points falls technically outside the RCI (e.g., RCI=1.94), but since DAP scores can only assume integer values, a minimum change of 3 points or more seems more warranted.

Validity
Relations to the A&B Scale. The are few other scales of Developmental Assets against which to validate a new measure such as the DAP. The obvious choice for testing concurrent validity of the DAP is Search Institute’s own A&B survey which has been widely used for over a decade in research involving millions of youth. The two measures differ in important ways, but share the goal of assessing Developmental Assets from adolescent self-reports. Determining the relationships between the two measures can help evaluate the validity of the DAP in several ways. First and foremost, DAP scores should show strong convergent relationships with parallel information derived from the A&B survey. The Total Asset Score computed from the DAP, for example, should correlate highly and positively with total number of assets determined by the A&B. There should also be significant differences in DAP scores between groups differing in number of assets and vice versa - differences in number of assets between groups defined as being in the Low/Fair/Good/Excellent range on DAP scales. These strong convergent relationships should also hold true for A&B asset counts corresponding to the DAP External and Internal Assets scores and more specific asset category scores. As discussed below, validation of the context area scales is particularly challenging given the lack of comparable measures and validity criteria. In addition to assets, the A&B survey assesses self-reported risk behaviors and thriving. If the DAP is a valid measure of the Developmental Assets, scores should correlate with youth outcomes including risk behaviors, thriving indicators, and academic performance, in a manner consistent with both theoretical predictions and previous research (mostly using the A&B survey). The more global DAP scales (Total Asset Scores, External and Internal Asset Scores) would be expected to related strongly to such youth outcomes. Significant relationships would also be expected at the level of more circumscribed asset category and context area scales. Lastly, demographic differences in levels of reported assets, including gender differences, age trends, and other correlates are

35

well documented in research using the A&B survey. Finding similar demographic correlates with the DAP would support to some extent its concurrent validity. Or to say it the other way around: If the DAP did not relate to other demographic and background characteristics in the same way as the A&B survey, it would suggest the two measures are not measuring the same things. To address validity of the DAP, we analyzed relationships to the A&B survey in the field trial of more than 1,300 youth in grades six through 12 (other validity studies are ongoing). Four types of analyses were undertaken. First, the correlation between DAP scores and the corresponding count of number of assets derived from the A&B survey was computed to determine degree of linear relationship between the two measures. Second, analyses focused on means differences in DAP scores for groups differing in number of assets as determined by the A&B. Third, mean differences in number of assets were examined for groups defined by the DAP as Low, Fair, Good, and Excellent. Fourth, relationships between the DAP scores and self-reported risk behaviors, academic performance, and thriving were tested. Following the “top-down” strategy used above, results are presented first for Total Asset Score, then External and Internal Asset Scores, then the specific asset category scales. Lastly, validation of the context area scales is addressed. Total Asset Scores. The correlation between the DAP Total Asset Score and the total number of assets derived from the A&B survey was r=.82, p<.001, indicating very strong linear relationship between the two measures. This correlation was very consistent for males and females analyzed separately, and for students in grades 6-8 versus 9-12. The relationship between the DAP and the A&B survey appears to be quite robust, as these two global measures correlated r=.76, p<.001 in the second field trial with a younger sample of middle school students (n=1,136). Mean differences in Total Asset Score by total number of assets (A&B) is shown in Figure 2. For this analysis, numbers of assets were grouped by twos (5-6, 7-8, 9-10, etc.) and those from 0 to 4 and from 38 to 40 were grouped together due to few youth scoring in these ranges. Results show a very strong linear relationship between the two measures: as the number of assets increased from 0 to 40, mean scores on the DAP increase systematically. In previous work using the A&B survey, number of assets has often been divided into four ranges: 0-10, 11-20, 21-30, and 31-40, which powerfully discriminate youth reports of their engagement in a range of positive and negative behaviors. If the DAP is a valid measure of Developmental Assets, there should be significant and systematic differences in mean DAP scores among these four ranges. Figure 2 shows mean DAP Total Asset Scores for the four asset ranges defined by the A&B, separately for males and females. For both genders, there was a highly significant (p<.001) linear relationship between the asset ranges and the mean DAP scores. In addition, among those youth with 0-10 A&B assets, the mean Total Asset Score was in the Low range (0-29) defined for the DAP. Likewise, youth with 11-19 assets had DAP scores in the Fair range on average, those with 21-30 assets were in the Good range on average, and those with 31-40 assets were in the Excellent range on average. This indicates good agreement between the two

36

measures of Developmental Assets and helps validate the interpretive ranges used with the DAP. Another way to explore the convergence between the DAP and the A&B survey is to determine the number of assets youth report on the A&B within each of the four interpretive ranges for DAP Total Asset Score. As shown in Figure 3, youth scoring in the Low range on DAP Total Asset Score, averaged only 8.98 assets on the A&B. Those in the Fair range averaged 16.0 assets, whereas those in the Good range averaged 24.0. Youth scoring in the Excellent range on the DAP averaged 30.1 assets according to the A&B. To elaborate on this, most youth scoring in the Low range on the DAP had between 0 and 10 assets on the A&B, most scoring in the Fair range had 11-20 assets, most in the Good range had 21-30 assets, and most in the Excellent range had 31-40 assets. Figure 3 shows mean differences for the whole sample (n= 1,182 for this analysis) which were highly statistically significant, F(3,1178) = 668.3, p<.001. Similar convergent relationships were found for males and females, and for middle school and high school analyzed separately. Table 10 shows how global summary scores from the DAP and A&B correlate with self-reported risk behaviors, thriving, and academic performance. Risk behaviors were assessed using the A&B survey and were indexed in two ways: (a) the sum of 24 risk behaviors such as use of alcohol, cigarettes, or drugs; drinking and driving; school discipline problems and truancy; aggressive behaviors, violence, and antisocial behavior; and sexual activity; and (b) the sum of 10 risk behavior patterns based on more frequent, serious, and recurrent occurrence of the above 24 risk behaviors. Thriving was measured in the A&B survey as the sum of eight thriving indicators including school success, healthy behaviors, informal helping, affirmation of diversity, resiliency, and leadership. Academic performance was based on self-reported grades using an eight-step response scale. As shown in Table 10, global measures of assets derived from both measures were strongly negatively correlated with risk behaviors and risk behavior patterns, and positively correlated with thriving and grades in school. For example, the Total Asset Score derived from the DAP correlated r = -.49 (p<.001) with 10 risk behavior patterns, and r = +.65 (p<.001) with thriving. The direction and magnitude of these correlations were very similar for both the DAP and the A&B survey. Taking a closer look at the relationships reported in Table 10, Figure 4 shows the mean difference in number of thriving indicators for each of the four levels of the DAP Total Asset Score (Low, Fair, Good, and Excellent) for males and females. As shown in this figure, both males and females in the Low range on the DAP reported few thriving indicators (means = 2.2 and 2.6 for males and females respectively). Mean number of thriving indicators increased successively for Fair, Good, and Excellent range, with youth in the Excellent range reporting on average approximately six of the eight thriving indicators. Analysis of variance showed highly significant mean differences and linear trend across the four DAP levels (p<.001), significantly higher mean thriving scores for females than males (p<.01), and no significant DAP level X gender interaction. The gender difference favoring females in the area of thriving has been found in previous

37

research using the A&B survey. (See following section for more detailed analysis and discussion on DAP External and Internal Asset Scores). External and Internal Asset Scores. The External Asset Score and Internal Asset Score computed from the DAP also show strong convergence with the corresponding asset counts derived from the A&B survey. For external assets, the correlation between the two measures for the entire sample was r=.76, p<.001, whereas for internal assets the correlation was r=.80, p<.001. Results were very similar for males and females and for grades 6-8 and 9-12 analyzed separately. These results replicated fairly well in the second field trial on a younger sample of 1,136 middle schoolers: convergence was r=.68 (p<.001) for external assets, and r=.72 (p<.001) for internal assets. Figure 5 shows the mean number of external assets from the A&B, for each of the four ranges on the DAP External Asset Score. As shown in this Figure, youth in the Low range on the DAP scales had few assets, and this increased in a stepwise fashion across Fair, Good, and Excellent DAP score ranges. Youth with DAP scores in the Excellent range on the External Asset Score had approximately 15 of the 20 external assets, according to the A&B survey. Figure 6 shows the parallel results for internal Assets. Again there was strong convergence between the DAP internal assets ranges and the number of internal assets as determined by the A&B survey. Highly significant relationships between summary scores from the DAP and A&B survey and risk behaviors, thriving, and grades in school were reported in Table 9. Both the DAP and the A&B scores were negatively related to the risk behavior indices and positively related to indices of thriving and academic performance. The magnitude of these correlations were almost identical for the DAP and A&B. As an example of these results, Figure 7 shows mean differences in number of 10 risk behavior patterns for the four levels of the DAP External Asset scale. Again there was highly statistically significant effect for DAP level (p<.001), and for gender with males reporting on average more risk behaviors (p<.001), and no level X gender interaction. As the figure shows, youth scoring in the Low range on the DAP External Asset scale, reported on average 3.2 and 2.8 risk behavior patterns for males and females, respectively. Average number of risk behavior patterns declined significantly with higher levels of external assets. Youth scoring in the Excellent range on the DAP External Assets scale, reported on average very few of the eight risk behavior patterns, only 0.5 for males and 0.3 for females. As another illustration of the results in Table 9, Figure 8 shows the relation between DAP Internal Asset Score and self-reported grades. Grades were measured in the A&B survey on an eight-step scale ranging from “Mostly A’s,” to “Mostly Below D’s,” which was rescaled to the familiar 4 point GPA scale (4.0 = all A’s). Analysis of variance showed a highly statistically significant effect of level of internal assets (p<.001) and gender (p<.001), with no significant level X gender interaction. As shown in Figure 8, there was a very strong linear relationship between level of internal assets as measured by the DAP and self-reported grades. Overall, level of internal assets accounted for approximately 18% of the variance in self-reported grades.

38

Asset Category Scales. Table 10 summarizes correlations between the DAP asset category scales and corresponding asset counts from the A&B. Convergence between the two measures was moderately high with correlations between corresponding scales averaging r=.62 for the entire sample (p<.001 for all correlations). For example, the correlation between the DAP Social Competencies scale and number of social competence assets derived from the A&B survey was r=.66. Table 10 also shows that these convergent relationships varied little across different groups of youth. For example, correlations for Social Competencies assessed by the two measures ranged from r=.63 to r=.69 across both age and gender dimensions. Table 11 shows average number of assets determined by the A&B survey for each range in the corresponding DAP asset category scale. For example, there are six assets in the Positive Values category. Youth scoring in the Low range on the DAP Positive Values scale averaged only 1.3 assets in this area. Those scoring in the Fair range averaged 2.8, the Good range averaged 4.4, and the Excellent range averaged 5.2 out of six assets (see Table 11). In other words, for each asset category, youth scoring in the Low range on the DAP had few assets in that area according to the A&B survey. Number of assets was significantly higher in the Fair range and higher still in the Good range. For each DAP scale, youth scoring in the Excellent range had on average most of the assets in the category. The systematic relationships between the DAP ranges and the number of assets determined by the A&B survey were all highly significant (see Table 11). Table 12 shows the convergence between the DAP and the A&B survey the opposite way: Mean differences in each DAP asset category scale by number of assets in that category, based on the A&B. To illustrate, there are six assets in the Support category. Mean values on the DAP Support scale range from 15.2 for zero assets to a mean of 26.2 for all six assets. This linear relationship is highly statistically significant, F(6,1277) = 81.0, p < .001, and corresponds to a correlation of r=.52. As a further illustration, the mean differences for scale III. Boundaries and Expectations are shown in Figure 9, illustrating the highly significant linear trend in mean scores across the range of zero to six assets in this category. Although not reported here, these relationships between the DAP and A&B at the asset category level replicated for males and females and for grades 6-8 and 9-12 analyzed separately. Context Area Scales. There is currently a lack of appropriate measures and criteria for validating the DAP context area scales. There is a cumulative body of research pertaining to the asset categories, based on work with the A& B survey. Items from the A&B survey, however, have not been scored and analyzed according to context areas, although such scales could be developed in the future. To our knowledge, there are no other established measures of the Developmental Assets against which to validate the DAP context area scales. The Context View of the DAP is therefore offered primarily for its heuristic value as an alternative way of summarizing self-reported Developmental Assets among adolescents. The DAP context area scales appear promising in many ways and, as reported above, have moderately high internal consistency, high test-retest

39

reliability, and highly significant relationships to a range of important youth outcomes. A priority of ongoing research is to more fully explore and evaluate the validity of these context scales. Convergent Validity. Apart from the A&B survey, as reported above, few other measures of the Developmental Assets have been developed against which to test the validity of the DAP. One possible exception is the asset category Positive Identity, which has several components–such as feeling good about the future, feeling in control, developing a sense of purpose, and feeling good about oneself–that overlap with the concept of self-esteem. Self-esteem, of course, is a widely researched variable in child development, education, and child mental health. Two of the most widely used measures of self-esteem among children and youth are Harter’s five-item measure of Global Self Worth (Harter, 1988) and Rosenberg’s 10-item Self-Esteem Scale (Rosenberg, 1965). If valid, scores on Positive Identity derived from the DAP should show significant convergence with these two established measures of child and adolescent self-esteem. To test this proposition, the DAP was administered along with these two measures of self-esteem to a sample of 320 public school students in grades 6 through 12. Score on DAP Positive Identity correlated r=.70 (p<.001) with scores on Rosenberg’s SelfEsteem Scale, and r=.72 (p<.001) with Harter’s Global Self-Worth Scale, indicating considerable convergence between these measures. To examine these relationships more closely, Figure 10 shows the mean values on Rosenberg’s measure by the four ranges of the DAP Positive Identity scale (Low, Fair, Good, Excellent). Scores on Rosenberg’s measure were scaled 0 to 3 corresponding to the four-step Strongly Disagree to Strongly Agree item response scaling (with some items appropriately reverse-coded). Mean scores on self-esteem were linearly related to level of Positive Identity as measured by the DAP (p<.001 by F-test). Youth reporting Low levels of Positive Identity had low mean scores on Rosenberg’s measure, and mean scores increased in a stepwise fashion to fairly high levels as the level of Postive Identity increased. A similar linear relationship was found between Positive Identity and scores on Harter’s Global Self Worth scale. Overall, results suggest significant convergence between the DAP and these established measures of child and adolescent self-esteem. Criterion Validity. There is a lack of definitive criteria against which to validate a measure of the Developmental Assets such as the DAP. However, it is possible to test differences between groups of adolescents who, independent of the DAP, are likely to differ in levels of assets working in their lives. To explore this, we compared two middle schools judged independently to differ in the kinds of positive experiences afforded to youth. Both were in the same school district, but consensus opinion among school personnel, youth workers, community leaders, and parents was that one school was “richer” in terms of the quality and quantity of resources youth need. The DAP was completed by 570 youth in the more asset-rich middle school and by 550 youth in the less asset-rich middle school. Table 12 summarizes mean differences between the two schools for the DAP scales. As shown in this table, youth from the more asset-rich school scored significantly higher on every DAP scale (p<.001). The largest differences between the two schools were in Constructive Use of Time, Empowerment,

40

and the Community context area. These differences remained significant at the p<.001 level after statistically controlling for differences in demographic and background variables such as sex, age, race/ethnicity, and maternal education. Overall, these results suggest that the DAP is sensitive to differences between groups judged independently to differ in level of Developmental Assets.

Preliminary Normative Comparisons
The primary interpretive framework for the DAP is a theoretical one, based on judgments of what constitutes Low, Fair, Good, and Excellent ranges of DAP scores. It would be useful, however, to know the distribution of scores obtained in the general population and how they map onto these theoretically-based interpretive ranges (see Chapter 5 on Interpretation). Norms based on a representative national sample of youth are not yet available. To provide preliminary points of comparison for research and field work, inter-quartile ranges have been calculated for each DAP scale based on the combined sample from the first two field trials. This sample includes 2,428 boys and girls in grades 6 through 12 from public middle schools and high schools in Minnesota and Oregon. The cutoff scores delineating the 25th, 50th and 75th percentile for each DAP scale are shown in Table 13. For example, for asset category scale I. Support, the 25th percentile fell between 15 and 16. This means that, on a scale from 0-30, one-fourth of the sample obtained scores of 15 or less. The 50th percentile for this scale fell between 19 and 20, whereas the 75th percentile was between 23 and 24. In other words, the first quartile was scores 0-15, the second quartile was scores 16-19, the third quartile was scores 20-23, and the top quartile was scores 24-30. As shown in Table 13, the inter-quartile ranges vary somewhat from scale to scale. In areas where youth tend to report more assets, the cutoffs are higher; where they report fewer assets, the cutoffs are lower. For example, many youth report relatively high asset levels for the Family context area. Consequently, the middle 50% of the distribution is relatively high and ranges from 18 to 26. Conversely, many youth report relatively low asset levels in Constructive Use of Time, so the middle 50% is much lower and ranges from 13 to 20. Overall, these preliminary norms provide crude points of comparison for research and field work with the DAP. They are also provisional and subject to future refinement as more representative general population data becomes available. Summary. Initial tests of the psychometric properties of the DAP indicate relatively high internal consistency and test-retest reliability for the scales comprising both the Asset Category View and the Context Area View. Additionally, the DAP asset category scales and broader summary scales show excellent convergence with corresponding indices derived from the A&B Survey. These convergent relationships help establish the validity of the DAP scales as quantitative indices of Developmental Assets, and also provide empirical validation of the theoretically-based interpretive ranges of these scales. Other preliminary validity studies of the scales comprising the Asset Category View and the Context Area View of the DAP are promising. DAP scales

41

are significantly related to self-reported indices of risk behavior, academic performance, and thriving. The DAP Positive Identity scale shows very significant convergence with both Harter’s and Rosenberg’s widely-used measures of self-esteem. The DAP scales also discriminate significantly between criterion groups representing more and less assetrich populations. At the current time, the DAP appears to provide a simple, easy, reliable, valid, and efficient assessment of Developmental Assets as seen by adolescents themselves.

42

SECTION 7 - PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS OF THE DAP
The DAP was designed to complement the Attitudes & Behaviors (A&B) survey by addressing three domains in which the A&B is a less than optimal tool: in the research arena, in program evaluation work, and in clinical and professional work. Indeed, the A&B was never designed to function in these areas, though its data have and can be used for various research purposes. However, because of the way in which the data are coded (dichotomously), as well as the relative shallowness of measurement across certain constructs (e.g., single-item measurement for many variables), the A&B is a less than optimal survey choice for these arenas. Never intended to function in the above-mentioned domains, the A&B was instead created to act as a community mobilization device. That is, the data were envisioned to be used in raising community awareness and increasing community dialogue around issues that increase positive youth development. To this end, the A&B works admirably, as attested by our work with thousands of communities that have used A&B data to mobilize their communities around healthy youth development. The DAP, on the other hand, was constructed to complement the A&B where the A&B is relatively weak. (See Table 14 for a comparison of A&B and DAP characteristics.) There are three main applications of the DAP—as a traditional research tool, as a pre/post-test survey for program evaluation, and as a clinical tool. Though the purposes and goals for each of these applications may differ, the DAP provides meaningful information useful for each of these arenas. Both the narrow-band scales (e.g., Support, Empowerment, Family, School) as well as the broad-band scales (Total, External, Internal) yield data about the kinds of perceived strengths (or lack thereof) in the child’s life. The comments provided for each of these applications are not meant to be exhaustive; each project possesses unique characteristics that will affect the utility and interpretation of the DAP.

Research Tool
To date, we know very little about the correlates and predictors of the Developmental Assets, in part because the traditional Attitudes & Behaviors survey does not lend itself to inclusion in research designs because of its length. The DAP, with its highly efficient information yield, can easily be added to a battery of instrumentation focusing on a number of research questions, or as the focal instrument in a more targeted research study centered around the Developmental Assets. The ease of administration, scoring, and interpretation should work to rapidly build our knowledge base regarding the Developmental Assets.

43

Program Evaluation Tool
The state of the art term for assessing activities in the social sciences is “program evaluation.” While that term is used in this document, you will often see references to asset-building “initiatives,” “programs,” or “efforts” with individual young people. Search Institute is reluctant to limit references to asset building to the term “program.” This is because we are concerned that Developmental Assets might be seen by some simply as a “stand alone” program or activity. While more limited stand alone efforts can be useful first steps or helpful elements of an ongoing community effort, we do not believe they should be considered a substitute for a holistic approach that integrates the Developmental Asset framework into every aspect of a young person’s life. We believe that effective youth development requires an intentional, proactive and comprehensive approach that is part of all phases of a young person’s life. Most people think of program evaluation as something very elaborate and mysterious done by researchers. That may or may not be the case. Program evaluation tends to have two major parts: process evaluation and outcome evaluation. Process evaluation looks at whether you are actually doing what you thought you were doing-is the initiative actually being implemented as intended, and if in fact it is being implemented at all. Outcome evaluation looks at the effects of the initiative. Both are important, but not all evaluations include both. The DAP can be a helpful tool in an outcome evaluation because it focuses on assessing the effects of an initiative or program that targets growth and change across the eight asset categories. In determining if the DAP is an appropriate outcome measure for evaluating your initiative, be sure to consider the following: 1. If your initiative should prove successful, what effects do you expect it to have? Remember the eight asset categories assessed by the DAP offers a 360 degree view of a young person. Review the goals of the initiative or program to determine the degree to which they align with the eight categories measured by the DAP. All eight categories or even a majority of the categories may be beyond the scope of a very focused program or initiative.
2. How old are the young people who will be exposed to the program or

intervention? The DAP is designed for young people ages 11 to 18 with a Flesch-Kincaid reading level of grade 5.7. The reliability and validity of the finding may be compromised if the DAP is used with young people who do not fall into these guidelines. 3. How long will young people be exposed to the program or intervention? Because of the temporal frame of 3 months used in the DAP (e.g., the instructions read “check each item that describes you now or within the last 3

44

months”), it should be used, at most, 4 times a year. Thus, the DAP is not designed to capture meaningful change across an 8-week program, as this falls within the 3-month time frame. 4. Do you plan to use the DAP as a clinical/program planning tool with individual young people and a program evaluation measure? If so, you need to carefully plan and coordinate the pretest and posttest administration of the DAP in order to obtain data for both purposes to meet reporting requirements. 5. How are you going to match the pre-test and post-test survey responses of young people? Simply comparing aggregate group pre-test scores with aggregate group post-test scores actually masks any true stability and change within your sample. To fully understand whether the effects of your program were related to changes in DAP scores, you need to use some type of ID number so that each participant’s pre-test scores can be matched with their post-test scores for statistical analysis. 6. What is your standard of comparison? Simply administering the DAP to a group of young people before and after they are exposed to the program or intervention will not allow you to conclude that any changes can be attributed to the program or intervention. In fact, we do not know normatively how the level of assets as young person has changes through their teen years so you there are no national norms that can be used as a standard of comparison. There are a number of design options to consider but you must select one that can feasibly be used in your setting. For example: A nonrandomized control-group pretest-posttest design in which participants are not assigned to an intervention or control group at random. Ideally the control group matches as closely as possible the participant group in terms of demographics and other dimensions (e.g., average grade point, age, family income level). A randomized control-group pretest-posttest design in which participants are randomly selected and assigned to intervention or non-intervention groups by random methods. Both groups of participants complete the pretest and posttest.

-

These are only two of the more widely known designs. As part of planning the evaluation you need to examine these and others in order to establish an adequate standard of comparison.

45

Clinical and Professional Use
Though not designed to be a classical diagnostic tool (i.e., used to classify children into one or more groups according to formal criteria), the DAP may be used in conjunction with other, more traditional pathology-based instruments to assess the circumstances in an individual child’s life. Indeed, the Developmental Assets framework itself was in part developed to act as a counterweight to the dominant risk and pathology models of development employed in practice and research. The DAP is a natural extension of this, and provides professionals and other qualified users a tool to more fully round out their understanding of a child’s context. Professionals may use the DAP to identify variable patterns of strengths and weaknesses across asset domains or contexts. For example, DAP scores may reveal that the child perceives their Positive Identity to be a strength, while reporting quite low scores in the Commitment to Learning domain. Likewise, coding DAP scores along the context scales may indicate that the child feels the school is a source of support, but not the family. In all of these cases, DAP scores are meant to be used in conjunction with other kinds of information about the child. In no way should the DAP be used as the sole source of data about a child for clinical or professional purposes. A note on the “absence of positives,” i.e., low asset-scale scores: identifying areas where youth feel their positive experiences are lacking is not necessarily synonymous with defaulting to a deficit-model approach. Low scores are not necessarily reflective of deficits inherent in the individual child, as half of the asset scales (i.e., the external asset scales) and 80% of the context scales (i.e., Social, Family, Community, and School) reference external experiences to the child. As such, low scores reflect an impoverished environment, not a failing of the individual. Ultimately, our hope is that the inclusion of the DAP in clinical and professional fields moves these sectors away from exclusive deficit thinking and practice, and toward including assessments of positive experiences in the child’s life. Reliance on either of these approaches to the neglect of the other provides an incomplete picture of the child’s life.

46

Bibliography
Benson, P.L., & Leffert, N. (2001). Childhood and adolescence: Developmental assets. In N.J. Smelser & P.G. Baltes (Eds.), International encyclopedia of the social and behavioral sciences. (pp. 1690-1697). Oxford: Pergamon. Benson, P.L. (2001). Developmental assets. In J.V. Lerner & R.M. Lerner (Eds.), Adolescence in America: An encyclopedia. (pp. 208-217). Santa Barbara, CA: ABCCLIO. Benson, P.L. (1998). Mobilizing communities to promote developmental assets: A promising strategy for the prevention of high-risk behaviors. Family Science Review, 11(3): 220-238. Benson, P.L., Galbraith, J., & Espeland, P. (1994). What kids need to succeed: Proven, practical ways to raise good kids. Minneapolis: Free Spirit Publishing, Inc. Benson, P.L., Scales, P.C., Leffert, N., & Roehlkepartain, E.C. (1999). A fragile foundation: The state of developmental assets among American youth. Minneapolis: Search Institute. French, S.A., Leffert, N., Story, M., Newmark-Sztainer, D., Hannan, P., & Benson, P.L. (2001). Adolescent binge/purge and weight loss behaviors: Associations with developmental assets. Journal of Adolescent Health, 28(3), 211-221. Harter, S. (1988). Manual for the Self-Perception Profile for Adolescents. Denver, CO: University of Denver. Leffert, N. (1997). Building assets: A positive approach to adolescent health. Minnesota Medicine, 80, 27-30. Leffert, N., Benson, P.L., Scales, P.C., Sharma, A., Drake, D., & Blyth, D.A. (1998). Developmental assets: Measurement and prediction of risk behaviors among adolescents. Applied Developmental Science, 2(4), 209-230. Roehlkepartain, E.C., Benson, P.L., & Sesma, A. (2003). Signs of progress in putting children first: Developmental assets among youth in St. Louis Park, 1997-2001. Minneapolis, MN: Unpublished report prepared by Search Institute for St. Louis Park's Children First initiative. Rosenberg, M. (1965). Society and the adolescent self-image. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

47

Scales, P.C. (1998). Asset building and risk reduction: Complementary strategies for youth development. Pregnancy Prevention for Youth: An Interdisciplinary Newsletter 1(2). Scales, P.C. (1997). The role of family support programs in building developmental assets among young adolescents: A national survey of services and staff training needs. Child Welfare, 76(5), 611-635. Scales, P.C., Benson, P.L., Leffert, N., & Blyth, D.A. (2000). The contribution of developmental assets to the prediction of thriving outcomes among adolescents. Applied Developmental Science, 4(1), 27-46. Scales, P.C., & Gibbons, J.L. (1996). Extended family members and unrelated adults in the lives of young adolescents: A research agenda. Journal of Early Adolescence, 16(4), 365-389. Scales, P.C. & Leffert, N. (1999). Developmental assets: A synthesis of the scientific research on adolescent development. Minneapolis: Search Institute. Scales, P.C., Leffert, N., & Vraa, R. (2003). The relation of community developmental attentiveness to adolescent health. American Journal of Health Behavior, 27(Supplement 1), S22-S34. Scales, P.C., Lucero, M.G., & Halvorson, H. (1998). Voices of hope: Building developmental assets among Colorado youth-results of the Colorado adult and youth polls. Minneapolis: Search Institute.

48

Table 1. DAP Items and their Alignment with the Eight Asset Categories External Asset Categories I. Support 13. I seek advice from my parents. 47. I have parent(s) who try to help me succeed. 48. I have good neighbors who care about me. 49. I have a school that cares about kids and encourages them. 51. I have support from adults other than my parents. 54. I have a family that gives me love and support. 56. I have parent(s) who are good at talking with me about things. II. Empowerment 17. I feel safe and secure at home. 21. I feel valued and appreciated by others. 25. I feel safe at school. 29. I am included in family tasks and decisions. 36. I am given useful roles and responsibilities. 46. I have a safe neighborhood. III. Boundaries and Expectations 43. I have friends who set good examples for me. 44. I have a school that gives students clear rules. 45. I have adults who are good role models for me. 50. I have teachers who urge me to develop and achieve. 52. I have a family that provides me with clear rules. 53. I have parent(s) who urge me to do well in school. 55. I have neighbors who help watch out for me. 57. I have a school that enforces rules fairly. 58. I have a family that knows where I am and what I am doing. IV. Constructive Use of Time 31. I am involved in a religious group or activity. 34. I am involved in a sport, club, or other group. 40. I am involved in creative things such as music, theater, or art. 42. I am spending quality time at home with my parent(s). Internal Asset Categories V. Commitment to Learning 5. I enjoy reading or being read to. 7. I care about school. 8. I do my homework. 10. I enjoy learning. 26. I am actively engaged in learning new things.

49

28. I am encouraged to try things that might be good for me. 38. I am eager to do well in school and other activities. VI. Positive Values 1. I stand up for what I believe in 9. I stay away from tobacco, alcohol, and other drugs. 16. I think it is important to help other people. 22. I take responsibility for what I do. 23. I tell the truth even when it is not easy. 30. I am helping to make my community a better place. 32. I am developing good health habits. 33. I am encouraged to help others. 35. I am trying to help solve social problems. 37. I am developing respect for other people. 41. I am serving others in my community. VII. Social Competencies 4. I avoid things that are dangerous or unhealthy. 6. I build friendships with other people. 11. I express my feelings in proper ways. 18. I plan ahead and make good choices. 19. I resist bad influences. 20. I resolve conflicts without anyone getting hurt. 24. I accept people who are different from me. 39. I am sensitive to the needs and feelings of others. VIII. Positive Identity 2. I feel in control of my life and future. 3. I feel good about myself. 12. I feel good about my future. 14. I deal with frustration in positive ways. 15. I overcome challenges in positive ways. 27. I am developing a sense of purpose in my life.

50

Table 2. DAP Items Aligned to the Five Context Areas A. Personal 1. I stand up for what I believe in. 2. I feel in control of my life and future. 3. I feel good about myself. 4. I avoid things that are dangerous or unhealthy. 5. I enjoy reading or being read to. 9. I stay away from tobacco, alcohol, and other drugs. 12. I feel good about my future. 14. I deal with frustration in positive ways. 18. I plan ahead and make good choices. 22. I take responsibility for what I do. 23. I tell the truth even when it is not easy. 27. I am developing a sense of purpose in my life. 32. I am developing good health habits. B. Social 6. I build friendships with other people. 11. I express my feelings in proper ways. 15. I overcome challenges in positive ways. 16. I think it is important to help other people. 19. I resist bad influences. 20. I resolve conflicts without anyone getting hurt. 21. I feel valued and appreciated by others. 28. I am encouraged to try things that might be good for me. 33. I am encouraged to help others. 39. I am sensitive to the needs and feelings of others. 43. I have friends who set good examples for me. 45. I have adults who are good role models for me. 51. I have support from adults other than my parents. C. Family 13. I seek advice from my parents. 17. I feel safe and secure at home. 29. I am included in family tasks and decisions. 42. I am spending quality time at home with my parent(s). 47. I have parent(s) who try to help me succeed. 52. I have a family that provides me with clear rules. 53. I have parent(s) who urge me to do well in school. 54. I have a family that gives me love and support. 56. I have parent(s) who are good at talking with me about things. 58. I have a family that knows where I am and what I am doing. D. School 7. I care about school.

51

8. I do my homework. 10. I enjoy learning. 25. I feel safe at school. 26. I am actively engaged in learning new things. 38. I am eager to do well in school and other activities. 44. I have a school that gives students clear rules. 49. I have a school that cares about kids and encourages them. 50. I have teachers who urge me to develop and achieve. 57. I have a school that enforces rules fairly. E. Community 24. I accept people who are different from me. 30. I am helping to make my community a better place. 31. I am involved in a religious group or activity. 34. I an involved in a sport, club, or other group. 35. I am trying to help solve social problems. 36. I am given useful roles and responsibilities. 37. I am developing respect for other people. 40. I am involved in creative things such as music, theater, or art. 41. I am serving others in my community. 46. I have a safe neighborhood. 48. I have good neighbors who care about me. 55. I have neighbors who help watch out for me.

52

Table 3. Reading Levels of the DAP Items (Flesch-Kincaid Grade Equivalent) 1. I stand up for what I believe in.(2.4) 2. I feel in control of my life and future.(5.0) 3. I feel good about myself. (1.6) 4. I avoid things that are dangerous or unhealthy. (6.4) 5. I enjoy reading or being read to.(2.3) 6. I build friendships with other people. (4.5) 7. I care about school.(3.7) 8. I do my homework. (3.7) 9. I stay away from tobacco, alcohol, and other drugs.(7.6) 10.I enjoy learning.(5.2) 11. I express my feelings in proper ways.(4.0) 12. I feel good about my future. (4.5) 13. I seek advice from my parents. (4.5) 14. I deal with frustration in positive ways. (7.4) 15. I overcome challenges in positive ways.(9.2) 16. I think it is important to help other people.(5.2) 17. I feel safe and secure at home.(5.7) 18. I plan ahead and make good choices.(4.0) 19. I resist bad influences.(6.7) 20. I resolve conflicts without anyone getting hurt.(10.8) 21. I feel valued and appreciated by others.(7.4) 22. I take responsibility for what I do.(7.3) 23. I tell the truth even when it is not easy. (1.4) 24. I accept people who are different from me.(6.7) 25. I feel safe at school. (1.0) 26. I am actively engaged in learning new things.(6.7) 27. I am developing a sense of purpose in my life.(8.5) 28. I am encouraged to try things that might be good for me.(3.9) 29. I am included in family tasks and decisions.(6.7) 30. I am helping to make my community a better place.(7.3) 31. I am involved in a religious group or activity.(7.6) 32. I am developing good health habits.(6.4) 33. I am encouraged to help others. (6.4) 34. I am involved in a sport, club, or other group.(3.7) 5. I am trying to help solve social problems. (3.8) 36. I am given useful roles and responsibilities. (see text.) 37. I am developing respect for other people. (9.4) 38. I am eager to do well in school and other activities.(5.9) 39. I am sensitive to the needs and feelings of others.(6.1) 40. I am involved in creative things such as music, theater, or art.(6.9) 41. I am serving others in my community.(5.7) 42. I am spending quality time at home with my parent(s). (6.1) 43. I have friends who set good examples for me. (3.7) 44. I have a school that gives students clear rules.(5.0)

53

45. I have adults who are good role models for me.(6.1) 46. I have a safe neighborhood. (7.6) 47. I have parent(s) who try to help me succeed. (3.7) 48. I have neighbors who care about me.(5.7) 49. I have a school that cares about kids and encourages them.(7.0) 50. I have teachers who urge me to develop and achieve. (8.4) 51. I have support from adults other than my parents.(6.3) 52. I have a family that provides me with clear rules. (6.1) 53. I have parent(s) who urge me to do well in school.(3.8) 54. I have a family that gives me love and support.(6.1) 55. I have neighbors who help watch out for me.(2.4) 56. I have parent(s) who are good at talking with me about things.(5.9) 57. I have a school that enforces rules fairly.(5.3) 58. I have a family that knows where I am and what I am doing.(4.3)

54

Table 4. Summary of Rules for Handling Multiple Item Responses

Multiple Response 0 1 2 3

Recode as...

⌧ ⌧ ⌧ ⌧

⌧ ⌧ ⌧ ⌧ ⌧ ⌧ ⌧ ⌧

⌧ ⌧ ⌧ ⌧ ⌧

Missing Missing Missing Missing Missing Missing 1 2 1 2 3

⌧ ⌧ ⌧ ⌧

⌧ ⌧

⌧ ⌧ ⌧

55

Table 5. Example of Manually Computing a Scale Score for an Asset Category II. EMPOWERMENT Item Score 3 2 3 2 1 2 13 6 2.16 21.6 22 17. 21. 25. 29. 36. 46. Item Number

Item Summary Label

Safe at home Feels valued Safe at school Family tasks Useful roles Safe neighborhood RAW SUM # OF COMPLETED ITEMS AVERAGE x 10 SCALE SCORE (Rounded to nearest integer)

56

Table 6. Item Mapping onto the Category and Context Scales
DAP Items 13. 47. 48. 49. 51. 54. 56. 17. 21. 25. 29. 36. 46. 43. 44. 45. 50. 52. 53. 55. 57. 58. 31. 34. 40. 42. 5. 7. 8. 10. 26. 28. 38. 1. 9. 16. 22. 23. 30. 32. 33. 35. 37. 41. 4. 6. 11. 18. 19. 20. 24. 39. 2. 3. 12. 14. 15. 27. I seek advice from my parents. I have parent(s) who try to help me succeed. I have good neighbors who care about me. I have a school that cares about kids and encourages them. I have support from adults other than my parents. I have a family that gives me love and support. I have parent(s) who are good at talking with me about things. I feel safe and secure at home. I feel valued and appreciated by others. I feel safe at school. I am included in family tasks and decisions. I am given useful roles and responsibilities. I have a safe neighborhood. I have friends who set good examples for me. I have a school that gives students clear rules. I have adults who are good role models for me. I have teachers who urge me to develop and achieve. I have a family that provides me with clear rules. I have parent(s) who urge me to do well in school. I have neighbors who help watch out for me. I have a school that enforces rules fairly. I have a family that knows where I am and what I am doing. I am involved in a religious group or activity. I am involved in a sport, club, or other group. I am involved in creative things such as music, theater, or art. I am spending quality time at home with my parent(s). I enjoy reading or being read to. I care about school. I do my homework. I enjoy learning. I am actively engaged in learning new things. I am encouraged to try things that might be good for me. I am eager to do well in school and other activities. I stand up for what I believe in I stay away from tobacco, alcohol, and other drugs. I think it is important to help other people. I take responsibility for what I do. I tell the truth even when it is not easy. I am helping to make my community a better place. I am developing good health habits. I am encouraged to help others. I am trying to help solve social problems. I am developing respect for other people. I am serving others in my community. I avoid things that are dangerous or unhealthy. I build friendships with other people. I express my feelings in proper ways. I plan ahead and make good choices. I resist bad influences. I resolve conflicts without anyone getting hurt. I accept people who are different from me. I am sensitive to the needs and feelings of others. I feel in control of my life and future. I feel good about myself. I feel good about my future. I deal with frustration in positive ways. I overcome challenges in positive ways. I am developing a sense of purpose in my life. Asset Scale Support Support Support Support Support Support Support Empowerment Empowerment Empowerment Empowerment Empowerment Empowerment Boundaries & Exp. Boundaries & Exp. Boundaries & Exp. Boundaries & Exp. Boundaries & Exp. Boundaries & Exp. Boundaries & Exp. Boundaries & Exp. Boundaries & Exp. Const. Use of Time Const. Use of Time Const. Use of Time Const. Use of Time Commit. to Learning Commit. to Learning Commit. to Learning Commit. to Learning Commit. to Learning Commit. to Learning Commit. to Learning Positive Values Positive Values Positive Values Positive Values Positive Values Positive Values Positive Values Positive Values Positive Values Positive Values Positive Values Social Competencies Social Competencies Social Competencies Social Competencies Social Competencies Social Competencies Social Competencies Social Competencies Personal Identity Personal Identity Personal Identity Personal Identity Personal Identity Personal Identity Context Scale Family Family Community School Social Family Family Family Social School Family Community Community School School Social School Family Family Community School Family Community Community Community Family Personal School School School School School School Personal Personal Social Personal Personal Community Personal Social Community Community Community Personal Social Social Personal Social Social Community Social Personal Personal Personal Personal Social Personal

57

Table 7. Summary of Interpretive Ranges for DAP Asset Category, Context Area, and External and Internal Asset Scales

Label Excellent

Range of Scores 26-30

Typical Item Responses 2's and 3"s with mostly 3's

Interpretive Guidelines Abundant assets, most assets are experienced strongly and/or frequently Moderate assets. Most assets are experienced often, but there is room for improvement. Borderline assets. Some assets are experienced, but many are weak and/or infrequent. There is considerable room for strengthening assets in many areas. Depleted levels of assets. Few if any assets are strong or frequent. Most assets are experienced infrequently. Tremendous opportunities for strengthening assets in most areas.

Good

21-25

2’s and 3's with mostly 2's

Fair

15-20

1's and 2's with mostly 2's

Low

0-14

Mixture of 0's, 1's and 2's

58

Table 8a. Internal Consistencies of DAP Asset Category Scales and Context Area Scales By Gender and Grade Gender Males Females 614 681 Grades 6-8 9-12 606 689 NonWhite White 1,006 295

n=

Overall 1,295

Asset Category
I. SUP II. EMP III. B & E IV. CUT V. CTL VI. PV VII. SC VIII. PI External Internal Total .85 .77 .87 .59 .85 .87 .82 .85 .93 .95 .97 .86 .79 .88 .60 .86 .87 .82 .85 .94 .95 .97 .85 .78 .85 .55 .83 .85 .81 .84 .93 .94 .96 .84 .77 .85 .58 .86 .88 .83 .84 .93 .93 .97 .85 .77 .85 .57 .83 .86 .82 .84 .93 .94 .97 .86 .77 .87 .60 .86 .87 .82 .85 .93 .95 .97 .83 .76 .84 .52 .82 .84 .80 .82 .92 .94 .96

Context Area
A. Personal .87 .87 .85 .88 .86 .87 .84 B. Social .90 .90 .88 .90 .89 .90 .87 C. Family .91 .89 .91 .90 .92 .92 .90 D. School .89 .89 .88 .90 .87 .89 .88 E. Community .85 .86 .82 .86 .83 .85 .83 ________________________________________________________________________ _ NOTE: Table entries are Cronbach’s alpha coefficients.

59

Table 8b. Internal Consistencies of DAP Asset Category Scales and Context Areas Scales by Race/Ethnicity American MultiWhite Hispanic Indian Asian Racial 641 247 47 42 134

n=

Overall 1,133

Asset Category
I. SUP II. EMP III. B & E IV. CUT V. CTL VI. PV VII. SC VIII. PI External Internal Total .80 .74 .84 .56 .83 .85 .79 .79 .94 .92 .96 .81 .69 .81 .50 .82 .86 .79 .77 .94 .92 .96 .76 .73 .85 --a .77 .80 .84 .79 .93 .92 .95 .86 .86 .78 .52 .75 .84 .75 .77 .92 .91 .94 .79 .79 .84 .60 .80 .85 .83 .85 .95 .92 .96 .80 .80 .83 .56 .82 .85 .80 .80 .94 .92 .96

Context Area
A. Personal .83 .84 .81 .85 .86 .84 B. Social .87 .86 .87 .84 .91 .87 C. Family .87 .89 .85 .90 .88 .88 D. School .87 .87 .85 .82 .87 .87 E. Community .85 .82 .82 .72 .82 .84 ________________________________________________________________________ _ NOTE: Table entries are Cronbach’s alpha coefficients. a Could not be computed due to insufficient variance.

60

Table 9a. Test-Retest Reliabilities of the DAP Asset Category and Context Area Scales

Overall N= 225

Gender Males Females 112 113

Grades 6-8 9-12 101 124

Asset Category
I. Sup II. Emp III. B & E IV. CUT V. CTL VI. PV VII. SC VIII. PI External Internal Total .84 .74 .74 .74 .84 .80 .81 .78 .84 .86 .87 .84 .70 .69 .67 .84 .77 .80 .73 .83 .85 .86 .83 .76 .79 .79 .83 .80 .83 .82 .85 .86 .87 .83 .75 .70 .69 .83 .77 .80 .77 .82 .85 .86 .84 .72 .74 .75 .84 .80 .82 .77 .84 .86 .86

Context Area
A. Personal .84 .83 .85 .82 .85 B. Social .85 .83 .86 .84 .85 C. Family .85 .81 .89 .82 .86 D. School .87 .86 .88 .87 .85 E. Community .78 .78 .76 .72 .80 ________________________________________________________________________ _ NOTE: Table entries are product-moment correlations.

61

Table 9b. Stability and Change in DAP Scores over One Year Mean Time 1 Mean Time 2 Paired t-test

Stability ( r )

Asset Category
I. Sup II. Emp III. B & E IV. CUT V. CTL VI. PV VII. SC VIII. PI External Internal Total .67*** .55*** .64*** .61*** .67*** .58*** .52*** .60*** .69*** .64*** .68*** 21.7 22.7 21.8 18.7 21.7 20.8 22.2 20.8 21.2 21.4 42.6 21.7 22.8 21.6 18.8 21.7 20.9 22.4 21.2 21.2 21.6 42.8 NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS

Context Area
A. Personal B. Social C. Family D. School E.Community .66*** .64*** .68*** .63*** .67*** 21.1 21.8 23.1 21.6 20.1 21.2 22.2 22.4 21.5 20.2 NS NS NS NS NS

*** p<.001 n=161 NS indicated paired t-tests were not significant.

62

Table 9c. Standard Error of Measurement (SEM) and Reliable Change Index (RCI) for Each DAP Scale 95% RCI

SEM

Asset Category
I. Sup II. Emp III. B & E IV. CUT V. CTL VI. PV VII. SC VIII. PI External Internal Total 0.99 1.38 1.50 1.87 0.99 1.08 1.00 1.30 0.83 0.71 1.30 1.94 2.70 2.94 3.66 1.94 2.11 1.96 2.55 1.63 1.39 2.55

Context Area
A. Personal B. Social C. Family D. School E.Community 0.82 0.79 0.90 0.77 1.25 1.61 1.55 1.76 1.51 2.45

NOTE: SEM = (1-Reliability) X standard deviation. 95% RCI = 1.96 X SEM

63

Table 10. Correlations Between Summary Scores Derived from the DAP and A&B Survey and Risk Behaviors, Thriving Indicators, and Grades

10 Risk Behavior Patterns

24 Risk Behaviors

8 Thriving Indicators

SelfReported Grades

DAP
External Assets Internal Assets Total Assets -.48*** -.47*** -.49*** -.49*** -.48*** -.49*** .63*** .63*** .65*** .46*** .47*** .48***

A&B Survey
External Assets Internal Assets Total Assets -.46*** -.48*** -.51*** -.47*** -.51*** -.53*** .60*** .68*** .68*** .41*** .49*** .49***

Table entries are correlations. *** All correlations are significant p<.001 Overall n=1,312 varies slightly for each analysis due to missing data.

64

Table 11. Correlations Between the DAP and A&B Survey for Asset Category Scales

All Support Empowerment Boundaries and Expectations Constructive Use Of Time Commitment to Learning Positive Values Social Competencies .52 .50 .62

Males Females .55 .47 .61 .51 .54 .64

Grades 6-8 9-12 .56 .51 .60 .47 .49 .62

.59

.56

.62

.52

.63

.65 .67 .66

.63 .66 .63

.64 .64 .66

.64 .68 .69

.64 .65 .63

Positive Identity .63 .61 .64 .66 .61 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------NOTE: All correlations are significant p < .001. Table entries are correlations between the DAP Asset Category scales and their corresponding asset count derived from the A&B Survey.

65

Table 12. Average Number of Assets in Each Range of the DAP Asset Category Scales

No. of Assets Value Support 315.2*** Empowerment 126.7*** Boundaries and Expectations 222.5*** Constructive Use Of Time 200.6*** Commitment to Learning 272.3*** Positive Values 295.2*** Social Competencies 289.9*** Positive Identity 243.5*** 6

Low

DAP Range Fair Good Excellent

F-

0.8

1.8

3.2

4.4

4

0.7

1.2

1.7

2.5

6

1.3

2.5

3.4

4.4

4

1.1

2.0

2.6

2.8

5

1.3

2.4

3.3

3.9

6

1.3

2.8

4.4

5.2

5

0.7

1.5

2.8

3.7

4

0.7

2.2

2.9

3.4

*** p < .001

66

Table 13. Test of Criterion Validity: Mean Differences Between Relatively More Asset Rich vs. Less Asset-Rich Middle Schools

More Asset Rich N= 570

Less Asset Rich 550

FValue

Asset Category
I. Sup II. Emp III. B & E IV. CUT V. CTL VI. PV VII. SC VIII. PI External Internal Total 23.6 23.0 23.6 20.7 21.4 21.1 22.4 20.9 21.4 22.7 44.2 21.7 20.8 21.8 17.1 19.9 19.9 20.3 20.1 20.1 20.4 40.4 30.4*** 44.9*** 29.3*** 68.0*** 18.2*** 14.6*** 43.6*** 5.8*** 23.2*** 58.1*** 43.9***

Context Area
A. Personal B. Social C. Family D. School E.Community *** p<.001 (df=1,1118) 21.3 22.3 24.6 22.5 20.6 20.4 20.4 23.3 20.6 17.6 9.26*** 36.4*** 14.5*** 29.7*** 73.3***

67

Table 14. Inter-Quartile Ranges for DAP Scales Based on a Preliminary Normative Sample

Percentiles

25th
At or Below

50th
At or Below

75th ____
At or Below

Asset Category (range 0-30)
I. Sup II. Emp III. B & E IV. CUT V. CTL VI. PV VII. SC VIII. PI External Internal Total (range 0-60) 15 17 16 12 15 15 17 16 16 16 34 19 20 20 17 19 19 20 19 19 19 39 23 24 24 20 23 24 24 22 23 23 47

Context Area (range 0-30)
A. Personal B. Social C. Family D. School E.Community 15 17 17 15 14 19 21 22 19 18 23 24 26 23 23

NOTE: Total n=2,428 boys and firls in grades 6-12. Table entries indicate the scale score corresponding to the upper limit of each inter-quartile range.

68

Table 15. Comparisons of the A&B with the DAP Attitudes & Behavior • Assets Constructs Measured • Risk Behaviors • Thriving Behaviors • Developmental Deficits Response Format • Variety of Response Formats • Presence/absence • Each of the 40 assets • 40 – 50 minutes • Community mobilization purposes • Uniform 0-1-2-3 Scale • Quantitative Scores • 8 Asset Categories • 5 Context Areas • 10 – 15 minutes • Quantitative research How are data to be used? • Program Evaluation • Professional/Clinical Arenas • Assets DAP

How are assets measured?

Time to complete (average)

69

Figure 1. Developmental Patterns in Reported Assets.

60 50 40 30 20 10
8 12 16 20 24 28 0 to 32 36 4
Males Females

Mean DAP Score

Number of Assets (A&B)

70

Figure 2. Mean DAP Total Asset Score by Number of Assets (A&B) for Males and Females (overall r =.82, p<.001)

60 50 Mean DAP Score 40 30 20 10 0 to 10
40 11 to 20 21 to 30 31 to 40
Males Females

Number of Assets (A&B)

71

Figure 3. Mean Differences in DAP Total Asset Score for Four Ranges of Assets (A&B) for Males and Females

35

Mean # Of Assets

25

15

5 Low Fair Good Excellent DAP Total Score Range

72

Figure 4. Mean Differences in Number of Assets (A&B) by DAP Total Asset Score Ranges

35

Mean # Of Assets

25

15

5 Low Fair Good Excellent DAP Total Score Range

73

Figure 5. Mean Number of Thriving Indicators (A&B), by DAP Total Asset Score Ranges for Males and Females

8
No. Thriving Indicators (A&B)
Males Females

6

4

2

0 Low Fair Good Excellent

DAP Total Asset Score Range

74

Figure 6. Mean Number of External Assets (A&B) by DAP External Asset Score Ranges for Males and Females

20
No. External Assets (A&B)
Males Females

15

10

5

0 Low Fair Good Excellent

DAP External Asset Score Range

75

Figure 7. Mean Differences in Number of Internal Assets (A&B), by DAP Internal Asset Score Ranges for Males and Females

20
No. Internal Assets (A&B)
Males Females

15

10

5

0 Low Fair Good Excellent

DAP Internal Asset Score Range

76

Figure 8. Mean Number of Risk Behavior Patterns For Males and Females by DAP External Assets Score

Risk Behavior Patterns
Mean No. Risk Behavior Patterns 4
Males Females

3 2 1 0
G oo d Fa ir Lo w Ex ce l le n t

DAP External Assets Range

77

Figure 9. Mean Differences in Self-Reported Grades in School, by DAP Internal Asset

4 3.5
Self-Reported GPA
Males Females

3 2.5 2 1.5 1 Low Fair Good Excellent

Score Ranges for Males and Females

78

Figure 10. Mean Scores on the DAP Boundaries and Expectations Scale, by Number of B&E Assets From A&B Survey

Boundaries and Expectations
30 Mean Score (DAP)

25

20

15

10 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 No. of Assets (A&B)

79

Figure 11. Mean Differences on Rosenberg’s Self-Esteem Scale by DAP Personal Identity Ranges

3

Mean Rosenberg's SE

2

1

0 Low Fair Good Excellent DAP Personal Identity Range

80

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful