Child Ind Res

DOI 10.1007/s12187-016-9395-x

Aligning Youth Development Theory, Measurement,

and Practice Across Cultures and Contexts: Lessons
from Use of the Developmental Assets Profile

Peter C. Scales 1 & Eugene C. Roehlkepartain 2 &

Maura Shramko 3

Accepted: 3 May 2016

# Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016

Abstract The development of youth has implications across all sectors of societies,
and thus, holistic approaches to promoting positive youth development that take an
across-sectors perspective may be more effective and cost-efficient ways of investing in
youth. The current interest in collective impact to improve outcomes for young people
intersects with growing interest in a diverse array of social-emotional, non-cognitive, or
Bsoft^ attitudes and skills that are increasingly recognized as being foundational for
multiple educational, workforce, and livelihoods outcomes. But these Bintangible^
factors are difficult to measure well, particularly when compared to observable behav-
iors or testable knowledge and skills. This challenge is exacerbated in lower and
middle-income countries where there is limited research, and there are even fewer
consistent, validated measures that examine personal strengths—particularly ones that
are consistently contextualized and tested across cultural and language differences. For
the past decade, Search Institute and several partners have utilized a broad measure of
positive youth development, the Developmental Assets Profile (DAP), in a series of
studies in a wide range of international agencies, countries, languages, and program
contexts. This paper draws on 50 datasets from 31 countries, involving more than
25,000 young people, ages 9–31, to more comprehensively describe the strengths and
issues involved in using the DAP for measurement of child well-being across cultures
and language groups. In the process, it reports on the link between crosscutting
elements of well-being and critical international development priorities across sectors.
The longevity and breadth of this ongoing effort offers insights and lessons for more

* Peter C. Scales
scalespc@[Link]

1
Search Institute, 940 Chestnut Ridge Road, Manchester, MO 63021, USA
2
Search Institute, Minneapolis, MN, USA
3
University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ, USA
 P.C. Scales et al.

recent efforts to develop, operationalize, and validate practice-focused measures across

multiple contexts and languages. It serves as a case study in the challenges and
opportunities of developing and utilizing shared measures across multiple countries,
cultures, and language groups.

Keywords Developmental assets . Cross-cultural youth development . Developmental

relationships . Cross-cultural measurement . Character strengths . Youth well-being

Investment in providing supports and opportunities through which young people

develop critical skills, attitudes, and other strengths is a critical strategy to advance
human well-being. With half the world’s population under 30, and half of that youth
bulge between ages 10–24, the health, education, and positive development of young
people is critical to the social and economic well-being of developing countries where a
majority of the world’s youth live (USAID 2012). Great strides have been made in
recent decades in investing in the well-being of the world’s young children; however,
much of that progress could be undone given the relative Bpaucity^ of resources
devoted to the world’s 1.2 billion adolescents ages 10–19, 90 % of whom live in the
developing world (UNICEF 2011, 2012).

1 Cross-Sector Collaboration and Collective Impact

The development of youth has implications across all sectors of societies. Thus, cross-sector
approaches to promoting and measuring youth development and well-being hold promise in
the alignment of both measurement and development strategies. As a result, recent years
have seen an increasing interest in approaches to youth development and education that
focus on collective impact, or Bthe commitment of a group of important actors from different
sectors to a common agenda for solving a specific social problem^ (Kania & Kramer 2011,
p. 36). Collective impact initiatives bring together community leaders and groups to work on
a common agenda, shared measurement, and mutually reinforcing activities across multiple
agencies and strategies in the community in order to achieve shared goals or outcomes.
This approach echoes the premise that Bimportant programmatic and policy links
among formal and informal education, youth development, civic, and livelihood
initiatives can produce useful results that cut across traditional sectors—including
economic growth, education, democracy and governance, health, and even security
concerns^ (EDC 2011, p. 3). USAID expresses collective impact in even broader terms
in its Youth in Development policy, noting its priority of incorporating Byouth devel-
opment practices across systems and into areas of escalating investment such as food
security, global health, child protection, and climate change, while promoting gender
equality and embracing science and technology by and for youth^ (USAID 2012, p. 9).
Indeed, not just technology, but social-emotional communication skills Bthat facilitate
cross-cultural interactions have become a global necessity^ for both within-country and
international communications (Matusitz and Musambira 2013, p. 43).
The interest in collective impact intersects with growing attention to the need to
develop positive skills and attitudes that, in addition to technical skills and knowledge,
are integral to multiple educational, workforce, and livelihoods outcomes (Farrington
Aligning Youth Development Theory, Measurement, and Practice

et al. 2012; Heckman and Kautz 2012; Lippman et al. 2015; OECD 2015; Shectman
et al. 2013). Further, there is growing evidence of the economic benefits of investing in
these social-emotional attitudes and skills (Belfield et al. 2015).

2 Measurement of Ecological and Character Strengths

A challenge, however, is that these individual or person-based factors have been given
a cacophony of labels. Across different contexts and settings, they have been variably
described as soft skills (Lippman et al. 2015), non-cognitive skills (Kautz et al. 2014),
character skills (Heckman and Mosso 2014), twenty-first century skills (Ananiadou and
Claro 2009), social-emotional learning (OECD 2015; Zins et al. 2004), and founda-
tional components (Nagaoka et al. 2015), among others. Though each current approach
has different starting points, emphases, focus areas, and outcomes of interest, they
overlap in that they seek, in part, to articulate critical individual factors for development
that go beyond subject-matter knowledge (such as reading or math) and technical skills
(such as computer use). This paper uses the term Bcharacter strengths^ as a placeholder
term while the field sorts through this language, drawing on frameworks that emerged
out of positive psychology and its antecedents (e.g., Park et al. 2004; Peterson and
Seligman 2004).
A related—potentially more problematic—issue is that these intangible factors are
difficult to measure well, particularly when compared to observable behaviors or
testable knowledge and skills (Duckworth and Yeager 2015; Kautz et al. 2014;
OECD 2015) and particularly in efficient ways in program, school, or community
contexts (rather than in a clinical or laboratory setting). This challenge is exacerbated in
lower and middle-income countries where there is limited research, and there are even
fewer consistent, validated measures that examine character strengths—particularly
ones that are consistently contextualized and tested across cultural and language
differences.
Contemporary approaches to measuring character strengths, although offering fresh
perspectives, build on at least three decades of research on the more comprehensive
combined effects of person (character strengths) and ecology (relationships and other
supports). These approaches are reflected in the movement over the last two decades
toward subjective and ecological measures of child well-being (Ben-Arieh et al. 2014),
and find expression in positive youth development theory and research (Benson et al.
2006; Catalano et al. 2004; Eccles and Gootman 2002; Naudeau et al. 2008; Roth and
Brooks-Gunn 2003), resilience (Masten 2014; Rutter 1987; Werner and Smith 1982),
and other theoretical approaches to youth development and, more broadly, human
development, including the 5C’s of youth development (Pittman et al. 2001; Lerner
et al. 2005), self-determination theory (Ryan and Deci 2000), and positive psychology
(Seligman et al. 2005). (For a summary of the field, see Benson et al. 2006.) One of the
most widely used frameworks for positive youth development over the last 25 years has
been the Developmental Assets approach, which is the focus of this paper.
For the past decade, Search Institute and several partners have utilized a broad
measure based on this framework, the Developmental Assets Profile (DAP), in a series
of 50 studies in a wide range of international agencies, countries, languages, and
program contexts. The longevity and breadth of this ongoing effort offer insights and
 P.C. Scales et al.

lessons for more recent efforts to develop, operationalize, and validate practice-focused
measures of youths’ relationships, opportunities, and character strengths. It also com-
plements and extends knowledge gained from other international child well-being data
collection efforts, such as the Children’s Worlds Reports on 53,000 children ages 8, 10,
and from 16 countries (Rees and Main 2015). The lessons from the DAP experience
serve as a case study in the challenges and opportunities of developing and utilizing
shared measures across multiple countries, cultures, and language groups in community
and school settings.
The current paper, which builds on Scales’s (2011) earlier analysis of data from five
studies, begins by reviewing the theory and empirical evidence supporting the Devel-
opmental Assets framework. Then it draws on 50 datasets from 31 countries, involving
more than 25,000 youth and young adults ages 9–31 to more comprehensively describe
the strengths and issues involved in using the DAP for measurement of character
strengths and family, school, and community supports across cultures and language
groups. In the process, it reports on the link between cross-cutting elements of well-
being and critical international development priorities across sectors.

3 Developmental Assets: Relationships, Opportunities, and Character

Strengths

Developmental Assets are the relationships, opportunities, and character strengths that
are strongly related to children and youths’ well-being (Benson 1990, 2006; Benson
et al. 1998; Benson et al. 2006; Benson et al. 2011a; Scales and Leffert 2004; Scales
et al. 2004; VanderVen 2008). Eight broad categories of assets are conceptually
organized into (a) external assets: relationships, supports, experiences, and opportuni-
ties provided by people in the young person’s family, community, school, or peer
network; and (b) internal assets: beliefs, attitudes, and behaviors within a young person
that can be more broadly understood as character strengths. Thus the framework
reflects ecological (Bronfenbrenner 1979, 2005) and developmental systems (Ford
and Lerner 1992; Lerner 1998) theories of human development. These theories em-
phasize interactions and mutual influence among biological, cognitive, psychological,
and societal factors in development—none of which acts Beither alone or as the ‘prime
mover’ of change^ (Lerner et al. 2001, p. 12).
It also integrates theory building in positive youth development (e.g., Benson et al.
2006); applied measurement for descriptive and evaluative purposes (e.g., Benson et al.
2011a; Scales 2011); and an equal focus on utilization in various practice settings,
including schools (Starkman et al. 2006), community coalitions (Benson 2006), faith-
based organizations (Roehlkepartain 1998), and prevention (Benson et al. 2004;
Benson and Scales 2009). In addition, the framework spread internationally to be
utilized across multiple cultures and languages outside of the United States (Benson
et al. 2011a; Scales 2011).
Higher levels of these Developmental Assets have been linked to numerous critical
outcomes in cross-sectional and longitudinal U.S. samples, now totaling more than 5
million children and youth, including better school grades ((Scales and Benson 2007;
Starkman et al. 2006; Scales et al. 2006), higher levels of purpose (Scales et al. 2008;
Scales 2011), positive emotions (Scales 2011), citizenship/civic engagement (Scales
Aligning Youth Development Theory, Measurement, and Practice

et al. 2008; Scales 2011; Scales and Roehlkepartain 2004), and avoiding violence
(Benson and Scales 2009; Benson et al. 2011a). Moreover, the pattern of higher levels
of assets being related to better youth well-being is replicated in the United States
across diversity in gender, race/ethnicity, urbanicity, and socioeconomic status (Benson
et al. 2011a; Benson et al. 2011a, 2011b; Scales et al. 2006; Scales et al. 2005).
The Developmental Assets framework focuses on positive socialization and devel-
opmental processes, and how experientially and relationally Brich^ the developmental
infrastructure is for young people. This contrasts with the physical and financial assets
that represent the traditional economic definition of wealth (e.g., Deere et al. 2012) as
well as technical skills and cognitive knowledge that are a primary focus of educational
systems. These other resources and skills are obviously critical. But, consistent with
other theories focused on personal strengths and human development, we posit that the
developmental relationships, social experiences, and character strengths reflected in the
Developmental Assets framework are also key and, in many cases, have been under-
represented in research, policy, and practice.
Thus, these areas of human development complement economic, educational, tech-
nical, and other forms of development. Furthermore, the framework posits that these
personal and relational strengths are important for youth across differences in back-
ground, culture, socioeconomic status, gender, and other diversities.

4 The Developmental Assets Profile (DAP)

A primary measure of Developmental Assets is the Developmental Assets Profile

(DAP). The DAP is composed of 58 items assessing young people’s experience of
both internal assets (character strengths), and external assets (social relationships and
opportunities). External assets include the areas of Support, Empowerment, Boundaries
& Expectations, and Constructive Use of Time. Internal assets encompass Commitment
to Learning, Positive Values, Social Competencies, and Positive Identity. The assets
framework captures the individual level as well as the broader ecological, relational
contexts of young people’s lives (e.g., social or peers, family, school, community). All
DAP items are answered on the following scale: Not At All or Rarely, Somewhat or
Sometimes, Very or Often, Extremely or Almost Always. (Further details are found in
Scales 2011.)
Originally developed and used in English in the United States, several international
agencies have partnered with Search Institute to adapt, pilot, validate, and use the
instrument in a variety of other countries and languages. Consistent with guidance in
cross-cultural research (e.g., Beaton et al. 2000; Sousa and Rojjanasrirat 2011), the
basic steps in the language and cultural adaptation process have been:

& Collaboration with the country-based team, either with local language capacity or
the ability to contract out translators, and who work directly with young people in
the country. The efforts are most successful when the teams become grounded in a
positive youth development approach through training and coaching.
& Qualitative groundwork, usually focus groups, to assess what local parents, youth,
and community members would identify as keys to successful youth development.
These insights are then used to bridge from the meaning and intent in the English
 P.C. Scales et al.

items to the local language and culture, with effort to maintain adequate consistency
in meaning while also being culturally responsive.
& An iterative process of translation and independent back-translation to develop a
culturally relevant survey instrument that reflects original DAP constructs.
& Testing of the survey with youth, by subgroups, to assess validity, reliability, and stability.
& Discussion with country teams of challenges and implications for revising transla-
tion or modifying administration guidelines.
& Working with in-country partners to interpret and utilize the findings from the
surveys for planning, improvement, and evaluation.

In all datasets, data have been collected by local in-country facilitators or enumer-
ators who were selected and/or employed by our international partners in this work, the
majority by World Vision International and their national offices, and also including
Save the Children International, Save the Children Canada, and several regional offices
of Save the Children, and in-country colleagues of Education Development Center,
Georgetown University’s Institute of Sexual and Reproductive Health, TechnoServe,
the University of Calgary, the University of Mississippi, Yamaguchi Prefectural Uni-
versity, and the American University of Beirut.
Training for data collectors typically has been provided by those partners, often but
not always with collaboration from Search Institute staff, and consisted of in-person
and/or online workshops on the DAP, Developmental Assets framework, standards for
survey administration and protection of youth confidentiality, and procedures for
sending data to Search Institute for analysis. In all but a handful of countries, frequent
contact with Search Institute staff ensured that in-country colleagues had plentiful
opportunities for technical assistance and support throughout the process, from trans-
lation and back-translation to receiving reports on their survey results and using the
results for planning and evaluation.

5 Scope of International Use of the DAP

As summarized in Table 1, the data and conclusions in this paper come from 50
administrations of the DAP (and one DAP-Preteens) in 31 countries1, and 30 languages
other than English (49 of the survey administrations being outside the United States).
More than 25,000 youth and young adults ages 9–31, mostly ages 11–19 were surveyed
in Albania, Armenia, Bangladesh, Bolivia, Bosnia, Burkina Faso, Cambodia, China,
Egypt, El Salvador, Ethiopia, Georgia, Ghana, Honduras, Iraq, Japan, Jordan, Kazakh-
stan, Laos, Lebanon, Malawi, Mexico, Mongolia, Nepal, the Philippines, Rwanda,
South Africa, Sri Lanka, Tanzania, Uganda, Vietnam, and Yemen. DAPs have been
carefully adapted and validated with sample sizes of 100 or more in the following
languages other than the original English: Acholi, Albanian, Amharic, Arabic, Arme-
nian, Bengali, Bosnian, Chichewa, Dioula, French, Georgian, Japanese, Kazakh,

1
The samples are not representative of any of the countries, so conclusions should not be drawn about a
country’s youth based on the data from those samples. Typically, the samples were drawn from participants in
World Vision International, Save the Children International, Save the Children Canada, or Education Devel-
opment Center humanitarian relief or youth development programs, or from a variety of local youth programs.
Aligning Youth Development Theory, Measurement, and Practice

Khmer, Kinyarwanda, Kiswahili, Lao, Luo, Lhukonzo, Mandarin, Mongolian, Nepa-

lese, Russian, Sinhala, Spanish, Tagalog, Tamil, Vietnamese, and Zulu.2 The country
and age range of the DAP samples adds emphasis on adolescent and young adult
subjective well-being, and a broader diversity of countries, that complements data on
the subjective well-being of pre-adolescents and the 15 countries included in the
Children’s Worlds survey (Rees and Main 2015). Moreover, as Rees & Main note,
those data were collected largely from children in mainstream school settings, and so
under-represent more marginalized children. In contrast, the majority of the country
samples in the 50 DAP datasets were obtained in collaboration with international
humanitarian and relief organizations that specifically target for assistance the most
vulnerable and marginalized young people.
Surveys were administered in a wide variety of settings, including schools, out of
school youth development programs, humanitarian relief locations, and workforce
development programs. The great majority of the surveys were administered by youth
reading the items themselves and responding on survey forms or tablets provided to
them. About 20 % of the surveys were administered orally, due to the relatively lower
literacy levels of the youth involved. In these cases, youth still responded themselves,
but instructions and questions were read aloud to them. Most oral administrations were
done one-on-one, although some were done in small groups of 5–8 youth, with
attention paid to providing sufficient spacing to minimize youth feeling uncomfortable
when responding (in many cases, where indoor space was insufficient, the surveys were
administered orally outdoors). Consent to participate in the research was obtained
consistent with the regulations and conventions in the participating countries, commu-
nities/villages, and schools/programs, and was supervised by Search Institute’s in-
country partners.

6 Data Quality

Given the large range of country contexts, samples, and administration processes
represented in these cases, data quality could vary widely, and so it is important to
examine whether these data are of sufficient quality to warrant confidence in their
accuracy. We report on several aspects of quality here: response variability, internal
consistency reliability, stability reliability, and validity.

6.1 Variability of Response Distribution

In examining response variability, we wanted to see most Developmental Assets scores

being in the middle of the distribution, rather than at the extremes, which would suggest
youth may have been responding in a biased way, with response sets. DAP scores are

2
The English DAP also has been used in Australia, Canada, and the United Kingdom, and translated into
additional languages. However, some of the translations have either not had consistent Search Institute
collaboration on the translation, which leaves uncertain the confidence we can have in that adaptation (e.g.,
Croation in Croatia, Portuguese in Mozambique, Malay in Malaysia, Arabic in Gaza), and/or there were not
yet adequate data sets in that language at the time of writing (e.g., Spanish in Chile, French in Mauritania and
Niger, Krio in Sierra Leone, Dutch in Belgium, Portuguese in Portugal, Spanish in Paraguay, Bengali in India)
to understand whether these other DAPs function well, psychometrically.
Table 1 Countries and languages where the DAP has been validated

Region Country Survey Language Sample Size Age Range Partner and Notes

Africa Burkina Faso Dioula/French 126 15–20 Save the Children Canada
(SCC)-Youth in Action
(YIA)
Egypta Arabic 139 13–20 SCC-YIA
Egyptb Arabic 156 12–15 SCC-YIA
Ethiopia Amharic 153 13–20 SCC-YIA
Ghana English 149 12–18 World Vision
Malawi Chichewa 198 14–19 SCC-YIA
a
Rwanda Kinyarwanda 658 16–28 EDC
Rwandab Kinyarwanda 250 16–31 Technoserve (Pre)
Rwandac Kinyarwanda 94 16–31 Technoserve (Post)
South Africa Zulu 505 12–18 University of Calgary
Tanzania Kiswahili 1241 11–18 University of Mississippi
Ugandaa English 68 11–18 University of Mississippi
Ugandab Acholi 135 14–19 SCC-YIA
Ugandac Luo 941 10–14 Institute for Reproductive Health
Ugandad English 169 14–19 TechnoServe (Pre)
e
Uganda English 51 16–31 TechnoServe (Post)
Asia Bangladesha Bengali 997 12–18 Save the Children
Bangladeshb Bengali 464 10–18 Save the Children (Pre, Cohort 2)
Bangladeshc Bengali 464 10–18 Save the Children (Post, Cohort 2)
Bangladeshd Bengali 198 10–18 Save the Children (Pre, Cohort 1)
Bangladeshe Bengali 198 10–18 Save the Children (Post, Cohort 1)
Cambodia Khmer 424 11–18 World Vision
P.C. Scales et al.
Table 1 (continued)

Region Country Survey Language Sample Size Age Range Partner and Notes

China Mandarin 119 11–18 World Vision

Japan Japanese 13,946 10–18 Yamaguchi Prefectural University
Laos Lao 317 11–16 World Vision
Mongoliaa Mongolian 299 10–17 World Vision (Rural)
b
Mongolia Mongolian 267 12–18 World Vision (Urban)
Nepal Nepalese 345 12–18 World Vision
Philippinesa Tagalog 703 10–18 EDC (Pre)
Philippinesb Tagalog 703 10–18 EDC (Post)
Sri Lankaa Sinhala 241 10–20 World Vision
Sri Lankab Tamil 115 11–18 World Vision
Vietnama Vietnamese 108 12–17 World Vision (Rural)
Vietnamb Vietnamese 254 12–17 World Vision (Urban)
c
Vietnam Vietnamese 100 12–14 World Vision (Urban)
Aligning Youth Development Theory, Measurement, and Practice

Central and South America Bolivia Spanish 153 9–17 World Vision
El Salvador Spanish 301 10–11 World Vision (DAP-P)*
Honduras Spanish 534 14–25 EDC
Europe Albania Albanian 259 10–18 World Vision
Armenia Armenian 136 11–18 World Vision
Bosnia and Herzegovina Bosnian 299 11–18 World Vision
Georgia Georgian 100 12–18 World Vision
Kazakhstana Kazahk 631 15–20 Save the Children
Kazakhstanb Russian 185 16–23 Save the Children
Middle East Iraq Arabic 736 15–25 Save the Children
Table 1 (continued)

Region Country Survey Language Sample Size Age Range Partner and Notes

Jordan Arabic 959 12–18 Save the Children

Lebanon Arabic 1,050 12–18 American University of Beirut
Yemen Arabic 564 11–24 Save the Children
North America Mexico Spanish 371 11–18 World Vision
United States English 1,312 11–19 Search Institute

Notes: For countries with both pilot and field tests, only the field test scores, reflecting the final development of the survey, are represented in this table
Superscripts from this table (a, b, c, etc.) are used in Table 5 to identify the specific data source of the result listed in Table 5
*DAP-P = Developmental Assets Profile for Preteens, a developmentally-appropriate adaptation for youth ages 8/9–11
P.C. Scales et al.
Aligning Youth Development Theory, Measurement, and Practice

divided into four levels, signifying highly vulnerable, vulnerable, adequate, and good
levels of Developmental Assets. The four levels of Developmental Assets have shown
consistent validity in that they are correlated with significantly different levels of well-
being outcomes (Benson et al. 2011a). Table 2 shows that the survey has shown good
response distribution across these 31 countries, with the majority of scores in the
middle of the possible range of scores (in the lower portion of the Badequate^ level).
This suggests that youth are making distinctions among items as they respond, and that
the survey is sensitive to detecting differences in those across-country samples.
For example, 24 administrations show a mean at the medium BAdequate^ level, the
middle of the scale, 13 administrations show a lower mean (Vulnerable and Highly
Vulnerable), and 13 administrations show a higher mean (Good). Five of the highest
means are from countries in Africa. Debriefing from indigenous partners suggests that
there are strong social norms to respond in favorable ways in these countries, thereby
potentially producing a positive bias to the asset scores in those settings [Ghana,
Uganda (three administrations), and Tanzania]. The common one-on-one oral admin-
istrations in those settings may also promote such socially desirable responses. One of
the highest means was among an unusually young sample, a sample of 10–11 years old
in El Salvador, and younger children in both U.S. and international studies typically
report higher levels of these developmental relationships, opportunities, and character
strengths (Benson et al. 2011a; Scales et al. 2012).

6.2 Reliability

6.2.1 Internal Consistency Reliability

How dependably do the scales measure developmental relationships, opportunities, and

personal strengths? The total DAP is by far the most widely used score, not the scores
for the Internal and External assets, the eight asset category scales or the five asset
context scales. The total DAP is highly reliable in all countries, no doubt in part
because of its length, being comprised of all 58 items. But Table 3 shows that the
other 15 subscales also have shown good internal consistency cross-culturally. The
subscales are highly reliable in 24 administrations in 16 countries (75 % or more of the
scales acceptably reliable), moderately reliable in 18 administrations in 15 countries (half
to 75 % of the scales acceptably reliable), and inconsistently reliable in just eight
administrations in six countries (less than half the scales acceptably reliable—details
available from authors). Five of the six countries with inconsistent reliability to date have
been in Southeast Asia (Bangladesh, Nepal, the Philippines, Sri Lanka, and Vietnam [rural
sample], with the sixth being Egypt). Specifically, 68 % of the alpha (α) reliabilities for the
total DAP, assets category, context, and Internal and External sub-scales have been
acceptable, good, or excellent, α ≥ .70 (543 of 800 total alphas), and 20 % have been
promising, with α = .60–.69 (161/800). Just 12 % have been unacceptable, with α < .60
(96/800) (detailed tables available from authors). Nearly half of those unacceptable alphas
have been from one sub-scale, Constructive Use of Time, a sub-scale that intentionally is
multi-dimensional, and so, by its intent, structurally encouraging a lower alpha; it is also
the subscale least commonly experienced according to these youth reports (Table 4).
Although the total DAP score is the most widely used, the various developmental
asset and developmental context scales are of considerable interest to many, offering
Table 2 Descriptive statistics and reliability for total DAP scores, by country and sample

Region Country/Sample Mean (M) (Range: 0–60) Standard Deviation (SD) Internal Consistency (α) Stability Level*

Africa Burkina Faso 41.75 6.67 .93

Egypta 44.65 6.72 .88
Egyptb 41.30 6.89 .88 Inconsistent
Ethiopia 44.10 8.13 .94 Inconsistent
Ghana 45.87 8.72 .95
Malawi 39.75 10.21 .94
Rwandaa 36.61 6.80 .95
Rwandab 35.53 6.53 .89
Rwandac 37.01 6.07 .89
South Africa 36.30 11.10 .93
Tanzania 46.29 7.27 .94 Moderate
Ugandaa 48.51 6.52 .91
Ugandab 46.99 7.86 .96
Ugandac 44.43 9.17 .94
Ugandad 42.45 8.54 .94
Ugandae 45.25 7.59 .94
Asia Bangladesha 42.52 6.66 .89
Bangladeshb 36.72 8.51 .90 Inconsistent
Bangladeshc 44.42 8.87 .90
Bangladeshd 33.42 6.85 .92
Bangladeshe 43.42 6.21 .94
Cambodia 42.53 7.26 .94 Moderate
China 43.00 7.22 .92 High
P.C. Scales et al.
Table 2 (continued)

Region Country/Sample Mean (M) (Range: 0–60) Standard Deviation (SD) Internal Consistency (α) Stability Level*

Japan 34.76 9.41 .95

Laos 41.61 7.39 .91 Low
Mongoliaa 43.20 7.41 .93 High
Mongoliab 41.01 6.87 .91 High
Nepal 41.57 6.04 .90 High
Philippinesa 36.91 7.13 .92 Inconsistent
Philippinesb 41.39 8.53 .94
Sri Lankaa 45.11 5.64 .90
Sri Lankab 46.30 6.19 .90 High
Vietnama 39.64 5.54 .87 High
Vietnamb 38.07 7.78 .91 High
Vietnamc 35.15 6.58 .89
Central and South Bolivia 38.65 8.44 .91
Aligning Youth Development Theory, Measurement, and Practice

America El Salvador 47.98 7.28 .91

Honduras 41.44 8.41 .94
Europe Albania 41.75 6.56 .89 Moderate
Armenia 44.09 7.09 .91 High
Bosnia and 45.94 6.17 .90 High
Herzegovina
Georgia 43.06 5.96 .89
Kazakhstana 47.67 8.78 .95 High
Kazakhstanb 45.35 7.15 .93 High
Middle East Iraq 45.02 8.36 .95 Inconsistent
Table 2 (continued)

Region Country/Sample Mean (M) (Range: 0–60) Standard Deviation (SD) Internal Consistency (α) Stability Level*

Jordan 41.34 8.53 .94

Lebanon 39.99 8.04 .92
Yemen 42.15 9.55 .89
North America Mexico 34.51 9.86 .94
United States 43.31 9.99 .97 High

Stability levels: High = 12 of 16 DAP scales with T1-T2 Intraclass Correlation Coefficient ≥ .60); Moderate = 8–11 DAP scales with T1-T2 Intraclass Correlation Coefficient ≥ .60;
Inconsistent = < 8 DAP scales with ICC ≥ .60 but 12 of 16 at least ICC ≥ .40 or acceptable level; and Low = < 8 DAP scales with ICC ≥ .60 and < 12 scales ≥ .40. Stability tests were not
conducted with all samples
P.C. Scales et al.
Aligning Youth Development Theory, Measurement, and Practice

Table 3 Summary of internal consistency of DAP subscales across samples

Number of Administrations at Specific Reliability Levels

Acceptable Promising Unacceptable

(α ≥ .70) (α = .60–.69) (α < .60)

Overall DAP Scale 50 0 0

External and Internal
External (supports & relationships) 50 0 0
Internal (character strengths) 50 0 0
Asset Categories
Support 29 16 5
Empowerment 11 13 26
Boundaries & Expectations 36 13 1
Constructive Use of Time 2 8 40
Commitment to Learning 32 15 3
Positive Values 36 14 0
Social Competencies 20 19 11
Positive Identity 12 23 14
Developmental Contexts
Personal 35 14 1
Social 44 6 0
Family 45 4 1
School 46 4 0
Community 41 9 0

more granular information to inform program and policy actions aimed at improving
youth development and outcomes. As might be expected, there is more variability in
reliability across countries at this subscale level than at the total assets level. Table 3
shows that the most reliable asset category subscales across countries are Boundaries &
Expectations, Commitment to Learning, and Positive Values, while the least reliable
asset category subscales are Constructive Use of Time (which is multidimen-
sional and so is expected to have lower internal consistency) and Empower-
ment. Social Competencies and Positive Identity fall in-between, with accept-
able reliability in many countries, but less acceptable coefficients in a minority
of others. By context, the most reliable asset context subscales are Family and
School, and the least consistently reliable context scales (although still over-
whelmingly reliable at acceptable levels) are the Personal and Community
contexts, with the Social context in-between.

6.2.2 Stability Reliability

How much fluctuation in Developmental Assets scores is there over 1–2 weeks? Short-
term fluctuation should be minimal, in order for the instrument to be adequate to use in
pre-post testing or program evaluation, which is a highly-valued application for
 P.C. Scales et al.

Table 4 Most and least experienced asset categories and contexts

Most Consistently Experienced Least Consistently Experienced

(Times in top 2 asset categories (Times in lowest 2 asset categories
or the top context scale, by mean or the lowest context scale, by
scale scores) mean scale scores)

Asset Categories
Support 11 5
Empowerment 4 13
Boundaries & Expectations 25 0
Constructive Use of Time 0 42
Commitment to Learning 32 1
Positive Values 7 10
Social Competencies 7 3
Positive Identity 5 18
Developmental Contexts
Personal 6 1
Social 2 2
Family 16 0
School 24 0
Community 0 44

assessment measures among our international partners. Test-retest administrations have

been done in more than one-third of the countries using the survey. Table 2 shows that
across 21 administrations in 18 countries, 11 are highly stable, with good stability
coefficients in 75 % of more of the subscales, three are moderately stable, with half to
three-quarters of the scales at a good level of stability, four are inconsistent, and just one
is low. Using the Intraclass Correlation Coefficient (ICC), which is more conservative
than the more common Pearson correlation coefficient, we have found that 32 % of 1 to
2-weeks test-retest ICCs are ≥ .80 or excellent (109/336), 31 % are .60–.79 or good
(105/336), 31 % (103/336) are .40–.59 or acceptable (ICC test-retest acceptability
standards per Üstun et al. (2005) guidelines for United Nations surveys). Just 6 %
(19/336) of the international ICC test-retest coefficients are found to be unacceptable
(<.40) (detailed tables available from authors). Three of the 5 countries with inconsis-
tent or low stability reliability are in Southeast Asia (Bangladesh, Laos, and the
Philippines). These results suggest that the translated and adapted survey is acceptable
to use in pre-post or program evaluation applications in almost all countries that have
stability reliability data, although further testing is advised in Southeast Asia.

6.3 Concurrent and Predictive Validity

Substantively, the results of most interest to the international relief and devel-
opment organizations that have been our most common partners are those that
show the linkage of young people’s levels of developmental relationships,
opportunities, and character strengths with a variety of human and economic
Aligning Youth Development Theory, Measurement, and Practice

development outcomes. In this large dataset, correlations of the DAP with other
conceptually related measures of both risk behaviors and positive indicators of
youth well-being are almost always significant and in the predicted direction, in
both U.S. and international samples, suggesting strong cross-cultural validity for
the translated and culturally adapted DAPs.

6.3.1 U.S. Samples

The Search Institute Profiles of Student Life: Attitudes and Behaviors survey (A & B)
measures 40 individual assets, as contrasted with the DAP, which measures eight asset
categories which reflect the essence of the 40 individual assets measured in the much
lengthier A & B survey (Benson et al. 1998; Leffert et al. 1998; Scales et al. 2000). In
the U.S., 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) (Search Institute 2005).
This correlation was very consistent for males and females analyzed separately, and for
students in grades 6–8 versus 9–12. The total DAP score also correlated as expected,
r = −.49 (p ≤ .001) with 10 risk behavior patterns, such as use of alcohol, cigarettes, or
drugs; drinking and driving; school discipline problems and truancy; aggressive be-
haviors, violence, and antisocial behavior; and sexual activity and r = .65 (p ≤ .001) with
eight indicators of thriving, also as predicted, including school grades, healthy behav-
iors, informal helping of others, valuing of diversity, resilience, and leadership. Con-
vergent validity also was assessed, with the DAP Positive Identity sub-scale correlating
r = .70 with the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale, and .72 with Harter’s Global Self Worth
Scale (both at p ≤ .001).

6.3.2 International Samples

Cross-Sectional Results In addition to the original United States DAP datasets, data
bearing on the DAP’s cross-cultural validity have now been collected from 15 studies.
These were a Search Institute study with EDC and Save the Children for the U. S.
Agency for International Development (USAID) in Bangladesh, Honduras, Jordan, and
Rwanda (Scales et al. 2012), and studies in Albania (with World Vision International);
Burkina Faso (with Save the Children Canada; Bolivia (with World Vision Internation-
al); Egypt (with Save the Children Canada); Ethiopia (with Save the Children Canada);
Malawi (with Save the Children Canada); Rwanda (with TechnoServe); Tanzania (by
the University of Mississippi); and Uganda (four studies, one by the University of
Mississippi, one by Search Institute with TechnoServe, one by Search Institute and
Georgetown University’s Institute for Reproductive Health, and one by Search Institute
and Save the Children Canada).
Across these 15 studies, the total Developmental Assets score, the external and
internal assets score, and sometimes the other 13 subscales (far less commonly used as
predictors than the total assets score), have been correlated with several dozen academ-
ic, psychological, social-emotional, and behavioral outcomes. Our general hypothesis
has been that, consistent with U.S. results, higher Developmental Assets scores would
be related cross-culturally to better well-being outcomes.
Table 5 shows that correlations of Developmental Assets with other measures of
positive youth development in these studies consistently have been in the predicted
 P.C. Scales et al.

direction and usually significant, often at quite meaningful effect sizes, although small
sample sizes in some countries have sometimes precluded the results from reaching
statistical significance. For example, correlations of .30 or greater between Develop-
mental Assets and outcomes are quite common in Table 5 (59/123, or 48 % of total
DAP correlations with outcomes), and a correlation of that level corresponds to an
effect size of .50, per Cohen’s (1988) guidelines. Given also that the U.S. Department
of Education considers an effect size of .25 to be of Bsubstantive importance^ (What
Works Clearinghouse 2008; corresponding to a correlation of just .124), then an
overwhelming majority of the correlations in Table 5 may be considered substantively
meaningful (70 % above .20 (86/123) and another 22 % (27/123) at or above the DOE
level of ≥ .13). Of course, cross-sectional results do not by themselves demonstrate that
these developmental relationships, opportunities, and character strengths contribute to
the outcomes, but a vast literature does convincingly show these kinds of causal
linkages in longitudinal studies (see, for example, reviews in Scales and Leffert
2004; Scales et al. 2004; Catalano et al. 2004).
Moreover, Table 5 shows the balance of influence between external developmental
relationships and opportunities (external assets), and character strengths such as moti-
vation, values, interpersonal skills, and positive outlook (internal assets) in statistically
predicting youth outcomes. For nearly all the significant correlations of DAP with
outcomes, there also are significant correlations, usually of comparable size, between
the external and internal assets and the identified outcome measure.

Longitudinal Results In addition, three studies suggest the feasibility and validity of
measuring developmental relationships, opportunities, and character strengths as indi-
cators of change over time. For example, Search Institute conducted studies with
TechnoServe in Rwanda and Uganda of a workforce and career development program
for youth and young adults. Logistic regressions showed (Scales and Shramko 2014a,
b) that an increase over about 3 months of ≥ .25 standard deviations in DAP score from
baseline to post-program (shown in previous research to be related to significant gains
in Grade Point Average among U.S. middle and high school students; Scales
et al. 2006) was associated with significantly greater odds of young people
having at post-test:

& Enough capital for a business (Uganda, ExpB = 2.42, p = .01; Rwanda, ExpB = 3.71,
p = .005)
& A total workforce development outcome made up of having enough capital, having
a job certification, and having a safe and productive job (Rwanda, ExpB = 2.93,
p = .015), and
& Functional numeracy (Uganda, ExpB = 3.73, p = .001).

Additionally, in Rwanda, youth who increased in their developmental assets over the
several-month program period were 65 % more likely at post-test to have a safe and
productive job (ExpB = 1.65), and 48 % more likely to be functionally literate at the end
of the program (ExpB = 1.48), than youth who did not increase in those assets. The
relatively small Rwanda sample sizes (<50 in each of the increased and did not increase
groups) precluded those results from reaching the .05 level of significance. Neverthe-
less, increases of 65 and 48 % clearly are meaningful increases in the odds of positive
Aligning Youth Development Theory, Measurement, and Practice

Table 5 Correlations of Developmental Assets Profile (DAP) with concurrent outcomes in international
samples

Covariate Correlation Country

Total External Internal

Workforce development (A global .28** .25** .28** Rwandaa

measure of financially positive .34** .32** .32** Bangladesha
and safe employment, sufficient
capital for a business, and job .42** .37** .42** Honduras
certifications) .57** .51** .56** Jordan
.43** .44** .32** Rwandac
.68** .65** .65** Ugandad
• Safe and productive employment .14* .16* .10 Honduras
.33** .34** .29** Jordan
.35** .39** .27 Egypta
• Sufficient capital for a business .41** .44** .45** Ugandae
.32** .28** .32** Rwandaa
.49** .43** .43** Rwandac
.37** .33** .36** Bangladesha
.42** .36** .43** Honduras
• Has recognized job certification .06 .04 .07* Jordan
.10* .05 .14** Rwandaa
.47** .48** .40** Ugandad
• Workplace teamwork and drive .44** .42** .42** Ugandab
.51** .55** .38** Malawi
.27** .38** .37** Egypta
.40** .36** .38** Egyptb
.28** .28** .24** Burkina Faso
• Comfort managing money .34** .27** .37** Ethiopia
.22** .23** .19* Ugandab
.23** .21** .27** Malawi
.23** .21** .23** Egyptb
• Budgeting skills .30** .26** .30** Malawi
.17* .17* .15 Ugandab
.41** .34** .44** Ethiopia
.29** .28** .27** Egyptb
.28** .32** .20* Burkina Faso
• Savings skills .31** .41** .23* Malawi
.35** .24 .43* Egypta
• Adequate savings .18* .18* .16* Ethiopia
.35** .35** .30** Malawi
• Adequate access to credit .44** .41** .42** Malawi (only
significant
for females)
• Family support for work .33** .42** .18 Ethiopia
development .65** .69** .55** Ugandab
 P.C. Scales et al.

Table 5 (continued)

Covariate Correlation Country

Total External Internal

.53** .57** .38** Malawi

.53** .53** .42** Egypta
.70** .69** .63** Egyptb
.60** .62** .52** Burkina Faso
• Community support for work .60** .60** .55** Ugandab
development .35* .51** .31** Ethiopia
.51** .50** .40** Egypta
.27** .28 .24 Egyptb
.69* .67** .62** Burkina Faso
.48** .48** .40** Malawi
Educational attainment (A global .19** .12** .14** Bangladesha
measure of literacy, numeracy, .20** .16** .24** Honduras
age-appropriate schooling level,
academic self-confidence) .33** .25** .35** Rwandaa
.42** .39** .45** Jordan
• Achievement motivation .29** .25** .29** Armenia
• Has completed age-appropriate .15** .03 .11* Rwandaa
level of schooling
• Functional numeracy .26** .20** .18** Ugandae
.27** .20* .30** Rwandab
.14** .10** .15** Bangladesha
.18** .15** .18** Honduras
.34** .32** .34** Jordan
.22** .19** .22** Rwandaa
• Functional literacy .27** .29** .24** Ugandae
.18* .04 .23* Rwandac (only
significant
for males)
.27** .22** .26** Jordan
.17** .13** .19** Rwandaa
.10** .09* .09* Bangladesha
• Academic self-confidence .13** .13** .12** Bangladesha
.29** .23** .33** Honduras
.46** .43** .44** Jordan
.34** .28** .37** Rwandaa
Health Promotion (A global .15** .09* .20** Rwandaa
measure of hygiene and .16** .12** .18** Bangladesha
access to medical care)
.29** .24** .31** Honduras
.42** .38** .37** Jordan
• Hygiene (hand-washing knowledge .14** .08* .17** Bangladesha
and practice) .23** .18** .25** Honduras
.35** .31** .31** Jordan
Aligning Youth Development Theory, Measurement, and Practice

Table 5 (continued)

Covariate Correlation Country

Total External Internal

.13** .09* .15** Rwandaa

• Knowledge of how to access .13** .12** .12** Bangladesha
medical care .31** .28** .30** Honduras
.41** .37** .39** Jordan
.23** .17** .26** Rwandaa
• Sexual and reproductive health
- Accurate knowledge of HIV .13** .08* .18** Ugandac
- Accurate knowledge of puberty .10** .07* .11** Ugandac
- Confidence accessing sexual and .11** .08** .12** Ugandac
reproductive health services
- Supportive relationships for discussing .11*(f) .09*(f) .11*(f) Ugandac
puberty and feelingsa .17**(m) .14**(m) .17**(m)
- Intentions to delay sex and use condoms .18** .12** .19** Ugandac
Violence mitigation (A global measure .09* −.03 −.04 Honduras
of not being involved as a perpetrator .10** .07 .04 Rwandaa
or a victim, low normative acceptance
of violence, and frequent interaction .17** .12** .18** Bangladesha
with differing cultural groups) .37** .36** .33** Jordan
• Neither a victim nor perpetrator .27** .23** .28** Honduras
.24** .23** .19** Jordan
.14** .13** .13** Rwandaa
• Frequent interaction with other cultural .13** .10** .14** Bangladesha
groups .09* .10* .06 Honduras
.11** .12** .09* Jordan
.12** .11* .11* Rwandaa
• Low acceptance of violence b
.13** .11** .13** Bangladesha
−.43** −.40** −.41** Honduras
.33** .37** .31** Jordan
−.11** −.08* −.13** Rwanda
Civic engagement (A global measure .10** .10* .09* Rwandaa
of frequency volunteering, and .23** .21** .22** Bangladesha
confidence in influencing community
affairs) .30** .28** .30** Jordan
.40** .36** .39** Honduras
• Civic action .40** .37** .37** Ugandaa
• Political awareness .25* .28* .20 Ugandaa
• Sense of community .42** .40** .38** Tanzania
• Confidence influencing community .20** .17** .20** Bangladesha
affairs .35** .31** .34** Honduras
.23** .19** .24** Jordan
.09* .10* .06 Rwandaa
• Frequency volunteering .18** .17** .16** Bangladesha
 P.C. Scales et al.

Table 5 (continued)

Covariate Correlation Country

Total External Internal

.32** .28** .31** Honduras

.26** .27** .24** Jordan
Psycho-Social Development
• Positive emotionality .51** .38** .56** Bolivia
• Social support .36** .40** .24** Bolivia
• Ethnic identity .47** .47** .41** Tanzania
• Self-efficacy .44** .41** .44** Tanzania
• Interpersonal problem solving skills .38** .29* .43** Ugandaa
• Leadership .31** .19 .40** Ugandaa
• Transcendent awareness .47** .40** .48** Bolivia

Note: Data for Table 5 came from Drescher et al. 2012; Scales 2011; Scales et al. 2012; Scales et al. 2013;
Scales and Shramko 2014a and Scales and Shramko 2014b; Scales et al. 2016; and more than two-dozen
Search Institute country reports to World Vision International and Save the Children Canada, as well as from
additional analyses conducted for this paper
a
Question was asked separately for males and females
b
Negative correlations were observed in Rwanda and Honduras between assets score and acceptance of
violence as a way of resolving conflict
*p ≤ .05, **p ≤ .01

outcomes for youth in a practical sense, if they increased their developmental relation-
ships, opportunities, and character strengths.
Notably, given the systemic inequality and discrimination faced by girls and young
women in many developing countries, the linkages of these individual and social assets
with positive outcomes in these studies tends to be as strong for females as for males,
and in some cases, stronger. For example, in a study of 10–14 yeasr olds in Uganda, we
found that, of 38 significant correlations of the eight asset category scales (e.g.,
Support, Commitment to Learning) with eight sexual and reproductive health outcomes
(e.g., accurate knowledge of puberty, intention to delay sexual intercourse), 14 were
significant for both males and females, but 16 were significant for girls only, compared
with 8 significant for boys only (Scales et al. 2016). Even in more developed countries,
girls may benefit even more from increasing personal and relational assets. For
example, in a large UNICEF study of adolescents in the European Union and Organi-
zation of Economic Cooperation and Development countries, girls reported increasing-
ly lower life satisfaction than boys as they age from 11 to 13 and 15, a trend observed
Bnearly everywhere^ (UNICEF Office of Research 2016, p. 32).
The last of the three longitudinal studies, a collaboration of Search Institute and Save
the Children in Bangladesh, also suggests that developmental relationships,
opportunities, and character strengths can be materially increased through program
efforts, and the increase can be detected by the DAP survey. Scales and colleagues
(2013) studied more than 600 intervention youth in a 6–9 months youth empowerment
program for Bangladeshi girls, and 400 control girls (M age = 13.5). The researchers
Aligning Youth Development Theory, Measurement, and Practice

found a significant increase in project girls’ developmental relationships, opportunities,

and character strengths, over and above any control group changes, with a mean
increase of 22 % over 2 years of cohorts, including improvements of roughly 30 %
in feelings of being relationally supported and empowered. The average effect size, net
of contamination and control group scores, was .80, conventionally considered a large
effect size (Cohen 1988). These results from program exposure of 6–9 months sug-
gested the project’s effectiveness in improving human and social capital for some of the
most vulnerable young people in the world, adolescent girls living in rural Bangladesh
villages. The results also suggest the utility of measuring developmental relationships,
opportunities, and character strengths as holistic, cross-culturally relevant indicators of
changes in positive youth development.
A new Search Institute longitudinal study in progress takes this research further. We
are linking DAP scores and changes in DAP scores among 12–14 and 15–18 years old
in the Youth in Action workforce and literacy development program sponsored by Save
the Children Canada and the MasterCard Foundation, with a variety of subsequent self-
report workforce development measures, and independent, objective measures such as
literacy and numeracy. Multiple cohorts totaling 800 youth in each of Burkina Faso,
Ethiopia, Egypt, Malawi, and Uganda are being studied over a several-year period, with
final results expected after 2018.

7 Descriptive Results: Insights for Practice

In addition to the consistent linkage of the DAP to both concurrent and longitudinal
well-being, these datasets yield other substantive findings. For example, the above
validity results show that youth at higher assets score levels enjoy significantly better
correlated well-being outcomes. Yet, in the great majority of international survey
administrations (79 %), the mean Developmental Assets score is less than 45 out of
60. This signifies a barely adequate level of youth experiencing these assets, because
this level is correlated with less-than-desirable levels of well-being indicators.
Despite the great diversity of culture, language, and economic development status of
the countries involved, these results suggest that youth worldwide need a good deal
more of these positive life nutrients, including both external relationships and oppor-
tunities as well as internal character strengths. These needs may partially be met
through high-quality educational and youth development programs as well as efforts
to strengthen families and other socializing systems in young people’s lives.
In addition, there are clear patterns across this country-sample diversity about which
categories of assets and which ecological contexts youth experience as most and least
promoting of their positive development. As Table 4 shows, the asset categories most
consistently experienced by youth around the world are Boundaries & Expectations,
and Commitment to Learning, and the contexts in which youth experience the most
assets are Family and School. On the other end of the continuum, the asset categories
least experienced by youth around the world are Constructive Use of Time, and
Positive Identity, and the ecological context in which youth experience the least assets
is Community. By comparison, the Children’s Worlds survey showed both similarities
and differences with the DAP results. For example, just as in the DAP findings, in the
 P.C. Scales et al.

15 Children’s Worlds survey countries children were most satisfied with family life,
and least satisfied with their Blocal area^ where they live, i.e., their communities (Rees
and Main 2015). In contrast, less than 10 % of the Children’s Worlds survey partici-
pants had low subjective well-being, whereas, as measured by the DAP, the average
response was barely above the level of vulnerable well-being. The CWS results also
suggested that older youth, the 12 year olds, were less satisfied overall than those who
were 10 years old. This pattern of less subjective well-being among older youth may be
reflected as well in the DAP results, in that the greater variability and lesser positive
skew of the DAP results, compared to CWS, may be due both to the more compre-
hensive questions asked on the DAP, as well as to the older age of the DAP samples.
Using an age range of 12–24 that is more similar to the DAP’s, for example, the Global
Youth Wellbeing Index of 30 countries that represent 70 % of the world’s youth
concluded that just 15 % had high or upper-middle level well-being, a finding more
like the DAP results than the CWS results (Goldin et al. 2014).
Each of these findings offers perspective to practitioners and policy makers who are
increasingly examining youth issues cross-sectorally through the lens of collective impact.
For example, World Vision International is using the DAP in conjunction with other
measures to assess how its humanitarian and relief efforts are promoting child well-being.
In Albania and Kosovo, results showed that Constructive Use of Time was the least
experienced asset category. By the next year, after staff had used the results to expand and
refine programs in life skills, art and sport, spiritual nurture, and advocacy, youth reported
a 20 % increase in the asset of constructive use of time (World Vision International 2015).
Collectively, our findings reinforce the critical need to attend to young people’s develop-
mental needs holistically and not just in schools, but across the ecological contexts of their
lives, including families, schools, programs, and communities.

8 Challenges in the Cross-Cultural Measurement

Given the large diversity of cultures, languages, and social mores represented across
these datasets, it is notable that acceptable levels of reliability and validity have been so
common for the adapted and translated DAP in 31countries other than the United
States. Yet, there also have been stubborn challenges that represent threats to reliability
and validity of this holistic measurement of developmental relationships, opportunities,
and character strengths.

8.1 Item Translation

The most common is that a number of items in the original English have proved
difficult to render into some languages, either because some phrases have idiomatic
meanings in American English, or because words or phrases are interpreted differently
within the context of other cultures. An example of the former issue, idiomatic
uniqueness, is the item, BI stand up for what I believe in.^ BStand up for^ is notoriously
difficult to render accurately outside of a native English-speaking context. The best
back translations get at the notion of Bdefend^ or Bspeak to others about^ one’s values.
For the phrase, Bwhat I believe in,^ the phrase Bmy ideas or convictions^ is an
acceptable substitute.
Aligning Youth Development Theory, Measurement, and Practice

An example of the second issue, variable meaning in different cultures, is the DAP
item BI feel in control of my life and future.^ In some countries, the best back
translation reflects Bhave influence on^ or Bhelp to shape^ my life and future, rather
than Bcontrol.^ Another approach that we approved was BMy life and future depend on
me.^ BControl^ is too egocentric a word to be relatable and valid in many cultures, and
so a softening of the meaning from the original English has been necessary.
A third challenge is when the concept itself is difficult to express in the local
language, or when the point of reference an item uses is uncommon. For example,
the item BI care about school^ has sometimes been problematic for two reasons. In
some countries and/or languages, there is not a good way to express emotional
connectedness to school as a concept, a building, or a group one feels a part of, all
of which are connotations in the English Bcare about.^ The closest acceptable back
translations in such cases have expressed more the idea that BMy school is important to
me.^ In addition, in some samples, a not-insignificant percentage of the youth do not go
to Bschool.^ In those cases, this item has been translated as something more like Bmy
learning center,^ or Bthe places where I learn things.^ In these cases, it can also be
difficult to interpretively distinguish responses to this revised item from another item on
the survey, BI enjoy learning.^

8.2 Scales or Constructs

Moreover, although the internal consistency reliability of the adapted and translated
assets survey has been broadly acceptable across the great majority of countries and
cultures, some subscales, especially in a number of Southeast Asia countries, have been
less consistently reliable. The Empowerment and Positive Identity scales have been
particularly vexing in this regard. Empowerment combines items that tap youths’
perceptions of safety, as well as their perception that they are valued and given useful
tasks and responsibilities. In the U.S. and the majority of countries where the survey
has been administered, items tapping these somewhat differing perspectives on
Bempowerment^ have tended to hang together adequately as a scale. But in Southeast
Asian countries especially, indigenous colleagues have suggested that youth tend to feel
safe, yet expressions by adults of letting youth know they are valued are not culturally
emphasized. Thus, Empowerment is likely a different construct in those countries, and
so these items do not correlate well with each other in those settings. For Positive
Identity, the issue seems to be less about conflicting sub-concepts within the asset
category, and more about the egocentric nature of the identity items not aligning well in
cultures with more collectivist traditions. Positive Identity in those cultures may be less
about individual self-concept and efficacy than about attachment to and harmony
within social groups, which makes it a different underlying construct than what is
currently measured in the Developmental Assets Profile.
Future translations of these items may need to incorporate a more emic approach
initially, using indigenous interviews, observations, and focus groups, for example, to
surface the more natural ways that a given culture defines and that youth in that cultural
context perceive the broad constructs of identity and empowerment. This combined
emic-etic approach has been used successfully, for example, by Search Institute in
collaboration with World Vision International in creating a very brief 13-item version of
the DAP, the Emergency-DAP, for use in measuring developmental relationships,
 P.C. Scales et al.

opportunities, and character strengths in immediate crisis situations, such as with youth
displaced by armed conflict or natural disasters (Scales et al. 2015, 2016). Nevertheless,
our essentially etic approach to translation and adaptation of the DAP (using the U.S.
original as the template for all other countries, despite some underlying construct
variability as illustrated above) has been shown to have considerable merit. Most of
the subscales have acceptable internal consistency and stability, as well as evidence of
convergent validity, across a wide diversity of cultures, languages, and countries, as well
as obvious cross-cultural face validity as reflected in the sheer volume of countries in
which the holistic approach to measuring relational and individual assets has been used.
Given the manifest challenges in cultural adaptation, the process of translating, back-
translating, reviewing and suggesting changes, and retranslating and re-back-translating
and reviewing can go on for several cycles before consensus is reached that this is the
best translation that can be achieved. The process is easier for root languages which are
widely read and spoken around the globe, such as Spanish or Arabic, such that a new
country can begin with an approved Spanish or Arabic version and tweak that for
accuracy with local dialects, rather than starting with the original English. But even for
those languages, variations in dialect can sometimes be significant, and even native
speakers of the languages have at times disagreed on which alternative translation and
back-translation is the more accurate rendition of the original English. Ultimately, the
deciding criterion in such cases is whether the adaptation of the survey has reached a
point where it has valid utility for the purposes for which the in-country partnering
organization wishes to use it, not whether more effort could bring about an incremental
improvement in linguistic accuracy. But determining when that moment occurs is as
much a matter of art and collaborative diplomacy as it is of science.

8.3 Administration Challenges Affecting Response Variability and Validity

Another less common challenge is that in some contexts, it is culturally impolite or

prohibited for youth to seem to criticize family, school, or community (i.e., by giving a
low rating to developmental relationships and experiences in those contexts), or to
appear to be bragging about oneself or being prideful (i.e., by giving high ratings about
one’s internal strengths). Thus, sometimes we observe an absence of very low re-
sponses, because low responses would suggest youth are not experiencing families that
love them, or schools that help them achieve. Or we may have an absence of high
responses on other items, for example, that would suggest youth consider themselves
good at making decisions and planning ahead, or highly confident of their personal
efficacy. On the other hand, customs of politeness in some cultures can lead to a
tendency for youth to provide the responses youth think the survey administrators want
to see, which then tend to be highly positive evaluations of youths’ character strengths
and social relationships and opportunities, no matter what the actual reality is. The net
result of these dynamics tends to lead to bias in a positive direction, reflected in high
DAP scores that indigenous colleagues think are less likely to be valid capturing of
youths’ realities than the products of cultural issues around responding. As noted, most
of the high mean survey scores that partners believe are due to these cultural dynamics
have occurred in administrations in some African countries, specifically in Ghana,
Tanzania, and Uganda (but these positive bias dynamics do not seem to have occurred
in other African countries). In those and similar cultural settings, we have encouraged
Aligning Youth Development Theory, Measurement, and Practice

special attention to then be placed on emphasizing to youth in future survey adminis-

tration the acceptability of giving honest answers, and the protections that have been
established for youths’ confidentiality.
In addition, training the data collectors is often quite challenging. When we are in-
country, in each country and depending also on the degree of rurality, we have seen
huge variation in enumerators’ average level of education (from high school graduates
to Masters- and PhD-level training) and their previous experience collecting data, and/
or working with young people. We usually spend a full day to 2 days training and
helping the data collectors become familiar with the survey. At this stage, we often get
new feedback about the quality of the translation, start to understand new challenges
regarding writing down a language that might in practice be more oral, and satisfying
data collector questions and concerns. If we don’t address them in the training, data
collectors often find their own way to deal with them – which can involve them
skipping or modifying items, or adding their own personal interpretation onto each
question, all of which affects reliability and validity. In these field visits, we also
emphasize research ethics and specific approaches for engaging young people, and
keeping them motivated.
During survey administration in developing countries, there also are many things that
are difficult to control. The weather and the distance youth have to travel to be surveyed
affects attendance, and affects the ability to collect data. It is sometimes difficult to control
who is nearby, which can affect youths’ focus, and/or their willingness to respond
honestly. In some countries, too, plans must be made for how best to support youth
taking the survey who are themselves also parents, and what care can be provided their
young children while they complete the survey. Finally, challenges exist around mobiliz-
ing multiple stakeholders to use the data, including youth participation in determining
how to act on the results, as well as clearly linking this kind of broad, holistic measure to
the more narrowly focused program objectives on which most of our international
colleagues are used to focusing. Although perspectives are indeed changing toward more
holistic, positive youth development thinking and measurement, traditional problem-
focused approaches to working with youth still hold considerable appeal because they
are familiar, and deeply embedded in how youth development workers are trained and
socialized, and how they and their organizations are held accountable.
Finally, there are two limitations to our survey approach that should be mentioned.
First is that the DAP is a self-report measure. The Children’s Worlds survey has a
similar self-report limitation. The utility and validity of youth self-reports has long been
established, particularly in areas of subjective well-being (Duckworth and Yeager 2015;
Sandvik et al. 1993). For example, UNICEF found that youth in relatively affluent
countries with low subjective life satisfaction scores were 2–3 times more likely to be
victims or perpetrators of bullying, to smoke regularly, and to have a higher level of
injuries (UNICEF 2016). Moreover, the Global Youth Wellbeing Index (which its
authors note was based in part on the Developmental Assets Profile) found that, when
subjective well-being measures such as youth’s perception of how much society values
them or their stress levels are removed from the index (leaving only objective econom-
ic, educational, health, and safety indictors), the mean well-being score for the 30
countries rose (Goldin et al. 2014). This suggests that youth worldwide are less than
satisfied with their lives and that well-being measures that exclude subjective indicators
are likely over-stating degrees of youth well-being. Nevertheless, it would also be
 P.C. Scales et al.

advantageous to further corroborate these results with more objective measures, espe-
cially when correlating the DAP with other measures of well-being outcomes, to avoid
the shared error variance of using all self-reports. As an example, more objective
measures of workforce development and literacy are being correlated with the DAP
in Africa in Save the Children’s Youth in Action project described above.
A second issue is the DAP’s relative brevity. No doubt, a lengthier instrument could
collect data providing a more comprehensive portrait of youths’ developmental rela-
tionships, opportunities, and character strengths. But the relative brevity of the instru-
ment reduces the burden on youth as well as staff, a not unimportant consideration,
especially in a program evaluation context in which data collection is considerable, and/
or in which many youth may have low literacy levels. Even in this relatively brief form,
however, the DAP has provided a more comprehensive 360° view of young people’s
contexts and developmental domains than is common in youth well-being surveys.

9 Conclusion

A large trove of data from 31 countries and 50 survey administrations in 30 languages

plus English, and involving more than 25,000 youth and young adults, shows that
Search Institute’s Developmental Assets Profile is, with few exceptions, a cross-
culturally highly reliable, stable, and valid tool. It is psychometrically and culturally
acceptable to use both for one-time descriptions of the condition of a country’s youth,
and for tracking change over time in young people’s developmental relationships,
opportunities, and character strengths in pre-post testing and program evaluations.
Despite this great diversity across cultures and samples, the results show that
whether in developed or developing countries, young people tend to experience just
a barely adequate level of the developmental relationships and opportunities, and
positive internal values, skills, and self-perceptions that have repeatedly been shown
to be associated with and contributing to well-being. And with few exceptions, young
people across these countries tend to report similar patterns of these Developmental
Assets: Family and School tend to be bulwarks of positive influence, especially in
terms of providing youth with rules and expectations for behavior. Most young people
also report having a solid internal commitment to learning, including such assets as
having achievement motivation, feeling engaged in learning, and liking reading. Those
positive educational experiences and attitudes about learning are especially critical for
youth in the developing world, for whom, especially among girls and young women,
education is the single best vehicle for raising their odds of having a satisfying and
productive life.
Less favorably, youth the world over tend to describe their communities and villages
as the places where they are least likely to experience these critical developmental
relationships and opportunities, and their out-of-school time as less than constructively
filled. And although they report more or less adequate levels of relational support,
empowerment, positive values, and social competencies, there is still considerable
room worldwide for youths’ experience of those specific individual and social assets
to improve. It may take a village to raise a child, but the 25,000 children, youth, and
young adults we have surveyed report overwhelmingly that their villages are not doing
all that they can to promote young people’s well-being. The Children’s Worlds survey
Aligning Youth Development Theory, Measurement, and Practice

also found that children were least satisfied with the local area where they live, and that
barely half of the children surveyed believed that adults in their countries respect
children’s rights (Rees and Main 2015). The general weakness of the role adults outside
the family and school context play in promoting positive youth development is not just
seen in the developing countries comprising the bulk of these datasets, but in the
developed world as well, as shown repeatedly in both scientific studies (e.g., Scales
et al. 2003) and popular treatments (e.g., Putnam 2015).
When young people do enjoy higher levels of these developmental relationships,
opportunities, values, skills, and self-perceptions, the research summarized here shows
that the relationship of those Developmental Assets to measures of well-being seen
repeatedly in the United States and in a handful of other countries in earlier research is
not a culturally limited finding but rather is almost surely a more universal phenom-
enon. The most important conclusion from this research is that where data have been
collected, youth with more of this multidimensional and multicontextual measure of
developmental relationships, opportunities, and character strengths are better off, in
terms of their mental and physical health, education, civic engagement, and workforce
readiness, even in the most challenging environments.
In addition, these data show that for almost any academic, psychological, social-
emotional, or behavioral outcome, neither relationships and opportunities nor character
strengths are expendable; both are significantly correlated with dozens of positive
youth development outcomes, and both must be nurtured. These results underscore
the importance of the recent movement to apply to international youth development
intervention and measurement efforts a 360° strategy that better reflects a true
bioecological and developmental systems perspective than the sector- or skill-based
emphasis of traditional international youth development programming. In our future
international youth development work, as well, we will be focusing even more deeply
on the specific ways young people experience truly developmental relationships across
their personal ecologies. This will involve measuring how much youth experience
adults expressing care and providing support to them, challenging them to grow,
sharing power with them, and expanding their possibilities, actions that we already
have found are strongly linked to character strengths and well-being among children
and youth in a U.S. national sample (Pekel et al. 2015).
Two other important substantive conclusions are warranted, albeit each with a
successively smaller database to support this conclusion. Young people who increase
their level of developmental relationships, opportunities, and character strengths over
the course of a positive youth development program have better odds of enjoying better
well-being post-program than young people who do not increase their assets (two
studies). Finally, programs of 6–9 months duration can stimulate a significant and large
size increase in the level of individual and social assets highly vulnerable young people
experience in a developing country setting, thereby materially enhancing the well-being
of those youth (one study). Clearly, more longitudinal studies are needed to further
confirm the linkage of increases in individual and social assets with positive youth
development outcomes, and of the potential for programs to significantly increase those
assets. Nevertheless, these results are provocative, and consistent with the large body of
positive youth development literature from developed countries.
These results add support for the intentional building of both developmental rela-
tionships and opportunities, and also character strengths, as a positive youth
 P.C. Scales et al.

development strategy more globally, evidence noted by USAID in support of promul-

gating its first-ever policy on investing in international positive youth development
(USAID 2012). USAID noted that Balthough youth embody the means and assets that
societies need to build prosperous futures, societies will only realize these gains when
they invest in youth development^ that is concerned with both Binternal (e.g., self
motivation, responsibility, decision-making) and external (e.g., safe schools, caring
neighborhoods, parental involvement, positive peer influence) [assets] that facilitate
their ability to succeed regardless of gender, socioeconomic status and ethnicity^
(pp. 12–13).
International youth development programs have tended to focus on prevention of a
single problem, or the promotion of youth development in a single outcome area such as
education or HIV/AIDs prevention. A focus on broader positive youth development and
the collective impact of cross-sector resources for children and youth does not substitute
for those targeted focuses. Rather, a broad positive youth development approach
supplements targeted programs in ways that can increase programs’ effectiveness, by
holistically improving youth development across family, school, and community con-
texts, across domains of development (e.g., intellectual, physical, social-emotional,
psychological, spiritual), and across outcomes critical to building and strengthening
civil society, from education to violence prevention to civic engagement.
A database accrued through administration of the Developmental Assets Profile
suggests that youths’ broad developmental ecology can be measured in a cross-
culturally reliable and valid yet relatively brief measurement tool. It can document
both youths’ status on developmental relationships, opportunities, and character
strengths, and their changes over time brought about by interventions. Finally, it can
provide youth perspectives across environmental contexts, domains of development,
and critical outcomes. Such holistic but brief measurement is a potentially valuable tool
for collective, coordinated action by practitioners and policymakers in the movement to
promote the well-being of children, youth, and young adults around the world.

Acknowledgments Funding for the data collections reported in this paper was provided by contracts to
Search Institute from World Vision International, Save the Children International, Save the Children Canada,
and the United States Agency for International Development, by a USAID contract to Georgetown
University’s Institute for Reproductive Health, and by a Fulbright Award provided to Laura Renee Johnson,
Ph.D., University of Mississippi, for work in Tanzania and Uganda. We are indebted to Dr. Johnson and her
colleagues, colleagues Ashley Inselman, Teresa Wallace, and Paul Stephenson from World Vision Interna-
tional, Larry Dershem and Yosef Gebrehiwot of Save the Children International, Nikhit D’Sa from Save the
Children International and Harvard University, Sita Conklin and Angela Wilton from Save the Children
Canada, Kim Ashburn, Ph.D., and her colleagues from Georgetown University, USAID staff and staff from
Education Development Center, and the in-country partners of all the funding organizations for their support in
the cultural adaptation and translation of the Developmental Assets Profile and the collection of data from
more than 25,000 youth and young adults. We also thank Search Institute research associate Chen-Yu Wu for
extensive data analysis. The opinions expressed herein are solely those of the authors.

References

Ananiadou, K., & Claro, M. (2009). 21st century skills and competences for new millennium learners in
OECD countries (OECD Education Working Paper #41). Paris: OECD Publishing. doi:10.1787/
218525261154.
Aligning Youth Development Theory, Measurement, and Practice

Beaton, D. E., Bombardier, C., Guillemin, F., & Ferraz, M. B. (2000). Guidelines for the process of cross-
cultural adaptation of self-report measures. Spine, 25(24), 3186–3191.
Belfield, C., Bowden, B., Klapp, A., Levin, H., Shand, R., & Zander, S. (2015). The economic value of social
and emotional learning (revised). New York, NY: Center for Benefit-Cost Studies in Education Teachers
College, Columbia University.
Ben-Arieh, A., Casas, F., Frones, I., & Korbin, J. E. (Eds.). (2014). Handbook of child well-being. Theories,
methods and policies in global perspective. Dorcrecht: Springer.
Benson, P. L. (1990). The troubled journey: a portrait of 6th- to 12th-grade youth. Minneapolis:
Search Institute.
Benson, P. L. (2006). All kids are our kids: what communities must do to raise caring and responsible children
and adolescents (2nd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Benson, P. L., & Scales, P. C. (2009). Positive youth development and the prevention of youth aggression and
violence. European Journal of Developmental Science, 3, 218–234.
Benson, P. L., Leffert, N., Scales, P. C., & Blyth, D. A. (1998). Beyond the ‘village’ rhetoric: creating healthy
communities for children and adolescents. Applied Developmental Science, 2(3), 138–159.
Benson, P. L., Roehlkepartain, E. C., & Sesma, A., Jr. (2004). Tapping the power of community: the potential
of asset building to strengthen substance abuse prevention efforts. Search Institute Insights and Evidence,
2(1), 1–14.
Benson, P. L., Scales, P. C., Hamilton, S. F., & Sesma, A. (2006). Positive youth development: theory,
research, and applications. In W. Damon & R. M. Lerner (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology (6th ed.,
pp. 894–941). New York: Wiley.
Benson, P. L., Scales, P. C., & Syvertsen, A. K. (2011a). The contribution of the developmental assets
framework to positive youth development theory and practice. In R. M. Lerner, J. V. Lerner, & J. B.
Benson (Eds.), Advances in child development and behavior: positive youth development research and
applications for promoting thriving in adolescence (pp. 198–232). London, UK: Elsevier.
Benson, P. L., Scales, P. C., Roehlkepartain, E. C., & Leffert, N. (2011b). A fragile foundation: the state of
developmental assets among American youth. Minneapolis: Search Institute.
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development: experiments by nature and design.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Bronfenbrenner, U. (2005). Making human beings human: bioecological perspectives on human development.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Catalano, R. F., Berglund, M. L., Ryan, J. A. M., Lonczak, H. S., & Hawkins, J. D. (2004). Positive youth
development in the United States: research findings on evaluations of positive youth development
programs. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 591, 98–124.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Deere, C. D., Alverado, G. E., & Twyman, J. (2012). Gender inequality in asset ownership in Latin America:
female owners versus household heads. Development and Change, 43, 505–530.
Drescher, C. F., Chin, E., Johnson, L. R., & Johnson-Pynn, J. S. (2012). Exploring developmental assets
among Ugandan youth. International Journal of Child, Youth, and Family Studies, 4, 500–520.
Duckworth, A. L., & Yeager, D. S. (2015). Measurement matters. Assessing personal qualities other than
cognitive ability for educational purposes. Educational Researcher, 44(4), 237–251. doi:10.3102/
0013189X15584327.
Eccles, J., & Gootman, J. A. (2002). Community programs for youth development. Washington DC: National
Academy Press (National Research Council and Institute of Medicine).
Education Development Center. (2011). EQUIP3: developing a youth development framework. Washington,
DC: United States Agency for International Development.
Farrington, C. A., Roderick, M., Allensworth, E., Nagaoka, J., Keyes, S., Johnson, D. W., & Beechum, N. O.
(2012). Teaching adolescents to become learners—the role of noncognitive factors in shaping school
performance: a critical literature review. Chicago: University of Chicago Consortium on Chicago
Schools Research.
Ford, D. H., & Lerner, R. M. (1992). Developmental systems theory: an integrative approach. Newbury Park,
CA: Sage.
Goldin, N., Patel, P., & Perry, K. (2014). The global youth wellbeing index. Washington DC: Center for
Strategic & International Studies, and International Youth Foundation.
Heckman, J. J., & Kautz, T. (2012). Hard evidence on soft skills. Labor Economics, 19, 451–464.
Heckman, J. J., & Mosso, S. (2014). The economics of human development and social mobility. Annual
Review of Economics, 6(1), 689–733. doi:10.3386/w19925.
Kania, J., & Kramer, M. (2011). Collective impact. Stanford Social Innovation Review, 9, 36–41.
 P.C. Scales et al.

Kautz, T., Heckman, J. J., Diris, R., ter Weel, B., & Borghans, L. (2014). Fostering and measuring skills:
Improving cognitive and non-cognitive skills to promote lifetime success (EOCD Education Working
Paper #110). Paris: OECD Publishing. doi:10.1787/5jxsr7vr78f7-en.
Leffert, N., Benson, P. L., Scales, P. C., Sharma, A. R., Drake, D. R., & Blyth, D. A. (1998). Developmental
assets: measurement and prediction of risk behaviors among adolescents. Applied Developmental Science,
2(4), 209–230.
Lerner, R. M. (1998). Theories of human development: contemporary perspectives. In W. Damon & R. M.
Lerner (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology: Vol. 1. Theoretical models of human development (5th ed.,
pp. 1–24). New York: Wiley.
Lerner, R. M., Lerner, J. V., De Stefanis, I., & Apfel, A. (2001). Understanding developmental systems in
adolescence: implications for methodological strategies, data analytic approaches, and training. Journal of
Adolescent Research, 16(1), 9–27. doi:10.1177/0743558401161003.
Lerner, R. M., Lerner, J. V., Alermigi, J., Theokas, C., Phelps, E., Gestsdottir, S., et al. (2005). Positive youth
development, participation in community youth development programs, and community contributions of
fifth grade adolescents: findings from the first wave of the 4-H study of positive youth development.
Journal of Early Adolescence, 25, 17–71.
Lippman, L. H., Ryberg, R., Carney, R., & Moore, K. A. (2015). Workforce connections: key ‘soft skills’ that
foster youth workforce success—toward a consensus across fields. Washington, DC: Child Trends.
Masten, A. S. (2014). Global perspectives on resilience in children and youth. Child Development,
85(1), 6–20.
Matusitz, J., & Musambira, G. (2013). Power distance, uncertainty avoidance, and technology: analyzing
Hofstede’s dimensions and human development indicators. Journal of Technology in Human Services, 31,
42–60. doi:10.1080/15228835.2012.738561).
Nagaoka, J., Farrington, C. A., Ehrlich, S. B., & Heath, R. D. (2015). Foundations for young adult success: a
developmental framework. Chicago, IL: Urban Education Institute, University of Chicago.
Naudeau, S., Cunningham, W., Lundberg, M. K. A., & McGinnis, L. (2008). Programs and policies that
promote positive youth development and prevent risky behaviors: an international perspective. In: N. G.
Guerra & C. P. Bradshaw (Eds.), Core competencies to prevent problem behaviors and promote positive
youth development. New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development, 122, 75–87.
OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development). (2015). Skills for social progress: the
power of social and emotional skills. Paris: OECD Publishing.
Park, N., Peterson, C., & Seligman, M. E. (2004). Strengths of character and well-being. Journal of Social and
Clinical Psychology, 23(5), 603–619.
Pekel, K., Roehlekepartain, E. C., Syvertsen, A. K., & Scales, P. C. (2015). Don’t forget the families: the
missing piece in America’s effort to help all children succeed. Minneapolis: Search Institute.
Peterson, C., & Seligman, M. E. (2004). Character strengths and virtues: a handbook and classification. New
York: Oxford University Press.
Pittman, K., Irby, M., & Ferber, T. (2001). Unfinished business: further reflections on a decade of promoting
youth development. In P. L. Benson & K. J. Pittman (Eds.), Trends in youth development: visions,
realities and challenges (pp. 3–50). Boston: Kluwer.
Putnam, R. D. (2015). Our kids: the American dream in crisis. New York: Simon & Schuster.
Rees, G., & Main, G. (Eds.). (2015). Children’s views on their lives and well-being in 15 countries: an initial
report on the Children’s Worlds survey, 2013–14. York, UK: Children’s Worlds Project (ISCWeB).
Roehlkepartain, E. C. (1998). Building assets in congregations: a practical guide for helping youth grow up
healthy. Minneapolis, MN: Search Institute.
Roth, L., & Brooks-Gunn, J. (2003). What exactly is a youth development program? Answers from research
and practice. Applied Developmental Science, 7, 94–111.
Rutter, M. (1987). Psychosocial resilience and protective mechanisms. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry,
57(3), 316–331. doi:10.1111/j.1939-0025.1987.tb03541.x.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self‐determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social
development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55, 68–78.
Sandvik, E., Diener, E., & Seidlitz, L. (1993). Subjective well-being: the convergence and stability of self-
report and non-self-report measures. Journal of Personality, 61(3), 318–342. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6494.
1993.tb00283.x.
Scales, P. C. (2011). Youth developmental assets in global perspective: results from international adaptations
of the developmental assets profile. Child Indicators Research, 4(4), 619–645. doi:10.1007/s12187-011-
9112-8.
Aligning Youth Development Theory, Measurement, and Practice

Scales, P. C., & Benson, P. L. (2007). Building developmental assets to encourage students’ school success.
Texas Instructional Leader (Texas Elementary Principals and Supervisors Association), 20(3), 1–3,
8–10, 12.
Scales, P. C., & Leffert, N. (2004). Developmental assets: a synthesis of the scientific research on adolescent
development (2nd ed.). Minneapolis: Search Institute.
Scales, P. C., & Roehlkepartain, E. C. (2004). Service to others: a gateway asset for school success and healthy
development. In National Youth Leadership Council (Ed.), Growing to greatness: the state of service-
learning project (pp. 26–32). St. Paul, MN: National Youth Leadership Council.
Scales, P. C., & Shramko, M. (2014a). Uganda developmental assets profile data report: techno serve youth
and young adults—STRYDE Uganda, DAP+ data, T1to T2 results. Minneapolis: Search Institute.
Scales, P. C., & Shramko, M. (2014b). Rwanda developmental assets profile Bplus^ data report: techno serve
STRYDE project time 1-time 2. Minneapolis: Search Institute.
Scales, P. C., Benson, P. L., Leffert, N., & Blyth, D. A. (2000). Contribution of developmental assets to the
prediction of thriving among adolescents. Applied Developmental Science, 4(1), 27–46.
Scales, P. C., Benson, P. L., Mannes, M., Hintz, N., Roehlkepartain, E. C., & Sullivan, T. K. (2003). Other
people’s kids: social expectations and American adults’ involvement with children and adolescents. New
York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum.
Scales, P. C., Sesma, A., & Bolstrom, B. (2004). Coming into their own: how developmental assets promote
positive growth in middle childhood. Minneapolis: Search Institute.
Scales, P. C., Foster, K. C., Mannes, M., Horst, M. A., Pinto, K. C., & Rutherford, A. (2005). School-business
partnerships, developmental assets, and positive developmental outcomes among urban high school
students: a mixed-methods study. Urban Education, 40, 144–189.
Scales, P. C., Benson, P. L., Roehlkepartain, E. C., Sesma, A., & van Dulmen, M. (2006). The role of
developmental assets in predicting academic achievement: a longitudinal study. Journal of Adolescence,
29, 691–708.
Scales, P. C., Benson, P. L., Moore, K. A., Lippman, L., Brown, B., & Zaff, J. F. (2008). Promoting equal
developmental opportunity and outcomes among America’s children and youth: results from the national
promises study. Journal of Primary Prevention, 29(2), 121–144.
Scales, P. C., Roehlkepartain, E. C., & Fraher, K. (2012). Do developmental assets make a difference in
majority-world contexts? A preliminary study of the relationships between developmental assets and
international development priorities (2012). Minneapolis: Search Institute, Final Report to United States
Agency for International Development (USAID) and Education Development Center (EDC).
Scales, P. C., Benson, P. L., Dershem, L., Fraher, K., Makonnen, R., Nazneen, S., Syvertsen, A. K., & Titus, S.
D2013]. Building developmental assets to empower adolescent girls in rural Bangladesh: evaluation of
project Bkishoree kontha^. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 23, 171–184.
Special issue on Adolescents in the Majority World.
Scales, P. C., Roehlkepartain, E. C., Wallace, T., Inselman, A., Stephenson, P., & Rodriguez, M. (2015). Brief
report: assessing youth well-being in global emergency settings: early results from the emergency
developmental assets profile. Journal of Adolescence, 45, 98–102.
Scales, P. C., Shramko, M., & Ashburn, K. (2016). Developmental assets and sexual and reproductive health
among 10 to14 years old in northern Uganda. International Journal of Child, Youth, & Family
Studies, 7, 45–64.
Search Institute. (2005). Developmental assets profile: user manual. Minneapolis: Search Institute.
Seligman, M. E. P., Steen, T. A., Park, N., & Peterson, C. (2005). Positive psychology progress: empirical
validation of interventions. American Psychologist, 60(5), 410–421.
Shectman, N., DeBarger, A. H., Dornsife, C., Rosier, S., & Yarnall, L. (2013). Promoting grit, tenacity, and
perseverance: critical factors for success in the 21st century. Washington, DC: U.S. Office of Education,
Office of Educational Technology.
Sousa, V. D., & Rojjanasrirat, W. (2011). Translation, adaptation and validation of instruments or scales for use
in cross‐cultural health care research: a clear and user‐friendly guideline. Journal of Evaluation in Clinical
Practice, 17(2), 268–274.
Starkman, N. A., Scales, P. C., & Roberts, C. R. (2006). Great places to learn: how asset-building schools
help students succeed (2nd ed.). Minneapolis: Search Institute.
UNICEF Office of Research. (2016). Fairness for children: a league table of inequality in child well-being in
rich countries. Innocenti report card 13. Florence, Italy: UNICEF Office of Research-Innocenti.
United Nations Children’s Fund. (2011). The state of the world’s children 2011: adolescence—an age of
opportunity. New York, NY: UNICEF.
United Nations Children’s Fund. (2012). Progress for children: a report card on adolescents (No. 10). New
York, NY: UNICEF.
 P.C. Scales et al.

United States Agency for International Development (USAID). (2012). Youth in development: realizing the
demographic opportunity. Washington, DC: Author.
Ustun, T. B., Chatterji, S., Mechbal, A., & Murray, C. J. L. (2005). Quality assurance in surveys: standards,
guidelines, and procedures. In United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (Ed.),
Household sample surveys in developing and transition countries (pp. 199–230). New York: United
Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs. Retrieved from [Link]
hhsurveys/pdf/Household_surveys.pdf.
VanderVen, K. (2008). Promoting positive development in early childhood: building blocks for a successful
start. New York: Springer.
Werner, E. E., & Smith, R. S. (1982). Vulnerable but invincible: a study of resilient children. New York:
McGraw-Hill.
What Works Clearinghouse. (2008). What works clearinghouse evidence standards for reviewing studies,
version 1.0. Washington DC: U.S. Department of Education.
World Vision International. (2015). Building a better world for children: child well-being summary report
2014. London: WVI.
Zins, J. E., Weissberg, R. P., Wang, M. C., & Walberg, H. J. (Eds.). (2004). Building academic success on
social and emotional learning: what does the research say? New York, NY: Teachers College Press.