DAP Individual User Manual

7/29/2019 DAP Individual User Manual

1/89

DEVELOPMENTAL ASSETS PROFILE

USER MANUAL

Fall, 2005


2/89

Developmental Assets Profile

User Manual

Revised Fall, 2005

Copyright 2005 by Search Institute.

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

For more information, contact:Search Institute615 First Avenue NE, Suite 125Minneapolis, MN 55413Phone: 612-376-8955Toll-free 800-888-7828Fax: 612-376-8956Web: www.search-institute.orgE-mail: [email protected]

Search Institute is a nonprofit organization whose mission is to provide leadership, knowledge,and resources to promote healthy children, youth, and communities.


3/89

Preface

The Developmental Assets Profile (DAP) was developed in response to numerousrequests over the years for an individual or small group measure of Development Assets.

The goal was to develop a new measure that would complement and extend the utility ofexisting asset measures, particularly the Search InstituteProfiles of Student Life:

Attitudes and Behavior(A&B) survey, which has been used in hundreds of

communities across North America with literally millions of youth over the last 10 years.

The DAP was developed to complement the A&B survey: the two measures differ

substantially and have distinct applications.

The DAP and A&B are complementary measures of Developmental Assets that

differ in important ways and fulfill different assessment needs.

The A&B is a 156 item survey covering Developmental Assets, risk behaviors,

thriving indicators, and even a few deficits. It takes about 40-50 minutes to complete andis intended for large-scale survey projects. It is not an individual measure, but yields

aggregate reports for groups of youth. It provides detailed assessment of the presence or

absence of each of the 40 Developmental Assets. It was not designed for measuring

changes in assets over time or for purposes of program evaluation.

The DAP is a 58 item survey that takes about 10 minutes to complete and is

focused exclusively on assets. It is an individual measure that yields quantitative scoresfor asset categories and context areas portrayed in a profile format. It cannot be used to

determine the presence or absence of each of the 40 assets. It is designed to be sensitiveto changes in reported assets over time and it is suited to research and program

evaluation.

i


4/89

Qualifications for Use of the DAP as an IndividualAssessment Tool

Administration

The DAP is designed to provide a standardized description of an individuals

Developmental Assets as they see them. The survey form is self-explanatory andrequires no special training or qualifications for administration. The survey requires no

more than a 6th grade reading level. If a respondent has poor reading skills, the items

may be administered orally. The form takes an average of 5-7 minutes to complete.Allow 10-15 minutes for group administration.

Scoring

Materials and procedures for hand-scoring the DAP are available. Alternatively, internet-

based data entry and scoring are available. Prior to scoring, the DAP is checked for data

quality problems (too many blanks, multiple responses, etc.) according to instructions in

the Manual.

Interpretation

Proper interpretation and use of the DAP requires familiarity with the DevelopmentalAssets framework; background in the theory and methodology of standardized

assessment; a basic understanding of data analysis and interpretation, and statisticalanalyses of group differences. Training requirements differ according to use (forexample, research, program evaluation, individual clinical assessment). Graduate

training at the Masters level or higher (or equivalent experience) is expected for most

applications.

Statement of User Qualifications

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

information).

ii


5/89

Table of Contents

Page

Preface......................................................................................................................................... i

Qualifications for Use................................................................................................................. ii

Index of Tables ........................................................................................................................... vi

Index of Figures.......................................................................................................................... vii

Section 1: Overview................................................................................................................... 1Background......................................................................................................... 2

Applications ........................................................................................................ 2

Summary ............................................................................................................. 4

Section 2: Materials and Procedures.......................................................................................... 5

Description of the DAP....................................................................................... 5Response Scale.................................................................................................... 6

Time Frame......................................................................................................... 7

Reading Level ..................................................................................................... 7

Section 3: Administration Instructions ...................................................................................... 9

Rating Procedure................................................................................................. 10

Time Requirements............................................................................................. 10Special Administration Issues............................................................................. 10

Mail Surveys........................................................................................... 10Reading Problems ................................................................................... 10Comprehension Issues ............................................................................ 11

Section 4: Scoring...................................................................................................................... 13

Screening Completed DAPs ............................................................................... 13Incoherent Responses.............................................................................. 13

Missing Data ........................................................................................... 13

Response Patterns ................................................................................... 14Multiple Responses................................................................................. 14

Ambiguous Responses ............................................................................ 15

Scoring Procedures ............................................................................................. 15Computing Scale Scores ......................................................................... 16

Errors to Avoid ....................................................................................... 16

External and Internal Asset Scores ......................................................... 16Total Score.............................................................................................. 17

Hand Scoring .......................................................................................... 17

iii


6/89

Table of Contents (continued)

Page

Section 5: Interpretation............................................................................................................. 18Theoretical vs. Empirical Approaches................................................................ 18

Interpretive Ranges............................................................................................. 19External and Internal Assets ................................................................... 20Total Asset Score .................................................................................... 20

Statistically-Based Norms................................................................................... 20

Strategies for Interpretation ................................................................................ 20

A Top-Down Approach .......................................................................... 20Total Asset Score ........................................................................ 20

External and Internal Asset Scores ............................................. 22

Asset Categories...................................................................................... 23Support........................................................................................ 23

Empowerment............................................................................. 24

Boundaries and Expectations...................................................... 24Constructive Use of Time ........................................................... 25

Commitment To Learning........................................................... 26

Positive Values............................................................................ 26

Social Competencies................................................................... 27Positive Identity .......................................................................... 27

Context Areas.......................................................................................... 27

Personal....................................................................................... 27Social........................................................................................... 28

Family ......................................................................................... 28School ......................................................................................... 28

Community ................................................................................. 28

How to Use the Asset Category Scales and Context ScalesTogether .................................................................................................. 29

Developmental Trends in Asset Experiences ......................................... 30

Section 6: Development and Psychometric Properties .............................................................. 31

Initial Design........................................................................................... 31

Pilot Testing............................................................................................ 31

Field Testing ........................................................................................... 32Psychometric Properties...................................................................................... 32

Reliability................................................................................................ 32

Internal Consistency................................................................................ 32Test-Retest Reliability ............................................................................ 34

One-year Reliability................................................................................ 34

Standard Error and Reliable Change....................................................... 35Validity ............................................................................................................... 35

Relations to the A&B Scale .................................................................... 35

Total Asset Scores................................................................................... 36External and Internal Asset Scores ......................................................... 38

iv


7/89

Asset Category Scales............................................................................. 38Context Area Scales................................................................................ 39

Convergent Validity................................................................................ 40

Criterion Validity.................................................................................... 40Preliminary Normative Comparisons ................................................................. 41

Summary................................................................................................. 41

Section 7: Practical Applications of the DAP............................................................................ 43

Research Tool ..................................................................................................... 43

Program Evaluation Tool.................................................................................... 44

Clinical and Professional Use ............................................................................. 46

Bibliography ................................................................................................................... ............ 47

v


8/89

Index of TablesPage

Table 1 DAP items and Their Alignment with the Eight Asset Categories............ 49-50

Table 2. DAP Items Aligned to the Five Context Areas.......................................... 51-52

Table 3. Reading Levels of the DAP Items (Flesch-Kincaid grade equivalent)...... 53-54

Table 4. Summary of Rules for Handing Multiple Item Responses. .............................55

Table 5. Example of Manually Computing a Scale Score for an Asset Category. ........56

Table 6. Item Mapping onto the Category and Context Scales ....................................57

Table 7. Summary of Interpretive Ranges for DAP Asset Category, Context Area,and External and Internal Asset Scales............................................................58

Table 8a. Internal Consistencies of DAP Asset Category Scales and Context AreasScales By Gender and Grade. ..........................................................................59

Table 8b. Internal Consistencies of DAP Asset Category Scales and Context Areas

Scales By Race/Ethnicity.................................................................................60

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

Scales. ..............................................................................................................61

Table 9b. Stability and Change in DAP Scores over One Year.......................................62

Table 9c. Standard Error of Measurement (SEM) and Reliable Change Index (RCI)for each DAP Scale..........................................................................................63

Table 10. Correlations Between Summary Scores Derived from the DAP and A&B

Survey and Risk Behaviors, Thriving Indicators, and Grades.........................64

Table 11. Correlations Between the DAP and A&B Surveys for Asset CategoryScales. ..............................................................................................................65

Table 12. Average Number of Assets in Each Range of the DAP Asset CategoryScales. ..............................................................................................................66

Table 13. Test of Criterion Validity: Mean Differences Between Relatively MoreAsset Rich vs. Less Asset Rich Middle Schools..............................................67

Table 14. Inter-Quartile Ranges for DAP Scales Based on Preliminary NormativeSample..............................................................................................................68

Table 15. Comparisons of the A&B with the DAP ..........................................................69

vi


9/89

Index of Figures

Page

Figure 1 Developmental Patterns in Reported Assets....................................................70

Figure 2. Mean DAP Total Asset Score by Number of Assets (A&B)for males and females ......................................................................................71

Figure 3. Mean Differences in DAP Total Asset Score for Four Ranges ofAssets (A&B) for Males and Females .............................................................72

Figure 4. Mean Differences in DAP Total Asset Score for Four Ranges ofAssets (A&B) for Males and Females .............................................................73

Figure 5. Mean Number of Thriving Indicators (A&B), by DAP Total Asset

Score Ranges for Males and Females ..............................................................74

Figure 6. Mean Number of External Assets (A&B), by DAP External

Asset Score Ranges, for Males and Females ...................................................75

Figure 7. Mean Differences in Number of Internal Assets (A&B), by

DAP Internal Asset Score Ranges for Males and Females..............................76

Figure 8. Mean number of Risk Behavior Patterns For Males and Females

by DAP External Assets Score ........................................................................77

Figure 9. Mean Differences in Self-Reported Grades in School, by DAPInternal Asset Score Ranges for Males and Females.......................................78

Figure 10. Mean scores on the DAP Boundaries and Expectations Scale, by

Number of B&E Assets from A&B Survey.....................................................79

Figure 11. Mean Differences on Rosenbergs Self-Esteem Scale by DAP Personal

Identity Ranges ................................................................................................80

vii


10/89

SECTION 1-OVERVIEW

The Developmental Assets Profile (DAP) provides an assessment of the

Developmental Asset categories for youth ages 11-18. Based on Search InstitutesDevelopmental Assets framework, the DAP provides a quick, simple, valid, and reliable

self-report of the Developmental Asset categories currently being experienced by

adolescents. The DAP provides a way to document, quantify, and portray adolescentsreports of the types and levels of Developmental Assets working in their lives. The DAP

was not designed to yield information about the presence or absence of each of the 40

Developmental Assets. Instead, the DAP yields quantitative scores on the eight assetcategories, as well as five context areas. The DAP can be a useful descriptive tool in a

wide range of settings including schools, mental health practices, family services

organizations, and youth programs; and for diverse purposes including individual

assessment, research, and program evaluation.

The DAP uses a 58-item questionnaire as a standard way of eliciting and

quantifying information on the Developmental Assets as seen by the adolescentsthemselves. The same DAP form is used for boys and girls ages 11-18 (grades 6-12).

Completed DAP forms can be scored on standardized profiles that portray the types and

degree of Developmental Assets each adolescent reports. There are two alternative waysof scoring and portraying reported assets.

TheAsset View portrays scores on the eight asset categories:

Support

Empowerment

Boundaries and Expectations

Constructive Use of Time

Commitment To Learning

Positive Values

Social Competencies

Positive Identity

The Context View portrays scores on five contexts:

Personal

Social

Family School

Community

1


11/89

Background

Developmental Assets are developmental vitamins positive experiences and

qualities identified by Search Institute as being essential to healthy psychological andsocial development in childhood and adolescence. These assets have the power to

influence young peoples developmental trajectories, protect them from a range ofnegative outcomes, and help them become more productive, caring, and responsibleadults.

The Developmental Assets framework includes 40 assets: 20 external assets and20 internal assets. External assets are positive experiences, relationships, and

encouragement and support young people receive from peers, parents, teachers,

neighbors, and other adults in the community. They include positive role models,

boundaries and expectations, as well as young peoples constructive use time. Internalassets are characteristics and behaviors that reflect positive personal and psychological

development in young people. They include strengths such as positive values, positive

identity, social competencies, and commitment to learning. (See the Search Institutewebsite www.search-institute.org and resources listed in theBibliography for further

information.)

Developmental Assets are powerfully related to a range of outcomes among

children and youth. Low levels of assets are related to increased risk for negative

outcomes including academic underachievement and school problems; alcohol, tobacco,

and illicit drug use; precocious sexual activity; and antisocial behavior and violence.High levels of assets are related to positive outcomes including academic achievement,

leadership, thriving, and well being. (See Search InstitutesInsights & Evidence news

briefs for updates regarding research on the 40 Developmental Assets at

http://www.search-institute.org/research/Insights/.)

Applications

Assessment of such powerful influences on child and adolescent development canbe extremely valuable for educators, medical and social service professionals, counselors,

social workers, psychologists, therapists and mental health professionals, juvenile justice

workers, and many others concerned with the healthy development of children and youth.

Measures of Developmental Assets can provide important information in developmentalresearch, in community and family studies, and in the evaluation of programs designed to

boost assets and enhance youth outcomes.

The DAP is designed to provide professionals and other qualified users with the

means to quickly and easily measure Developmental Assets in a small group setting in a

reliable and valid way. The DAP yields easily interpretable information that can beuseful for:

Describing and quantifying levels and patterns of reported asset categories

Identifying relative patterns of asset strengths and weaknesses

2
http://www.search-institute.org/http://www.search-institute.org/research/Insights/http://www.search-institute.org/research/Insights/http://www.search-institute.org/


12/89

Differentiating among individuals in terms of their reported levels and/orpatterns of reported assets in different categories or contexts

Identifying youth at increased risk for negative outcomes due to low reported

asset levels in specific categories or contexts

Selecting and prioritizing categories or contexts with the highest potential for

improvement and asset building Identifying individual youth with strengths in specific assets categories or

contexts

Balancing predominantly deficit-based assessments with more positive,

strength-based measures

Enhancing communication among parents, teachers, youth, and child andfamily professionals regarding strengths and weaknesses across different asset

categories and contexts

In addition, because the DAP provides quantitative indices of asset categories and

contexts, it can be used to determine stability and changes in reported assets over time

and in response to different developmental influences. The DAP is well suited, forexample, to studying effects of youth programs, curricula, and interventions that are

designed to enhance youth development and reduce negative outcomes. The DAP is

most obviously relevant when interventions are targeted on enhancing specific assets

areas, such as building self-esteem, resisting negative peer pressure, or learning peacefulconflict resolution, etc. In these situations the DAP provides quantitative indices of

outcomes that are proximally related to the goals of the intervention itself.

Even when an intervention is not focused explicitly on building assets,

information from the DAP might reveal that assets moderate intervention effects. That

is, the effects of an intervention might depend on levels and patterns of assets. Youth

with strengths in particular asset categories or contexts, for example, might profit evenmore from a given program or intervention. The DAP can also be useful in addressing a

new and exciting kind of research question: Do assets mediate program effects? Even

with youth programs having proven effects, the mechanism underlying those effects areoften unknown. In other words, the program alters outcomes, but why? How does it

work? An important type of research question to address: Are proven programs effective

because they enhance assets in various categories or contexts? For instance, does a drug

resistance education program work because it builds social competencies and positive

identity?

Combining both mediation and moderation hypotheses we might first ask: Is a

program effective because it builds assets in specific areas? Then ask: Is it even moreeffective among youth with certain patterns or levels of assets in other areas? For

example: first, is a drug resistance education program effective because it builds social

competencies and positive identity? Second, does it have even greater benefits amongyouth who experience high levels of adult support and clear boundaries and expectation

at home and at school?

3


13/89

Summary

In summary, the DAP provides a quick and easy way of obtaining reliable and

valid self-report of Developmental Asset categories among youth ages 11-16.

Assessment of assets is relevant to all youth, not just those considered to be at risk fornegative outcomes. The DAP is a descriptive tool that provides a standard portrayal of

reported assets across the eight asset categories (Asset View) and, alternatively, across

five contexts (Context View). The quantitative indices derived from the DAP can be

useful in a wide variety of settings and for diverse applied and research purposes.

4


14/89


15/89

A. Personal Assetsindividual psychological andbehavioral strengths such as self esteem, valuing

honesty, taking responsibility, planning ahead,

managing frustration, enjoying reading, and feeling in

control of ones life.B. Social Assetsassets based on social relationshipswith one or more people outside of the family, such as

friendships, positive peer and adult role models,

resisting pressure from others, resolving conflictspeacefully, being sensitive to others, and feeling

valued by others.

C. Family Assetspositive family communication andsupport, clear family rules, quality time at home,advice and encouragement from parents, and feeling

safe at home.

D. School Assets

clear and fair school rules,encouragement from teachers, a caring schoolenvironment, feeling safe at school, caring about

school, being motivated to learn, and being actively

engaged in reading and learning.

E. Community Assetsactivities and involvements inthe larger community such as sports, clubs, groups andreligious activities, creative activities such as music

and the arts, having good neighbors, accepting others,

and helping in the community.

Response Scale

The DAP uses a simple four-step response scale for all 58 items. Respondents are

asked to check if the item is true:Not At All or Rarely / Somewhat or Sometimes / Very of

Often / Extremely or Almost Always. Responses are coded 0-1-2-3, respectively. This

scale combines both frequency and intensity in order to accommodate different kinds of

items, and is similar to the approach in other widely used self-report measures foradolescents. Achenbachs Child Behavior Checklist (1991) - the most widely used

deficit measure for children and adolescents, for example, uses a three-step scale

combining frequency and intensity. Although the DAPs four-step scale is not common

in questionnaires and rating scales, the lack of a middle rating may be an advantage inreducing a down the middle response set sometimes seen in adolescent self-reports.

Pilot testing with more complex response scales resulted in increased variability of

scores, but greater measurement error resulted in decreased reliability overall. Fourdistinct rating steps might be as fine-grained a rating system as is feasible with these

types of items and respondents as young as 11 or 12 years of age.

6


16/89

Time Frame

The DAP survey items are defined within the context of a three month time

frame. Thus, respondents are instructed to describe themselves now or within the pastthree months (seeAdministration below). Previous research has shown that respondents

do not adhere precisely to time frames, but are influenced by aspects of past events suchas recency and salience and by memory distortions such as telescoping (recalling pastevents as occurring more recently than they actually occurred). These problems are

universal and are not limited to questionnaires and ratings scales, but also arise in other

assessment methods such as interviews. Despite these limitations, it is important to usesome time frame to provide uniformity across respondents and avoid extreme variability

in interpretation (lifetime vs. current state).

A three month time frame was selected to cover a long enough span to reduceshort-term temporal variability that could radically affect adolescent reporting, but short

enough to both reflect current developmental influences and permit repeated assessments

to detect change. The use of a three month time frame implies that the DAP should be re-administered no more frequently than quarterly to detect meaningful changes in patterns

and levels of reported assets. For purposes of detecting changes over time and in

response to interventions, the DAP is recommended for repeated administration annually(at 12 month intervals) or semi-annually (every six months), and as a lower limit no more

frequently than quarterly (every three months), or 4 times a year.

Reading Level

Reading level is a critically important but often ignored consideration for any

paper-and-pencil measure. A key goal in developing the DAP was to design a measurethat could be easily read and understood by the vast majority of youth ages 11-18. To doso, items were developed with the aim of achieving an average reading level at or below

sixth grade and few items with reading levels above middle school. This is difficult

because many of the Developmental Assets represent abstract psychological, behavioral,and social concepts and are largely defined by college level vocabulary. The challenge is

to develop simply worded instructions and items, yet maintain fidelity to the theoretical

definitions of the assets (seeDevelopmentbelow).

Two methods were used to evaluate the reading level of the DAP, one based on

word familiarity, the other based on syntactic complexity. Virtually all of the words used

in the DAP appear on modern familiar word lists for high school and middle schoolstudents, and no words appear to be particularly difficult or unfamiliar for a significant

number of respondents. Evaluation of syntactic complexity of the DAP items was

completed using the Flesch-Kinkaid index in the Grammatikcomputer program. TheFlesch-Kinkaid index is a widely used index of reading level appropriate for secondary

school students, based on word and sentence length.

7


17/89

Results of the reading level analyses for the DAP items are shown in Table 3. Asseen in this table, the average reading level for the 58 DAP items is grade 5.7. Of 58

items, 44 have a reading level below seventh grade, and a total of 54 items have a reading

level below ninth grade. In other words, 93% of the DAP items have a middle schoolreading level or lower.

Only 4 items have Flesch-Kincaid grade equivalents above eighth grade. This isdue to either sentence length or a single difficult word. Item 36.I am given useful roles

and responsibilities, for example, is rated above a high school reading level, but is

entirely due to the multi-syllable word responsibilities. Fortunately, almost all students

in grades 6-12 are familiar with the word responsibilities and have no trouble readingand comprehending the item. Taking into account this one complex word, the reading

level of item 36 would be 6.4. Likewise, item 20.I resolve conflicts without anyone

getting hurt, has a Flesch-Kincaid index at advanced high school level (grade 10.8), dueto the string of five two-syllable words. None of these words are difficult or unfamiliar

to middle school or high school students and such items do not appear to present

comprehension problems for respondents. This is the case also with the other two DAPitems scored at a high school level: item 15.I overcome challenges in positive ways, and

item 37.I am developing respect for other people. The remaining 54 items have Flesch-

Kincaid indices at the middle school level (grades 6-8) or lower.

Overall, the DAP items have an average reading level of 5.7 and are comprised

almost entirely of words familiar to American youth in grades 6-12. Nevertheless, some

respondents will have difficulty reading and comprehending the DAP. An estimated 10-15% of adolescents ages 11-18 cannot complete the DAP on their own due to reading

limitations. The percentages will likely be higher among younger respondents andamong at-risk and special needs populations, including those served in mental health,

juvenile justice, and special education settings. These limitations are not specific to the

DAP, but would apply to all but the simplest self-report questionnaires or rating scalesdesigned to be completed by middle school- and high school-age students. Alternative

administration procedures may be used with respondents who lack the required reading

skills to complete the DAP by themselves (seeAdministration below).

8


18/89


19/89

Rating Procedure

Respondents mark checkboxes in columns corresponding to the four steps in the

response scale. Most respondents quickly grasp the rating procedure without additionalinstructions and complete the items on their own. For the standard paper-and-pencil

version of the DAP, scoring simply requires legible, unambiguous marks. Marks may bemade with pen, pencil or any other writing instrument and may be a check, a line throughthe box, an X, etc. It is implied, but not stated in the instructions, that only one box

should be checked for each item. Occasionally, a respondent will check two or more

response alternatives or place a mark between two alternatives. Within limits, suchmultiple and ambiguous responses do not threaten the overall validity of the DAP (see

Scoring below).

Time Requirements

Most adolescents complete the DAP in 10 minutes or less, but of course, sometake longer. In pilot testing, the average completion time for individual administration

was 5-7 minutes, with 1 respondent in 10 taking 10 minutes or longer, and less than 1 in30 taking 15 minutes or longer. For small group administration, allow 5-7 minutes for

distribution and general instructions and 10-15 minutes for completion and collection (at

least 15-22 minutes overall). With larger groups and younger respondents, 25-30 minuteswill usually be more than enough time for 100% completion. Allow 30-45 minutes for

oral administration to youth who cannot complete the DAP independently (see next

section on Special Administration Issues).

Special Administration Issues

The vast majority of adolescents complete the DAP quickly and easily, but there

are several situations and populations that raise special administration issues. Theseinclude the use of the DAP in mail surveys, and administration to youth with reading

and/or comprehension challenges.

Mail Surveys. As a paper-and-pencil questionnaire, the DAP may be mailed to

respondents separately or with other self-report measures. It is of course best to

determine in advance if the respondent has the required reading skills to complete the

DAP (and any other measures) independently. If there are significant doubts about this,the DAP should not be mailed and should be given in person so the administrator can

insure that it is properly understood and completed.

Reading Problems. For respondents who lack the required sixth grade reading

level, the DAP may be administered orally by anyone familiar with the instructions,

items, and rating procedure. The standard instructions should be read aloud and repeatedas necessary to insure comprehension. The four response alternatives should be read

carefully. The respondent should be told that the response options are the same for all of

10


20/89


21/89

defined in the DAP and avoid any amplifications, explanations, or examples that mightredefine the response alternatives and thus affect all of the item ratings. Minimal help

may be offered here, only reiterating the response options and encouraging the

respondent to use the scale as best they can.

12


22/89

SECTION 4-SCORING

Screening Completed DAP forms

Competed DAP forms should be screened to determine their suitability forscoring. DAPs are screened to help weed out and resolve problems related to (a)

incoherent responses, (b) missing data, (c) response patterns, (d) multiple responses, and

(e) ambiguous responses.

Incoherent Responses. A DAP should not be scored in the case of an obvious

incoherent pattern of responses suggesting that the respondent could not read or did notunderstand the instructions or items (seeReading Problems and Comprehension

Problems above). Respondents who lack reading and comprehension skills will often

complete measures in unusual ways. They might make grossly inappropriate marks, such

as circling item numbers instead of response options, writing in inappropriate areas of the

form, checking grossly contradictory answers to different items, and so forth. These areclear signals that the respondent did not understand the instructions or items and that the

responses, if scored, could be invalid and misleading.

Missing Data. A DAP should not be scored if too many items are left blank,

which can be due to skipped sectionsdefined as several contiguous items left

incompleteor too many blanks scattered across the 58 items. In field testing with a

sample of 1,355 youth in grades 6 through 12, a total of 33 respondents (1.4%) completedthe first page only (despite the reminder at the bottom of the page to turn the page over

and complete the back). This was by far the most common reason why a completed DAP

could not be scored. This problem is almost always unintentional: the adolescent did not

realize that there was another page to complete. Of the remaining DAPs, 84.7% had nomissing items, and 97.6% had three or fewer missing items. Fortunately, the issue of

blank items is easy to correct by checking to see that both pages are completed when theform is turned in. With rare exceptions, respondents will readily complete the second

page if the error is pointed out.

As a screening criterion, DAPs with more than six blank items, whichcorresponds to more than 10% missing data, have questionable validity and in most cases

should not be scored. In field tests, only 1.4% of DAPs had seven or more missing items

(other than those where the second page was skipped entirely). The risk is that with morethan seven missing items, scale scores can be significantly distorted resulting in invalid

and misleading results. The distortion caused by too many missing items can beparticularly damaging if several missing items fall in the same scale, and the risk of thathappening increases sharply above 10% missing data.

With six or fewer blanks, the scoring procedures automatically adjust for missingitems and there is little chance of significant distortion in scale scores (see Scoring

Procedures below).

13


23/89


24/89


25/89

Computing Scale Scores. There are two scoring schemes available for the DAP.TheAsset View portrays scores on eight scales representing the asset categories, whereas

the Context View comprises scales representing five context areas. For either view,

scores are computed for each scale by averaging the scores for completeditems on thescale. As described previously, responses to each DAP item are scored 0, 1, 2, or 3 (or

missing). Items left blank or recoded as missing are ignored when computing theaverage. The raw average, which ranges from 0 to 3, is then multiplied by 10 androunded off to the nearest integer (round .5 up to the next highest integer). This results in

scale scores that are integers ranging from 0 to 30.

An example of scale score computation is shown in Table 5. This exampledemonstrates the scoring of scale II.Empowerment, which has six items. This table lists

the item numbers and summary label for each of the six items comprising the scale. The

table also shows the item scores (0, 1, 2, or 3) for each of the six items. For example, theresponse to item 17 was Extremely or Almost Always true, so it is scored 3. The

response to item 21 was Very or Often true, so it is scored 2, and so on. In this

example, there were no missing items. To compute the scale score, add up the itemscores to get a raw sum. In this example, 3 + 2 + 3 + 2 + 1 + 2 = 13. Compute the

average by dividing the raw sum by the number of completed items: 13/6 = 2.16. Next,

multiply the average by 10: 2.16 X 10 = 21.6. Lastly, round the result off to the nearest

integer to obtain the scale score: 21.6 rounds to 22.

If one or more items are blank (or recoded as missing) they are not computed in

either the raw sum or the number of items used for averaging. In other words, blankitems are ignored when computing scale scores. In the example shown in Table 5, if item

36 had been left blank, the raw sum would be reduced to12 and the number of completeditems would be 5 instead of 6. The average of completed items would be 12/5 = 2.40,

which when multiplied by 10 equals a scale score of 24.

Errors to Avoid. There are three potential errors to avoid when computing scale

scores by hand. First, and most importantly, do not include missing items neither in the

raw sum northe count of number of items completed when calculating the average.Scoring blank items as 0" and including them in the calculation of the average will

reduce the scale score and make the reported level of assets look artificially low. Second,

do not round the score until aftermultiplying by 10. Rounding the average before

multiplying by 10 will result in an incorrect scale score that is either too high or too low.In the example in Table 5, if the average of 2.16 were prematurely rounded to 2, and then

multiplied by 10, it would result in a scale score of 20. This is significantly lower than

the correct scale score of 22 (2.16 X 10 = 21.6, which rounds to 22). Third, always roundscores ending in the decimal .5 up to the next highest integer rounding down will

reduce a scale score and artificially lower the reported asset level.

External and Internal Asset Scores. Once scale scores have been computed for

the eight asset categories in theAsset View, it is easy to compute composite scores for

external assets and internal assets. TheExternal Asset Score is the average of the scalescores for the four internal asset categories:I. Support, II. Empowerment, III. Boundaries

16


26/89

and Expectations, andIV. Constructive Use of Time. If scores on these four scales were20, 25, 24, and 22, respectively, the average would be 22.7 (20 + 25 + 24 + 22 = 91,

divided by 4 = 22.7). Again, round the average to the nearest integer, and round decimal

.5 up (i.e., 22.7 becomes 23). TheInternal Asset Score is the average of the scale scoresfor the four internal asset categories: V. Commitment To Learning, VI. Positive values,

VII. Social Competencies, and VIII. Positive Identity, computed and rounded as above.

Both theExternal Asset Score and theInternal Asset Score range from 0 to 30,

just like the asset category scores. Because they are based on the average of four asset

category scale scores, each of the four scores contributes equally to the composite score.

For example, both scaleII. Empowermentand scaleIII. Boundaries and Expectations areweighted equally when computing theExternal Asset Score, despite the fact that one

scale has six items and the other has nine. If theExternal Asset Score were computed by

simply adding up all of the internal asset items, for example, Boundaries and

Expectations would contribute 50% more to the composite score thanEmpowerment.

Averaging the scale scores for the four external asset categories to yield the composite

External Asset Score weights the four asset categories equally. The same applies to theInternal Asset Score.

Total Score. A total score can also be computed from the DAP to provide a

global index of reported Developmental Assets. The Total Asset Score is computed byadding together theExternal Asset Score and theInternal Asset Score. For example, if

theExternal Asset Score were 26 and theInternal Asset Score were 25, the Total Asset

Score would be 26 + 25 = 51. The range ofTotal Asset Scores is 0 to 60. The Total

Asset Score is not equivalent to adding up all 58 DAP items. That procedure would

overly weight asset areas with relatively more items, and under weight asset areas withrelatively fewer items. Instead, the Total Asset Score is a more balanced index: external

and internal assets contribute equally to the total score. Moreover, theExternal and

Internal Asset Scores that comprise the Total Asset Score are balanced in that theyequally weight the four asset categories they each comprise. So, in a sense, the TotalAsset Score is doubly balanced at the level of asset categories and at the level of

external vs. internal assets. This is considered a more representative and valid overallindex of reported assets than afforded by unbalanced scoring procedures.

Hand Scoring. The DAP can be hand-scored for immediate results by computingscale scores manually and entering them into hand-scoring profiles. Two hand-scoring

profiles have been developed. TheAsset View is for computing and portraying scores on

the eight asset categories, plusExternal andInternal Assets Scores, and Total Asset

Score; whereas the Context View is for computing and portraying scores on the five

context areas. Additional automated scoring methods and services are also being

developed (see below).

17


27/89

SECTION 5-INTERPRETATION

Theoretical vs. Empirical Approaches

There are two major approaches to developing guidelines for interpreting

assessments: theoretical and empirical. The theoretical approach involves developing

rational interpretive standards, independent of the empirical distribution of scores in thepopulation. Alternatively, the empirical approach involves the development of

statistically-based norms based on representative standardization samples. Both

approaches are aimed at providing a frame of reference for interpreting the meaning ofscores on a continuum, but they do so in different ways. The theoretical approach

represents a more subjective but absolute definition of the interpretive frame of reference,

whereas the empirical approach is more objective but relative, and being based on dataobtained on a standardization sample is more dependent upon the context, time period,

and population sampled (which is why measures are re-standardized periodically).

Statistical approaches to standardization predominate in modern psychologicaland behavioral measurement. Most psychological and behavioral measures, including

those for children and youth, are interpreted relative to statistically-based norms (see

Sattler, 2002). Despite their acceptance as the default method of standardization,statistical approaches to standardization have fundamental limitations and unresolved

issues, which are little discussed. Although the statistical approach is quantitative and

empirically-based, it can provide only a relative frame of reference for interpretingassessment results. To draw an analogy from physical health: on an island where

everyone is extremely nearsighted, average visual acuity (locally defined 20/20

vision) would be woefully inadequate. As another example, as the American populacehave gotten fatter over the decades, the definition of average weight for a given height

has shifted upwards. The obvious problem illustrated in these examples is thatstatistically-based norms are relativistic and, in fact, can make the average look better

than it should.

To carry these issues to the area of Developmental Assets, if the standardizationof the DAP were based only on statistically-based norms, the average level of assets for a

given scale would look, well...average. This can easily be interpreted as acceptable or

satisfactory, or even desirable and good. More than a decade of research, however, hasshown that the average level of assets among Americas youth is not very good and may

be inadequate for promoting healthy development and well-being. For this reason, the

DAP employs both approaches to standardization. Theoretically-based guidelines are the

primary framework for interpreting DAP scores. But statistically-based norms based onrepresentative samples of the general population, are also being constructed. This dual

approach to standardization is unusual, to say the least, but the obvious goal is to try tocapitalize on the advantages of each approach.

18


28/89

Interpretive Ranges

As a frame of reference for interpreting scores, the DAP asset category and

context area scales are divided into four ranges labeled:Excellent, Good, Fair, andLow.(See Table 7 for a summary). These ranges are theoretically-based and thus somewhat

subjective. Nevertheless, they are far from arbitrary and are justified by the followingrationale:

Scores of the DAP asset category and context area scales range from 0 to 30,

corresponding to the 0-3 item response scale multiplied by 10. For example, anadolescent reporting 3's on all items on a scale, would get a scale score of 30 (average of

all item=3.0 X 10 = 30). This means that all of the items were rated Extremely orAlmost Always true, which is the highest possible score and represents the upper limit of

the range of scores. A score of 20 would correspond on average, to all 2's. Likewise, ascore of 10 would correspond on average to all 1's, etc. A score of zero, of course,

corresponds to all items being rated as Not At All or Rarely True, and represents the

bottom limit of the range of scores.

Scores from 26-30 represent on average item responses of all 2's and 3's, with

mostly 3's. In other words, most of the items on the scale were rated Extremely or

Almost Always true, with most of the remaining items rated Very or Often true. This

represents the highest range of scores that can be obtained and this, by almost any

standard, represents abundant levels of assets. Next, scores in the range of 21-25 are

considered Good. Scores in this range correspond on average to a mixture of 2's and 3's,but mostly 2's. In other words, many assets are rated Extremely or Almost Always true,

but most are rated Very or Often true. Scores in this range are still the upper half of the

distribution of raw scores. Most assets would be fairly strong or frequent in the

adolescents life, but there is room for improvement.

Scores in the range of 15-20 fall in the middle of the range of possible raw scoresand represent a mixture of 1's and 2's, with mostly 2's. So, although many items are rated

as Very or Often true, more are rated as true only Somewhat or Sometimes. This

would raise concerns about low and infrequently experienced assets in the adolescentslife. Not only is there room for improvement, but it may be important to try to build

assets in areas with scores this low. Scores in this range are therefore considered only

Fair.

Lastly, scores from 0-14 represent the low end of the possible range of scores and

correspond on average to a mix of 0's, 1's and 2's. This means that few, if any, of theitems on the scale were rated 3's and, in fact, most items were rated 1". This wouldclearly be interpreted as relatively low levels of assets at work in a childs life, with

considerable opportunities for improvement in many asset areas. The bottom of this low

range, scores 0-8, represents extraordinarily low levels of reported assets and would because for major concern and, if valid, imply that most assets on the scale are absent or

infrequently experienced. Scores in this range are relatively rare in the population, andare truncated in the DAP profiles to make room to differentiate among the scores more

19


29/89


30/89


31/89


32/89


33/89

First determine if responses to these items were fairly consistent or not. If consistent,determine the level of reported parent-related support across these four items. For

example, does the adolescent report low levels of support for all four items? Or are they

consistently reporting high parental support? One goal is to determine if parental supportand communication is a specific area to target for improvement, or an area of existing

strength to build on. If responses to these four items are inconsistent, for example, somerated as low as 0's and others rated as high as 3's, it may be worthwhile determining, ifpossible, why such inconsistencies were reported. For instance, it would be worth

discussing with an adolescent how or why they have good communication with their

parents, but do not seek advice from them, etc. Of course, radically inconsistent patterns

of responses within an asset category might signal random and haphazard completion ofthe DAP and thus raise questions about validity.

Empowerment. Scores in theExcellentrange onEmpowermentsuggest that anadolescent feels safe across many contexts, and valued and respected by others. This is

associated with reduced risk of depression, suicidal and self-injurious behaviors, and

violence. Low scores, would, of course, suggest the absence of assets of this kind andare associated with increased risk for many negative outcomes, particularly depression,

suicidal behavior, and violence. Again, scores in the Fairto Goodrange can represent a

mixture of strengths and weaknesses within this asset category. Take a closer look at

certain items in this scale. An important subset of items reflect feelings of safety andsecurity. These include item 17.I feel safe and secure at home; item 25.I feel safe atschool; and item 46.I have a safe neighborhood. Consistently low ratings across these

three items, for instance, might identify significant psychological concerns and worriesthat are impairing healthy development. Unlike discrepant reports about parental

support, lack of agreement across the three safety items is not unusual or questionable interms of validity. Obviously there may be valid cause for concern about safety in one

setting (home, school, or neighborhood) that does not carry over to other settings.

Boundaries and Expectations. Scores in theExcellentrange for theBoundariesand Expectations scale suggest reporting of consistently clear rules and consequences at

home, school and in the neighborhood, plus positive role models among friends, family,and outside the family. This asset category is most strongly and consistently related to a

variety of youth outcomes, particularly high academic achievement. Low scores on this

scale suggest a significant lack of these important assets and are associated with

increased risk of depression, suicidal behavior, and antisocial behavior among all youth,and drug use and school problems among males. Scores in the Fairand Goodrange

could be a consequence of moderate to low assets across allB&Eareas, or a pattern of

assets within the category. Examine the subset of items that reflectB&Eat homeincluding item 52. I have a family that provides me with clear rules; item 53.I haveparent(s) who urge me to do well in school, and item 58.I have a family that knows

where I am and what I am doing. Again, consistently high scores across these three itemssuggest particular strengths inB&Eat home, while low scores suggest the need for

building these types of assets.

24


34/89


35/89

Commitment To Learning. Items in the Commitment To Learning scale coversboth the motivation and rewards related to learning (items 5, 7, 10, and 38) and active

engagement in learning (items 8 and 26). Some items are tied directly to school (items 7

and 8), but others such as 5.I enjoy reading or being read to, and 10.I enjoy learning,extend outside of the school context. Scores in theExcellentrange thus reflect high

degree of reported motivation to learn and active engagement in learning both in and outof school. As one would expect, such high scores are powerfully related to academicachievement and are protective against school failure, dropout, and school-related

behavior and discipline problems (see Validity section). Scores in theLow range, of

course, are associated with poor academic performance, under-achievement, and

increased risk of dropout and school-related problems, as well as antisocial behavioramong males.

Scores in the Goodto Fairranges may represent uniformly weak to moderatecommitment to learning across all items, or a combination of strengths and weakness

in different areas. One pattern to look for is youth who report high motivation to

learn (items 5, 7, 10, and 38), but low learning engagement (items 8 and 26). Forexample, someone who reports they enjoy learning, but does not do their homework.

It is certainly worthwhile to explore and try to understand and resolve such

discrepancies.

Positive Values. This asset category includes personal virtues such as honesty,

integrity, responsibility and restraint, as well as caring about others and working for

equality and social justice. Scores in theExcellentrange on this scale indicate reported

abundance of assets in this area which can powerfully guide the young persons currentand future decision making. Not surprisingly, this asset category is strongly associatedwith thriving and increased likelihood of significant community service and

volunteerism. Adolescents with scores in this range have significant protection againstunhealthy behaviors such as alcohol, tobacco, and drug use. Adolescents with high

scores in this area can be expected to be responsible and trustworthy and may thereforebe good candidates for youth leadership positions.

In contrast, scores in theLow range on this scale suggest a lack of personal valueswhich is related to increased risk for alcohol, tobacco, and drug use, school problems,

violence, and antisocial behaviors. Scores in the middles Fairand Goodranges

correspond to weak to moderate assets in this area and could be due to either moderateratings on all items, or combinations of strengths and weakness in different sub-areas. It

may be worth examining the subset of items reflecting positive values including item 1. I

stand up for what I believe in, item 22.I take responsibility for what I do, and item 23.Itell the truth even when it is not easy. Low ratings on this subset of items may signalsignificant lack of personal values pertaining to honesty and integrity. In addition,

inspect the subset of items reflecting caring and serving others, including items 16.I think

it is important to help other people, 30.I am helping to make my community a better

place, 33.I am encouraged to help others, 35.I am trying to help solve social problems,

37.I am developing respect for other people, 41.I am serving others in my community.

26


36/89

Lastly, two items reflect personal restraint: item 9.I stay away from tobacco, alcohol,

and other drugs, and item 32.I am developing good health habits.

Social Competencies. This scale covers assets pertaining to planning anddecision making, cultural competence, and social skills involving the ability to build

friendships, resist negative peer pressure, and resolve conflicts peacefully. Scores in theExcellentrange on this scale indicate a rich set of social competencies that reduce risk ofa range of negative youth outcomes and promote thriving, particularly in affirmation of

diversity and in leadership. Scores in theLow range are associated with significantly

increased risk behaviors including, peer conflict, antisocial behavior and violence. A

reported lack of resistance and decision making skills (items 4.I avoid things that are

dangerous or unhealthy, 18.I plan ahead and make good choices, and 19.I resist badinfluences) are strongly associated with teen alcohol, tobacco, and drug abuse and other

risk behaviors. Lack of interpersonal skills, reflected in low ratings on items 6.I build

friendships with other people, 11.I express my feelings in proper ways, 20.I resolveconflicts without anyone getting hurt, and 39.I am sensitive to the needs and feelings of

others, are related to peer conflict and rejection. Youth with this latter pattern of assetweaknesses may be good candidates for interventions aimed at strengthening social

cognition and social skills.

Positive Identity. This scale reflects several strengths in an adolescentsemerging identity, including self-esteem, internal locus of control, optimism, and a

growing sense of purpose in life. High scores on this scale are associated with increased

psychological resilience and reduced risk for psychological distress including anxiety anddepression. Scores in theLow range reflects the absence of these important assets

working in a young persons life, which is associated with increased risk for anxiety,depression, and in extreme cases, suicidal and self-injurious behavior.

Context Areas

The Context View provides an alternative way of scoring and interpreting the

DAP according to five context areas: Personal, Social, Family, School, and Community.Scores on the DAP context scales also range from 0-30 and may be interpreted using the

guidelines discussed previously (see Table 7). Additional guidelines for interpreting

scores for these context scales are provided below.

Personal. The Personal context scale reflects individual characteristics,

particularly assets from the Positive Values and Positive Identity asset categories, as wellas certain assets from the Social Competencies category. Scores in the Excellent range

on this scale (25-30), indicate a young person with a high degree of honesty,

responsibility and integrity, as well as high self-esteem and sense of purpose. Thesepersonal assets are likely to help make the youth resilient to a range of risk factors,

particularly if assets are lacking in the larger family, school, and community contexts.

High scores on the Personal scale are associated with lower involvement in a wide rangeof risk behaviors and significantly increased thriving.

27


37/89

In contrast, low scores on the Personal scale (0-14) reflect a youth reporting few

individual strengths related to positive values and identity. Such youth are at increased

risk for a range of negative behaviors and outcomes, particularly if they also lack assetsin other context areas. Depression and anxiety are particular risks among youth scoring

low on the Personal scale.

Social. The Social scale reflects assets related to relationships with others, both

adults and peers. It includes many assets related to the Social Competencies asset

category, but also characteristics such as support, role models, and helping others, from

other asset categories. High scores on the Social scale indicate a young person with manyassets related to social relationships working in their lives. Such youth would have the

support, encouragement, and role models necessary for healthy development and

thriving. In contrast, youth with low scores on the Social scale lack essentialrelationships and role models in their lives. They may have difficulty making friends and

expressing their feelings. Such youth may lack basic social skills. They might also lack

positive relationships with adults, other than family members, in their lives.

Family. The Family scale obviously reflects assets related to home and family.

This scale combines assets from all four external asset categories, drawing particularly

from SupportandBoundaries and Expectations. High scores on this scale suggest ayoung person with a safe, warm, and supportive family, with good parent-child

communication. It also suggests that parents are active in providing advice, setting and

enforcing rules, and monitoring their childs behavior. Low scores, of course, suggest alack of these essential family assets. Not surprisingly, low scores on the Family scale are

associated with increased risk behaviors, including alcohol and drug use, and violenceand antisocial behavior.

School. The School context scale combines assets related to the schoolenvironment, relationships with teachers, and the young persons attitude toward school.

High scores on this scale indicate a safe and caring school environment with clear rules

that are fairly enforced, combined with a personal commitment to learning. Thecombination of personal assets related to learning, with the external assets related to the

school environment serve to protect and promote healthy development related to school.

Specifically, youth with high scores on the School scale are likely to have high academic

achievement and have very low risk of school related behavior and discipline problems.Conversely, those with low scores on this scale are at increased risk for academic

underachievement and failure, school dropout, and a range of school discipline problems.

Community. The Community context scale combines external assets related to

neighborhood and community support, empowerment, and positive use of time in the

larger community. High scores on this scale reflect a combination of safe and supportiveneighborhood, youth service to the community, and youth empowerment and engagement

at the community level. Low scores reflect weak community assets for youth and may

reflect poor community attitudes towards youth, lack of after-school activities, or fewyouth service opportunities.

28


38/89


39/89


40/89

SECTION 6-DEVELOPMENT AND PSYCHOMETRIC PROPERTIES

The development of the DAP has followed what have been called SERVE

assessment principles, which call for a measure that is:

Simple Short and focusedEasy Quick and easy to administer

Reliable Low measurement error

Valid Accurate and true

Efficient High information yield

Development of the DAP, which began in 2002 and is ongoing, has proceeded through

several phases, including initial design, pilot testing, and field trials.

Initial Design. In the initial design phase, the basic structure and content of the

DAP were determined and decisions were made about the time frame, instructions, andscoring methods. Several different questionnaire formats and types of response scalingwere considered and were pilot tested with small samples of adolescents (see below). An

initial item pool was generated to operationalize the definitions of the 40 assets in simple

language suitable for a self-report measure for 11-18 year-olds.

Pilot Testing. In the piloting phase, different questionnaire formats and response

options were evaluated with small focus groups of adolescents. Key considerations

included clarity and comprehension of the items and instructions, ease of use,acceptability, and time requirements. Some participants in the pilot studies were

debriefed after completing a draft measure to determine how they interpreted the items

and what decision making process went into their ratings. Feedback lead to changes initem content and wording to increase fidelity with the asset definitions and improve

clarity. Another important goal during this phase was to carefully evaluate the reading

level of the instructions, items, and response scale. Preliminary reading level analysesidentified several items that were too difficult for self-reports with respondents as young

as sixth or seventh grade. Many items were revised to reduce reading level, while trying

to maintain fidelity with the original definitions of the assets.

Initial piloting also evaluated alternative types of response scaling. The results of

these preliminary tests helped identify the best response scaling for these types of items.

A three-step scale (Not At All/Somewhat or Sometime/Very or Often), for example,yielded scale scores with substantially less differentiation among individuals, particularly

among higher reported asset levels. On the other hand, a five-step scale yielded scale

scores with more differentiation among individuals, but reliability was reduced due toincreased measurement error at the item level. The four-step scale was chosen as the best

compromise between reliability and the ability to maximally differentiate among

individuals across the entire range of reported assets.

31


41/89


42/89


43/89


44/89

Standard Errors and Reliable Change. A Reliable Change Index (RCI) is a

guideline for determining how much change in an individual score is required to

represent true change, as opposed to measurement error. RCIs differ from scale to scaleand are based on the scales standard error of measurement, which in turn is based on the

reliability and the standard deviation of the scale. The standard error of measurementand RCI for each DAP scale are shown in Table 9B. These results are based on the test-retest reliabilities (Table 9) and standard deviations derived from the initial field trial.

Standard errors averaged 1.09 and the resulting RCIs averaged 2.14. This implies that for

almost all DAP scales, a change of 1 or 2 points could easily be attributed to

measurement error, whereas a change of 3 or more points is likely to represent truechange. The one exception to this rule of thumb is the Constructive Use of Time scale,

where a change of 4 or more points is required. For many scales with higher reliability

(and smaller standard deviations) a change of only 2 points falls technically outside theRCI (e.g., RCI=1.94), but since DAP scores can only assume integer values, a minimum

change of 3 points or more seems more warranted.

Validity

Relations to the A&B Scale. The are few other scales of Developmental Assets

against which to validate a new measure such as the DAP. The obvious choice for testing

concurrent validity of the DAP is Search Institutes own A&B survey which has been

widely used for over a decade in research involving millions of youth. The two measuresdiffer in important ways, but share the goal of assessing Developmental Assets from

adolescent self-reports. Determining the relationships between the two measures can help

evaluate the validity of the DAP in several ways. First and foremost, DAP scores shouldshow strong convergent relationships with parallel information derived from the A&B

survey. The Total Asset Score computed from the DAP, for example, should correlatehighly and positively with total number of assets determined by the A&B. There shouldalso be significant differences in DAP scores between groups differing in number of

assets and vice versa - differences in number of assets between groups defined as being in

theLow/Fair/Good/Excellentrange on DAP scales. These strong convergent

relationships should also hold true for A&B asset counts corresponding to the DAP

External andInternal Assets scores and more specific asset category scores. As

discussed below, validation of the context area scales is particularly challenging given the

lack of comparable measures and validity criteria.

In addition to assets, the A&B survey assesses self-reported risk behaviors and

thriving. If the DAP is a valid measure of the Developmental Assets, scores shouldcorrelate with youth outcomes including risk behaviors, thriving indicators, and academic

performance, in a manner consistent with both theoretical predictions and previous

research (mostly using the A&B survey). The more global DAP scales (Total Asset

Scores,External andInternal Asset Scores) would be expected to related strongly to such

youth outcomes. Significant relationships would also be expected at the level of morecircumscribed asset category and context area scales. Lastly, demographic differences in

levels of reported assets, including gender differences, age trends, and other correlates are

35


45/89


46/89


47/89


48/89


49/89


50/89

and the Community context area. These differences remained significant at the p


51/89


52/89

SECTION 7-PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS OF THE DAP

The DAP was designed to complement theAttitudes & Behaviors (A&B) surveyby addressing three domains in which the A&B is a less than optimal tool: in the

research arena, in program evaluation work, and in clinical and professional work.Indeed, the A&B was never designed to function in these areas, though its data have andcan be used for various research purposes. However, because of the way in which the

data are coded (dichotomously), as well as the relative shallowness of measurement

across certain constructs (e.g., single-item measurement for many variables), the A&B isa less than optimal survey choice for these arenas.

Never intended to function in the above-mentioned domains, the A&B was

instead created to act as a community mobilization device. That is, the data were

envisioned to be used in raising community awareness and increasing communitydialogue around issues that increase positive youth development. To this end, the A&B

works admirably, as attested by our work with thousands of communities that have usedA&B data to mobilize their communities around healthy youth development.

The DAP, on the other hand, was constructed to complement the A&B where the

A&B is relatively weak. (See Table 14 for a comparison of A&B and DAP

characteristics.) There are three main applications of the DAPas a traditional researchtool, as a pre/post-test survey for program evaluation, and as a clinical tool. Though the

purposes and goals for each of these applications may differ, the DAP provides

meaningful information useful for each of these arenas. Both the narrow-band scales(e.g., Support,Empowerment, Family, School) as well as the broad-band scales (Total,

External,Internal) yield data about the kinds of perceived strengths (or lack thereof) in

the childs life. The comments provided for each of these applications are not meant tobe exhaustive; each project possesses unique characteristics that will affect the utility andinterpretation of the DAP.

Research Tool

To date, we know very little about the correlates and predictors of the

Developmental Assets, in part because the traditionalAttitudes & Behaviors survey does

not lend itself to inclusion in research designs because of its length. The DAP, with itshighly efficient information yield, can easily be added to a battery of instrumentation

focusing on a number of research questions, or as the focal instrument in a more targetedresearch study centered around the Developmental Assets. The ease of administration,

scoring, and interpretation should work to rapidly build our knowledge base regarding theDevelopmental Assets.

43


53/89


54/89

months), it should be used, at most, 4 times a year. Thus, the DAP is notdesigned to capture meaningful change across an 8-week program, as this falls

within the 3-month time frame.

4. Do you plan to use the DAP as a clinical/program planning tool with

individual young people and a program evaluation measure? If so, youneed to carefully plan and coordinate the pretest and posttest administration ofthe DAP in order to obtain data for both purposes to meet reporting

requirements.

5. How are you going to match the pre-test and post-test survey responses ofyoung people? Simply comparing aggregate group pre-test scores with

aggregate group post-test scores actually masks any true stability and change

within your sample. To fully understand whether the effects of your programwere related to changes in DAP scores, you need to use some type of ID

number so that each participants pre-test scores can be matched with their

post-test scores for statistical analysis.

6. What is your standard of comparison? Simply administering the DAP to a

group of young people before and afterthey are exposed to the program or

intervention will not allow you to conclude that any changes can be attributedto the program or intervention. In fact, we do not know normatively how the

level of assets as young person has changes through their teen years so you

there are no national norms that can be used as a standard of comparison.

There are a number of design options to consider but you must select one that canfeasibly be used in your setting. For example:

- A nonrandomized control-group pretest-posttest design in whichparticipants are not assigned to an intervention or control group at random.

Ideally the control group matches as closely as possible the participant

group in terms of demographics and other dimensions (e.g., average gradepoint, age, family income level).

- A randomized control-group pretest-posttest design in which participants

are randomly selected and assigned to intervention or non-interventiongroups by random methods. Both groups of participants complete the

pretest and posttest.

These are only two of the more widely known designs. As part of planning the

evaluation you need to examine these and others in order to establish an adequate

standard of comparison.

45


55/89


56/89

Bibliography

Benson, P.L., & Leffert, N. (2001). Childhood and adolescence: Developmental assets. InN.J. Smelser & P.G. Baltes (Eds.),International encyclopedia of the social

and behavioral sciences. (pp. 1690-1697). Oxford: Pergamon.

Benson, P.L. (2001). Developmental assets. In J.V. Lerner & R.M. Lerner (Eds.),

Adolescence in America: An encyclopedia. (pp. 208-217). Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-

CLIO.

Benson, P.L. (1998). Mobilizing communities to promote developmental assets: Apromising strategy for the prevention of high-risk behaviors. Family Science Review,

11(3): 220-238.

Benson, P.L., Galbraith, J., & Espeland, P. (1994). What kids need to succeed: Proven,

practical ways to raise good kids. Minneapolis: Free Spirit Publishing, Inc.

Benson, P.L., Scales, P.C., Leffert, N., & Roehlkepartain, E.C. (1999).A fragile

foundation: The state of developmental assets among American youth. Minneapolis:

Search Institute.

French, S.A., Leffert, N., Story, M., Newmark-Sztainer, D., Hannan, P., & Benson, P.L.

(2001). Adolescent binge/purge and weight loss behaviors: Associations with

developmental assets.Journal of Adolescent Health, 28(3), 211-221.

Harter, S. (1988).Manual for the Self-Perception Profile for Adolescents. Denver, CO:

University of Denver.

Leffert, N. (1997). Building assets: A positive approach to adolescent health.MinnesotaMedicine, 80, 27-30.

Leffert, N., Benson, P.L., Scales, P.C., Sharma, A., Drake, D., & Blyth, D.A. (1998).

Developmental assets: Measurement and prediction of risk behaviors among adolescents.

Applied Developmental Science, 2(4), 209-230.

Roehlkepartain, E.C., Benson, P.L., & Sesma, A. (2003). Signs of progress in putting

children first: Developmental assets among youth in St. Louis Park, 1997-2001.

Minneapolis, MN: Unpublished report prepared by Search Institute for St. Louis Park'sChildren First initiative.

Rosenberg, M. (1965). Society and the adolescent self-image. Princeton, NJ: PrincetonUniversity Press.

47


57/89

Scales, P.C. (1998). Asset building and risk reduction: Complementary strategies foryouth development. Pregnancy Prevention for Youth: An Interdisciplinary Newsletter

1(2).

Scales, P.C. (1997). The role of family support programs in building developmental

assets among young adolescents: A national survey of services and staff training needs.Child Welfare, 76(5), 611-635.

Scales, P.C., Benson, P.L., Leffert, N., & Blyth, D.A. (2000). The contribution of

developmental assets to the prediction of thriving outcomes among adolescents.Applied

Developmental Science, 4(1), 27-46.

Scales, P.C., & Gibbons, J.L. (1996). Extended family members and unrelated adults in

the lives of young adolescents: A research agenda.Journal of Early Adolescence, 16(4),365-389.

Scales, P.C. & Leffert, N. (1999).Developmental assets: A synthesis of the scientificresearch on adolescent development. Minneapolis: Search Institute.

Scales, P.C., Leffert, N., & Vraa, R. (2003). The relation of community developmental

attentiveness to adolescent health.American Journal of Health Behavior, 27(Supplement1), S22-S34.

Scales, P.C., Lucero, M.G., & Halvorson, H. (1998). Voices of hope: Building

developmental assets among Colorado youth-results of the Colorado adult and youth

polls. Minneapolis: Search Institute.

48


58/89


59/89


60/89

Table 2. DAP Items Aligned to the Five Context Areas

A. Personal

1. I stand up for what I believe in.2. I feel in control of my life and future.

3. I feel good about myself.4. I avoid things that are dangerous or unhealthy. 5. I enjoy reading or being read to.9. I stay away from tobacco, alcohol, and other drugs.

12. I feel good about my future.

14. I deal with frustration in positive ways.18. I plan ahead and make good choices.

22. I take responsibility for what I do.

23. I tell the truth even when it is not easy.27. I am developing a sense of purpose in my life.

32. I am developing good health habits.

B. Social

6. I build friendships with other people.

11. I express my feelings i

DAP Individual User Manual

Documents

Transcript of DAP Individual User Manual