Multiple Regression Results Standardized beta weights are shown in the prediction of community involvement (CI) and next year intentions (NYI) – controlling for current involvement. Note. Underlined values indicate ps <.05. Youth Engagement Framework Note. The ‘layers’ surrounding initiating and sustaining factors represent self, social, and systems-level influences. Dashed box indicates components assessed in the current study. Predicting Community Involvement Together the initiating and sustaining factors indicators explained a total of 41% of the variance in current community involvement (CI) was explained (R =.64, p <.001). As shown in the table at the top of the next column, several indicators made significant and unique contributions to the prediction of community involvement including: greater interest in getting involved, greater social encouragement, higher perceived efficacy, and more positive engagement attitudes. APPLYING A YOUTH ENGAGEMENT FRAMEWORK TO PREDICTING COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT Michael A. Busseri, Linda Rose-Krasnor, Kelly Campbell, and Holly Stack Brock University (Canada) and the Centre of Excellence for Youth Engagement (Health Canada) Introduction Previous studies have linked youth activity involvement with positive developmental outcomes, including reduced risk behaviors, higher academic success, better psychological functioning, and stronger interpersonal bonds. Comparatively fewer studies, however, have systematically examined predictors of youth involvement. We have proposed a process-oriented framework for youth “engagement”, which we define as sustained, meaningful activity involvement. As shown in the figure below, our Youth Engagement Framework comprises four primary components: initiating factors expected to promote youth engagement; sustaining factors expected to support and maintain engagement; youth engagement itself; and outcomes. The present study focuses on relationships between initiating and sustaining factors and youth engagement, evaluated at three hypothesized levels of influence: personal beliefs, attitudes, and predispositions (self-level); interpersonal relations (social-level); and society and institutions (systems-level). Participants and Procedures Results were based on survey responses from 190 youth: female undergraduates ranging in age from 17 to 19 years old (M = years, SD = 0.53). The study survey was completed at the participant’s convenience and encompassed questions related to each of the primary components of our Youth Engagement Framework. Measures Ten initiating factor indicators and eight sustaining factor indicators were derived from previous studies, as well as our conceptual work. Indicators were based on multi-item measures (see table in next column). Community involvement was assessed by mean frequency of current involvement in five activities in the past year (volunteering/community service, political action, school clubs, community youth groups, conferences/workshops), as was a composite measure of involvement intentions for the coming year. Analysis Pairwise correlations: initiating and sustaining factor indictors with youth involvement (current community involvement, next year intentions). Multiple regression of current involvement on initiating and sustaining factor indicators. Hierarchical multiple regression of next year intentions on current involvement (step 1) and initiating and sustaining factors (step 2). Discussion Initiating and sustaining factors both were associated with current community involvement and future intended involvement in bivariate and multivariate analyses. Regression results support the unique role of two of three hypothesized levels of influence: self-level and social-level variables. No inferences can be made about causal influence including how relations among framework components unfold over time. Results may vary depending on the type of involvement examined and the specific initiating and sustaining factor indicators. Conclusion Our Youth Engagement Framework - comprising multiple types and levels of influence - holds promise for the study of youth engagement. Results Summary of Study Measures and Correlations with Youth Involvement As shown in the table below, with few exceptions, initiating and sustaining factor indicators showed positive bivariate associations with both current community involvement (CI) and next year intentions (NYI). Note. N = 190. * Efficacy composite combines scores from two systems-level factors (self-level ‘perceived efficacy’, and systems-level ‘openness to change’). Underlined values indicate ps <.05 Predicting Next Year Intentions The hierarchical regression model explained 50% of the variance in next year intentions (NYI); R =.71, p <.001. In step 1, current involvement explained 37% of the variance (p <.001). In step 2, the initiating and sustaining factor indicators explained an additional 13% of the variance (p =.002). As shown in the table above, in the final regression model five predictors made significant, unique contributions to the prediction of stronger intentions for next year involvement: more frequent current involvement, less valuing of ambition, greater openness to new experiences, stronger social support, and greater perseverance. Factor / LevelMeasureScale propertiesCorrelations with ItemsAlphaCINYI Initiating / SelfProsocial values Valuing ambition Introversion Open to new experience Negative attitudes Interest in involvement Initiating / SocialSocial modeling6.71 Social expectations6.85 Social encouragement6.80 Social composite.36 Initiating / SystemInvolvement opportunities Neighborhood quality Societal climate Sustaining / SelfPerceived efficacy*4.73 Perseverance Volatility Positive attitudes Sustaining / SocialSocial support6.75 Social recognition6.83 Quality of social experience6.71 Social composite Sustaining / SystemsSocietal climate Growth opportunities Limits to responsibility System openness to change*5.80 Efficacy composite* InvolvementCurrent involvement (CI) Next year intentions (NYI) Initiating factors Youth engagement Sustaining factors Outcomes Factor / LevelPredictorCriteria CINYI Initiating / SelfProsocial values Valuing ambition Introversion Open to new experience Negative attitudes Interest in involvement Initiating / SocialSocial composite Initiating / SystemInvolvement opportunities Neighborhood quality-.01 Societal climate Sustaining / SelfEfficacy composite Perseverance Volatility Positive attitudes Sustaining / SocialSocial composite Sustaining / SystemsSocietal climate Growth opportunities Limits to responsibility InvolvementCurrent involvement--.48 The Centres of Excellence are a Health Canada-funded program. The opinions expressed in this poster do not necessarily reflect those of Health Canada.