- Email: [email protected]
Associations between participation in a Physical Activity-Based Positive Youth Development Program and Academic Outcomes
Journal of Adolescence 77 (2019) 147–151
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Journal of Adolescence journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/adolescence
Brief report
Associations between participation in a Physical Activity-Based Positive Youth Development Program and Academic Outcomes
T
Lindley McDavida,∗, Meghan H. McDonoughb, Janet B. Wongb, Frank J. Snyderc, Yumary Ruizd, Bonnie B. Blankenshipd a
Evaluation and Learning Research Center, Purdue University, USA Faculty of Kinesiology, University of Canada, USA c School of Health Sciences, Central Michigan University, USA d Department of Health and Kinesiology, Purdue University, USA b
A R T IC LE I N F O
ABS TRA CT
Keywords: Early adolescence Positive youth development School outcomes Summer program
Introduction: Physical activity-based positive youth development (PYD) programs offer asset building experiences to foster the overall well-being of youth. These programs have the potential to enhance success in other important contexts for children, such as school. However, rigorous examination of this potential impact is needed. Methods: Propensity score matching was used to compare school outcomes among children who participated in a short, summer physical activity-based PYD program in the USA and children who were from similar backgrounds and from the same school district but did not attend the program. The sample included 149 pairs of students aged 7–12 years (M = 10.11, SD = 1.26) and, in each group, 62% were from ethnically diverse backgrounds, 38% were from primarily Caucasian backgrounds, and 80 were female and 69 were male, and birth years were equally distributed. Ordinal and logistic regression models were used to test for differences between standardized math and language arts test scores, excused and unexcused absences, and total suspensions and expulsions between the two groups. Results: PYD program youth had 55% and 46% greater odds being in the highest math (χ2(1, N = 298) = 4.06, p = .04) and total days attended categories (χ2(1, N = 298) = 5.58, p = .02) respectively. No other significant differences were found. When using a more rigorous quasiexperimental and longitudinal design, participation in a PYD program predicted some but not all academic performance and behaviors. PYD programs may need to be designed to specifically nurture academic skills to consistently impact academic outcomes.
Positive youth development (PYD) is an approach founded in developmental systems theory (Ford & Lerner, 1992) recognizing that all people have the potential for growth (Benson, Scales, Hamilton, & Sesma, 2006). PYD-based programs focus on strengthening assets in youth through nurturing relationships and contexts to promote well-being (Schusler, Davis-Manigaulte, & Cutter-Mackenzie, 2017). PYD programs provided at little to no cost to participants are particularly valuable to youth from low-income families, as they provide resources, support and opportunities to participate in structured programs that are often less available to underserved youth (Holt, Kingsley, Tink, & Scherer, 2011). PYD programs can be designed to influence a variety of outcomes, including academics. Students from low-income populations
∗
Corresponding author. 100 North University Street, West Lafayette, IN, 47907, USA. E-mail address: [email protected] (L. McDavid).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2019.10.012 Received 25 April 2019; Received in revised form 29 August 2019; Accepted 30 October 2019 0140-1971/ Published by Elsevier Ltd on behalf of The Foundation for Professionals in Services for Adolescents.
Journal of Adolescence 77 (2019) 147–151
L. McDavid, et al.
typically show poorer academic achievement, are less prepared for post-secondary education than their higher-income peers (Corrigan, 2003; Votruba-Drzal, 2006), and tend to face more risk factors that can affect their academic achievement (Corrigan, 2003). Further, these disparities are magnified across development, as age is negatively associated with lower effort and grades in school (Anderson-Butcher, Newsome, & Ferrari, 2003). Therefore, adolescence is a critical time to address academic discrepancies and encourage positive behaviors in academic settings, which has been successfully demonstrated in some PYD programs (Parchment, Jones, Del-Villar, Small, & McKay, 2016). While this evidence is promising, positive effects have been found largely in school-based PYD programs that focus on academic competency. However, PYD programs based in physical activity contexts that emphasize positive mentoring relationships are also a potential avenue for addressing academic outcomes. While evidence is mixed, some youth who are more physically active during and after school have better academic outcomes (Bezold et al., 2014; Coe, Pivarnik, Womack, Reeves, & Malina, 2006; Kim et al., 2003; Owen, Parker, Astell-Burt, & Lonsdale, 2018; Syväoja et al., 2013). Physical activity-based PYD programs may be especially beneficial for youth from low-income families, as these students experience stronger effects from change in physical fitness on their academics compared to students with low household poverty (Bezold et al., 2014). In addition, research in PYD contexts consistently supports the critical value of close, caring, and supportive social relationships between adults and youth to produce desirable outcomes (Damon, 2004; Fraser–Thomas, Cote, & Deakin, 2005; Lerner et al., 2005). However, there is little research specifically examining the effect of physical activity-based PYD programs that create opportunities for positive adult-youth social relationships on academic outcomes with a control group (e.g., Anderson-Butcher et al., 2003). There is longitudinal evidence that summer physical activity-based PYD programs are positively associated with psychosocial outcomes such as prosocial behavior, hope, and self-worth (McDonough, Ullrich-French, Anderson-Butcher, Amorose, & Riley, 2013; Ullrich-French & McDonough, 2013) and even youth who participate in a short-term program (e.g., no more than 20 days) demonstrate growth in both self-worth and hope (Ullrich-French, McDonough, & Smith, 2012). Further, previous research demonstrates that both hope and self-worth support positive academic behaviors and performance (e.g., Bouchey & Harter, 2005; Snyder, 2002). However, research regarding transfer of skills, behaviors, and outcomes from physical activity-based PYD programs to other contexts is still limited. The purpose of this study was to examine whether participation in a summer physical activity-based PYD program was associated with enhanced academic and behavioral outcomes in children from low-income families, as compared to age- and sex-matched peers from low-income families. We hypothesized that program participation would predict a greater likelihood of higher scores on academic tests (mathematics and language arts) and positive behavioral indicators (e.g., better school attendance, fewer suspensions and expulsions) among children in the PYD program compared to those who were not.
1. Methods 1.1. Participants Two groups were identified for study recruitment. Group one included youth who attended a free physical activity-based PYD program between 2007 and 2011. This group qualified for the program as they were enrolled in the US Department of Agriculture free or reduced lunch program in the local school district (i.e., their family's income was required to be at or below 185% of the poverty level) and were 7–12 years old. The PYD program was held for 20, seven-hour long weekdays each year from late June to early July. Depending on the year, program attendance was taken almost daily (18–19 days) and youth attendance ranged from 1 to 19 days or 5–100% of these days with 87% of youth attending 10 or more days. During the program, youth participated in program activities designed to develop physical competence through non-competitive sport (e.g., volleyball, sharbade, swimming and cooperative games) and life-skills (e.g., money management, computers, and art) activities. Youth spent at least 70% of program time being physically active and there was no targeted academic programming. Youth were assigned to an age and gender stratified group with one young-adult leader who was tasked with teaching a life-skills curriculum during all activities, and building close and supportive relationships will all youth in their care. The curriculum emphasized one pro-social themes every five days of the program (e.g., kindness, fairness, courage etc.). Group two was the control-matched, non-program group and included youth who attended the same local school district, had birthdates in the same years as group one (1998–2003), and qualified for the same lunch assistance program.
1.2. Previous program research This PYD program aimed to empower youth to set goals, expose them to a higher education setting, foster perceptions of hope for the future, and promote personal growth and character development by developing close mentor and peer relationships. Previous research demonstrates that youngsters, who attended one summer session, reported increased perceptions of hope over the course of the program and increased perceptions of self-worth were maintained one year later (Ullrich-French & McDonough, 2013). As selfworth and hope are associated with academic achievement (e.g., Bouchey & Harter, 2005; (Di Giunta et al., 2013); Kristjansson, A. L., Sigfusdottir, I. D., Allegrante, J. P., 2010; Snyder, 2002) it is possible that program attendance could positively predict academic performance. However, this link has not been examined.
148
Journal of Adolescence 77 (2019) 147–151
L. McDavid, et al.
1.3. Procedures Institutional review board approval was obtained from the lead author's institution. Data was obtained from the PYD program and local school district records. Data were screened to include students who had demographic data (gender, ethnicity/race), and academic and behavioral data for at least two consecutive years. Group one needed to have data for the years before and after they participated in the PYD program. After data organization, there were 149 youth in the analytical sample in group one and 1016 youth who were eligible to serve as matches in group two. 1.4. Measures Academic data was drawn from the Indiana Statewide Testing for Educational Progress (ISTEP) scores. Beginning in 2008, students in grades three to eight take the math and language arts portions of the ISTEP each year beginning in February. Previous examinations where conducted annually in September. Scores were calculated as the percentage of maximum score for their grade level. Attendance data included the total number of days students attended school and had unexcused absences. Behavioral data included the number of days that students were expelled or suspended during the school year. 1.5. Data analysis SPSS 25 (IBM, 2017) was used for all analyses. Group one students were matched with group two students using propensity score matching (PSM; Guo & Fraser, 2010). Simply, the PSM procedure uses the selected group of variables to execute a logistic regression on the group indicator and chooses controls based on the resultant propensity scores (IBM, 2017). To enable exact matching on students' year of birth, the data was stratified by year of birth and PSM was conducted within each year using students’ gender and ethnicity (0 = Caucasian background, 1 = African American, Asian, Native American, Hispanic, or more than one background). The effectiveness of the procedure was confirmed using t-tests to examine if there were any significant differences in the two groups based on any of the predictor variables (Stuart, 2010). After conducting and testing the PSM procedure the effect of program participation on academic, attendance, and behavioral data was tested using a series of ordinal and logistic regressions. Due to the non-normal distribution of the academic percentage, attendance, and behavioral data, the data was categorized into groups before conducting the main analysis (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2012). Student test scores were categorized in four percentage groups (Lowest scores = 0–25%, low scores = 26–50%, high scores = 51–75%, highest scores = 76 – 100%). Student attendance thresholds were developed based on district attendance procedures and expectations, where total attendance was categorized into two groups (poor attendance = less than 173 attended days, good attendance = 173 or more days attended), excused days was categorized into two groups (low = one or less excused day, high = greater than 1 excused day) and unexcused days were categorized into two groups (low = five or less unexcused days, high = six or more excused days). Student behavior thresholds were categorized into two groups (no explusion or suspension days or one or more explusion or suspension days). Model 1 tested if the likelihood of math score category in year two, controlling for year one score, was different between groups using an ordinal regression. Model 2 tested a similar model for the language art score variable. Models 3 and 4 tested if each attendance variable, controlling for the same variable in year one, was different between groups using logistic regressions. Model 5 tested if student behavior, when controlling for year one behavior, was different between groups using logistic regression. 2. Results The propensity score matching procedure resulted in 149 matched pairs of students that were not significantly different across each predictor variable (for each predictor: t(296) = 0.00, p = 1.00). Both groups consisted of 56 youth from primarily Caucasian backgrounds and 93 youth from ethnically diverse backgrounds, and 80 female and 69 male students. Birth years were equally distributed across each group as well. See Table 1 for correlations among study variables and descriptive statistics for each student group. In model 1, for students who participated in the PYD program, the odds of being in the highest math score category (i.e., the top 25%), compared to being in the combined lower categories, was 55% greater (CI = 0.31, 0.97) than those who did not participate in the PYD program, controlling for previous test score (χ2(1, N = 298) = 4.06, p = .04). In model 2, language arts score was not predicted by PYD program participation, controlling for previous test score (χ2(1, N = 298) = 2.10, p > .05). In model 3, for students who participated in the PYD program the odds of having good attendance or being in the top 75% of total attendance was 46% greater (CI = 0.24, 0.87), controlling for previous attendance (χ2(1, N = 298) = 5.58, p = .02). In model 4, unexcused absences were not predicted by PYD program participation, controlling for previously recorded unexcused absences (χ2(1, N = 298) = 1.95, p > .05). In model 5, student suspensions and expulsions were not predicted by PYD program participation, controlling for previously recorded suspensions and expulsions (χ2(1, N = 298) = 0.11, p > .05). 3. Discussion Although physical activity-based PYD programs leverage skill building opportunities to promote well-being in young people, when compared to a matched control group, youth in a 20-day physical activity-based PYD program demonstrated similar language 149
Journal of Adolescence 77 (2019) 147–151
L. McDavid, et al.
Table 1 Correlations, means, standard deviations of each study variable.
1. T1 Math 2. T2 Math 3. T1 Language Arts 4. T2 Language Arts 5. T1 Days attended 6. T2 Days attended 7. T1 Unexcused days 8. T2 Unexcused days 9. T1 Suspension and explusion days 10. T2 Suspension and explusion days MProgram(SD) MNoProgram (SD)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
.77* .72* .69* .11* .04 -.17* -.05 -.04 -.07 .67(.10) .65(.09)
.67* .71* .06 .10 -.23* -.11 -.04 -.04 .70(.08) .68(.08)
.79* .07 .00 -.07 .04 -.08 -.07 .59(.06) .59(.06)
.05 .05 -.11 .04 -.06 -.09 .62(.07) .61(.06)
.24* -.21* -.11 -.23 -.01 174(16) 171(15)
-.30* -.32* .03 -.03 175(10) 173(10)
.49* .12* .12* 2.47(2.46) 4.32(3.27)
-.02 .02 2.63(2.96) 3.88(3.40)
.07 .05(.29) .12(.57)
.27(1.29) .30(1.38)
Note: M = Mean, SD = Standard deviation. Correlations were calculated with raw variable data. Math and language art scores are percentages and attendance and suspension values are total days. *p < .05.
arts standardized test performance, unexcused absences, and suspension and expulsion days. However, PYD program participation was associated with a greater likelihood of being in the highest math standardized test performance category and having good or being in the top 75% of total attendance. Although most associations were not significant, this study demonstrates some preliminary academic benefits among participants in a relatively short but high intensity summer, physical activity-based PYD program, while also demonstrating the challenges of detecting impact across contexts. Young adolescents who participated in the PYD program were more likely to perform better on their math assessments and more likely to demonstrate positive overall school attendance. Given the constraints of the available data, this study did not assess the potential mechanisms for this association. However, a well-tested and supported mechanism of the benefits of PYD programs is the development of supportive, trusting and caring mentoring relationships with adults or program staff, and previous research demonstrates that, during this time, adult-youth connections positively predict perceptions of competence, hope for the future and overall self-worth (e.g., McDavid, McDonough, Blankenship, & LeBreton, 2016; Ullrich-French & McDonough, 2013). Long-term mentoring relationships are often expected to yield the best outcomes for at-risk youth (Grossman & Rhodes, 2002); however, when operationalizing the optimal mentoring “dose” to demonstrate impact, considering only attendance and duration does not consistently predict growth in youth (Hirsch, Mekinda, & Stawicki, 2010). Instead, both the duration, intensity and indicators of relationship quality should be considered and even short-term mentoring relationships show benefit when each of these and more of these variables are examined (Hirsch et al., 2010; Kolar & McBride, 2011). The young people in this study took part in a high intensity and short-duration mentoring experience as they received approximately 160 h of programming across four weeks that focused on developing personal assets through mentoring relationships. These findings underscore the importance of a multidimensional view of dosage and the careful consideration of program dosage when examining impact and making comparisons across programs, (Karcher, Kuperminc, Portwood, Sipe, & Taylor, 2006). There were no associations between language arts test scores, unexcused and excused absences, and suspension and expulsion days between the two groups. To further examine these non-significant and the significant findings, the testing of a more nuanced model including theory-based mediators could aide in the detection and explanation of any effects (e.g., Hagger, Chatzisarantis, Culverhouse, & Biddle, 2003). Further, PYD programs are more likely demonstrate academic impact when specifically designed to foster academic related skills and behaviors rather than a more general focus on well-being (e.g., Parchment et al., 2016). Future work should continue to implement more rigorous quasi-experimental, experimental, and longitudinal designs. Although the matching procedure did control for demographics and all students were drawn from the same community and economic background, an attempt to control for potential PYD related, academic performance factors and social support activities in control groups would strengthen this procedure. Other academic outcomes could also be considered that better represent growth in academic assets (e.g., desirable in-school behaviors), avoiding the pitfalls of standardized tests in this sample (e.g., effort, motivation, or GPA; Vanneman, Hamilton, Baldwin Anderson, & Rahman, 2009). Also, test performance data was measured approximately 7 months after program participation, and the inclusion of academic outcomes that are measured more proximally could increase the likelihood of detecting program impact and making meaningful interpretations. Last, to increase opportunities to detect links across the PYD and in-school contexts, programs that target academic skills, have similar program intensity and duration, and create opportunities for positive mentoring relationships should be evaluated. As the experience of in-school success is paramount to supporting well-being in young people, supplementary experiences that build skills to support desirable academic and behavioral outcomes are valuable for adolescents. Nonetheless, when assessing the value of programs like these, researchers, practitioners, families, and youth should be careful not to hinge program efficacy on a single factor (e.g., academic skill transfer), and instead consider the many benefits of opportunities provided by structured, safe, supportive, and well-designed physical activity-based PYD programs (e.g., Holt et al., 2011).
150
Journal of Adolescence 77 (2019) 147–151
L. McDavid, et al.
Acknowledgements The authors would like to acknowledge program director Dr. William Harper and all of the program staff for their partnership and support of this research, and the participants for their interest and willingness to take part in this research. References Anderson‐Butcher, D., Newsome, W. S., & Ferrari, T. M. (2003). Participation in Boys and Girls clubs and relationships to youth outcomes. Journal of Community Psychology, 31, 39–55. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcop.10036. Benson, P. L., Scales, P. C., Hamilton, S. F., & Sesma, A. (2006). Positive youth development: Theory, research, and applications. In (6th ed.). R. M. Lerner, & W. Damon (Vol. Eds.), Handbook of child psychology: Vol. 1, (pp. 894–941). Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Bezold, C. P., Konty, K. J., Day, S. E., Berger, M., Harr, L., Larkin, M., ... Stark, J. H. (2014). The effects of changes in physical fitness on academic performance among New York City youth. Journal of Adolescent Health, 55, 774–781. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2014.06.006. Bouchey, H. A., & Harter, S. Reflected appraisals, academic self-perceptions, and math/science performance during early adolescence. Journal of Education & Psychology, 97, 673-686. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.97.4.673. Coe, P. D., Pivarnik, M. J., Womack, J. C., Reeves, J. M., & Malina, M. R. (2006). Effect of physical education and activity levels on academic achievement in children. Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, 38, 1515–1519. https://doi.org/10.1249/01.mss.0000227537.13175.1b. Corrigan, M. E. (2003). Beyond access: Persistence challenges and the diversity of low‐income students. New Directions for Higher Education, 25–34. https://doi.org/10. 1002/he.99 2003. Damon, W. (2004). What is positive youth development? The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 591(1), 13–24. Di Giunta, L., Alessandri, G., Gerbino, M., Luengo Kanacri, P., Zuffiano, A., & Vittorio Caprara, G. (2013). The determinants of scholastic achievement: The contribution of personality traits, self-esteem, and academic self-efficacy. Learning and Individual Differences, 27, 102–108. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2013.07. 006. Ford, D. H., & Lerner, R. M. (1992). Developmental systems theory: An integrative approach. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Fraser–Thomas, J. L., Cote, J., & Deakin, J. (2005). Youth sport programs: An avenue to foster positive youth development. Physical Education & Sport Pedagogy. 10(1), 19–40. Grossman, J. B., & Rhodes, J. E. (2002). The test of time: Predictors and effects of duration in youth mentoring relationships. American Journal of Community Psychology, 30, 199–219. https://doi.org/10.1037/e314762004-001. Guo, S., & Fraser, M. W. (2010). Propensity score analysis: Statistical methods and applications. Los Angeles: Sage. Hagger, M. S., Chatzisarantis, N. L., Culverhouse, T., & Biddle, S. J. (2003). The processes by which perceived autonomy support in physical education promotes leisure-time physical activity intentions and behavior: A trans-contextual model. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(4), 784. Hirsch, B. J., Mekinda, M. A., & Stawicki, J. (2010). More than attendance: The importance of after-school program quality. American Journal of Community Psychology, 45, 447–452. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10464-010-9310-4. Holt, N. L., Kingsley, B. C., Tink, L. N., & Scherer, J. (2011). Benefits and challenges associated with sport participation by children and parents from low-income families. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 12, 490–499. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport.2011.05.007. Karcher, M. J., Kuperminc, G. P., Portwood, S. G., Sipe, C. L., & Taylor, A. S. (2006). Mentoring programs: A framework to inform program development, research and evaluation. Journal of Community Psychology, 34, 790. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcop.20125 725. Kim, H. Y., Frongillo, E. A., Han, S. S., Oh, S. Y., Kim, W. K., Jang, Y. A., & Kim, S. H. (2003). Academic performance of Korean children is associated with dietary behaviours and physical status. Asia Pacific Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 12, 186–192. Kolar, D. W., & McBride, C. A. (2011). Mentoring At-risk youth in schools: Can small doses make a big change? Mentoring & Tutoring: Partnership in Learning, 19, 125–138. https://doi.org/10.1080/13611267.2011.564347. Kristjánsson, L. A., Sigfúsdóttir, D. I., & Allegrante, J. P. (2010). Health behavior and academic achievement among adolescents: The relative contribution of dietary habits, physical activity, body mass index, and self-esteem. Health Education & Behavior, 37, 51–64. https://doi.org/10.1177/1090198107313481. Lerner, R. M., Lerner, J. V., Almerigi, J. B., Theokas, C., Phelps, E., Gestsdottir, S., & von Eye, A. (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. The Journal of Early Adolescence, 25(1), 17–71. McDavid, L., McDonough, M. H., Blankenship, B. T., & LeBreton, J. M. (2016). A test of basic psychological needs theory in a physical activity-based program for underserved youth. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 39, 29–42. https://doi.org/10.1123/jsep.2016-0038. McDonough, M. H., Ullrich-French, S., Anderson-Butcher, D., Amorose, A. J., & Riley, A. (2013). Social responsibility among low-income youth in physical activitybased positive youth development programs: Scale development and associations with social relationships. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 25, 431–447. https://doi.org/10.1080/10413200.2012.751563. Owen, K. B., Parker, P. D., Astell-Burt, T., & Lonsdale, C. (2018). Regular physical activity and educational outcomes in youth: A longitudinal study. Journal of Adolescent Health, 62, 334–340. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2017.09.014. Parchment, T. M., Jones, J., Del-Villar, Z., Small, L., & McKay, M. (2016). Integrating positive youth development and clinical care to enhance high school achievement for young people of color. Journal of Public Mental Health, 15, 50–62. https://doi.org/10.1108/JPMH-08-2015-0038. Schusler, T. M., Davis-Manigaulte, J., & Cutter-Mackenzie, A. (2017). Positive youth development. In A. Russ, & M. E. Krasny (Eds.). Urban environmental education review (pp. 165–174). Ithaca, New York: Cornell University Press. Snyder, C. R. (2002). Hope theory: Rainbows of the mind. Psychological Inquiry, 13, 249–275. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327965PLI1304_01. Stuart, E. A. (2010). Matching methods for causal inference: A review and a look forward. Statistical Science, 25(1), 1–21. Syväoja, H. J., Kantomaa, M. T., Ahonen, T., Hakonen, H., Kankaanpää, A., & Tammelin, T. H. (2013). Physical activity, sedentary behavior, and academic performance in Finnish children. Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, 45. https://doi.org/10.1249/MSS.0b013e318296d7b8. Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2012). Using Multivariate Statistics (6th). Boston: Pearson Education, Inc. Ullrich-French, S. C., McDonough, M. H., & Smith, A. L. (2012). Social Connection and Psychological Outcomes in a Physical Activity-Based Youth Development Setting. Research quarterly for exercise and sport, 83(3), 431–441. https://doi.org/10.1080/02701367.2012.10599878. Ullrich-French, S., & McDonough, M. H. (2013). Correlates of long-term participation in a physical activity-based positive youth development program for low-income youth: Sustained involvement and psychosocial outcomes. Journal of Adolescence, 36, 279–288. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2012.11.006. Vanneman, A., Hamilton, L., Baldwin Anderson, J., & Rahman, T. (2009). Achievement gaps: How black and white students in public schools perform in mathematics and reading on the national assessment of educational progress, (NCES 2009-455). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Votruba-Drzal, E. (2006). Economic disparities in middle childhood development: Does income matter? Developmental Psychology, 42, 1154–1167. https://doi.org/10. 1037/0012-1649.42.6.1.
151
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Journal of Adolescence journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/adolescence
Brief report
Associations between participation in a Physical Activity-Based Positive Youth Development Program and Academic Outcomes
T
Lindley McDavida,∗, Meghan H. McDonoughb, Janet B. Wongb, Frank J. Snyderc, Yumary Ruizd, Bonnie B. Blankenshipd a
Evaluation and Learning Research Center, Purdue University, USA Faculty of Kinesiology, University of Canada, USA c School of Health Sciences, Central Michigan University, USA d Department of Health and Kinesiology, Purdue University, USA b
A R T IC LE I N F O
ABS TRA CT
Keywords: Early adolescence Positive youth development School outcomes Summer program
Introduction: Physical activity-based positive youth development (PYD) programs offer asset building experiences to foster the overall well-being of youth. These programs have the potential to enhance success in other important contexts for children, such as school. However, rigorous examination of this potential impact is needed. Methods: Propensity score matching was used to compare school outcomes among children who participated in a short, summer physical activity-based PYD program in the USA and children who were from similar backgrounds and from the same school district but did not attend the program. The sample included 149 pairs of students aged 7–12 years (M = 10.11, SD = 1.26) and, in each group, 62% were from ethnically diverse backgrounds, 38% were from primarily Caucasian backgrounds, and 80 were female and 69 were male, and birth years were equally distributed. Ordinal and logistic regression models were used to test for differences between standardized math and language arts test scores, excused and unexcused absences, and total suspensions and expulsions between the two groups. Results: PYD program youth had 55% and 46% greater odds being in the highest math (χ2(1, N = 298) = 4.06, p = .04) and total days attended categories (χ2(1, N = 298) = 5.58, p = .02) respectively. No other significant differences were found. When using a more rigorous quasiexperimental and longitudinal design, participation in a PYD program predicted some but not all academic performance and behaviors. PYD programs may need to be designed to specifically nurture academic skills to consistently impact academic outcomes.
Positive youth development (PYD) is an approach founded in developmental systems theory (Ford & Lerner, 1992) recognizing that all people have the potential for growth (Benson, Scales, Hamilton, & Sesma, 2006). PYD-based programs focus on strengthening assets in youth through nurturing relationships and contexts to promote well-being (Schusler, Davis-Manigaulte, & Cutter-Mackenzie, 2017). PYD programs provided at little to no cost to participants are particularly valuable to youth from low-income families, as they provide resources, support and opportunities to participate in structured programs that are often less available to underserved youth (Holt, Kingsley, Tink, & Scherer, 2011). PYD programs can be designed to influence a variety of outcomes, including academics. Students from low-income populations
∗
Corresponding author. 100 North University Street, West Lafayette, IN, 47907, USA. E-mail address: [email protected] (L. McDavid).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2019.10.012 Received 25 April 2019; Received in revised form 29 August 2019; Accepted 30 October 2019 0140-1971/ Published by Elsevier Ltd on behalf of The Foundation for Professionals in Services for Adolescents.
Journal of Adolescence 77 (2019) 147–151
L. McDavid, et al.
typically show poorer academic achievement, are less prepared for post-secondary education than their higher-income peers (Corrigan, 2003; Votruba-Drzal, 2006), and tend to face more risk factors that can affect their academic achievement (Corrigan, 2003). Further, these disparities are magnified across development, as age is negatively associated with lower effort and grades in school (Anderson-Butcher, Newsome, & Ferrari, 2003). Therefore, adolescence is a critical time to address academic discrepancies and encourage positive behaviors in academic settings, which has been successfully demonstrated in some PYD programs (Parchment, Jones, Del-Villar, Small, & McKay, 2016). While this evidence is promising, positive effects have been found largely in school-based PYD programs that focus on academic competency. However, PYD programs based in physical activity contexts that emphasize positive mentoring relationships are also a potential avenue for addressing academic outcomes. While evidence is mixed, some youth who are more physically active during and after school have better academic outcomes (Bezold et al., 2014; Coe, Pivarnik, Womack, Reeves, & Malina, 2006; Kim et al., 2003; Owen, Parker, Astell-Burt, & Lonsdale, 2018; Syväoja et al., 2013). Physical activity-based PYD programs may be especially beneficial for youth from low-income families, as these students experience stronger effects from change in physical fitness on their academics compared to students with low household poverty (Bezold et al., 2014). In addition, research in PYD contexts consistently supports the critical value of close, caring, and supportive social relationships between adults and youth to produce desirable outcomes (Damon, 2004; Fraser–Thomas, Cote, & Deakin, 2005; Lerner et al., 2005). However, there is little research specifically examining the effect of physical activity-based PYD programs that create opportunities for positive adult-youth social relationships on academic outcomes with a control group (e.g., Anderson-Butcher et al., 2003). There is longitudinal evidence that summer physical activity-based PYD programs are positively associated with psychosocial outcomes such as prosocial behavior, hope, and self-worth (McDonough, Ullrich-French, Anderson-Butcher, Amorose, & Riley, 2013; Ullrich-French & McDonough, 2013) and even youth who participate in a short-term program (e.g., no more than 20 days) demonstrate growth in both self-worth and hope (Ullrich-French, McDonough, & Smith, 2012). Further, previous research demonstrates that both hope and self-worth support positive academic behaviors and performance (e.g., Bouchey & Harter, 2005; Snyder, 2002). However, research regarding transfer of skills, behaviors, and outcomes from physical activity-based PYD programs to other contexts is still limited. The purpose of this study was to examine whether participation in a summer physical activity-based PYD program was associated with enhanced academic and behavioral outcomes in children from low-income families, as compared to age- and sex-matched peers from low-income families. We hypothesized that program participation would predict a greater likelihood of higher scores on academic tests (mathematics and language arts) and positive behavioral indicators (e.g., better school attendance, fewer suspensions and expulsions) among children in the PYD program compared to those who were not.
1. Methods 1.1. Participants Two groups were identified for study recruitment. Group one included youth who attended a free physical activity-based PYD program between 2007 and 2011. This group qualified for the program as they were enrolled in the US Department of Agriculture free or reduced lunch program in the local school district (i.e., their family's income was required to be at or below 185% of the poverty level) and were 7–12 years old. The PYD program was held for 20, seven-hour long weekdays each year from late June to early July. Depending on the year, program attendance was taken almost daily (18–19 days) and youth attendance ranged from 1 to 19 days or 5–100% of these days with 87% of youth attending 10 or more days. During the program, youth participated in program activities designed to develop physical competence through non-competitive sport (e.g., volleyball, sharbade, swimming and cooperative games) and life-skills (e.g., money management, computers, and art) activities. Youth spent at least 70% of program time being physically active and there was no targeted academic programming. Youth were assigned to an age and gender stratified group with one young-adult leader who was tasked with teaching a life-skills curriculum during all activities, and building close and supportive relationships will all youth in their care. The curriculum emphasized one pro-social themes every five days of the program (e.g., kindness, fairness, courage etc.). Group two was the control-matched, non-program group and included youth who attended the same local school district, had birthdates in the same years as group one (1998–2003), and qualified for the same lunch assistance program.
1.2. Previous program research This PYD program aimed to empower youth to set goals, expose them to a higher education setting, foster perceptions of hope for the future, and promote personal growth and character development by developing close mentor and peer relationships. Previous research demonstrates that youngsters, who attended one summer session, reported increased perceptions of hope over the course of the program and increased perceptions of self-worth were maintained one year later (Ullrich-French & McDonough, 2013). As selfworth and hope are associated with academic achievement (e.g., Bouchey & Harter, 2005; (Di Giunta et al., 2013); Kristjansson, A. L., Sigfusdottir, I. D., Allegrante, J. P., 2010; Snyder, 2002) it is possible that program attendance could positively predict academic performance. However, this link has not been examined.
148
Journal of Adolescence 77 (2019) 147–151
L. McDavid, et al.
1.3. Procedures Institutional review board approval was obtained from the lead author's institution. Data was obtained from the PYD program and local school district records. Data were screened to include students who had demographic data (gender, ethnicity/race), and academic and behavioral data for at least two consecutive years. Group one needed to have data for the years before and after they participated in the PYD program. After data organization, there were 149 youth in the analytical sample in group one and 1016 youth who were eligible to serve as matches in group two. 1.4. Measures Academic data was drawn from the Indiana Statewide Testing for Educational Progress (ISTEP) scores. Beginning in 2008, students in grades three to eight take the math and language arts portions of the ISTEP each year beginning in February. Previous examinations where conducted annually in September. Scores were calculated as the percentage of maximum score for their grade level. Attendance data included the total number of days students attended school and had unexcused absences. Behavioral data included the number of days that students were expelled or suspended during the school year. 1.5. Data analysis SPSS 25 (IBM, 2017) was used for all analyses. Group one students were matched with group two students using propensity score matching (PSM; Guo & Fraser, 2010). Simply, the PSM procedure uses the selected group of variables to execute a logistic regression on the group indicator and chooses controls based on the resultant propensity scores (IBM, 2017). To enable exact matching on students' year of birth, the data was stratified by year of birth and PSM was conducted within each year using students’ gender and ethnicity (0 = Caucasian background, 1 = African American, Asian, Native American, Hispanic, or more than one background). The effectiveness of the procedure was confirmed using t-tests to examine if there were any significant differences in the two groups based on any of the predictor variables (Stuart, 2010). After conducting and testing the PSM procedure the effect of program participation on academic, attendance, and behavioral data was tested using a series of ordinal and logistic regressions. Due to the non-normal distribution of the academic percentage, attendance, and behavioral data, the data was categorized into groups before conducting the main analysis (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2012). Student test scores were categorized in four percentage groups (Lowest scores = 0–25%, low scores = 26–50%, high scores = 51–75%, highest scores = 76 – 100%). Student attendance thresholds were developed based on district attendance procedures and expectations, where total attendance was categorized into two groups (poor attendance = less than 173 attended days, good attendance = 173 or more days attended), excused days was categorized into two groups (low = one or less excused day, high = greater than 1 excused day) and unexcused days were categorized into two groups (low = five or less unexcused days, high = six or more excused days). Student behavior thresholds were categorized into two groups (no explusion or suspension days or one or more explusion or suspension days). Model 1 tested if the likelihood of math score category in year two, controlling for year one score, was different between groups using an ordinal regression. Model 2 tested a similar model for the language art score variable. Models 3 and 4 tested if each attendance variable, controlling for the same variable in year one, was different between groups using logistic regressions. Model 5 tested if student behavior, when controlling for year one behavior, was different between groups using logistic regression. 2. Results The propensity score matching procedure resulted in 149 matched pairs of students that were not significantly different across each predictor variable (for each predictor: t(296) = 0.00, p = 1.00). Both groups consisted of 56 youth from primarily Caucasian backgrounds and 93 youth from ethnically diverse backgrounds, and 80 female and 69 male students. Birth years were equally distributed across each group as well. See Table 1 for correlations among study variables and descriptive statistics for each student group. In model 1, for students who participated in the PYD program, the odds of being in the highest math score category (i.e., the top 25%), compared to being in the combined lower categories, was 55% greater (CI = 0.31, 0.97) than those who did not participate in the PYD program, controlling for previous test score (χ2(1, N = 298) = 4.06, p = .04). In model 2, language arts score was not predicted by PYD program participation, controlling for previous test score (χ2(1, N = 298) = 2.10, p > .05). In model 3, for students who participated in the PYD program the odds of having good attendance or being in the top 75% of total attendance was 46% greater (CI = 0.24, 0.87), controlling for previous attendance (χ2(1, N = 298) = 5.58, p = .02). In model 4, unexcused absences were not predicted by PYD program participation, controlling for previously recorded unexcused absences (χ2(1, N = 298) = 1.95, p > .05). In model 5, student suspensions and expulsions were not predicted by PYD program participation, controlling for previously recorded suspensions and expulsions (χ2(1, N = 298) = 0.11, p > .05). 3. Discussion Although physical activity-based PYD programs leverage skill building opportunities to promote well-being in young people, when compared to a matched control group, youth in a 20-day physical activity-based PYD program demonstrated similar language 149
Journal of Adolescence 77 (2019) 147–151
L. McDavid, et al.
Table 1 Correlations, means, standard deviations of each study variable.
1. T1 Math 2. T2 Math 3. T1 Language Arts 4. T2 Language Arts 5. T1 Days attended 6. T2 Days attended 7. T1 Unexcused days 8. T2 Unexcused days 9. T1 Suspension and explusion days 10. T2 Suspension and explusion days MProgram(SD) MNoProgram (SD)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
.77* .72* .69* .11* .04 -.17* -.05 -.04 -.07 .67(.10) .65(.09)
.67* .71* .06 .10 -.23* -.11 -.04 -.04 .70(.08) .68(.08)
.79* .07 .00 -.07 .04 -.08 -.07 .59(.06) .59(.06)
.05 .05 -.11 .04 -.06 -.09 .62(.07) .61(.06)
.24* -.21* -.11 -.23 -.01 174(16) 171(15)
-.30* -.32* .03 -.03 175(10) 173(10)
.49* .12* .12* 2.47(2.46) 4.32(3.27)
-.02 .02 2.63(2.96) 3.88(3.40)
.07 .05(.29) .12(.57)
.27(1.29) .30(1.38)
Note: M = Mean, SD = Standard deviation. Correlations were calculated with raw variable data. Math and language art scores are percentages and attendance and suspension values are total days. *p < .05.
arts standardized test performance, unexcused absences, and suspension and expulsion days. However, PYD program participation was associated with a greater likelihood of being in the highest math standardized test performance category and having good or being in the top 75% of total attendance. Although most associations were not significant, this study demonstrates some preliminary academic benefits among participants in a relatively short but high intensity summer, physical activity-based PYD program, while also demonstrating the challenges of detecting impact across contexts. Young adolescents who participated in the PYD program were more likely to perform better on their math assessments and more likely to demonstrate positive overall school attendance. Given the constraints of the available data, this study did not assess the potential mechanisms for this association. However, a well-tested and supported mechanism of the benefits of PYD programs is the development of supportive, trusting and caring mentoring relationships with adults or program staff, and previous research demonstrates that, during this time, adult-youth connections positively predict perceptions of competence, hope for the future and overall self-worth (e.g., McDavid, McDonough, Blankenship, & LeBreton, 2016; Ullrich-French & McDonough, 2013). Long-term mentoring relationships are often expected to yield the best outcomes for at-risk youth (Grossman & Rhodes, 2002); however, when operationalizing the optimal mentoring “dose” to demonstrate impact, considering only attendance and duration does not consistently predict growth in youth (Hirsch, Mekinda, & Stawicki, 2010). Instead, both the duration, intensity and indicators of relationship quality should be considered and even short-term mentoring relationships show benefit when each of these and more of these variables are examined (Hirsch et al., 2010; Kolar & McBride, 2011). The young people in this study took part in a high intensity and short-duration mentoring experience as they received approximately 160 h of programming across four weeks that focused on developing personal assets through mentoring relationships. These findings underscore the importance of a multidimensional view of dosage and the careful consideration of program dosage when examining impact and making comparisons across programs, (Karcher, Kuperminc, Portwood, Sipe, & Taylor, 2006). There were no associations between language arts test scores, unexcused and excused absences, and suspension and expulsion days between the two groups. To further examine these non-significant and the significant findings, the testing of a more nuanced model including theory-based mediators could aide in the detection and explanation of any effects (e.g., Hagger, Chatzisarantis, Culverhouse, & Biddle, 2003). Further, PYD programs are more likely demonstrate academic impact when specifically designed to foster academic related skills and behaviors rather than a more general focus on well-being (e.g., Parchment et al., 2016). Future work should continue to implement more rigorous quasi-experimental, experimental, and longitudinal designs. Although the matching procedure did control for demographics and all students were drawn from the same community and economic background, an attempt to control for potential PYD related, academic performance factors and social support activities in control groups would strengthen this procedure. Other academic outcomes could also be considered that better represent growth in academic assets (e.g., desirable in-school behaviors), avoiding the pitfalls of standardized tests in this sample (e.g., effort, motivation, or GPA; Vanneman, Hamilton, Baldwin Anderson, & Rahman, 2009). Also, test performance data was measured approximately 7 months after program participation, and the inclusion of academic outcomes that are measured more proximally could increase the likelihood of detecting program impact and making meaningful interpretations. Last, to increase opportunities to detect links across the PYD and in-school contexts, programs that target academic skills, have similar program intensity and duration, and create opportunities for positive mentoring relationships should be evaluated. As the experience of in-school success is paramount to supporting well-being in young people, supplementary experiences that build skills to support desirable academic and behavioral outcomes are valuable for adolescents. Nonetheless, when assessing the value of programs like these, researchers, practitioners, families, and youth should be careful not to hinge program efficacy on a single factor (e.g., academic skill transfer), and instead consider the many benefits of opportunities provided by structured, safe, supportive, and well-designed physical activity-based PYD programs (e.g., Holt et al., 2011).
150
Journal of Adolescence 77 (2019) 147–151
L. McDavid, et al.
Acknowledgements The authors would like to acknowledge program director Dr. William Harper and all of the program staff for their partnership and support of this research, and the participants for their interest and willingness to take part in this research. References Anderson‐Butcher, D., Newsome, W. S., & Ferrari, T. M. (2003). Participation in Boys and Girls clubs and relationships to youth outcomes. Journal of Community Psychology, 31, 39–55. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcop.10036. Benson, P. L., Scales, P. C., Hamilton, S. F., & Sesma, A. (2006). Positive youth development: Theory, research, and applications. In (6th ed.). R. M. Lerner, & W. Damon (Vol. Eds.), Handbook of child psychology: Vol. 1, (pp. 894–941). Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Bezold, C. P., Konty, K. J., Day, S. E., Berger, M., Harr, L., Larkin, M., ... Stark, J. H. (2014). The effects of changes in physical fitness on academic performance among New York City youth. Journal of Adolescent Health, 55, 774–781. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2014.06.006. Bouchey, H. A., & Harter, S. Reflected appraisals, academic self-perceptions, and math/science performance during early adolescence. Journal of Education & Psychology, 97, 673-686. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.97.4.673. Coe, P. D., Pivarnik, M. J., Womack, J. C., Reeves, J. M., & Malina, M. R. (2006). Effect of physical education and activity levels on academic achievement in children. Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, 38, 1515–1519. https://doi.org/10.1249/01.mss.0000227537.13175.1b. Corrigan, M. E. (2003). Beyond access: Persistence challenges and the diversity of low‐income students. New Directions for Higher Education, 25–34. https://doi.org/10. 1002/he.99 2003. Damon, W. (2004). What is positive youth development? The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 591(1), 13–24. Di Giunta, L., Alessandri, G., Gerbino, M., Luengo Kanacri, P., Zuffiano, A., & Vittorio Caprara, G. (2013). The determinants of scholastic achievement: The contribution of personality traits, self-esteem, and academic self-efficacy. Learning and Individual Differences, 27, 102–108. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2013.07. 006. Ford, D. H., & Lerner, R. M. (1992). Developmental systems theory: An integrative approach. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Fraser–Thomas, J. L., Cote, J., & Deakin, J. (2005). Youth sport programs: An avenue to foster positive youth development. Physical Education & Sport Pedagogy. 10(1), 19–40. Grossman, J. B., & Rhodes, J. E. (2002). The test of time: Predictors and effects of duration in youth mentoring relationships. American Journal of Community Psychology, 30, 199–219. https://doi.org/10.1037/e314762004-001. Guo, S., & Fraser, M. W. (2010). Propensity score analysis: Statistical methods and applications. Los Angeles: Sage. Hagger, M. S., Chatzisarantis, N. L., Culverhouse, T., & Biddle, S. J. (2003). The processes by which perceived autonomy support in physical education promotes leisure-time physical activity intentions and behavior: A trans-contextual model. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(4), 784. Hirsch, B. J., Mekinda, M. A., & Stawicki, J. (2010). More than attendance: The importance of after-school program quality. American Journal of Community Psychology, 45, 447–452. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10464-010-9310-4. Holt, N. L., Kingsley, B. C., Tink, L. N., & Scherer, J. (2011). Benefits and challenges associated with sport participation by children and parents from low-income families. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 12, 490–499. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport.2011.05.007. Karcher, M. J., Kuperminc, G. P., Portwood, S. G., Sipe, C. L., & Taylor, A. S. (2006). Mentoring programs: A framework to inform program development, research and evaluation. Journal of Community Psychology, 34, 790. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcop.20125 725. Kim, H. Y., Frongillo, E. A., Han, S. S., Oh, S. Y., Kim, W. K., Jang, Y. A., & Kim, S. H. (2003). Academic performance of Korean children is associated with dietary behaviours and physical status. Asia Pacific Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 12, 186–192. Kolar, D. W., & McBride, C. A. (2011). Mentoring At-risk youth in schools: Can small doses make a big change? Mentoring & Tutoring: Partnership in Learning, 19, 125–138. https://doi.org/10.1080/13611267.2011.564347. Kristjánsson, L. A., Sigfúsdóttir, D. I., & Allegrante, J. P. (2010). Health behavior and academic achievement among adolescents: The relative contribution of dietary habits, physical activity, body mass index, and self-esteem. Health Education & Behavior, 37, 51–64. https://doi.org/10.1177/1090198107313481. Lerner, R. M., Lerner, J. V., Almerigi, J. B., Theokas, C., Phelps, E., Gestsdottir, S., & von Eye, A. (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. The Journal of Early Adolescence, 25(1), 17–71. McDavid, L., McDonough, M. H., Blankenship, B. T., & LeBreton, J. M. (2016). A test of basic psychological needs theory in a physical activity-based program for underserved youth. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 39, 29–42. https://doi.org/10.1123/jsep.2016-0038. McDonough, M. H., Ullrich-French, S., Anderson-Butcher, D., Amorose, A. J., & Riley, A. (2013). Social responsibility among low-income youth in physical activitybased positive youth development programs: Scale development and associations with social relationships. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 25, 431–447. https://doi.org/10.1080/10413200.2012.751563. Owen, K. B., Parker, P. D., Astell-Burt, T., & Lonsdale, C. (2018). Regular physical activity and educational outcomes in youth: A longitudinal study. Journal of Adolescent Health, 62, 334–340. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2017.09.014. Parchment, T. M., Jones, J., Del-Villar, Z., Small, L., & McKay, M. (2016). Integrating positive youth development and clinical care to enhance high school achievement for young people of color. Journal of Public Mental Health, 15, 50–62. https://doi.org/10.1108/JPMH-08-2015-0038. Schusler, T. M., Davis-Manigaulte, J., & Cutter-Mackenzie, A. (2017). Positive youth development. In A. Russ, & M. E. Krasny (Eds.). Urban environmental education review (pp. 165–174). Ithaca, New York: Cornell University Press. Snyder, C. R. (2002). Hope theory: Rainbows of the mind. Psychological Inquiry, 13, 249–275. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327965PLI1304_01. Stuart, E. A. (2010). Matching methods for causal inference: A review and a look forward. Statistical Science, 25(1), 1–21. Syväoja, H. J., Kantomaa, M. T., Ahonen, T., Hakonen, H., Kankaanpää, A., & Tammelin, T. H. (2013). Physical activity, sedentary behavior, and academic performance in Finnish children. Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, 45. https://doi.org/10.1249/MSS.0b013e318296d7b8. Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2012). Using Multivariate Statistics (6th). Boston: Pearson Education, Inc. Ullrich-French, S. C., McDonough, M. H., & Smith, A. L. (2012). Social Connection and Psychological Outcomes in a Physical Activity-Based Youth Development Setting. Research quarterly for exercise and sport, 83(3), 431–441. https://doi.org/10.1080/02701367.2012.10599878. Ullrich-French, S., & McDonough, M. H. (2013). Correlates of long-term participation in a physical activity-based positive youth development program for low-income youth: Sustained involvement and psychosocial outcomes. Journal of Adolescence, 36, 279–288. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2012.11.006. Vanneman, A., Hamilton, L., Baldwin Anderson, J., & Rahman, T. (2009). Achievement gaps: How black and white students in public schools perform in mathematics and reading on the national assessment of educational progress, (NCES 2009-455). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Votruba-Drzal, E. (2006). Economic disparities in middle childhood development: Does income matter? Developmental Psychology, 42, 1154–1167. https://doi.org/10. 1037/0012-1649.42.6.1.
151