Predicting Youth Engagement: The Role of Initiating and Sustaining Factors Linda Rose-Krasnor 1, Kelly Campbell 1, Lisa Loiselle 2, Mark Pancer 3, Michael Busseri 1 The Centre of Excellence for Youth Engagement 1 Brock University, 2 University of Waterloo, 3 Wilfrid Laurier University The Centres of Excellence are a Health Canada-funded program. The opinions expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect those of Health Canada. Abstract Youth engagement has been associated with a wide variety of positive outcomes. It is important, therefore, to better understand factors that may facilitate and maintain involvement. With survey data from 192 youth, we assessed latent constructs of initiating, sustaining, and engagement factors. Personal values and social responsibility had the largest loadings on the initiating factor; support for involvement had the largest loading on the sustaining factor; and general engagement had the largest loading on the engagement factor. A test of the latent regression model indicated that initiating and sustaining factors explained 39% of the variance in the latent engagement factor. Initiating and sustaining factors were strongly correlated, however, and the unique contribution of the initiating factor to engagement was small. Introduction Youth engagement is the meaningful and sustained involvement of a young person in an activity, focusing outside the self. Engagement has been associated with a variety of positive outcomes, including self-system qualities (e.g., self- esteem), skills (e.g., leadership), and positive social interactions. Given engagement’s potential benefits, it is important to increase our understanding of factors that may help youth become involved, as well as those that may sustain involvement. Our investigations of youth engagement are guided by the framework presented in Fig. 1. In this model, youth engagement results from initiating factors such as altruism. Other influences, such as social support and sense of efficacy, contribute to the maintenance of youth involvement over time. Engagement, in turn, is expected to lead to various positive outcomes. In addition, our model also allows the possibility that initiating and sustaining factors may be related to each other, as well as having direct links to outcomes. We conducted a partial test of our model using structural equation modelling. We first assessed a measurement model that included latent variables for initiating, sustaining, and engagement factors. Next, we tested a latent regression model assessing links between engagement and both initiating and sustaining factors. Fig. 1. Model of Youth Engagement Analyses Three latent factors were included as structural model components: (1) initiating (measured by personal values, social responsibility, religiosity/ spirituality, and sense of neighborhood); (2) sustaining (measured by social support, attitudes towards involvement, support for involvement, and youth efficacy); and (3) engagement (measured by general, political, and local/community engagement scores). First, we examined the relationships among the latent initiating, sustaining, and engagement factors in a structural equation model (the measurement model) by specifying correlated paths between each pair of factors. Second, we regressed the latent engagement factor onto the latent initiating and sustaining factors, while allowing the latent predictors to be correlated (the latent regression model). Measures Personal values (Pratt, Pancer, & Hunsberger, submitted). Social responsibility (Pancer, Pratt, & Hunsberger, 2000). Religiosity/spirituality. (perceived importance for self and family). Sense of neighborhood (National Longitudinal Study of Children and Youth). Social support. (Cutrona & Russell, 1987). Support for engagement. Attitudes towards engagement. (negative beliefs, self-serving motivations and perceived barriers to involvement) Youth efficacy (beliefs about youth’s ability to change society). Youth engagement (Pancer, et al., submitted). Principle components analyses (oblique rotation) yielded 3 moderately correlated factors: general/ volunteering, and local/community involvement. Perceived personal skills. Principle components analysis (oblique rotation) yielded 3 moderately correlated factors: leadership, teamwork, communication. Self-esteem. (adapted from Rosenberg,1965). Optimism (Goodman, Knight, & Durant, 1997). Coping with stress (Cohen, Kamarc, & Mermelstein, 1983). Social interaction frequency with friends, parents, and other important adults (Pancer, et al., 2000). Participants and Procedures A convenience sample of 192 youth who applied to attend one of three national youth conferences voluntarily completed a 40-min. survey. The survey was mailed to potential participants prior to the conference and either returned by mail or completed upon arrival. M age = yrs. (SD = 1.03), ranging from 14 to 19 yrs; 76% were female. Results Relationships Among Initiating, Sustaining, and Engagement Factors The fit for the base model specifying correlational paths between pairs of latent factors was χ 2 (41) = 99.40, χ 2 /df = 2.42, CFI =.86, RMSEA =.09. Based on modification indices, 2 correlated paths between pairs of unique variance terms were added sequentially, resulting in significant improvement. The revised model provided a good fit to the data; χ 2 (38) = 74.93, χ 2 /df = 1.92, CFI =.91, RMSEA =.07. Latent factors were moderately to strongly correlated (see Fig. 2). The largest loadings on the initiating factor were personal values and social responsibility. For the sustaining factor, support for involvement had the strongest factor loading. Each of the 3 involvement scales showed strong loadings on engagement. Predicting Engagement from Initiating and Sustaining Factors Overall, 39% of the variance in the latent engagement was explained by initiating and sustaining factors. Of the 2 latent predictors, the sustaining factor showed a strong positive relationship. In contrast, although strongly correlated with the sustaining factor, the unique contribution of the initiating factor to the prediction of engagement was small and statistically non-significant (see Fig. 3.) Figure 2. Measurement Model Standardized results are shown. Large ovals represent latent factors. Rectangles represent measured variables. Small ovals represent unique variance. All paths are significant at p <.05. (f) indicates path fixed for model identification purposes. Numbers in parentheses indicate proportion of variance explained in each measure. Figure 3. Latent Regression Model Large ovals represent latent factors. Standardized results are shown. Number in parentheses indicates proportion of variance explained in the latent engagement factor. All paths are significant at p <.05 except *. Conclusions With survey data from 192 youth, we used structural equation modeling to assess latent constructs of initiating, sustaining, and engagement factors. Personal values and social responsibility had the largest loadings on the initiating factor; support for involvement had the largest loading on the sustaining factor; and general engagement had the largest loading on the engagement factor. There were few significant associations found between our three latent constructs and age or gender. The structural equation modeling approach allowed a simultaneous assessment of the relations among initiating, sustaining and engagement factors. A test of the latent regression model indicated that initiating and sustaining factors explained 39% of the variance in the latent engagement factor. Initiating and sustaining factors were strongly correlated, however. This may partially explain our finding that the unique contribution of initiating factor to engagement was small and non-significant. Other potential initiating variables (e.g., parental modeling of engagement, teacher invitation to participate), which were not measured in this study, may show stronger unique relations to engagement. In future research, it will be important to look at the quality of engagement experience, in addition to the frequency of involvement. InitiatingEngagementOutcomes Sustaining Initiating Engagement (.39) Sustaining -.02*.64.77