Positive Youth Development (PYD) Among Latinx Adolescents

Background: Deficits-based approaches have predominated research on Latinx adolescents. Positive youth development (PYD) frameworks are needed within studies on Latinx youth to illuminate how their assets and strengths relate to their adjustment. Research should examine the applicability and roles of PYD constructs in Latinx adolescents’ development. Objective: This dissertation examines the measurement and developmental salience of PYD constructs among Latinx youth specifically. This overarching objective is divided into a scoping review and two empirical studies, drawing from an ethnically-homogenous Latinx adolescent sample. The studies focus on various components of the Five C’s model of PYD, a widely utilized and empirically supported PYD framework. Methods: The first study is a scoping review that examined the conceptualization and operationalization of future orientation constructs in studies of Latinx adolescents, as well as summarized the associations between future orientation constructs and indices of adjustment. The second study tested and compared factor structures of the PYD-Short Form (PYD-SF) using confirmatory factor analyses within a sample of Latinx adolescents, and examined the criterion validity of the Five C’s with key developmental outcomes. The third study utilized latent growth curve modeling to assess trajectories of thriving and the Five C’s over the transition to high school among Latinx adolescents, and tested factors hypothesized to have a promotive effect on thriving per the Five C’s model of PYD. Results: Within the scoping review, 31 studies were included in the full-text analysis. The articles examined various dimensions of future orientation as opposed to global future orientation. Future orientation constructs were promotive factors, buffers of risk, and key mechanisms in associations between Latinx youth’s cultural milieu and adjustment. The second study provided empirical support for the five-correlated factors model within a Latinx adolescent sample, and showed that the Five C’s were associated with important indicators of adolescent well-being (i.e., externalizing behaviors, internalizing behaviors, and academic achievement). The third study showed that thriving and the Five C’s displayed slight declines over the transition to high school. Select individual assets (i.e., educational expectations, emotional school engagement) and ecological assets (i.e., maternal warmth, paternal warmth) were promotive of baseline levels of thriving and the Five C’s, but were not positively related to the linear slope terms in the models. Conclusions: Together, these studies suggested the developmental salience of PYD constructs (i.e., future orientation and the Five C’s of PYD) in Latinx adolescents’ development. However, more investigation is needed to improve the measurement of future orientation and global PYD (i.e., overall thriving). The Five C’s model of PYD may need to be expanded to capture sociocultural factors that relate to thriving among Latinx youth specifically