Involvement and Interaction Rating Scale: A Tool for Assessing YouthAdult Partnerships

1
Involvement and Interaction Rating Scale A Tool
for Assessing Youth-Adult Partnerships

• Kenneth R. Jones
• Department of Community Leadership Development
• University of Kentucky

2
Introduction

• Communities often fall short of totally engaging
  those citizens that will be most affected by
  decision-making (Wolf, 2001).
• Adults are normally at the forefront of community
  affairs, often making decisions without
  consulting young people.

3
Statement of the Problem

• Youth often lack access to a variety of
  opportunities for positive development.
• The impact of negative perceptions that youth and
  adults have towards one another is a major
  barrier that hinders achieving positive
  relationships.

4
Review of the Literature

• A high majority of adults do not view adolescents
  as potential community leaders (Zeldin, 2000).
• Supportive relationships with non-parent adults
  can powerfully influence the course and quality
  of adolescents lives (Eccles Gootman, 2002
  Perkins Borden, 2003 Rhodes, 2002).

5
Review of the Literature

• Experience is highly valued in the individual
  learning process (Dewey, 1938 Knowles, 1980
  Kolb, 1984).
• Group interaction helps to dispel stereotypes
  (Allport, 1954 Pettigrew, 1998).

6
Review of the Literature

• Youth and adult perceptions of their experiences
  with one another is a key indicator of
  determining a quality relationship (Herrera,
  Sipe, McClanahan, Arbreton, Pepper, 2000).
• When serving as partners, youth develop
  leadership potential and personal development
  (Lerner, Dowling, Anderson, 2003).

7
Key questions

• What is a youth-adult partnership/How do we
  define it?
• Is one type of youth-adult relationship better
  than another in transforming perceptions?
• Are the key elements identified by previous
  research only unique to youth-adult partnerships?

8
Purpose

• Discuss the characteristics of various
  youth-adult relationships, including youth-adult
  partnerships
• Assess youth-adult groups for relationship
  quality
• Determine how perceptions impact a youth-adult
  relationship

9
True Partnerships

• Employ the opportunity to voice opinions and make
  key decisions (Norman, 2001).
• Include identifiable elements such as exercising
  decision making, having a role in building
  communities, and mutual teaching and learning
  (Camino, 2000).
• Create a learning environment where people come
  together with a willingness to share authority,
  accept responsibility and highlight individual
  members abilities and contributions (Panitz,
  1996).

10
Youth-Adult Partnership A Working Definition
A fostered relationship between youth and adults
where both parties have equal potential in making
decisions, utilizing skills, mutual learning and
promoting change through civic engagement,
program planning and/or community development
initiatives. Jones, K. Perkins, D. (in press)
11
Youth-Adult Relationship Continuum Model
Adult-Driven
Youth-Driven
12
YAP Continuum

• Adult-Centered Leadership
• Adult-led decision making
• Passive youth participation
• No youth voice in planning, implementation or
  evaluation

13
YAP Continuum

• Adult-Led Collaboration
• Some,yet limited youth decision-making
• More closeness or friendship between youth and
  adults
• Majority of youth are young, never partnered with
  adults
• Adults remain the driving force in partnership

14
YAP Continuum

• Youth-Adult Partnership
• Both parties have equal opportunities in
  decision-making
• Independently carry out tasks to reach goals
• Acknowledges learning from one another
• Youth develop leadership skills
• Adults become aware of and respect the power of
  youth

15
YAP Continuum

• Youth-Led Collaboration
• Limited adult supervision
• Youth more experienced and determine their
  particular needs
• Youth implement plan to address issues
• Adults normally handle administrative tasks

16
YAP Continuum

• Youth-Centered Leadership
• High level of youth activity
• Little if any adult participation or interaction
• Seldom occurring in structured environments
• Often involves negative behaviors (gang
  affiliation, etc.)

17
Youth-Adult Relationship Continuum Model
Where is your group along the Continuum?
18
Involvement and Interaction Rating Scale

• The Involvement and Interaction Rating Scale can
  be used by
• Youth and adults to measure their perceptions
  towards their experiences of working together as
  community partners
• Youth development professionals (e.g., 4-H youth
  development agent/educator) to assess group
  dynamics that occur

19
Use of Rating Scale
Youth development professionals can first
identify, then rate and classify each group
based on questions developed from the
Youth-Adult Relationships Continuum Model
20
Use of Rating Scale

• Group participants can rate the quality of their
  existing youth-adult relationships (with members
  of their project team)
• The scale measures participants perceptions
  toward the levels of
• youth involvement
• adult involvement
• youth-adult interaction

21
Reliability of the Scale

• As a measure of reliability for the Involvement
  and Interaction Rating Scale, a post-hoc test was
  conducted, which reported an overall Cronbachs
  Alpha of .94. The Cronbachs Alpha reliability
  coefficients for each of the constructs were as
  follows
• Youth Involvement (.83)
• Adult Involvement (.84)
• Youth-Adult Interaction (.87)

22
Youth Involvement

• Youth involvement was rated based on
• Youth working primarily with their peers to carry
  out a task related to the project.
• Level at which young people demonstrate youth
  voice and decision-making, responsibility, and
  commitment to the project.

23
Adult Involvement

• Adults working together in a given situation
  (e.g., raising funds or handling other
  administrative duties).
• Measures adults support, their dedication to the
  project and commitment to nurturing youth voice
  and decision-making.

24
Youth-Adult Interaction

• A rating of youth-adult interaction is based on
  the level at which
• Youth and adults work collectively, engaging in
  one or more components of a project
• Youth and adults fully exercise an equal
  opportunity to utilize decision-making and other
  leadership skills.
• Civility and mutual respect is reflected among
  one another.

25
Example Perceptions of Participants
Note. SPSS used for analysis Scale ranged from
1-10.
26
Comparison of Youth and Adult Perceptions
Note. Scale ranged from 1-10.
27
Example Perceptions by Gender
Note. SPSS used for analysis plt .01 plt
.05 Scale ranged from 1-10.
28
Perceptions by Gender
Note. plt .01 plt .05 Scale ranged from
1-10.
29
Characteristics of a Youth-Adult Partnership
High levels of youth involvement, adult
involvement interaction
Note. ? Low (1 to 5) ? High (6 to 10)
30
Note. ? Low (1 to 5) ? High (6 to 10)
31
Note. ? Low (1 to 5) ? High (6 to 10)
32
Identifying Themes

• The Scale can be used, while making observations,
  to rate group dynamics based on the following
  themes
• Adult Support
• Civility
• Community Obligation
• Decision-making
• Mutual Learning
• Mutual Respect
• Youth Responsibility
• Youth Voice

33
Researchers Ratings of Groups
Note. Ratings based on observations, rating
scales, and interviews Scale ranged from 1 very
poor to 10 excellent
34
Researchers Ratings of Groups
Note. Ratings based on observations, rating
scales, and interviews Scale ranged from 1 very
poor to 10 excellent
35
Comparison of Researchers and Participants
Group Ratings
36
Comparison of Researchers and Participants
Group Ratings
37
Adult-Led vs. Youth-Led

• Adult-Led
• Low youth involvement
• High adult involvement
• High level of adult support
• Youth dependent upon adults
• Varied youth-adult interaction
• Majority of youth were younger, inexperienced

• Youth-Led
• High youth involvement
• Low adult involvement
• High level of adult support
• Youth demonstrated high levels of independence
• Low to moderate youth-adult interaction
• Majority of youth were older, experienced

38
In Summary

• The Involvement and Interaction Rating Scale is
• Suitable for teens and adult participants
• Most appropriate for use after groups have worked
  together for a while
• Useful when collecting and analyzing data with
  basic computer programs, such as Excel

39
Where to from here?

• Should we focus on obtaining a Youth-Adult
  Partnership or Positive Youth-Adult Relationships?

40
Relations, Relations, Relations!!!
Relationships are to youth development what
location is to real estate.  James Comer,
M.D.  Professor of Child Psychiatry  Yale
University School of Medicine
41
Contact Information

• Kenneth R. Jones, Ph.D.
• Assistant Professor Youth Development
  Specialist
• Dept. of Community and Leadership Development
• 500 Garrigus Bldg.
• University of Kentucky
• Lexington, KY 40546
• Ph 859-257-3275
• Email kenrjones_at_uky.edu