Content uploaded by Brian D Christens
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Brian D Christens on Nov 07, 2017
Content may be subject to copyright.
ARTICLE
MEASURING YOUTH
EMPOWERMENT: VALIDATION
OF A SOCIOPOLITICAL CONTROL
SCALE FOR YOUTH IN AN URBAN
COMMUNITY CONTEXT
N. Andrew Peterson
Rutgers University
Christina Hamme Peterson
Rider University
Lynn Agre
Rutgers University
Brian D. Christens
University of Wisconsin-Madison
Cory Michael Morton
Rutgers University
Sociopolitical control (SPC) is generally considered to be a vital element
of the intrapersonal component of psychological empowerment, despite
contradictory findings concerning the dimensionality of the construct
when applied to a youth population. This study tested the Sociopolitical
Control Scale for Youth (SPCS-Y), which was designed to represent the
two hypothesized dimensions of leadership competence and policy control,
using data from a sample of urban youth (n 5865) located in the
northeastern United States. Results indicated that the hypothesized
2-factor model provided an adequate model-to-data fit, and that this
model was a significantly better fit to the data than the 1-factor model.
Further analysis showed that SPC profile groups differed significantly on
measures of community and school participation, neighborhood attach-
ment, perceived school importance, and drug use. Findings provide
empirical support for the validity of the SPCS-Y and its underlying
Correspondence to: N. Andrew Peterson, Rutgers University, 536 George Street, Room 303A, New
Brunswick, NJ 08901. E-mail: andrew.peterson@ssw.rutgers.edu
JOURNAL OF COMMUNITY PSYCHOLOGY, Vol. 39, No. 5, 592–605 (2011)
Published online in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/jcop).
&2011 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. DOI: 10.1002/jcop.20456
bidimensional model of SPC. Implications and directions for future
research are discussed. C2011 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
Youth empowerment represents an important topic for research and practice (Berg,
Coman, & Schensul, 2009; Franzen, Morrel-Samuels, Reischl, & Zimmerman, 2009;
Russell, Muraco, Subramaniam, & Laub, 2009; Walker, Thorne, Powers, & Gaonkar,
2010; Watts & Flanagan, 2007). Zimmerman’s (1995, 2000) ideas on empowerment
have been widely applied to guide studies and interventions with both youth and adult
populations in a variety of substantive domains, such as community organizing and
activism (Christens, Peterson, & Speer, in press; Hamilton & Fauri, 2001; Itzhaky &
York, 2000, 2003; Speer, 2000), human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) prevention
(Carballo-Dieguez et al., 2005), as well as forestry and environmental protection
(Smith & Propst, 2001). In addition, Holden, Messeri, Evans, Crankshaw, and
Ben-Davis (2004) described the application of Zimmerman’s (1995) model of
psychological empowerment (PE) to the national evaluation of the American Legacy
Foundation’s Statewide Youth Movement Against Tobacco Use (SYMATU) initiative.
Holden et al. (2004) considered youth PE as essential for the ability of SYMATU
coalitions to create environmental and policy changes that could reduce smoking
prevalence in their communities.
Much of the research on PE has focused on measuring an element of the construct
referred to as sociopolitical control (SPC; Peterson et al., 2006). Sociopolitical control
refers to people’s belief about their skills and capabilities in social and political systems
(Zimmerman & Zahniser, 1991). In adult populations, SPC is often conceptualized as a
bidimensional construct (Itzhaky & York, 2003; Smith & Propst, 2001); however,
among youth, it has been applied as unidimensional (Holden et al., 2004). Here we
present a study designed to test the validity of a scale that was developed as a
bidimensional measure of SPC applicable among youth in an urban U.S. context. The
study tested the underlying structure of the scale, created SPC profile groups based on
youths’ scores on the two SPC dimensions of leadership competence and policy
control, and examined differences between the SPC profile groups on a set of variables
that may be considered as conceptually relevant to youth empowerment.
DIMENSIONS OF SOCIOPOLITICAL CONTROL AND THEIR ROLE WITHIN
A FRAMEWORK OF PSYCHOLOGICAL EMPOWERMENT
Psychological empowerment was conceptualized in Zimmerman’s (1995) model as
including three interrelated components: intrapersonal, interactional, and behavioral.
The intrapersonal component of PE, which includes SPC, involves concepts such as
individual competence, efficacy, and mastery. Zimmerman (1995) theorized that this
component of PE ‘‘refers to beliefs about one’s ability to exert influence in different life
spheres such as work, family, or sociopolitical contexts’’ (p. 588). These beliefs may be
crucial for individuals to engage in proactive behaviors needed to achieve their goals.
The interactional component of PE was considered by Zimmerman to involve an
individual’s critical awareness and understanding of the sociopolitical environment,
such as awareness of the resources one may need to achieve goals as well as the
knowledge of how to obtain and manage those resources. The behavioral component
of PE was conceptualized as individual actions that are expected to directly affect
Measuring Youth Empowerment 593
Journal of Community Psychology DOI: 10.1002/jcop
outcomes. Zimmerman’s (1995, 2000) ideas on empowerment generally, and this
model of PE specifically, have been useful to practitioners and researchers because
they have provided a guide that can be used to develop and evaluate community-based
interventions that have been designed to be psychologically empowering.
Sociopolitical control has generally been considered to be a vital element of the
intrapersonal component of PE, and it has traditionally been used in measures of the
construct (Carballo-Dieguez et al., 2005; Hamilton & Fauri, 2001; Itzhaky, 2003; Itzhaky
& York, 2000, 2003; Peterson & Hughey, 2004; Peterson et al., 2006; Peterson & Reid,
2003; Speer, 2000; Speer, Jackson, & Peterson, 2001; Speer & Peterson, 2000; Smith &
Propst, 2001; Zimmerman, Ramirez-Valles, & Maton, 1999). Based on the work of
Zimmerman and Zahniser (1991), SPC has usually been conceptualized as including two
dimensions: leadership competence (i.e., people’s self-perceptions of their skill at
organizing a group of people) and policy control (i.e., people’s self-perceptions of their
ability to influence policy decisions in an organization or community). The findings of
recent studies, however, have produced contradictory findings concerning the
dimensionality of the construct when applied to a youth population. Specifically,
Holden and colleagues (Holden, Crankshaw, Nimsch, Hinnant, & Hund, 2004; Holden,
Evans, Hinnant, & Messeri, 2005) presented a unidimensional measure of SPC as part of
their tests of a broader scale that was designed to assess PE among youth participating in
the SYMATU initiative. Holden et al. (2004, 2005) constructed their measure of SPC
using items from Zimmerman and Zahniser’s (1991) foundational, bidimensional
measure of the construct. Importantly, SPC was conceptualized and tested in Holden’s
(2004, 2005) studies as unidimensional despite their use of items from each of
Zimmerman and Zahniser’s (1991) two original subscales of leadership competence and
policy control, as well as the findings of previous research showing SPC to be a
bidimensional construct (Smith & Propst, 2001).
Zimmerman and Zahniser (1991) initially developed an instrument that was
intended to bridge literature and measures of SPC and PE. The scale, which they
referred to as the Sociopolitical Control Scale (SPCS), was designed as an integrated
measure, drawing on items from scales of related aspects of SPC (e.g., political efficacy,
perceived competence, and sense of mastery). The 17 items included in the SPCS were
selected based on empirical evidence and conceptual fit with the meaning of the
underlying concepts. The items were found to represent two subscales referred to as
leadership competence and policy control. Subsequent research also found support for
these two dimensions of SPC. In two other published studies of the underlying
structure of the SPCS, Smith and Propst’s (2001) and Peterson et al.’s (2006) research
yielded similar findings—the two hypothesized SPC factors of leadership competence
and policy control were confirmed. Together, the findings from these studies provide
strong evidence that SPC is a bidimensional rather than unidimensional construct.
Holden et al.’s (2004, 2005) studies provided a valuable test of empowerment
concepts and represent an important milestone in the application and development of
empowerment theory. Yet, it may be critical for researchers and practitioners to
distinguish, measure, and target the two separate and distinct SPC dimensions of
leadership competence and policy control, if they exist, in their work with youth.
Zimmerman and Zahniser (1991) emphasized the potential importance of differentiat-
ing skills (leadership competence) and participatory expectations (policy control) in
community-based research or the evaluation of empowerment-based interventions, and
they suggested that future work might benefit from exploring four theoretical SPC
profiles created using SPCS subscales. One example of the application of this approach
594 Journal of Community Psychology, July 2011
Journal of Community Psychology DOI: 10.1002/jcop
was provided by Speer (2000). He created profile groups of adults based on their SPC
scores (e.g., one group of individuals was created based on their higher scores on both
SPC dimensions, another group of those with lower scores on both dimensions, and
groups for those with higher scores on only one of the two dimensions). He also
developed profile groups based on people’s scores on a measure that assessed aspects of
interactional PE. Significant differences between profile groups were found by Speer
(2000) on measures of organizational and community participation, engagement in
prevention activities, and sense of community, suggesting that it may be crucial for
researchers and practitioners to consider how constellations of different PE dimensions
may be important depending on the desired outcome. This approach has not been
explored with a youth population. The precise measurement of the dimensions of SPC
would be vital to this approach as well as studies that evaluate more generally those
interventions that promote community involvement, citizenship, and intrapersonal PE.
Present Study
In the present study, a measure of SPC, tailored for youth, was hypothesized as
representing the two dimensions of leadership competence and policy control. Both
the 1-factor and 2-factor models of SPC were tested, and profile groups were
developed based on youths’ scores on the two hypothesized dimensions of SPC.
We then tested differences between the SPC profile groups on a set of variables
(i.e., community and school participation, neighborhood attachment, perceived school
importance, and alcohol and drug use) that may be considered as conceptually
relevant to youth empowerment. Although no previous research has specifically
examined differences between SPC profile groups among youth, prior studies have
considered the relationships between empowerment and the set of variables included
in this study. We expected, based on previous empowerment-based research with
youth populations, that the group with higher scores on the two SPC dimensions
would report greater community and school participation (Lipschitz-Elhawi & Itzhaky,
2005), neighborhood attachment (Dallago, Francesca, Perkins, Nation, & Santinello,
2010), and perceived school importance (Bradshaw, O’Brennan, & McNeely, 2008;
Speer, 2008) and lower scores on alcohol and drug use (Haegerich & Tolan, 2008;
Kim, Crutchfield, Williams, & Helper, 1998; Peterson, Buser, & Westburg, 2010;
Wilson, Minkler, Dasho, Wallerstein, & Martin, 2008) than the other SPC profile
groups. In addition, based on the work of Speer (2000), we anticipated that there may
be certain SPC profiles that are more relevant for different outcomes, which would
provide further evidence for the need to consider the bidimensionality of SPC among
youth. Given the contradictory findings of previous research concerning the
dimensionality of SPC when applied to a youth population, as well as the widespread
interest in this aspect of the intrapersonal component of PE, additional research was
needed to test the measurement and bidimensionality of this construct.
METHOD
Participants
Participants (n5865) were high school students who were surveyed in year 2007. Nine
hundred seventy-seven high school students participated in the survey. Because the
Measuring Youth Empowerment 595
Journal of Community Psychology DOI: 10.1002/jcop
main purpose of this research was to test the bidimensional structure of a measure of
SPC, only those 865 students who completed all items of the SPC measure were
included in this analysis. This sample (n5865) was 60% female and 55% Hispanic. In
addition, the sample was 37% Black or African American; 4% Asian; and, 4% White,
non-Hispanic. Regarding years in high school, approximately 16% of the participants
were in the 9th grade; 23% were in the 10th grade; 29% were in the 11th grade, and,
33% of the participants were in the 12th grade.
Measures
Sociopolitical control. The measure of SPC used in this study was a 17-item scale,
henceforth referred to as the Sociopolitical Control Scale for Youth (SPCS-Y), which
was based on the work of Zimmerman and Zahniser (1991), Holden et al. (2004, 2005),
andPetersonetal.(2006).ItemsoftheSPCS-YareshownintheAppendix.TheSPCS-Y
(overall scale: Cronbach’s a5.89; M53.71; SD 5.64) was designed to include two
subscales. The first subscale included eight items to assess leadership competence
(Cronbach’s a5.81; M53.80; SD 5.73); the second subscale included nine items to
assess policy control (Cronbach’s a5.85; M53.65; SD 5.70). As indicated in the
Appendix, one item of the policy control subscale was drawn directly from Holden
et al. (2004). Other items in the policy control subscale were designed to reference
‘‘community or school’’ to be consistent with Holden et al. (2004). All items were
developed to be consistent with Zimmerman and Zahniser (1991) and the positive
wording of SPC items as recommended by Peterson et al. (2006). All respondents
answered items in the SPCS-Y using a 5-point, Likert-type response option format
ranging from Strongly disagree to Strongly agree. Items were coded so that higher scores
represented higher levels of SPC. Scores represented the mean of items in each
subscale.
Conceptually relevant variables. Four additional measures were administered to
participants and included in this study to examine their relationships with SPC.
Community and school participation (Cronbach’s a5.69; M52.57; SD 51.01) was
measured using a scale designed specifically for the study. It consisted of five items
assessing individuals’ engagement in extracurricular activities beyond the require-
ments of the school day. The five items asked respondents how often they undertook
particular activities (e.g., attend meetings or activities for a club or youth group, go to a
program for learning or for fun) and used a 5-point, Likert-type scale ranging from
Almost every day to Never. Items were reverse scored prior to analysis. Neighborhood
attachment (Cronbach’s a5.86, M52.24, SD 51.35) was measured using three items
from the Communities that Care Youth Survey, a self-report instrument for
adolescents that measured multiple risk and protective factors (Arthur, Hawkins,
Pollard, Catalano, & Baglioni, 2002). Items were answered using a 4-point Likert-type
scale ranging from Strongly disagree to Strongly agree. Perceived school importance
(Cronbach’s a5.89, M54.64; SD 5.76) was assessed using a 4-item scale developed
by Stevenson, Maton, and Teti (1998). Respondents answered items such as ‘‘How
important to you is finishing high school?’’ and ‘‘How important is going to college in
obtaining your life goals?’’ using a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from Not at all
important to Very important. Alcohol and drug use (Cronbach’s a5.95, M5.91,
SD 5.73) was assessed via 18 items from the National Youth Risk Behavior Survey
(Centers for Disease Control & Prevention, 2004). Questions were intended to
596 Journal of Community Psychology, July 2011
Journal of Community Psychology DOI: 10.1002/jcop
determine the frequency of use currently and in the lifetime for different types of
substances, such as cigarettes, chewing tobacco, cigars, alcohol, marijuana, cocaine,
inhalants, methamphetamines, heroin, ecstasy, illegal drugs through injection, and
steroids without a prescription. Scores were the mean of responses to the current use
items, with higher scores indicating greater frequency of drug use.
Procedures
Participants were surveyed as part of a comprehensive needs assessment for a federal
initiative to prevent substance abuse and sexual risk taking behaviors among racial and
ethnic minority youth in an urban community. The sample setting is considered
among the 30 poorest school districts and has among the highest rates for substance
abuse and certain sexually transmitted diseases in this northeastern U.S. state. Self-
administered written surveys were distributed by school district personnel in randomly
selected health education classes.
Analysis
Two analyses, including confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) and multivariate analysis of
covariance (MANCOVA), were performed. We used CFA to assess two models: Model 1,
the 1-factor SPCS-Y; and Model 2, the 2-factor SPCS-Y. The CFAs were conducted
using maximum likelihood estimation procedures of AMOS 16.0 and the indices that
we interpreted are considered to be acceptable measures of fit. The MANCOVA was
performed using PASW Statistics 18.0 to examine whether profile groups, which were
created on the basis of scores on the two SPCS-Y subscales (mean split), differed on
measures of community and school participation, neighborhood attachment, and
perceived school importance, as well as alcohol and drug use. Consistent with the
recommendations of Zimmerman and Zahniser (1991) and the work of Speer (2000),
we created four SPC profile groups: (a) individuals with higher scores on both SPC
dimensions of leadership competence and policy control; (b) individuals with higher
scores on leadership competence, but lower scores on policy control; (c) individuals
with higher scores on policy control, but lower scores on leadership competence; and
(d) individuals with lower scores on both leadership competence and policy control.
Prior to conducting our main analyses, we examined descriptive statistics and
correlations among the SPCS-Y items. Univariate skewness and kurtosis values
indicated normal distributions for the item responses. All of the items in the SPCS-Y
were included in the final analyses.
RESULTS
Results of the CFAs are shown in Tables 1 and 2. Table 1 presents fit indices for the two
models of the SPCS-Y; Table 2 shows the standardized loadings for the models that
were tested in this study. As can be seen in Table 1, the 1-factor solution for the SPCS-Y
(Model 1) provided the poorest fit to the data. The chi square (w
2
) values were
statistically significant for both models; however, the w
2
is often considered too
stringent and an unrealistic standard as a goodness-of-fit statistic. Conversely, the other
fit indices indicate that Model 2, the 2-factor solution for the SPCS-Y, provided an
adequate fit to the data from our sample of respondents. For Model 2, the Goodness-of-
Fit Index (GFI) and the Comparative Fit Index (CFI) were above .90, indicating
Measuring Youth Empowerment 597
Journal of Community Psychology DOI: 10.1002/jcop
acceptable model-to-data fit. The same pattern was found for the Expected Cross-
Validation Index (ECVI) values and the root mean square of error approximation
(RMSEA) values for the models. Higher ECVI and RMSEA values indicated poorer fit
for Model 1, whereas lower values indicate better fit for Model 2. Importantly, the 90%
confidence intervals (CIs) for the ECVI and the RMSEA, which are also presented in
Table 1, indicate differences in fit between Models 1 and 2. The 90% CIs allow
comparison between Model 1 (the 1-factor SPCS-Y) and Model 2 (the 2-factor SPCS-Y)
Table 1. Overall Fit Statistics for Sociopolitical Control Scale for Youth (SPCS-Y) Confirmatory
Factor Analysis, n 5865
Models
Measures of fit Model 1: 1-Factor SPCS-Y Model 2: 2-Factor SPCS-Y
w
2
916.497 519.935
df 119 118
p-Value o.001 o.001
GFI .857 .931
CFI .830 .914
ECVI (90% CI) 1.139 (1.032, 1.255) .683 (.605, .769)
RMSEA (90% CI) .088 (.083, .093) .063 (.057, .068)
Note: SPCS-Y 5Sociopolitical Control Scale for Youth; df 5degrees of freedom; GFI 5Goodness-of-Fit Index;
CFI 5Comparative Fit Inde x; ECVI 5Expected Cross-Validation Index; CI 5confidence interval; RMSEA 5root
mean square error of approximation.
Table 2. Standardized Regression Weights for Sociopolitical Control Scale for Youth (SPCS-Y)
Confirmatory Factor Analysis, n 5865
Models
Model 2: 2-Factor SPCS-Y
Item Model 1: 1-Factor SPCS-Y Leadership competence Policy control
SPCS-Y1 .56 .66
SPCS-Y2 .47 .56
SPCS-Y3 .56 .64
SPCS-Y4 .61 .67
SPCS-Y5 .58 .68
SPCS-Y6 .51 .53
SPCS-Y7 .44 .49
SPCS-Y8 .59 .58
SPCS-Y9 .65 .66
SPCS-Y10 .57 .59
SPCS-Y11 .62 .62
SPCS-Y12 .59 .63
SPCS-Y13 .64 .67
SPCS-Y14 .57 .64
SPCS-Y15 .56 .62
SPCS-Y16 .58 .60
SPCS-Y17 .55 .61
Note: Items correspond to the SPCS-Y as shown in the Appendix.
598 Journal of Community Psychology, July 2011
Journal of Community Psychology DOI: 10.1002/jcop
by examining the extent of overlap between the models. As can be seen in Table 1, the
CIs did not overlap between Models 1 and 2, indicating that the two models fit the data
differently. Model 2, which had the smallest ECVI and RMSEA values, may be
interpreted as fitting the data better than Model 1 for the data from our sample. In
addition, Table 2 shows the standardized loadings that represent the strength of each
SPCS-Y item in relation to the hypothesized factor that was tested in the analysis. As
can be seen in Table 2, items consistently had stronger loadings in Model 2, the
2-factor solution for the SPCS-Y.
Results of the one-way MANCOVA are presented in Table 3. Fourteen individuals
did not provide demographic data for gender and Hispanic origin and were therefore
excluded from this analysis. The covariates in the analysis were several demographic
variables that were found to be related with membership in the SPC profile groups:
grade in school, w
2
(9) 519.34, po.05; gender, w
2
(3) 59.73, po.05; Hispanic origin,
w
2
(3) 518.26, po.05; and racial category (i.e., Black or African American vs. Other),
w
2
(3) 515.57, po.001. More specifically, students in the upper grades had higher
percentages of students who were in Group 1 (i.e., higher scores on both SPC
dimensions); students in the ninth grade had a higher percentage of students in Group
4 (i.e., lower scores on both SPC dimensions). In addition, girls had a greater
percentage in Group 1 than boys, whereas Hispanics had a greater percentage in
Group 4 than non-Hispanics. Finally, individuals who were Black or African American
had a greater percentage in Group 1 than did those whose racial category was not
Black or African American.
As can be seen in Table 3, MANCOVA results demonstrated that, after controlling
for demographics, statistically significant differences were found between SPC profile
groups for all four of the conceptually relevant variables. Post hoc pairwise
comparisons showed that individuals in Group 1 (i.e., individuals with higher scores
Table 3. Multivariate Analysis of Covariance Comparing Profiles Groups of the Sociopolitical
Control Scale for Youth (SPCS-Y) With Community and School Participation, Neighborhood
Attachment, School Importance, and Alcohol and Drug Use
SPCS-Y Profile Group Means
Variable
1. High on
both leadership
competence and
policy control
2. High on
leadership
competence, but
low on policy
control
3. High on
policy control,
but low on
leadership
competence
4. Low on
both leadership
competence and
policy control
Univariate
F(3, 843)
Means
Different,
po.01
Community
and school
participation
2.80 2.44 2.42 2.43 7.58
142, 3, 4
Neighborhood
attachment
2.43 1.99 2.37 1.92 15.06
1, 342, 4
School
importance
4.76 4.65 4.77 4.44 4.30
1, 344
Alcohol &
drug use
1.37 1.68 1.41 1.77 10.95
1, 3o2, 4
Note: Overall SPCS-Y multivariate analysis of covariance: Wilks’ Lambda 5.88; F(12, 2222.72) 58.94, po.001.
Covariates: Grade, Gender, Hispanic, and Black/African American.
po.01;
po.001.
Measuring Youth Empowerment 599
Journal of Community Psychology DOI: 10.1002/jcop
on both SPC dimensions) had significantly higher scores on community and school
participation than individuals in the other three SPC profile groups. In addition, post
hoc analysis indicated that individuals in Group 1 and Group 3 (i.e., individuals with
higher scores on only the policy control dimension) had significantly higher scores on
neighborhood attachment and significantly lower scores on alcohol and drug use than
individuals in Group 2 (i.e., individuals with higher scores on only the leadership
competence dimension) and Group 4 (i.e., individuals with lower scores on both SPC
dimensions). Finally, individuals in Groups 1 and 3 were found to have higher scores
on perceived school importance than individuals in Group 4.
DISCUSSION
The SPCS-Y was designed to represent the two hypothesized SPC dimensions of
leadership competence and policy control. Sociopolitical control is generally regarded as
animportantelementoftheintrapersonalcomponentofPE;ithasfrequentlybeenused
in studies of empowerment, although recent studies have produced contradictory
findings concerning the dimensionality of SPC in a youth population. Our results
indicated that the hypothesized 2-factor model of the SPCS-Y provided an adequate fit to
the data from the sample of youth in this study, and that this model provided a
significantly better fit to the data than the 1-factor model. Our results also suggested
important differences between SPC profile groups on measures of community and
school participation, neighborhood attachment, and perceived school importance, as well
as alcohol and drug use. Specifically, different SPC profiles appeared to be more critical
for particular outcomes. Higher levels of policy control by itself, for example, seemed as
important for stronger neighborhood attachment and less frequent substance use as did
higher levels on both SPC dimensions. Leadership competence, conversely, appeared to
be less crucial for these specific outcomes. Overall, the findings of our study provide
empirical support for the validity of the SPCS-Y and its underlying bidimensional model
of SPC, and they have vital implications for empowerment theory, research, and practice.
Our results extend the findings of Zimmerman and Zahniser (1991), Smith and
Propst (2001), Holden et al. (2004, 2005), and Peterson et al. (2006) to confirm SPC as
a bidimensional rather than unidimensional construct among youth. Our work also
extends the findings of Speer (2000), who demonstrated how constellations of PE
dimensions may be relevant for different outcomes among adults. One possible
explanation for the contradictory findings of previous research concerning the
dimensionality of SPC might involve the use of negatively worded items in the
measurement of the construct. Items that are negatively worded are those that are
phrased semantically in the opposite direction from a particular construct. The SPC
items in Holden et al.’s (2004, 2005) studies were drawn from Zimmerman and
Zahniser’s (1991) original measure, and many of those items were negatively worded.
Traditionally, measurement researchers advocated for the use of negatively worded
items, which are often mixed with positively worded items, to protect against response
set bias and acquiescent behaviors of respondents. Recent research, however, suggests
that the increased item complexity resulting from this practice can cause individuals,
particularly youth, to misunderstand an item or answer differently than they would to
positively worded statements (Barnette, 1996, 2000). Consequently, researchers have
called for abandonment of the use of negatively worded items in the design of
empowerment measures (Peterson et al., 2006), and the inclusion of this type of item
600 Journal of Community Psychology, July 2011
Journal of Community Psychology DOI: 10.1002/jcop
in previous studies might account for the differences between their findings and those
of the present study of SPC.
The main implication of our findings is that SPC should be conceptualized and
measured as a bidimensional construct among youth populations, and researchers and
evaluators should explicitly incorporate and explore the multiple dimensions of SPC in
their studies with adolescents. As noted by Zimmerman and Zahniser (1991),
demonstrated by Speer (2000), and reinforced by the findings of our study, future
research that considers the two dimensions of SPC may be especially useful in efforts to
increase our understanding of social change activities, citizen participation in community
organizations, and how individual differences in SPC might explain different outcomes
of empowerment-based prevention initiatives. Components of youth PE beyond SPC
might also be considered in future studies. Zimmerman’s (1995) framework for PE
included intrapersonal, interactional, and behavioral domains, and later studies
developed and validated scales for the multiple components of PE with adult samples
(Peterson, Hamme, & Speer, 2002; Speer & Peterson, 2000). Although the current study
demonstrates the relevance of SPC for understanding youth empowerment processes,
the question remains whether a complete nomological network for youth PE should
differ substantially from PE among adults. Recent qualitative studies of youth
empowerment in community organizing (Christens & Dolan, in press) and gay-straight
alliances (Russell, Muraco, Subramaniam, & Laub, 2009) highlight differences between
youth PE and similar processes in adult populations. Peer relationships (Farmer, 2007;
Speer, 2008), for instance, and relationships with adults (Camino & Zeldin, 2002;
Franzen et al., 2009; Langhout, Rhodes, & Osborne, 2004) might be considered as part
of an overall framework or measurement model for youth PE.
Findings from the current study also suggest important implications for policy and
program design related to SPC among youth. Alongside community and school
participation and neighborhood attachment, SPC shows promise as a psychosocial
indicator for important behavioral and developmental outcomes, including substance
abuse and possibly educational attainment. Recent findings from a longitudinal study using
an adult sample suggest that increases inSPCcanbeachievedthroughincreased
community participation (Christens et al., in press). Future research should continue to test
relationships between components of youth PE and other conceptually related variables,
including broader measures of community participation and engagement (Christens &
Zeldin, in press; Flanagan, 2004; Holden, Messiri, Evans, Crankshaw, & Ben-Davies, 2004)
and psychological sense of community (Chiessi, Cicognani, & Sonn, 2010; Evans, 2007;
Zeldin, 2002) to better inform practice and policy. Future research should continue to test
the relationship between youth PE and outcomes including substance abuse, identity
development, violence, and educational attainment. Finally, following empowerment
theory, future research should address community and organizational contexts (Maton,
2008) that not only facilitate perceptions of SPC among youth, but real ability to operate
with power and make community-level change (Griffith et al., 2010).
Despite our findings providing robust support for the validity of the bidimensional
model of SPC among youth, more work is needed to further develop and test the
SPCS-Y with different populations and contexts to ensure generalizability of both the
construct and instrument. One limitation of the SPCS-Y presented in this study involves
the referents (i.e., ‘‘community or school’’) included in the items of the policy control
subscale. Those items were designed to be consistent with the wording of Holden et al.
(2004, 2005) in the hope of providing a fair test of the competing models. Future work,
however, might benefit from considering these referents separately or using only one
Measuring Youth Empowerment 601
Journal of Community Psychology DOI: 10.1002/jcop
referent in items that assess this domain. In addition, it is important to recognize that
our study was conducted in the context of a needs assessment rather than the
evaluation of a particular intervention. The studies of Holden et al. focused on
empowerment concepts in the context of evaluating a tobacco control intervention, and
they included multiple aspects of the intrapersonal component of PE that included SPC
as well as other aspects that addressed issues relevant to that context. One could
hypothesize that the operational definitions of a study of SPC in the context of outcome
evaluation could be quite different from the present study if the youth were asked
about specific situations. Nevertheless, one might still expect different operations to
capture qualities of the two dimensions of SPC that are appropriate to that context.
It may be especially important to tailor the items of the SCPS-Y for use with new
youth populations and in different settings. We agree with Zimmerman (1995) that
specific operational definitions of SPC should be context-specific, and that the search
for a single, universal measure of empowerment for all populations and contexts is not
an appropriate goal. Our study focused on urban youth located in the northeastern
United States, and substantial modifications may be necessary to make the SPCS-Y
useful for studies with youth in different parts of the United States or other regions of
the world. In a recent study of another important construct, sense of community
(SOC), Wombacher, Tagg, Burgi, and MacBryde (2010) showed convincingly the value
of moving beyond the mere translation of items into a different language. They
applied a translation approach in their study that emphasized the meaning of items
and the appropriateness of SOC concepts across cultures. Their approach could also
be useful to researchers testing the validity of empowerment concepts across cultures
and times. Furthermore, studies testing the validity of a modified SPCS-Y could also
examine the effects of alternative approaches to the Likert-type response option
format used in this study, such as phrase completion response formats (Hodge &
Gillespie, 2003). Sociopolitical control represents a crucial aspect of youth empower-
ment theory and practice. We hope that our attention to measurement issues for SPC
advances understanding of the bidimensional nature of this construct.
REFERENCES
Arthur, M.W., Hawkins, J.D., Pollard, J.A., Catalano, R.F., & Baglioni, A.J. (2002). Measuring
risk and protective factors for substance use, delinquency, and other adolescent problem
behaviors: The Communities that Care Youth Survey. Evaluation Review, 26, 575–601.
Barnette, J.J. (1996). Responses that may indicate nonattending behaviors in three self-
administered educational attitude surveys. Research in the Schools, 3, 49–59.
Barnette, J.J. (2000). Effects of stem and Likert-response option reversals on survey internal
consistency: If you feel the need, there is a better alternative to using those negatively
worded stems. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 60, 361–370.
Berg, M., Coman, E., & Schensul, J.J. (2009). Youth action research for prevention: A multilevel
intervention designed to increase efficacy and empowerment among urban youth.
American Journal of Community Psychology, 43, 345–359.
Bradshaw, C.P., O’Brennan, L.M., & McNeely, C.A. (2008). Core competencies and the
prevention of school failure and early school leaving. New Directions for Child & Adolescent
Development, 122, 19–32.
Camino, L., & Zeldin, S. (2002). From periphery to center: Pathways for youth civic engage-
ment in the day-to-day life of communities. Applied Developmental Science, 6, 213–220.
602 Journal of Community Psychology, July 2011
Journal of Community Psychology DOI: 10.1002/jcop
Carballo-Dieguez, A., Dolezal, C., Leu, C.S., Nieves, L., Diaz, F., Decena, C., et al. (2005).
A randomized controlled trial to test an HIV-prevention intervention for Latino gay and
bisexual men: Lessons learned. AIDS Care, 17, 314–328.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2004). Methodology of the Youth Risk Behavior
Surveillance System. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 53, 1–13.
Chiessi, M., Cicognani, E., & Sonn, C. (2010). Assessing sense of community on adolescents:
Validating the brief scale of sense of community in adolescents (SOC-A). Journal of
Community Psychology, 38, 276–292.
Christens, B.D., & Dolan, T. (in press). Interweaving youth development, community
development, and social change through youth organizing. Youth & Society.
Christens, B.D., Peterson, N.A., & Speer, P.W. (in press). Community participation and
psychological empowerment: Testing reciprocal causality using a cross-lagged panel design
and latent constructs. Health Education & Behavior.
Christens, B.D., & Zeldin, S. (in press). Community engagement. In R.J.R. Levesque (Ed.),
Encyclopedia of adolescence. New York: Springer.
Dallago, L., Francesca, C., Perkins, D.D., Nation, M., & Santinello, M. (2010). The adolescents,
life context, and school project: Youth voice and civic participation. Journal of Prevention &
Intervention in the Community, 38, 41–54.
Evans, S. (2007). Youth sense of community: Voice and power in community contexts. Journal of
Community Psychology, 35, 693–709.
Farmer, T.W. (2007). Studying the individual within the peer context: Are we on target?
New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development, 118, 101–108.
Flanagan, C.A. (2004). Volunteerism, leadership, political socialization, and civic engagement.
In R.M. Lerner & L. Steinberg (Eds.), Handbook of adolescent psychology (pp. 721–746).
New York: Wiley.
Franzen, S., Morrel-Samuels, S., Reischl, T.M., & Zimmerman, M.A. (2009). Using process
evaluation to strengthen intergenerational partnerships in the youth empowerment
solutions program. Journal of Prevention & Intervention in the Community, 37, 289–301.
Griffith, D.M., Allen, J.O., DeLoney, E.H., Robinson, K., Lewis, E.Y., Campbell, B., et al. (2010).
Community-based organizational capacity building as a strategy to reduce racial health
disparities. Journal of Primary Prevention, 31, 31–39.
Haegerich, T.M., & Tolan, P.H. (2008). Core competencies and the prevention of adolescent
substance abuse. New Directions for Child & Adolescent Development, 122, 47–60.
Hamilton, D., & Fauri, D. (2001). Social workers’ political participation: Strengthening the
political confidence of social work students. Journal of Social Work Education, 37, 321–332.
Hodge, D.R., & Gillespie, D. (2003). Phrase completions: An alternative to Likert scales. Social
Work Research, 27, 45–55.
Holden, D.J., Crankshaw, E., Nimsch, C., Hinnant, L.W., & Hund, L. (2004). Quantifying the
impact of participation in local tobacco control groups on the psychological empowerment
of involved youth. Health Education & Behavior, 31, 615–628.
Holden, D.J., Evans, W.D., Hinnant, L.W., & Messeri, P. (2005). Modeling psychological
empowerment among youth involved in local tobacco control efforts. Health Education &
Behavior, 32, 264–278.
Holden, D.J., Messeri, P., Evans, W.D., Crankshaw, E., & Ben-Davies, M. (2004). Conceptualizing
youth empowerment within tobacco control. Health Education & Behavior, 31, 548–563.
Itzhaky, H. (2003). Developing empowerment and leadership: The case of immigrant women in
Israel. Affilia—The Journal of Women and Social Work, 18, 289–301.
Itzhaky, H., & York, A.S. (2000). Sociopolitical control and empowerment: An extended
replication. Journal of Community Psychology, 28, 407–415.
Measuring Youth Empowerment 603
Journal of Community Psychology DOI: 10.1002/jcop
Itzhaky, H., & York, A.S. (2003). Leadership competence and political control: The influential
factors. Journal of Community Psychology, 31, 371–381.
Kim, S., Crutchfield, C., Williams, C., & Hepler, N. (1998). Toward a new paradigm in substance
abuse and other problem behavior prevention for youth: Youth development and
empowerment approach. Journal of Drug Education, 28, 1–17.
Langhout, R.D., Rhodes, J.E., & Osborne, L.N. (2004). An exploratory study of youth
mentoring in an urban context: Adolescents’ perceptions of relationship styles. Journal of
Youth and Adolescence, 33, 293–306.
Lipschitz-Elhawi, R., & Itzhaky, H. (2005). Social support, mastery, self-esteem and individual
adjustment among at-risk youth. Child & Youth Care Forum, 34, 329–346.
Maton, K.I. (2008). Empowering community settings: Agents of individual development,
community betterment, and positive social change. American Journal of Community
Psychology, 41, 4–21.
Peterson, C.H., Buser, T.J., & Westburg, N. (2010). Effects of familial attachment, social support,
involvement and self-esteem on youth substance use and sexual risk taking. The Family
Journal, 18, 368–376.
Peterson, N.A., Hamme, C.L., & Speer, P.W. (2002). Cognitive empowerment of African
Americans and Caucasians: Differences in understandings of power, political functioning,
and shaping ideology. Journal of Black Studies, 32, 336–351.
Peterson, N.A., & Hughey, J. (2004). Social cohesion and intrapersonal empowerment: Gender
as moderator. Health Education Research, 19, 533–542.
Peterson, N.A., Lowe, J.B., Hughey, J., Reid, R.J., Zimmerman, M.A., & Speer, P.W. (2006).
Measuring the intrapersonal component of psychological empowerment: Confirmatory
factor analysis of the sociopolitical control scale. American Journal of Community
Psychology, 38, 287–297.
Peterson, N.A., & Reid, R.J. (2003). Paths to empowerment in an urban community:
Neighborhood connectedness and citizen participation in substance abuse prevention
activities. Journal of Community Psychology, 31, 25–38.
Russell, S.T., Muraco, A., Subramaniam, A., & Laub, C. (2009). Youth empowerment and high
school gay-straight alliances. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 38, 891–903.
Smith, P.D., & Propst, D.B. (2001). Are topic-specific measures of socio-political control justified?
Exploring the realm of citizen participation in natural resource decision making. Journal of
Community Psychology, 29, 179–187.
Speer, P.W. (2000). Intrapersonal and interactional empowerment: Implications for theory.
Journal of Community Psychology, 28, 51–61.
Speer, P.W. (2008). Altering patterns of relationship and participation: Youth organizing as a
setting level intervention. In M. Shinn & H. Yoshikawa (Eds.), Toward positive youth
development: Transforming schools and community programs (pp. 213–229). New York:
Oxford University Press.
Speer, P.W., Jackson, C.B., & Peterson, N.A. (2001). The relationship between social cohesion
and empowerment: Support and new implications for theory. Health Education & Behavior,
28, 716–732.
Speer, P.W., & Peterson, N.A. (2000). Psychometric properties of an empowerment scale: Testing
cognitive, emotional, and behavioral domains. Social Work Research, 24(2), 109–118.
Stevenson, W., Maton, K.I., & Teti, D.M. (1998). School importance and dropout among
pregnant adolescents. Journal of Adolescent Health, 22, 376–382.
Walker, J.S., Thorne, E.K., Powers, L.E., & Gaonkar, R. (2010). Development of a scale to
measure the empowerment of youth consumers of mental health services. Journal of
Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 18, 51–59.
604 Journal of Community Psychology, July 2011
Journal of Community Psychology DOI: 10.1002/jcop
Watts,R.J.,&Flanagan,C.(2007).Pushingtheenvelope on youth civic engagement: A developmental
and liberation psychology perspective. Journal of Community Psychology, 35, 779–792.
Wilson, N., Minkler, M., Dasho, S., Wallerstein, N., & Martin, A.C. (2008). Getting to social
action: The youth empowerment strategies (YES!) project. Health Promotion Practice, 9,
395–403.
Wombacher, J., Tagg, S.K., Burgi, T., & MacBryde, J. (2010). Measuring sense of community in
the military: Cross-cultural evidence for the validity of the brief sense of community scale
and its underlying theory. Journal of Community Psychology, 38, 671–687.
Zeldin, S. (2002). Sense of community and positive adult beliefs toward adolescents and youth policy
in urban neighborhoods and small cities. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 31, 331–342.
Zimmerman, M.A. (1995). Psychological empowerment: Issues and illustrations. American
Journal of Community Psychology, 23, 581–600.
Zimmerman, M.A. (2000). Empowerment theory: Psychological, organizational, and community
levels of analysis. In J. Rappaport & E. Seidman (Eds.), Handbook of community
psychology (pp. 43–63). New York: Plenum Press.
Zimmerman, M.A., Ramirez-Valles, J., & Maton, K.I. (1999). Resilience among urban African
American male adolescents: A study of the protective effects of sociopolitical control on their
mental health. American Journal of Community Psychology, 27, 733–751.
Zimmerman, M.A., & Zahniser, J.H. (1991). Refinements of sphere-specific measures of
perceived control: Development of a sociopolitical control scale. Journal of Community
Psychology, 19, 189–204.
APPENDIX
Items of the Sociopolitical Control Scale for Youth (SPCS-Y)
Item Item wording
SPCS-Y1 I am often a leader in groups
SPCS-Y2 I would prefer to be a leader rather than a follower
SPCS-Y3 I would rather have a leadership role when I’m involved in a group project
SPCS-Y4 I can usually organize people to get things done
SPCS-Y5 Other people usually follow my ideas
SPCS-Y6 I find it very easy to talk in front of a group
SPCS-Y7 I like to work on solving a problem myself rather than wait and see if someone else will deal
with it
SPCS-Y8 I like trying new things that are challenging to me
SPCS-Y9 I enjoy participation because I want to have as much say in my community or school as possible
a
SPCS-Y10 Youth like me can really understand what’s going on with my community or school
SPCS-Y11 I feel like I have a pretty good understanding of the important issues which confront my
community or school
SPCS-Y12 Youth like me have the ability to participate effectively in community or school activities and
decision making
SPCS-Y13 My opinion is important because it could someday make a difference in my community or school
SPCS-Y14 There are plenty of ways for youth like me to have a say in what our community or school does
SPCS-Y15 It is important to me that I actively participate in local teen issues
SPCS-Y16 Most community or school leaders would listen to me
SPCS-Y17 Many local activities are important to participate in
a
Item is directly from Holden et al. (2004). The remaining items in the policy control subscale were designed to
reference ‘‘community or school’’ to be consistent with Holden et al. (2004). All other items were developed to be
consistent with content of Zimmerman and Zahniser (1991) and the positively worded items of Peterson et al. (2006).
Measuring Youth Empowerment 605
Journal of Community Psychology DOI: 10.1002/jcop