Measuring Child Well-
being Across Cultures
Paul Stephenson, Senior Director,
Child Development and Rights
ISCI Conference York 2011, UK
1
Session Overview
• World Vision’s goal and targets
for child well-being
• Why positive youth
development and assets?
• How can we measure children’s
well-being?
• DAP use outside the USA
• Future directions
2
World Vision’s Ministry Goal
• The sustained well-being of children, within their families and communities, especially the most vulnerable.
Child Well-being Aspirations & Outcomes
Experience love of God and neighbour
Targets
Session Overview
• Why positive youth
development and
why assets?
6
7
The 40 Development Assets
Examples of Assets
Family support
Other adult relationships
Service to others
Responsibility
Positive peer influence
Planning & decision making
Sense of purpose
• Powerful impact on lives• Grounded in extensive
research• Measurable• Practical and actionable• Empowering• Politically, ideologically
inclusive• Flexible and adaptable• Credible among
gatekeepers
External Internal
Support Commitment to Learning
Empowerment Positive Values
Boundaries & Expectations Social Competencies
Constructive Use of Time Positive Identity
Categories of Developmental Assets
Why assets matter
Reduced Risks
Increased Thriving
Resilience
40
Developmental
Assets
The more
assets,
the better
U. S.: Trueacross . . .
• Socioeconomic status
• Race/ethnicity
• Family composition
• Gender
10
Increased Thriving (U.S. Data)
27%
9%
48%
19%
69%
34%
88%
54%
Maintains Good Health Succeeds in School
0 - 10 Assets
11 - 20 Assets
21 - 30 Assets
31 - 40 Assets
62%
45%
38%
26%
18%
11%6%
3%
Violence Problem Alcohol Use
0 - 10 Assets
11 - 20 Assets
21 - 30 Assets
31 - 40 Assets
Reduced Risks (U. S. Data)
Why assets matter
11
Key Asset-Building Messages
• All young people need assets
• Everyone can build assets
• Relationships are key
• Little things add up
• Asset building is an ongoing process
Session Overview
• How can we
measure children’s
well-being?
• The Developmental
Assets Profile (DAP)
12
The Developmental Assets Profile
• Short measure of Developmental Assets Framework• Developed in 2004
13
– 58 item survey – likert scale– Children ages 12 to 18 (6th grade reading level)– Quantitative measure
• Tracks change over time• Individually or random sample• Can be linked to other measures or data points
Qualitative approaches• Focus groups
• Holistic view of thriving• Children’s perspectives• Quantitatively rigorous• User-friendly & empowering• Multi-use (mobilising, programming, monitoring,
coaching)• Correlates with other measures• Cross-cultural relevance• Multi-country applicability and analysis• Sector recognised toolkit
What are the strengths of the DAP?
Session Overview
• How does the DAP
connect with WV’s
Child well-being
outcomes (CWBO)?
15
Internal assetsExternal assetsInternal and external assets
DAP and CWBOs
Session Overview
• DAP use outside the
USA
17
Exploring Assets Globally
International Groups
• Aga Khan Development Network
• Educational Development Center
• Oasis Global
• Save the Children
• World Vision International
• U. S. Peace Corps
• YMCA International
Countries (DAP data)
Albania, Armenia, Azerbaijan,
Bangladesh, Bolivia, Brazil,
China, Colombia, Dominican
Republic, Egypt, Gaza, Iraq,
Japan, Jordan, Lebanon,
Mexico, Morocco, Nepal,
Philippines, Yemen
Albania (2009)World Vision Int’lAlbanian
259 youth
Japan (2008)Yamaguchi Univ.Japanese
13,500 youth
Bangladesh (2006-10)Save the ChildrenBengali
498 youth
Philippines (2006-09)EDCTagalog
703 youth
Lebanon (2008)American Univ. BeirutArabic
1,138 youth
Design
Review andrevise items
Translate andback-translate
Face Validity(Is it culturally meaningful?)
Input from experts
Input from youth, parents, teachers,
elders, etc.
Developing a Useful Measurement Tool
U.S. DAP
(English)
Utilization
Training for utilizationBaseline / norm sample
EvaluationProgram improvement
Research
Testing(Reliability & Validity)
Pretest/Review
Pilot test
Analyze/revise
Field test
Scale Reliabilities: Categories
United States
Japan Albania Lebanon
Bangladesh Philippines
T1 T2 T1 T2
Support .80 .85 .70 .70 .65 .61 .57 .69
Empowerment .74 .70 .51 .51 .48 .48 .51 .69
Boundaries & Expectations .84 .81 .72 .71 .73 .72 .71 .76
Constructive Use of Time .56 .44 .36 .49 .18 .36 .43 .64
Commitment to Learning .83 .77 .63 .72 .77 .73 .55 .69
Positive Values .69
.80
.65 .70 .68 .70 .60 .76
Social Competencies .79 .76 .57 .55 .62 .62 .64 .75
Positive Identity .79 .77 .60 .67 .64 .51 .51 .70.60 Promising .60 Acceptable .80 Good .90 Excellent
Stability Reliability (Test-Retest)
• U.S.: All test-retest coefficients were
acceptable (.60 or higher)
• Albania (n = 51): 8 of 15 tests showed
acceptable stability
• Bangladesh (n=119): 0 of 16 showed
acceptable stability
• Philippines (n = 164): 3 of 8 tests showed
acceptable stability
Refinement
needed
before
using
longitudinally
Overall DAP Scores
United States
Japan Albania Lebanon
Bangladesh Philippines
T1 T2 T1 T2
Excellent 15% 15% 3% 5% 1% 8% 3% 14%
Good 34% 50% 48% 37% 10% 55% 20% 31%
Fair 38% 33% 44% 47% 58% 35% 61% 46%
Poor 14% 2% 5% 11% 31% 3% 16% 8%
(Samples are not representative of the countries)
Potential for measuring program impact
Final Thoughts: Utility of the DAP
• Appears to be useful in many contexts and cultures
AND• There’s still work to do
– Promising levels of internal reliability on most measures
– Stability reliability less consistent across countries
– Most items are translatable
– See both expected consistency and variability
– Large pre-post changes
Final Thoughts: Future Directions
• Linking independent efforts– Cost sharing and mutual learning
– Strategic priority setting within regions
– Increased impact in the global policy/program discussion
• Testing content validity– Link to sectoral outcomes, behavioral measures, etc.
– Larger, more representative, more diverse samples
• Addressing the areas with less reliability– E.g., constructive use of time, empowerment
• Measurement of different age groups
• Moving from research to practice (and policy)
Thanks!
26
Paul Stephenson
Email: [email protected]: +1 626 226 7435
Gene RoehlkepartainSearch Institute
Email: [email protected]: + 1 (612) 399-0216
Web: www.search-institute.org