Exploring the '5Cs' of Positive Youth Development in sport.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The emerging field of youth development has been associated with indicators of Positive Youth Development (PYD) known as the 5Cs (competence, confidence, connection, character and caring). The 5Cs model (Lerner et al, 2005) describes PYD as the culmination of the Cs, whereby higher scores on each of the Cs contributes to a resultant higher score for PYD. Researchers have suggested sport is a salient context for developing the 5Cs. However, there is no specific evidence for the existence of the 5Cs among young people who play sport. The purpose of this study was to examine the latent dimensionality of PYD in sport. Two hundred andsfty eight youth sport participants (59 males, 199 females; M age= 13.77 years, SD = 1.23; range 12-16 years) attending summer sport camps at a Canadian university completed a 30-item instrument that was adapted from Phelps et al. 's (2009) 78item measure of the 5Cs of PYD. Confirmatory factor analyses failed to provide support for the 5Cs model identified in previous research (i.e., Lerner et al. and Phelps et al.). Instead, exploratory factor analyses indicated that PYD in sport might be comprised of two factors that reflect pro-social values and confidence/competence. It is proposed that the 5Cs did not emerge in this study because (a) each C may not be uniquely identified by the current sample due to their stage of ontogeny, and (b) some of the Cs are so similar in nature (i. e., so highly correlated) that they are perceived as similar constructs. Implications of this study suggest that, in a sporting context, PYD might best be represented by pro-social values and confidence/competence rather than the 5Cs.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".