Social relationships in physical activity-based positive youth development programs predict reduced intentions for health risk behaviors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Physical activity-based positive youth development (PYD) programs are associated with improved self-esteem and prosocial behavior (McDonough et al., 2013; Ullrich-French et al., 2013). Such active approaches to building psychological strengths also have potential to reduce health risk behaviors such as substance use and gang participation (Meyer et al., 2012; Snyder, 2014). We examined whether positive social relationships with staff and peers in a 20-day summer physical activity-based PYD program for youth from low-income families predicted reduced intentions for health risk behaviors, beyond the effect of relationship quality outside of the program. A cross-sectional survey of 331 youth (154 girls, 177 boys) aged 7–15 (M=10.6 SD=1.8) was conducted. Youth self-reported the quality of relationships with peers and staff in the program, peers outside of the program, and intentions to use cigarettes, alcohol, and illegal drugs, and participate in gangs during adolescence. Data were analyzed using regression approaches. This relatively young sample reported intentions to use cigarettes (5.4%), alcohol (13.9%), illegal drugs (7.1%) and join a gang (7.1%) as a teenager. Negative peer influence (B = .26) and peer support outside the program (B = -.13) significantly predicted intentions. Supportive relationships with staff (but not peers) in the PYD program predicted significant additional variance in intentions to engage in health risk behaviors (B = -.11; F(4, 300) = 11.41, R2= .13, p< .01). Research examining whether positive relationships with program staff are a mechanism to reduce health risk behaviors in youth is a potential avenue for demonstrating effects of PYD programs on youth in their lives outside of such programs.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".