Development and validation of the youth development instrument (YDI): A comprehensive survey of adolescent health and well-being
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Rationale Strengths-based approaches are urgently needed to protect and promote adolescent well-being in the United States and Canada, where adolescent happiness and mental health rank among the lowest of the world’s wealthiest countries. Identifying protective and promotive factors for adolescent well-being is critical for guiding policy, public health, and education sector responses as adolescents face unprecedented challenges. Objective We examined the dimensionality and psychometric properties of the Youth Development Instrument (YDI), a comprehensive survey of adolescent health and well-being within a longitudinal well-being monitoring system. The YDI draws predominantly from existing, validated measures identified as fundamental to adolescent well-being. Methods We describe the survey creation process in consultation with adolescents, interdisciplinary experts, and partners in adolescent development, medicine, policy, psychology, psychiatry, education, and public health. We conducted psychometric analysis of the YDI pilot implementation among 2295 eleventh-grade students across 31 schools in British Columbia, Canada, in 2021. We examined each measure’s dimensionality and relationship with thriving, resilience, and prosocial orientation to assess their construct validity. Results Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses demonstrated the uni-dimensionality of each measure. Most measures had good or excellent internal consistency (mean Cronbach’s α: 0.85) and demonstrated moderate or large magnitude correlations to thriving, resilience, and/or prosocial orientation and small correlations with family affluence as hypothesized. Correlation patterns aligned with theoretical literature. Conclusion The YDI is a comprehensive and psychometrically sound survey of adolescents’ well-being and protective and promotive factors. The YDI’s linkable nature also creates potential for measuring population-level mental health and wellbeing trajectories. Development and Validation of the Youth Development Instrument (YDI): A Comprehensive Survey of Adolescent Health and Well-Being.
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 | 0.019 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".