Identifying Components of Positive Youth Development in Multicultural Contexts
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: The objective of this study was to explore and identify the key components of Positive Youth Development (PYD) as experienced by adolescents and young adults in multicultural contexts. Methods and Materials: This qualitative study employed a purposive sample of 25 participants aged 15–24 years from Michigan, representing diverse cultural and ethnic backgrounds. Data were collected through semi-structured interviews focused on identity formation, resilience, cultural interaction, and future readiness. Interviews, lasting between 45 and 75 minutes, were transcribed verbatim and analyzed using thematic analysis with the aid of NVivo 14 software. Data collection continued until theoretical saturation was reached. To enhance trustworthiness, peer debriefing, member checking, and reflexive memoing were incorporated throughout the research process. Findings: The analysis revealed four overarching themes and multiple subthemes that collectively represent the components of PYD in multicultural contexts. The first theme, personal growth and identity formation, emphasized self-awareness, resilience, and bicultural identity negotiation. The second, social relationships and support networks, included family support, peer bonds, mentorship, and community engagement. The third, cultural competence and diversity adaptation, reflected intercultural sensitivity, inclusivity, and strategies for balancing heritage with adaptation. The fourth, skills and future readiness, highlighted educational engagement, career planning, life skills, creativity, leadership, and health behaviors. Illustrative quotations demonstrated how youth integrated internal and external assets to foster resilience, belonging, and thriving. Conclusion: The findings affirm the universality of developmental assets while underscoring their cultural variability in multicultural contexts. By situating PYD within diverse environments, this study highlights the interplay of identity, relationships, cultural competence, and future readiness in shaping youth development. The results provide valuable implications for educators, policymakers, and practitioners in designing culturally responsive and inclusive youth 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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| 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".