A Bottom-up Development and Validation of Perceived Youth Barriers Scale (PYBS)

Background and Purpose

Historical approaches in research for youth behavior have predominantly been adult-centric, where adults conduct research and draw conclusions without including young people’s perspectives. A paradigm shift has been observed in recent years with growing consensus on the importance of engaging youth directly in research processes (Cohen et al., 2021; Cunningham & Rious, 2015; Guthrie et al., 2014). However, youth engagement in scale development is scanty. Recognizing the importance of inclusion of youth’s voices in developing Perceived Youth Barriers Scale (PYBS), we aim to present a bottom-up psychometric development and initial validation for PYBS using exploratory factor analysis and content validity.

Methods

PYBS. Three steps were taken to identify the items in PYBS. First, three focus groups (n=16) with theory-generated questions were run with young adults (ages 18-21 years old; 62% female) who attended a local community college in Chicago in 2018. With deductive content analysis, we identified initial sets of 39 barriers. Then, we sent out the identified items to all focus group participants using Qualtrics survey to rate the importance and relevance of each item using a 5-point scale (81% response rate). We went through iterative items reduction process using the high mean score in Qualtrics responses and generated the initial set of 27 items on PYBS.

Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA). In August 2019, we examined the factor structure of PYBS with community college students (n=225) from the Chicago area, using a cross-sectional survey design. Females comprised 69.3% of the respondents, and males comprised 30.7%. The sample ranged in age from 17 to 21 years (M = 18.3, SD = 0.6). We also proceeded with reliability and content validity.

Results: Findings of EFA showed PYBS with 18-items as a reliable measure with five factors with eigenvalues exceeding the threshold of 1. Nine items from original scale development were excluded: five failed to meet the initial factor-loading criterion of above .50, one did not align with the intended conceptual framework, and three did not meet the factor-loading criterion of above .40. Social-emotional barriers were the most substantial factor with six items. Cronbach’s α reliability test showed the remaining 18-item PYBS had high internal consistency (α=.877), and the Social Emotional Barriers subscale also had high α coefficient (α=.814). The other subscales had moderate reliability (α=.673-.789). Human capital barriers scored the highest (m=2.6444). Content validity using two expert judgements added credibility of all 18 items in PYBS.

Conclusion and Implications

Our bottom-up psychometric procedures for developing PYBS of addressing minority youth barriers suggest important implementation in service provision. It underscores practical utility of implementing proper interventions to target barriers by facilitating culturally sensitive social work practices. By prioritizing the inclusion of ethnic and racial minority youth voices in the properties of this scale, the research ensures that the PYBS is both reflective of and responsive to the multifaceted realities of those it seeks to serve.