RESUMO
Risk and protective factors predictive of adolescent problem behaviors such as substance abuse and delinquency are promising targets for preventive intervention. Community planners should assess and target risk and protective factors when designing prevention programs. This study describes the development, reliability, and validity of a self-report survey instrument for adolescents ages 11 to 18 that measures an array of risk and protective factors across multiple ecological domains as well as adolescent problem behaviors. The instrument can be used to assess the epidemiology of risk and protection in youth populations and to prioritize specific risk and protective factors in specific populations as targets for preventive intervention.
Assuntos
Comportamento do Adolescente/psicologia , Planejamento em Saúde Comunitária/métodos , Delinquência Juvenil , Medição de Risco/métodos , Transtornos Relacionados ao Uso de Substâncias/prevenção & controle , Adolescente , Comportamento do Adolescente/classificação , Criança , Características da Família , Feminino , Humanos , Masculino , Medição de Risco/estatística & dados numéricos , Estudantes/psicologia , Inquéritos e Questionários , Estados UnidosRESUMO
PURPOSE: To examine the convergence in the critiques and recommendations for the future of programs to promote healthy development and prevent problem behaviors among children and adolescents. METHODS: A review of literature captures two streams of thought, those promoting positive youth development approaches to youth programming and those promoting prevention science approaches to youth programming. RESULTS: Results suggest that advocates of positive youth development and prevention science have similar critiques of single-problem-focused prevention programs in the 1980s and early 1990s, and have similar recommendations for the future of youth programming. Further, review of data on youth development suggests that it is important to focus on risk and protection in preventing adolescent problems as well as in promoting positive youth development. CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that both youth development and prevention science approaches have grown from similar roots and make similar recommendations for the future of youth programming. Further, data on precursors suggest that focusing on promoting protection and reducing risk is likely to prevent problems and promote positive youth development. Yet advocates of these approaches often are at odds, suggesting that the approaches provide different paradigmatic approaches to youth programming. We conclude that cooperation between these two approaches would further progress in the field of youth programming.