the youth feel that they are given useful roles in the community. There are questions on skill building per se, and information in the final domain (integration of family, school, and community) is limited to whether parents come to meetings or events at school.
The Student Survey of Risk and Protective Factors, and Prevalence of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Other Drug Use (SSRP), developed by the Social Development Research Group at the University of Washington, focuses on the risk and protective factors influencing drug use, violence, and misbehavior in the lives of youth ages 12 to 18. The survey was specifically designed to inform the development of preventive interventions to reduce youth risk behaviors in schools and communities and to support outcome evaluations of such interventions (Pollard et al., 1999). Development was funded by the Center for Substance Abuse Prevention of the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. The survey is now being fielded with representative statewide samples in six states: Kansas, Maine, Oregon, South Carolina, Utah, and Washington.
Risk and protective factors were included in the survey only when they had been found to predict future drug use and criminal or delinquent behaviors in at least two longitudinal studies in the research literature. The final instrument resulted from a rigorous development process that included cognitive pretesting, and pilot tests, as well as validation of risk and protective factors based on statewide samples of 6th, 8th, and 11th grade students in Oregon. Risk and protective factors are measured using multi-item scales. All scales exhibit high reliability with alphas of .65 or higher, with most in the high .7 and .8 ranges. The factors have good predictive validity in their relation with the problem behaviors in the survey (Pollard et al., 1999a; Arthur et al., undated).
The survey’s coverage of the domains in our youth development framework is broad in the sense that there is at least one measure in every outcome and social setting domain except one, physical health. However, a closer look reveals that the instrument is considerably more focused on negative outcomes than the PSL-AB. While the negative outcomes and behaviors domain is richly detailed, measures in the other outcome domains are a bit thin and tend to be defined in relation to risk behaviors. In the psychological and emotional development domain, for