Perceived youth empowerment: reliability and validity of a brief scale.

Abstract: This study determined the reliability and validity of a brief perceived youth empowerment scale in a sample of 2,482 middle school students. An alpha coefficient and confirmatory models were constructed for a five-item scale. Results suggest that the hypothesized factor structure did not fit the data. Modifications did suggest covariance between error terms [/[sup.2](3)=6.69, Root Mean Square Error Approximation = .0228, Comparative Fit Index = .9960, Non-normal Fit Index = .9868]. A valid and reliable brief scale for measuring perceived youth empowerment is advantageous to field research and evaluation of adolescent health promotion interventions.

**********

A number of authors have attempted to conceptualize empowerment. Rappaport (1981) defines empowerment as a way for individuals to gain control over their lives through active participation. Kieffer (1984) defines empowerment as a dynamic process that consists of participatory competence. The idea of participation has been demonstrated to enhance self-acceptance, self-confidence, and develop active roles in a community (Zimmerman & Rappaport, 1988). The challenge in conceptualizing youth empowerment is that it is often described as both a process and a developmental outcome. Hence, it is a factor that evolves over time, or a final attribute through relevant experience. Although the conceptual definitions differ, each shares similar features, in particular, the concept of participation.

Despite numerous conceptual definitions for empowerment, few exist for youth. A more holistic definition for youth empowerment was proposed by Chinman & Linney (1998). Their model consists of an opportunity to participate in meaningful roles, where youth are able to bond with positive adults in the environment and receive positive reinforcement and recognition. Within Chinman & Linney's model, youth who are empowered, develop appropriately during adolescence. For example, empowerment may provide youth with positive traits, positive labels, and in general, a positive identity (Bern, 1978; Rosenburg, 1979). Generally, adolescents who feel connected and are influenced by positive adult norms and expectations are expected to lead successful lives (Moody, Childs, & Sepples, 2003). Erickson (1968) believed that the reinforcement received from bonding to, and participation with, positive peers and adults may lead to positive developmental outcomes.

In addition, few conceptual definitions, empirical data, and scales that assess youth empowerment exist in the professional literature. The few studies that exist in the literature for youth empowerment are derived from the developmental asset framework conceptualized by the Search Institute (Leffert, Benson, Scales, Sharma, Drake, & Blyth, 1998). Empowerment within the developmental asset framework is one of four external assets, which refer to the positive developmental experiences of relationships and opportunities that adults provide (Benson, Leffert, Scales, & Blyth, 1998). Leffert and colleagues operationalized youth empowerment via 11 items among four subscales. The four subscales being: 1) Community Values Youth (4-items)--young persons perceive that adults in the community value youth; 2) Youth as Resources (3-items)--young people are given useful roles in the community; 3) Service to Others (1-item)--young person serves in the community one hour or more per week; and 4) Safety (3-items)--young person feels safe at home, at school, and in the neighborhood (Leffert et al., 1998).

Content and construct validity were established via an exploratory factor analysis reported by the Search Institute researchers (Leffert et al., 1998). Scales and colleagues provided evidence of both predictive and discriminant validity. Furthermore, elements of empowerment were predictive of exhibiting leadership, helping others, maintaining good health, and overcoming diversity (Scales, Benson, Leffert, & Blyth, 2000). Despite evidence for construct validity, and both predictive and discriminate validity of the 11-item youth empowerment instrument, some weaknesses were observed. Primarily, the internal consistencies on two of the instruments' subscales (i.e., youth as resources and safety) were quite low (.48 and .50, respectively). A widely accepted rule of thumb proposed by Nunnally (1978) suggests that alpha coefficients that don't reach at least a = .70 are inadequate. Additionally, the Service to Others subscale only consisted of one item.

A systematic literature review suggests that only two other published studies propose a youth empowerment scale, or a scale conceptually similar to empowerment in youth. Each was based on data from high school age adolescents. The Reininger, Evans, Griffin, Valois, Vincent, et al. (2003) scale assessed the validity via exploratory factor analysis, as well as the reliability of a youth empowerment scale. The scale consisted of a total of 5 items and appeared to have adequate validity (i.e., loading > .40) and reliability or internal consistency (a = .78). Oman et al. (2002) proposed a 6-item community involvement scale in a high school population. Validity and reliability was similar to that of Reininger, Evans, Griffin, Valois, Vincent et al. (e.g. loading > .40, a = .78). Construct validity was established by the presence of simple structure revealed through exploratory factor analysis in the Reininger, Evans, Griffin, Valois, Vincent et al. study and principal component analysis in the Oman et al. (2002) scale. Despite reliability and validity of these two instruments, no conceptual definitions were provided by the authors of these studies.

Constructing reliable and valid scales for adolescent empowerment research and evaluation can be difficult. In order to conduct reliability and validity investigations, consistent conceptual frameworks and standard instruments are needed. In support of Chinman & Linney's (1998) theoretical hypotheses regarding empowerment, we support the notion that if youth are participating in meaningful activities within the community and bonded to positive peers and adults in these activities positive youth development may transpire. Empowerment is potentially an important aspect in understanding the developmental nature of adolescents. This idea is often imperative to health promotion program intervention. Few short scales exist which access youth empowerment. A burden is often placed on adolescents to complete long assessment questionnaires, often with multiple subscales with a large number of items. Hence, the development of short psychometric scales could be advantageous to school or community-based interventions. Based on previous evidence, the five-item scale proposed by the Reininger, Evans, Griffin, Valois, Vincent, et al. (2003) study appeared to have adequate face validity. In turn, the purpose of this study was to extend the work by Reininger, Evans, Griffin, Valois, Vincent, et al. (2003) via confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) of a modified version of their scale in a middle school population.

METHOD

PROCEDURES

The Middle School Youth Tobacco Behavior Survey (MSYTS) was an initial attempt to determine tobacco use prevalence in a Southern state, and should be considered a pilot study. A sample of 30 middle schools participated in the MSYTS in the spring of 2001 (excluding special education students), upon the agreement of superintendents and principals. Using random starts, second period classes were selected with an equal probability computerized sampling program. Passive parental consent forms were sent home to eligible students at least five days in advance; those parents who did not want their child to participate were not required to return forms. Trained data collectors administered the survey insuring anonymity, privacy, and confidentiality. Human subjects approval based on the referent university's internal review was met prior to survey administration.

PARTICIPANTS

Of the 2,987 students sampled, 2,482 completed usable questionnaires for a response rate of 83%. Gender for the sample was split between 49.6% female and 50.4% male. Students' ethnic background consisted primarily of African Americans (n = 988, 40.18%) and Caucasians (n = 1290, 52.46%), with the remaining ethnic groups (n = 181, 7.35%) characterized as Other. Participants characterized as Other consisted of American Indian/Alaska, Asian, Hispanic/Latino, and Native Hawaiian/other Pacific Islander. The percentage of students in grade six was 36%, grade seven was 33%, and grade eight was 31%. Participants' ages ranged from 12-years-old and younger to 16-years-old.

INSTRUMENTATION

The 2001 Middle School Youth Tobacco Survey (MSYTS) was developed in a joint effort of the CDC's Division of Adolescent & School Health and the American Legacy Foundation. National experts in adolescent health, tobacco control and tobacco-use epidemiology developed the MSYTS. The MSYTS was determined to have adequate content validity. The original instrument consisted of 63 items organized around seven categories (prevalence of use, knowledge and attitudes, minors' access to tobacco, media and advertising, smoking cessation, exposure to environmental tobacco smoke, and school curriculum), additional items were added at the request of respective states.

Perceived Youth Empowerment. Administrators of the MSYTS for this Southern state modified a youth empowerment scale to accommodate a middle school population. Modifications (rewording of three items) were made based upon piloted data, interpretability of participants and the focus on perceived opportunity for empowerment for middle school students. The original scale, described elsewhere (Reininger, Evans, Griffin, Valois, Vincent et al., 2003), appeared to have adequate factor structure and internal consistency (i.e., a = .78). The Brief Perceived Opportunity for Empowerment Scale (BPOES) utilized in this study consisted of the following items 1) my neighborhood involves youth in important decisions; 2) I am given lots of chances to make my neighborhood better; 3) I am given chances to work with other young people and adults in my neighborhood to make it better; 4) young people my age are able to make a difference in my neighborhood; and 5) If I feel strongly about an issue, I would talk to people in power (such as mayor, school board, city council, etc.) about my opinion. Each item was scored on a five-point Likert-type response scale (1=strongly disagree to 5=strongly agree), similar to that of its predecessor. The alpha coefficient was a = .82 for this brief perceived youth empowerment scale.

Data Analysis. Analysis of data was conducted using SAS. Initially, to determine whether the scale was distributed normally, means and standard deviations were created for this brief scale. Reliability and validity was assessed following tabulation of means and standard deviations. An overall alpha coefficient was created to assess internal consistency (along with a correlation table) followed by Confirmatory Factory Analysis (CFA) to access fit of the latent structure.

Confirmatory Factory Analysis. A model that provides a good fit to the data usually will have a relatively small chi-square value, with a p value between .05 and 1.0. An appropriate Chi-square value is expected to be at most, twice the size of the degrees of freedom (Hatcher, 1992). However, Chi-square values in CFA should be interpreted with caution for a number of reasons. Primarily, it has been shown that chi-square values are influenced by sample sizes (Marsh, Balla, & McDonald, 1988). Therefore, it is important to consider other fit indices. Indices such as the root mean square error approximation (RMSEA) with values of .08, .05, and 0 represents reasonably, close, and exact fit, respectively (Browne & Cudeck, 1993). Additionally, the non-normed fit index (NNFI) and the comparative fit index (CFI) are good fit indices. NNFI and CFI values over .9 indicate acceptable fit (Bentler & Bonett, 1980).

When hypothesized models do not adequately fit a data set, modification indices should be considered. The MODIFICATION option in PROC CALIS via SAS allows two additional indices to be included, the Wald Test and the Lagrange Multiplier (LM). The Wald test estimates a change in a chi-square value when a parameter is eliminated from the analysis or fixed to zero, thereby freeing a degree of freedom. The LM test estimates a reduction in the model that would result from freeing a parameter that does not exist and allowing it to be estimated (e.g., allowing error terms to be correlated; Hatcher, 1992). Post-hoc analysis via modification indices risk creating a model that may not generalize to other samples. Following the CFA, internal consistency of the brief scale was assessed.

RESULTS

Descriptive statistics. Table 1 displays means and standard deviations for the five perceived youth empowerment items, along with the overall mean and standard deviation. Higher scores reflected higher levels of perceived opportunity for youth empowerment. Based on simple univariate statistics, the sampling distribution of each empowerment item appears to have an approximately normal distribution with a mean of zero and a standard deviation near one. The overall mean for the youth empowerment scale followed a similar normal distribution.

Internal Consistency. The overall scale appears to be internally consistent with an alpha coefficient equal to a = .82 for the brief perceived youth empowerment scale. In addition, each item is correlated with the next, and these modest correlations represent distinction among the scale items (Table 2).

Confirmatory Factor Analysis and Factorial Invariance Across Groups. The hypothesized model for the total sample did not fit the data adequately, according to the fit criteria [[/.sup.2](5) =70.16, RMSEA = .0743, CFI = .9303, NNFI = .8605]. The [/.sup.2]/ (df) ratio is considerably larger than 2 in the hypothesized model, which is not unusual given the sensitivity of the [/.sup.2] test to sample size. The CFI exceeds the .90 criteria in all instances indicating acceptable fit; however, the NNFI is below the .90 threshold limiting fit. The standardized estimates of item loading weights (M= .65, range=.49 - .81), standard errors (E > .50), and t values (t > 1.96) were appropriate in magnitude for the hypothesized model. However, according to the LM test, post hoc modification of the original model suggests that covariance structure exist between error terms. Covariance structure was observed between the errors terms Variable 4 (young people my age are able to make a difference in my neighborhood) and Variable 5 (If I feel strongly about an issue, I would talk to people in power [such as mayor, school board, city council, etc.] about my opinion). In addition, at step 2, modification tables suggested covariance between item 1 (My neighborhood involves youth in important decisions) and item 3 (I am given chances to work with other young people and adults in my neighborhood to make it better).

Following an iterative process of adding covariance structure between item 4 and 5, and between items 1 and 3, the revised model was created. The revised model appears to be a better model than the hypothesized model [/[sup.2](3)=6.69, RMSEA = .0228, CFI = .9960, NNFI = .9868] based on the lower RMSEA, and higher CFI and NNFI estimates. Standardized loading weights, error variances, and t values were appropriate in magnitude suggesting adequate fit. The final model after modifications including standardized loading weights, covariance, and error terms are presented in Figure 1.

[FIGURE 1 OMITTED]

DISCUSSION

The purpose of this study was to determine the factor structure, validity and reliability of a brief perceived youth empowerment scale. The hypothesized model did not fit the data adequately based on the *[sup.2]/(df) ratio being considerably larger than 2, as well as the CFI and the NNFI. A better fit to the data included the covariance between the items "my neighborhood involves youth in important decisions" and "I am given chances to work with other your people and adults in my neighborhood to make it better." Additionally a significant covariance was also observed between the items "if I feel strongly about an issue, I would talk to people in power (such as mayor, school board, city council, etc.) about my opinion" and "young people my age are able to make a difference in my neighborhood." The finding from the revised confirmatory factor analysis model adequately fit the data. Furthermore, the perceived opportunity of youth empowerment scale appears to have adequate face and factorial validity. No emphasis has previously been placed on using a confirmatory factor analysis in assessing the factor structure of empowerment scales for youth.

Hatcher (1992) proposed that in confirmatory factor analysis, the chi-square value should be no more than twice the degrees of freedom. However, due to the large sample size, the chi-square value was inflated, resulting in a chi-square/df ratio considerably larger than 2. These results are expected due to the large sample size, and are often reported by other researchers (Marsh et al., 1988). It is important to note that the covariance terms between items 1 and 3 are negative, suggesting that the two error terms are counterintuitive. This relationship may be explained because item 3 makes specific inferences about collaboration with individuals in the community as opposed to actual involvement with decisions.

As field research and program evaluation are challenged to match the theoretical and practical complexity of multi-component interventions, the use of brief scales to measure cognitive, affective and behavioral constructs of adolescent development becomes increasingly imperative. This study confirmed the structure of a slightly modified version of a short empowerment scale reported by Reininger, Evans, Griffin, Valois, Vincent et al. (2003). Moreover, our study confirms the factor structure proposed by Reininger, Evans, Griffin, Valois, Vincent and colleagues in a middle school population of adolescents, vis-a-vis the high school populations of previous studies.

However, some limitations should be mentioned. Convergent or divergent validity were not examined prior to survey administration. Therefore, further development of the scale is needed to ensure that this measure is convergent and divergent valid. In addition, temporal stability has not been established. Furthermore, these data come for a sample of middle school adolescents and are not representative of all middle school students within the this Southern state or nationally. Based on some of the limitations of this perceived youth empowerment scale, results should be interpreted with caution.

These findings may serve as a conduit for further research with the perceived youth empowerment brief scale. A brief empowerment scale with acceptable validity and reliability has value for field research and program evaluation measuring youth empowerment. Specifically, the scale may aid in understanding the opportunity that youth have to serve and participate in meaningful roles within the community from interventions designed to improve this developmental asset. Theorists imply that the empowerment process is essential to appropriate adolescent development and predictive of positive outcomes (Chinman & Linney, 1998; Ross & Mirowski, 1987). The developmental benefits of being empowered often transcends into adulthood, resulting in higher self-esteem and self-efficacy (Erikson, 1968). Additionally, underlying constructs of empowerment have been proven to be predictive of thriving, school success, helping others, delaying gratification, overcoming adversity, valuing diversity, and maintaining good health habits (Scales et al., 2000). When youth are viewed as assets in the community, rather than problems to be managed, they often turn to positive rather than negative behaviors (Malton, 1990; Schunk, 1986).

Middle school years are a critical time period for adolescents. At this time adolescents are rapidly undergoing psychosocial adjustment resulting in fluctuations in competence and self-esteem, and increased social pressure, which may lead to depression (Harter, 1982; Holmbeck, Paikoff, & Brooks-Gunn, 1995). Furthermore, if protective factors are not in place, adolescents may turn to maladaptive ways of dealing with anxiety and depression (Valois, Zullig, Huebner, Kammermann, & Drane, 2002; Valois, Zullig, Huebner, & Drane, 2001; Zullig, Valois, Huebner & Drane, 2001). Hence, if there are opportunities to participate in meaningful roles around positive adults within their communities, adolescents are significantly less likely to report engaging in antisocial and health risk behaviors (Schunk, 1986). The ability to measure an increase in perceived youth empowerment (especially from a neighborhood perspective) that is the result of well-planned, implemented and evaluated interventions is advantageous to future practice and research in health promotion and positive youth development.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS: The following MSYTS survey items 94-98 were utilized or modified from the Search Institute Profiles of Student Life: Attitudes and Behaviors, copyright 1996 Search Institute, Minneapolis, MN., used with permission.

This research was conducted as a component of a statewide Youth Tobacco Survey funded by the CDC/Legacy Foundation in cooperation with the SC Department of Health & Environmental Control.

REFERENCES

Bem, D.J. (1978). Self-perception theory. In L. Berkowitz (Ed). Advances in Experimental Social Psychology: Vol. 6. (pp. 39-50). New York: Academic Press.

Benson, P., Leffert, N., Scales, P., & Blyth, D. (1998). Beyond the 'village' rhetoric: Creating healthy communities for children and adolescents. Applied Developmental Science, 2(3), 138-159.

Bentler, P.M., & Bonett, D.G. (1980). Significance test and goodness-of-fit in the analysis of covariance structures. Psychological Bulletin, 88, 588-606.

Browne, M., & Cudeck, R. (1993) Cross-validation of a covariance structure. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 18(2),147-167.

Chinman, M.J., & Linney, J.A. (1998). Toward a model of adolescent empowerment: Theoretical and empirical evidence. Journal of Primary Prevention, 18(4), 393-413.

Erikson, E.H. (1968). Identity and crisis. New York: W.W. Norton & Company.

Harter, S. (1982). Developmental perspectives on the self-system. In M Hetherington (Ed). Handbook of Child Psychology: Social and Personality Development (pp. 44-79). New York: Wiley.

Hatcher, L. (1992). A step-by-step approach to using the SAS system for factor analysis and structural equation modeling. Cary, NC: SAS Institute Inc.

Holmbeck, G.N., Paikoff, R.L., & Brooks-Gunn, J. (1995). Parenting adolescents. In M

Bornstein (Ed). Handbook of Parenting (Vol. l) (pp. 91-118). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Kieffer, C. (1984). Citizen empowerment: A developmental perspective. In J. Rappaport, C. Swift, & R. Hess (Eds). Studies in empowerment: Steps toward understanding and action (pp. 60-84). New York: Haworth Press.

Leffert, N., Benson, E, Scales, E, Sharma, A., Drake, D., & Blyth, D. (1998). Developmental assets: Measurement and prediction of risk behaviors among adolescents. Applied Developmental Science, 2(4), 209-230.

Malton, K.I. (1990). Meaningful involvement in instrumental activity and well-being: studies of older adults and at risk urban teen-agers. American Journal of Community Psychology, 18(2), 297-320.

Marsh, H.W., Balla, J.R., & McDonald, R.P. (1988). Goodness-of-fit indexes in confirmatory factor analysis: The effect of sample size. Psychological Bulletin, 103, 391-410.

Moody, K. Childs, J., & Sepples, S. (2003). Intervening with at-risk youth: Evaluation of the youth empowerment and support program. Pediatric Nursing, 29(4), 263-273.

Nunnally, J. (1978). Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Oman, R., Vesely, S., McLeroy, K., Harris-Wyatt, V., Aspy C., Rodine, S., et al. (2002). Reliability and validity of the youth asset survey (YAS). Journal of Research on Adolescent Health, 31, 247-255.

Rappaport, J. (1981). In praise of paradox: A social policy of empowerment over prevention. American Journal of Community Psychology, 9(1), 1-23.

Reininger, B., Evans, A., Griffin, S., Valois, R.F., Vincent, M., Para-Medina, et al. (2003). Development of a youth survey to measure risk behaviors, attitudes and assets: Examining multiple influences. Health Education Research: Theory and Practice, 18(4), 461-476.

Rosenburg, M. (1979). Conceiving the self. New York: Basic Books.

Ross, C.E., & Mirowski, J. (1987). Normlessness, powerlessness, and trouble with the law. Criminology, 25, 257-278.

Scales, E, Benson, P, Leffert, N., & Blyth, D. (2000). Contribution of developmental assets to the prediction of thriving among adolescents. Applied Developmental Science, 4(1), 27-46.

Schunk, D.H. (1986). Vicarious influences on self-efficacy for cognitive skill learning. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 4, 316-327.

Valois, R.F., Zullig, K.J., Huebner, E.S., Kammermann, S.K., Drane, J.W. (2002). Relationship between of life satisfaction and sexual risk-taking behaviors among adolescents. Journal of Child & Family Studies, 11(4), 427-440.

Valois, R.F., Zullig, K.J., Huebner, E.S., & Drane, W.J. (2001). Relationship between life satisfaction and violent behaviors among adolescents. American Journal of Health Behavior, 25, 353-366.

Zimmerman, M.A., & Rappaport, J. (1988). Citizen participation, perceived control, and psychological empowerment. American Journal of Community Psychology,16, 725-750.

Zullig, K.J., Valois, R.F., Huebner, E.S., & Drane, W.J. (2001). Relationship between perceived life satisfaction and adolescents' substance abuse. Journal of Adolescent Health, 29(4), 279-288.

CHES AREAS

Responsibility I--Assessing Individual and Community Needs for Health Education

Competency A: Obtain health related data about social and cultural environments, growth and development factors, needs, and interests.

Sub-competency:

1) Employ or develop appropriate data-gathering instruments.

2) Apply survey techniques to acquire health data.

3) Conduct health-related needs assessment in communities.

Competency B: Distinguish between behaviors that foster and those that hinder well-being. Sub-competency:

1) Investigate physical, social, emotional, and intellectual factors influencing health behavior

2) Identify behaviors that tend to promote or compromise health.

3) Recognize the role of learning and affective experiences in shaping patterns of health behavior.

4) Analyze social, cultural, economic, and political factors that influence health.

Competency C: Infer needs for health education on the basis of obtained data. Sub-competency:

1) Analyze needs assessment data.

2) Determine priority areas of need for health education.

Competency D: Determine factors that influence learning and development. Sub-competency:

1) Assess the learning environment.

Responsibility II--Planning Effective Health Education Programs

Competency B: Develop a logical scope and sequence plan for a health education program. Sub-competency:

1) Develop a theory-based framework for health education programs.

Competency E: Develop health education programs using social marketing principles. Sub-competency:

1) Identify populations for health education programs.

2) Involve participants in planning health education programs.

Raheem J Paxton, MS, PhD is a Postdoctoral Fellow in the Cancer Research Center of Hawaii at the University of Hawaii-Manoa. Robert F. Valois, MS, PhD, MPH is a Professor of Health Promotion, Education & Behavior at the University of South Carolina. J. Wazner Drane, MS, PhD is a Professor of Biostatistics in the Department of Public Health at East Tennessee State University. Address all correspondence to Robert F. Valois, MS, PhD, MPH, Health Promotion, Education & Behavior, Arnold School of Public Health, 800 Sumter Street, Room 216, University of South Carolina, Columbia, South Carolina 29280; PHONE: [phone]; FAX: [phone]; E-MAIL: [e-mail].

Table 1. Simple Means and Standard Deviations for Perceived
Youth Empowerment.

    Perceived Youth Empowerment Brief Scale Items        Mean    (SD)

(1) My neighborhood involves youth in important
      decisions.                                         2.97   (1.18)
(2) I am given lots of chances to make my neighborhood
      better.                                            2.81   (1.20)
(3) I am given chances to work with other your people
      and adults in my neighborhood to make it better.   2.88   (1.25)
(4) Young people my age are able to make a difference
      in my neighborhood.                                3.18   (1.25)
(5) If I feel strongly about an issue, I would talk to
      people in power (such as mayor, school board,
      city council, etc) about my opinion.               3.24   (1.25)
(6) Over-all Perceived Youth Empowerment
      Scale (5-items)                                    3.02   (0.943)

Table 2. Alpha Coefficient and Correlations among
Perceived Empowerment Items.

       V1        V2        V3        V4        V5

V1   1.00000
V2   0.55044   1.00000
V3   0.53428   0.66992   1.00000
V4   0.49765   0.57106   0.59040   1.00000
V5   0.29919   0.34475   0.39222   0.43599   1.00000

Alpha Coefficient = .83

V1 = My neighborhood involves youth in important decisions

V2 = I am given lots of chances to make my neighborhood better

V3 = I am given chances to work with other young people and adults
in my neighborhood to make it better

V4 = Young people my age are able to make a difference in my
neighborhood

V5 = If I feel strongly about an issue, I would talk to people in power
(such as mayor, school board, city council, etc) about my opinion.