Positive Youth Development Revisited: A Contextual–Theoretical Approach for Disadvantaged Youth in Singapore

Abstract

This study, aimed at producing a contextualised positive youth development framework for socially and economically disadvantaged youths in Singapore, is an initial youth project phase for profiling this population through explanatory mixed-methods research. The online survey was conducted for 843 secondary school students. The questionnaire was guided by two PYD models—5/6 Cs and 40 developmental assets—based on Buenconsejo and Datu’s integrative ecological perspective. After data collection, Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) was conducted to find the underlying factors by using the Principal Axis Factoring (PAF) extraction method and Promax with Kaiser Normalisation rotation. A 31-item survey questionnaire was finalised after the EFA, identifying an underlying seven-factor structure to establish the Integrated Positive Youth Development (IPYD) framework. This study provided groundbreaking application of PYD in a non-Western context and strategic insights into how the strengths of disadvantaged youths in Singapore could be encouraged in a manner that is culturally knowledgeable.

1. Introduction

Historically, many studies on youth behaviours have primarily been framed by the ‘deficit perspective’ (Lerner et al., 2021; Roth & Brooks-Gunn, 2003), defining this period as a phase of ‘storm and stress’ (Hall, 1904), ‘developmental disturbance’ (Freud, 1969), or ‘crisis and identity confusion’ (Erikson, 1968). Even if developmental scientists were interested in furthering the positive behaviour of youth, the transition period was often considered a problem to be managed or a deficit to be corrected within this view. When qualifying positive behaviour, the focus was on negative influences that youth should steer clear or be in the absence of (Lerner, 2005; Lerner et al., 2021).

A shift in the perspective of youth development began in the 1990s, starting the positive youth development (PYD) movement (Sukarieh & Tannock, 2011; Qi et al., 2022). The concept of human plasticity was gaining traction in developmental biology and developmental science, introducing the relational developmental systems (RDS) metatheory. It paved the way for understanding how gene expression can be affected by environmental cues, as well as how biological and behavioural traits can persist across generations (Halfon & Forrest, 2018; Qi et al., 2022). This concept offered the potential to systematically change the trajectory of youth development, shifting the framing of youth development studies from a deficit-based to a strengths-based perspective—a more positive approach.

Consequently, PYD’s strengths-based approach assumed that individual youths possessed valuable resources within themselves and their environment that had the potential for systematic change, deriving from and contributing to mutually beneficial relations between the individual and the complex and changing context (Lerner et al., 2011; Lerner et al., 2021). Instead of being viewed as ‘problems to be managed’, the strengths-based perspective viewed youth as ‘resources to be developed’ (Burkhard et al., 2020), with the person’s development embedded within, organised, and co-regulated by the environment (Halfon & Forrest, 2018; Halfon et al., 2018). This paradigm shift led to the emergence of various PYD models and programmes that have demonstrated success mainly in the United States and other Western countries.

However, it is still unclear how well such frameworks and measures would work with non-Western samples. Qi and her colleagues reviewed PYD research studies published from 1995 to 2020 and reported that nine out of ten of the most productive authors and institutions were from Western countries; hence, the findings and evaluations were mainly based on Western children and youth (Qi et al., 2022). A common set of characteristics to explain the developmental process across diverse social contexts may not be applicable. Culture is an essential dimension of positive youth development; hence, more research must be conducted in a non-Western context. In recent years, a group of researchers applied the PYD concept to the Chinese youths in mainland China and Hong Kong (Lin et al., 2017; Shek et al., 2007; Wong et al., 2022). However, research on PYD from other cultural backgrounds is still lacking. The context in which young people live should be considered to ensure the generalisation of internal and external developmental assets in this particular context (Wiium & Dimitrova, 2019).

1.1. Youth Study in Singapore

Singapore is a compact island nation, and its greatest resource is its people. Therefore, developing human resources is key to the country’s growth and success. Education is very important to people, and the idea of meritocracy (Chiong & Lim, 2022) is deeply established, even if it has its challenges. Many people view education as the main way to move up in society (Chiong, 2022; J. Tan, 2019). This state of being concurs in a marketised educational landscape much energised by a culture of ‘parentocracy’, where parents with better economic, social, and cultural capital would proactively compete to secure more desirable educational opportunities and resources for their children (Chua & Seah, 2022; Teng, 2019; Teo & Koh, 2024).

Unsurprisingly, young people facing economic, social, and structural disadvantages in this competitive environment may struggle to reach their full potential. Limited access to opportunities, services, and support, along with exposure to high levels of stress and demands, can negatively affect their life paths and create gaps in development for those who are disadvantaged (Tomaszewski et al., 2022). These gaps can become more pronounced when different systems intersect, as problems in one area can lead to issues in others (MacDonald et al., 2020).

Most of the youth research published in the past decade in Singapore has rather focused on the negative aspects of development of disadvantaged youths; for example, delinquency behaviours (Ang et al., 2015; Chu et al., 2014; Neo et al., 2021), mental disorder (Drmic et al., 2017; Goh & Koh, 2023; Lin et al., 2017; Pang et al., 2017; A. C. Tan et al., 2014), drug addiction (Osman, 2014), game addiction (Ferguson & Wang, 2019; Liau et al., 2015), and bullying (Holt et al., 2016). Although these studies aimed to reduce risk factors and protect youth well-being from adverse experiences, they were heavily reliant on a deficit perspective. Despite the noble objectives of these studies, their approaches lacked a substantial focus on positive attributes that may lead to a misrepresentation of the youth’s needs and overlook their strengths, abilities, and potential. As discussed, however, the PYD paradigm enables a transformation in our perspective on youth development: it represents an evolving, bidirectional interaction between the individual youths and their specific context, facilitating the development of positive features in young people.

1.2. Aims of This Study

In this PYD paradigm, comprehending the contextual factors that shape daily interactions of youth is crucial. It is noteworthy that even though there is growing interest from Asian institutions in advancing PYD research (Qi et al., 2022), the majority of PYD-based models and programmes are still predominantly conceived and validated within an individualistic, developed Western context (Buenconsejo & Datu, 2023). In recent years, several studies have highlighted distinctions between thriving dimensions more valued in collective contexts and those less valued in individual contexts (Chai et al., 2022; Lin et al., 2017). That is, it is essential to consider the context in which young individuals reside to validate the positive youth development (PYD) assets relevant to their specific environment (Wiium & Dimitrova, 2019).

Hence, this paper aims to refine the positive youth development (PYD) framework to ensure its relevance within this specific context. By building on the constructs identified in this study, we validated a measurement for PYD. This reconstructed PYD framework and a validated measurement will significantly enhance our understanding of the strengths and resources of youths in Singapore.

2. Theoretical Ground—Integrative Ecological Perspective

Based on the strengths-based paradigm, PYD has been conceptualised in several ways, and several theoretical frameworks have been posited over the past few decades, all emphasising human potential, individual capability, and plasticity (Qi et al., 2022). Indeed, although PYD frameworks have been guided by practitioners in conceptualising and measuring optimal youth development, the variability among the multiple dimensions of these PYD frameworks, whether relatively straightforward and/or complex, has been challenging (Lerner et al., 2021). Intersections and commonalities among the indicators of PYD approaches have been observed, with integration or similarities of constructs or core concepts recognised when evaluating PYD-based programmes that have applied one of the known frameworks (Catalano et al., 2019; Fernandes et al., 2021; Shek et al., 2019). Additionally, the varying usage of PYD constructs and dimensions may lead to misalignment in understanding domains and/or constructs among practitioners from different cultures, as has been reported to already occur between practitioners and youth participants in PYD-based programmes (Williams & Deutsch, 2016). Hence, the call for an integrative framework has arisen to establish a robust, comprehensive structure that can effectively inform and guide PYD efforts internationally.

Notably, all conceptualisation of PYD stretches back to the RDS metatheory, emphasising the mutually beneficial relations between an individual and the environment in context. The individual is seen as inherently active, adaptive, and complex, with creative, organising, and regulatory abilities within this bidirectional relational system (i.e., human plasticity) (Halfon et al., 2018; Lerner, 2017; Lerner et al., 2021). This foundation is key and tested in Bronfenbrenner and Morris’s bioecological model. In this model, development is understood as a function of forces emanating from multiple settings and from the relations among these settings, as the person is situated in ‘nested structures’ of an expanding ecological environment (i.e., from micro-, meso-, and macro-life course systems) (Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 2007).

This perspective has inspired the integrative model proposed by Buenconsejo and Datu (2023), which serves as the theoretical ground for developing the contextualised PYD framework in this study. At the micro-level, an intrapersonal layer holds the dimensions of the self and development in identity, esteem, resilience, and general competence (or ‘intrapersonal-immediate indicators’)—whether cognitive or behavioural—in tasks or regarding psychosocial activities such as academics and sports. The next is the meso-level interpersonal layer, containing dimensions regarding positive connections made with family or peers, as well as other people in close contact (or ‘interpersonal-proximal indicators’), asking after their beneficial elements and the individual’s ability to initiate and maintain relations. Finally, the macro-level ecological layer encompasses the larger environment in which the individual is situated. The dimensions here indicate the youth’s values, principles, and prosocial behaviours (or ‘ecological-distal indicators’) that develop their capacity for social contributions.

In their integrative model, these three different overlapping and expanding layers cluster particular PYD dimensions, reflecting a differing degree of ‘dynamic interaction’ between the youth and ecology (see Figure 1). Significantly, Buenconsejo and Datu (2023) clarified that these layers are overlapping and not mutually exclusive. As such, a micro-level dimension (or indicator) could also relate to dimensions at the meso- and macro-levels. Therefore, the framework should not be construed as an organisation of definitive, nonoverlapping constructs but rather as a rough guide and unified, global lens of differing thriving dimensions.

3. Methods

This is a cross-sectional study to quantitatively assess the factors of an integrated PYD framework to be validated in the context of this study. The Institutional Review Board (IRB) at Singapore University of Social Science approved this study in April 2024. All study participants and their parents provided informed consent prior to participation.

3.1. Participants and Survey Procedure

The study participants were secondary school students aged 13 to 17 who attended a low-cost tuition programme provided by an NPO. Only students who were attending the online-tution programme were excluded. The programme was established to aid the economically disadvantaged in the community, with a particular focus on improving the academic achievements of its young people. During collaboration with this NPO, no direct contact was made with the youth population; parents were the primary point of contact throughout the entire survey process via email. In consideration of ethical guidelines pertaining to the participation of minors in research projects, it was necessary to obtain signed consent from both the parent or guardian and the survey participant (Kennan, 2015; Van Woudenberg et al., 2024).

Of the parents/guardians who were invited to enrol their child/children in the survey, 809 gave their signed consent, enrolling a total of 986 youths from June 17 to August 6 2025. Out of the 986 youth participants, 843 of them managed to complete the online survey. After data cleaning, 615 valid responses were analysed. The breakdown of the 615 survey participants’ gender, academic level, and household size is summarised. Of the 615 survey participants that provided valid responses, 364 (59.2%) were males. Concerning their academic levels, 165 (26.8%) were from Secondary 1, 176 (28.6%) from Secondary 2, 141 (22.9%) from Secondary 3, and 133 (21.6%) from Secondary 4 and 5. As for household size, 158 (25.7%) survey participants came from households with 2 to 4 members, 316 (51.4%) from households with 5 to 6 members, 139 (22.6%) from a household size of more than 6 members, and 2 (0.3%) unknown due to a missing value.

3.2. Measure: Integrated PYD Framework

Based on the ecological paradigm presenting three different, comprehensive levels of inter-relation between individuals and environment, this study restructured the PYD framework using two established PYD models, 5/6 Cs (Lerner et al., 2011) and the 40-item Developmental Assets (Benson, 2006), which came from widely acknowledged leading authorities on PYD internationally (Deane & Dutton, 2020; Pérez-Díaz et al., 2022).

Lerner and his colleagues proposed the 5 Cs (Competence, Confidence, Character, Caring, and Connection) as essential indicators of positive youth development grounded in the ecological perspective (Lerner et al., 2011). Later, they would introduce a 6th C (Contribution) as an outcome of the 5 Cs’ behaviours (Lerner, 2017; Shek et al., 2019). In addition to the 5/6 Cs, the 40-item Developmental Assets, pioneered by the Search Institute, identifies 40 individual strengths and environmental resources as developmental assets that can support young people in achieving adequate development and effective functioning (Benson, 2006). Utilising the ‘integrative ecological perspective’ proposed by Buenconsejo and Datu (2023), this study reorganised specific individual items from these two PYD models into a three-layered framework that underpins the design of the survey employed in this study (see Figure 2).

To rearrange for the survey items based on this integrated PYD framework (see Figure 2), published survey instrument samples or checklists on the 5/6Cs or 40 Developmental Assets were gathered as references (Arnold et al., 2012; Geldhof et al., 2014; Search Institute, n.d.; Wen et al., 2022; Zaremohzzabieh et al., 2024). The available PYD question items were sourced from the relevant literature and systematically categorised based on the domains outlined in their original models. Next, these domains—along with the associated question items—were mapped to one another as indicators following the integrative paradigm model (Buenconsejo & Datu, 2023). Individual items taken from the two PYD models were distributed across each cluster of mapped domains and cross-referenced to create an initial list of questions for the survey. Some domain-to-domain incompatibility was observed across the 5/6 Cs and 40 Developmental Assets during this cross-referencing process. To resolve such incompatible cases, the research team drew inspiration from the parameters established by the PYD integrated framework (see Figure 2) and relocated these incompatible question items to the best-matching domains across both the 5/6 Cs and 40 Developmental Assets relative to the scope set by each integrative paradigm layer.

After the initial list of question items was confirmed, each was checked for non-ambiguity in meaning, language conciseness, and sociocultural relevancy. An item could be wholly adopted if found suitable for use, refined accordingly, or rejected. Single- or double-negative questions were avoided (Krosnick, 2018; Robinson & Leonard, 2024) since reverse items have been shown to have little effect in reducing response bias and would be more liable to measurement errors (İlhan et al., 2024; Suárez Álvarez et al., 2018). Lastly, a local non-profit organisation (NPO) serving an economically disadvantaged youth community in Singapore was consulted for the appropriateness of the question items.

3.3. Data Analysis: Exploratory Ractor Analysis (EFA)

The Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) of the 34-item integrated PYD survey was carried out using SPSS (version 29). The analysis procedure was conducted using Principal Axis Factoring (PAF) for extraction, which focuses on identifying the underlying factor structure by analysing the common shared variance among the variables, excluding unique variance. Promax rotation with Kaiser Normalisation was selected as this option allows the underlying factors to correlate because the factors measured by the survey are highly likely to be related.

The Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin (KMO) measure of sampling adequacy was 0.958, indicating excellent suitability of the data for factor analysis. Bartlett’s test of sphericity was significant (p < 0.001), further supporting that the correlation matrix was not an identity matrix and there was indeed a patterned relationship among the items; thus, it was appropriate to carry out factor analysis.

3.3.1. Item–Level Analysis

The range of responses for all items was 1 to 5. The five-point Likert scale measuring the degree of disagreement and agreement was adopted; options ranged 1—Not at all like me; 2—A little like me; 3—Kind of like me; 4—A lot like me; and 5—Just like me. All 34 survey items were positively worded. The mean scores ranged from 2.244 to 4.070. The descriptive statistics for the items are presented in

Table 1. Summary of item–level descriptive statistics.

Item	Mean	Std Dev	Skewness	Kurtosis
A1	3.239	1.029	−0.023	−0.379
A2	3.280	1.003	−0.116	−0.448
A3	3.478	1.049	−0.252	−0.561
A4	2.820	1.042	0.132	−0.458
A5	3.231	0.993	−0.005	−0.453
A6	3.610	1.089	−0.340	−0.688
B1	3.187	1.011	0.112	−0.509
B2	3.156	0.984	0.074	−0.465
B3	3.488	1.078	−0.266	−0.604
C1	3.712	0.982	−0.340	−0.536
C2	3.078	1.002	0.106	−0.486
C3	3.852	0.934	−0.472	−0.414
C4	3.293	1.049	−0.012	−0.662
C5	3.846	1.080	−0.693	−0.321
C6	3.881	0.999	−0.597	−0.196
D1	2.906	1.189	0.136	−0.811
D2	3.423	1.080	−0.185	−0.674
D3	3.207	1.098	−0.150	−0.569
D4	3.649	1.059	−0.444	−0.442
D5	3.593	1.004	−0.302	−0.481
D6	3.574	1.040	−0.350	−0.412
E1	3.712	0.982	−0.371	−0.466
E2	3.919	0.908	−0.455	−0.452
E3	3.820	0.988	−0.446	−0.486
E4	4.070	0.910	−0.660	−0.350
F1	3.597	1.026	−0.403	−0.260
F2	2.244	1.154	0.701	−0.330
F3	3.089	1.065	0.089	−0.609
F4	2.992	1.122	0.009	−0.706
F5	2.980	1.105	0.046	−0.558
G1	3.650	0.982	−0.373	−0.392
G2	3.748	0.975	−0.429	−0.425
G3	3.714	0.985	−0.315	−0.655
G4	3.844	0.979	−0.455	−0.623

below.

3.3.2. Decision to Retain Factors

The decision to extract the number of factors for the factor solution was guided by a few methods: (1) visually inspecting the scree plot, (2) eigenvalues (>1), and (3) theoretical considerations from the literature review and interpretations from domain experts.

When EFA was first run, the number of factors extracted was based on eigenvalue > 1, which yielded a five-factor model. A visual inspection of the scree plot also suggested that the ‘elbow point’ was where the eigenvalues started to level off after five factors. Based on the integrative paradigm of the PYD constructs in Figure 2, it was anticipated that there would be between six and eight underlying constructs. Thus, a series of analyses were conducted comprising five-, six-, seven- and eight-factor models, and these models were evaluated based on their interpretability to the PYD constructs and cleanness of structure, one defined by the fewest cross-loading items (>0.3) and item loadings above 0.32. See

Table 2. Evaluation Table of 5-, 6-, 7- and 8-factor models.

Analysis	No of Items with Loadings Across 2 Factors	No of Items with Loadings Across 3 Factors	No of Items with Loadings Above 0.32	Interpretability to the PYD Constructs
5-factor	6	0	33	Distinct constructs are grouped in 2 of the factors
6-factor	6	0	33	Better differentiation of constructs but 2 factors have distinct constructs grouped under them
7-factor	4	0	33	Clearer distinction of constructs
8-factor	2	1	34	One item has excessive cross loading on 3 factors and the removal of this item will cause the factor to have only 2 items

for the evaluation.

The factor structure using the Principal Axis Factoring (PAF) extraction method and Promax with Kaiser Normalisation rotation on the 34 items revealed that a seven-factor solution provided an optimal number of interpretable factors. The communalities of all the items were >0.3, and the seven-factor model explained 57.95% of the total common variance. When Cronbach’s Alpha with item deletion was calculated for each of the seven factors, it was suggested that the removal of two items by deleting these items would help to improve the internal consistency of the factors. An additional item was also removed from the eventual factor structure when it failed to load (>0.32) on any factor. In the end, the seven-factor framework with 31 items was finalised (see

Table 3. Item–factor loading.

	Factor
Item	1	2	3	4	5	6	7
A2	0.856
A4	0.747
A5	0.683
A1	0.675
A3	0.669
A6	0.626
B2	0.403
D2		0.854
D1		0.805
D3		0.770
D4		0.738
D5		0.517
G2			0.845
G1			0.801
G4			0.791
G3			0.444
F4				0.869
F5				0.734
F3				0.713
E4					0.820
E2					0.714
E3					0.648
D6						0.918
F1						0.678
B3						0.468
C3							0.610
C4							0.563
C1							0.562
C6							0.459
C5							0.390
C2							0.332

). Internal consistency of each factor was relatively strong, with Cronbach’s Alpha 0.781–0.892 and McDonald’s Omega 0.785–0.892 (

Table 4. Internal consistency and range of factor loadings.

No.	Indicators	Factor	Cronbach’s Alpha	McDonald’s Omega	No. of Items	Range of Factor Loadings
1	Intrapersonal-Immediate	Self-concept	0.870	0.869	7	0.403 to 0.856
2	Interpersonal-Proximal	Social Network Support	0.892	0.892	5	0.517 to 0.854
3	Ecological-Distal	Prosocial Values	0.858	0.859	4	0.444 to 0.845
4	Ecological-Distal	Community Empowerment	0.864	0.865	3	0.713 to 0.869
5	Interpersonal-Proximal	Authoritative Social Structure	0.881	0.882	3	0.648 to 0.820
6	Intrapersonal-Immediate	School Belonging	0.781	0.785	3	0.468 to 0.918
7	Interpersonal-Proximal	Relational Autonomy	0.821	0.821	6	0.332 to 0.610

).

4. Results: Seven-Factor Integrated PYD Framework

The naming of the factors is determined by the theoretical meaning interpreted from the total configuration of items in each factor, supported by a relevant literature review (Neville et al., 2024; Hoang et al., 2021; Kalkbrenner, 2021) (see

Table 5. Explanation of factors with the literature.

Factors	Literature
1. Prosocial Values: Prosocial values provide guiding principles or motivational goals leading to voluntary behaviours (e.g., helping, sharing) that support the social fabric or advance the welfare of others. In this way, such behaviour contributes to the world beyond oneself, and a difference is made in the lives of others. Behaving according to prosocial values is inherently rewarding and found to reflexively benefit the prosocial person in terms of physical and psychological well-being. Those who consider such values as central to their self-identity are more likely to exhibit prosocial behaviour across situations.	Baumsteiger (2019); Benish-Weisman et al. (2019)
2. Self-Concept: Self-concept contains one’s self-related beliefs and self-evaluations, mediating the connection between social context and individual behaviour. It persists but is also malleable and fluid across time, and it affects and is affected by life experiences and social expectations in a particular environment. Adolescence is an important transition phase for self-concept development, which affects the youth’s capacity to commit to goals for the future. A stable and clear self-concept is positively associated with prosocial values and predicts better social relations.	Crone and Fuligni (2020); Wehrle and Fasbender (2019)
3. School Belonging: In terms of psychological functioning, school belonging is understood as the extent of personal acceptance, respect, inclusion, and support felt by the child in the school context. It operates through school-based relationships and experiences, student–teacher relationships, and the child’s general feelings about the school, with factors such as academic motivation, teacher support, and environmental safety affecting the sense of school belonging for the student. School belonging contributes to better academic achievement and behavioural, social–emotional, and cognitive outcomes for the student.	Allen et al. (2018); Korpershoek et al. (2020)
4. Community Empowerment: Community empowerment is a bottom–up process of highlighting community members as key in the development of the community through believing in each of their potentials and discovering, enhancing, and expanding their human ability. Empowerment becomes a transformative tool, enabling a sense of agency in each community member to act in response to any domain pressure (e.g., socioeconomic, political, religious) that impacts lives at any level of society—from the individual to a collective—hence encouraging community participation.	Ani et al. (2018); Joseph (2020)
5. Authoritative Social Structure: Although culture and tradition affect parenting style, the demand of the present world necessitates authoritative parenting, evaluated as the child development approach able to provide fair and consistent discipline while expressing warmth and nurturing. And while parents are a child/ youth’s significant role models, non-parental role models or mentors in the environment (even through media) also affect the individual’s learning and developmental outcomes. This presence of caring, authoritative adults able to provide guidance and structure contributes to his or her healthy development towards becoming a “complete human being” with socially valued self-esteem, social skills, discipline, and democratic values (e.g., cooperation, collective decision-making for rightful purposes).	Kearney and Levine (2020); Scott et al. (2018); Tiwari (2022);
6. Social Network Support: People are embedded in relationships within networks through which they negotiate, construct, are given recognition of, and can stabilise their social identities. Stronger relationships serve as a more likely source of social support—inclusive of cultural and social capital (i.e., access to resources) and taking place on emotional, instrumental, and informational levels. Certainly, resources can be obtained through contacts of lower frequencies and depth, established through different social groups and thereby increasing probability of resource access. Still, the family (and tribe), as the social form that the individual is born into, is considered the primary social circle, one depended on since birth, and long after, to meet a range of needs. Also, task-orientated interactions (including verbal and nonverbal communications) would facilitate feelings of family identity, interdependence, and commitment among its members.	Gamper (2022); Segrin and Flora (2018); Vonneilich (2022)
7. Relational Autonomy: Autonomous agency does not imply escaping from social influences; rather, one is able to fashion a certain response to it. The individual self is shaped by social relationships and social determinants (e.g., gender, race, and class). As such, personal autonomy can only be developed within a society, where the ways complex social factors contribute to or constrain individual autonomy can be explored. People can be autonomous to varying degrees, exercising differing multidimensional combinations of self-determination, self-governance, and self-authorisation. These dimensions are characterised by having the freedom to decide and enact choices affecting one’s life and personal identity; possession of skills, competencies, and internal authenticity to make and enact such choices; and a willingness to be accountable and self-evaluative of the choices made.	Bin (2021); Lee (2023)

).

Factor 1, ‘Self-Concept’, has seven items, including the item ‘I am happy with myself most of the time’. Factor 2, with five items, is named ‘Social Network Support’, including the item ‘I enjoy conversing with my parent(s) or guardian(s)’. In Factor 3, named ‘Prosocial Values’, there are four items, including the items ‘I try to encourage others when they are not as good at something as me’ and ‘I want to make the world a better place’. Factor 4, with three items, is named ‘Community Empowerment’, including items such as ‘I am given useful roles in my community’ and ‘I feel I am valuable to others and the community’. ‘Authoritative Social Structure’, which is Factor 5, has three items, including the item ‘My parent(s) or guardian(s) encourage me to do well’. Factor 6, named ‘School Belonging’, has three items, including ‘My secondary school provides a caring environment’ and ‘I feel safe at my secondary school’. The last factor, Factor 7, is named ‘Relational Autonomy’, with six items, including the items ‘I’m good at keeping friends’ and ‘I am comfortable with people even if they are different from me’.

These seven identified factors are all classified into three distinct categories within the integrated PYD framework (see Figure 3).

5. Discussion

The youth project undertaken by our research team set out with two aims: first, to adapt the PYD framework to the specific sociocultural context of Singapore, and second, to profile a community of disadvantaged Singaporean youths according to it. This was achieved by collecting and analysing data from both quantitative surveys and qualitative focus group discussions with youths aged between 13 and 17. This paper serves as the first stage of a larger explanatory mixed-methods project aimed at refining and contextualising PYD, which is referred to as the ‘Integrated 7-Factor Positive Youth Development’ (IPYD) framework. It achieves this by synthesising the 5/6 Cs and the 40 Developmental Assets models, all while being informed by the ecological integrative paradigm proposed by Buenconsejo and Datu (2023).

Based on this ecological framework, an initial measurement questionnaire was derived from these two models for a survey, whose cultural suitability was confirmed by the research team and by a local NPO working with disadvantaged youths in Singapore. A comprehensive seven-factor integrated structure with 31 items for the research project emerged after conducting EFA on the survey data. This collected actual survey data was analysed to evaluate the fit of the underlying factor structure and to validate the identified dimensions of positive youth development in Singapore.

During the statistical analysis, the observed re-clustering of items with their corresponding dimensions across multiple layers, as seen within the various factors, should be highlighted. Such variation could be indicative of culture-specific meaning at play. Departing from the dimension cluster arrangement of Buenconsejo and Datu’s (2023) integrative ecological perspective (see Figure 2), two factors of this model, after EFA, were found to comprise crossed-over items. For example, ‘School Belonging’ comprised items from all three indicators, while ‘Relational Autonomy’ was composed of both intrapersonal-immediate and interpersonal-proximal indicators, albeit mostly from the latter.

The highest weight assigned to each indicator type determined the layer in which the factor was ultimately placed, which the relevant literature supports (Table 5). Secondly, the prescribed parameters of each layer framed the factor placed within, providing insight into the bidirectional interactions between the youth and his/her ecological context. For example, ‘School Belonging’ served as an intrapersonal-immediate indicator. It includes a variety of items from all three layers and reflects the personal experiences of individual youths regarding their relationships within the school. This relationship can significantly affect a young person’s sense of acceptance and inclusion in that environment. The connection formed between the developing youth and others became salient in ‘Relational Autonomy’, which acted as an interpersonal-proximal indicator. Young people cultivate their competency in making independent decisions in relation to significant others, thereby enhancing their emotional resilience.

Compared to the two factors discussed above, the item configuration of the remaining five factors (i.e., ‘Prosocial Values’, ‘Self-concept’, ‘Community Empowerment’, ‘Authoritative Social Structure’, and ‘Social Network Support’) maintained the same positionings within the layers. Backtracking to the domains from the originating PYD frameworks showed these largely stayed invariant within these factors, with minimal shifting among their constructs when narrowed in. For example, the category of ‘Prosocial Values’ is entirely made up of items that come from the positive values domain within the internal assets of the 40 Developmental Assets framework. This category is grouped with Caring/Compassion and Character, which are part of the 5/6 Cs framework. In contrast, ‘Self-concept’ primarily consists of items from the positive identity domain, although it includes one item from the commitment to learning domain (both of which are internal assets in the 40 Developmental Assets). This category is aligned with Competence/Confidence as outlined in the 5/6 Cs framework (see Figure 2). In summary, the meaning of these latent constructs is consistently maintained at a broad level.

Moreover, movements of items across the dimensions and layers, stemming from the two PYD models (5/6 Cs and 40 Development Assets), should be understood through the lens of the integrative model. This model notes that the three layers—micro, mezzo and ecological—are not mutually exclusive; rather, their indicators operate in an overlapping manner. Furthermore, the constructs derived from these two PYD models could be generalised across and within different groups and countries, while still capturing the distinct nuances reflective of local experiences (Wang et al., 2023). As such, the seven-factor Integrated Positive Youth Development (IPYD) framework proposed in this study outlines seven key areas that are essential for the growth and thriving of youth within the context of this research. This framework underscores the bidirectional interactions between individual youths and the key people and communities in their lives, such as family (Authoritative Social Structure and Social Network Support), schools (School Belonging), and the wider community (Community Empowerment). In Singapore’s sociocultural context, these relationships are shaped by a communitarian ethos that values both guidance and mutual responsibility—where authority is expressed through care and moral stewardship (Cho et al., 2022). Within this interconnected system, youths develop Prosocial Values, Self-Concept, and Relational Autonomy. The latter reflects how autonomy in Singapore is often understood as self-determination exercised within interdependent relationships, where personal agency is balanced with respect for family, social harmony, and collective well-being.

This seven-factor Integrated Positive Youth Development (IPYD) framework provides valuable insights into the strengths and assets of disadvantaged youths in Singapore, as well as how these strengths can be further developed and enhanced in the local context. For example, as discussed above, if communities are to play a vital role in fostering these developmental strengths, it is crucial to critically assess how they perceive and understand their roles in youth development. We must explore how both the community and its systems recognise the successful development of youths who face challenges due to their disadvantaged status. The insights garnered from this study will serve as a key strategy for encouraging multi-layered and interactive systems within communities to collaborate and pool their resources in a long-term, interconnected initiative aimed at promoting the developmental strengths of local youths.

This study has some inherent limitations. First, the sample was drawn from a specific youth community that qualified for care from the NPO due to economic, social, and structural disadvantages. As a result, it is essential to replicate the findings in other youth communities across Singapore. Furthermore, since the participants were not randomly selected, caution should be exercised when interpreting the generalizability of the findings to other youth populations.

6. Conclusions

Despite the limitations identified, this study presents significant research implications for practise. The primary contribution of this investigation is the development of a measure for positive youth development (PYD) that comprehensively encompasses the internal and external strengths and assets of youth across intrapersonal, interpersonal, and social dimensions. This newly validated PYD framework provides an evidence-based foundation for more precise and functional understandings of youth within the Singaporean context. Furthermore, it can serve as a credible and legitimate tool for the evaluation of local youth programmes.

The field of youth practise and policy is increasingly recognising the necessity of adopting a knowledge-based approach. It is imperative that well-grounded research informs decision-making processes and assesses the implementation of policies and practises. Consequently, this validated PYD framework is both timely and advantageous for youth practise, as well as serving as an essential survey tool for youth research in Singapore. This paper significantly contributes to the expanding body of literature that aims to operationalize PYD in cultural contexts beyond those traditionally associated with Western paradigms.