Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online 2021-05
The Youth Engagement with Global Sustainability Inventory (YEGSI): development and validity-based studies ( Inventario de Compromiso Juvenil con la Sostenibilidad: estudios de desarrollo y validez )
The construct of engagement has great potential for understanding adolescents’ subjective connection to/identification with global sustainability issues. However, there are currently no validated instruments for measuring young people’s engagement with global sustainability from a multidimensional psychological perspective. This study presents the Youth Engagement with Global Sustainability Inventory (YEGSI) and an assessment of its psychometric properties using a sample of 692 adolescents. An exploratory factor analysis using a random half of the sample (n = 341) revealed five dimensions: cognitive, emotional, behavioural, school, and family. A confirmatory factor analysis using the remaining participants (n = 351) supported modelling these factors as a correlated five-factor model. All five subscales had good reliability. Positive correlations between YEGSI dimensions and wellbeing were identified, indicating the scale had convergent validity. In sum, the YEGSI appeared to be a valid and reliable measure. This measure has the potential to develop research and practice in the domain of engagement with sustainability.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AlisatS.RiemerM. (2015). The environmental action scale: Development and psychometric evaluation. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 43, 13–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2015.05.006
2.
AppletonJ. J.ChristensonS. L.KimD.ReschlyA. L. (2006). Measuring cognitive and psychological engagement: Validation of the student engagement instrument. Journal of School Psychology, 44(5), 427–445. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2006.04.002
3.
BorojevicT.PetrovicN.VukD. (2014). Youth and environmental education for sustainable development. International Journal of Science and Research, 3(9), 57–62.
ClaytonS. (2003) . Environmental identity: A conceptual and an operational definition. In S. Clayton & S. Opotow (Eds.), Identity and the natural environment. https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/3644.001.0001
6.
DunnT. J.BaguleyT.BrunsdenV. (2014). From alpha to omega: A practical solution to the pervasive problem of internal consistency estimation. British Journal of Psychology, 105(3), 399–412. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjop.12046
7.
EignorD. R. (2013). The standards for educational and psychological testing. In K. F. Geisinger, B. A. Bracken, J. F. Carlson, J.-I. C. Hansen, N. R. Kuncel, S. P. Reise, & M. C. Rodriguez (Eds.), APA handbook of testing and assessment in psychology, Vol. 1. Test theory and testing and assessment in industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 245–250). American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/14047-013
FlanaganC.LevineP. (2010). Civic engagement and transition to adulthood. Future of Children, 20(1), 159–179. https://doi.org/10.1353/foc.0.0043
10.
FornellC.LarckerD. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39–50. https://doi.org/10.20546/ijcrar.2016.409.006
11.
FredricksJ. A.BlumenfeldP. C.ParisA. H. (2004). School engagement: Potential of the concept, state of the evidence. Review of Educational Research, 74(1), 59–109. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543074001059
12.
FredricksonB. L. (2001). The role of positive emotions in positive psychology. The Broaden-and-built theory of positive emotions. American Psychologist, 56(3), 218–226. https://doi.org/10.1O37//0OO3-O66X.56.3.218
13.
GalinhaI. C.Pais-RibeiroJ. (2005). Contribuição para o estudo da versão portuguesa da positive and negative affect schedule (PANAS): II - Estudo psicométrico. Análise Psicológica, 23(2), 219–227. https://doi.org/10.14417/ap.84
14.
GanaK.BrocG. (2019). Structural equation modeling with Lavaan. John Wiley & Sons.
15.
GasparT.RibeiroJ.LealI.MatosM.FerreiraA. (2009). Adaptation and validation of Social Support Satisfaction Scale for children and adolescents. Spanish Journal of Psychology, 12(1), 360–372. https://doi.org/10.1174/021347411797361284
16.
HoE.ClarkeA.DoughertyI. (2015). Youth-led social change: Topics, engagement types, organizational types, strategies, and impacts. Futures, 67, 52–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2015.01.006
HornJ. L. (1965). A rationale and test for the number of factors in factor analysis. Psychometrikaa, 30(2), 179–185. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02289447
19.
HuL.BentlerP. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6(1), 1–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118
20.
JangH.ReeveJ.DeciE. L. (2010). Engaging students in learning activities: It is not autonomy support or structure but autonomy support and structure. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102(3), 588–600. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019682
21.
KasserT. (2009). Psychological need satisfaction, personal well-being, and ecological sustainability. Ecopsychology, 1(4), 175–180. https://doi.org/10.1089/eco.2009.0025
22.
The KIDSCREEN Group Europe. (2006) . The KIDSCREEN questionnaires: Quality of life questionnaires for children and adolescents. Pabst Science Publishers.
23.
MallinckrodtB.WangC. D. (2004). Quantitative methods for verifying semantic equivalence of translated research instruments: A Chinese version of the Experiences in Close Relationships Scale. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 51(3), 368–379. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0167.51.3.368
24.
MarquesS. C.Pais-RibeiroJ. L.LopezS. J. (2007). Validation of a Portuguese version of the students’ life satisfaction scale. Applied Research in Quality of Life, 2(2), 83–94. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11482-007-9031-5
25.
MoreiraP. A. S.CloningerC. R.DinisL.SáL.OliveiraJ. T.DiasA.OliveiraJ. (2015). Personality and well-being in adolescents. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 1494. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01494
26.
MoreiraP. A. S.CunhaD.InmanR. A. (2020). An integration of multiple student engagement dimensions into a single measure and validity-based studies. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 38(5), 564–580. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734282919870973
27.
MoreiraP. A. S.RamalhoS.InmanR. (2020). The Engagement/Disengagement in Sustainable Development Inventory (EDISDI): Psychometric properties and validity-based studies. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1027/1015-5759/a000619
28.
ProkesovaL.VaculikM.KasparkovaL.ProchazkaJ. (2019). An integrated model of work engagement: How the satisfaction of basic psychological needs explains the relationship between personality and work engagement. Psihologija, 52(3), 265–284. https://doi.org/10.2298/PSI181204004P
29.
PurvisB.MaoY.RobinsonD. (2019). Three pillars of sustainability: In search of conceptual origins. Sustainability Science, 14(3), 681–695. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-018-0627-5
30.
R Core Team. (2019). R: A language and environment for statistical computing.
31.
RafteryA. E. (1995). Bayesian model selection in social research. Sociological Methodology, 25, 111–163. https://doi.org/10.2307/271063
32.
RogersD. S.DuraiappahA. K.AntonsD. C.MunozP.BaiX.GutscherH. (2012). A vision for human well-being: Transition to social sustainability. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 4(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2012.01.013
33.
RyanR. M.DeciE. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development and well-being. American Psychologist, 55(1), 68–78. https://doi.org/10.1037110003-066X.55.1.68
34.
Schermelleh-EngelK.MoosbruggerH.MüllerH. (2003). Evaluating the fit of structural equation models: Tests of significance and descriptive goodness-of-fit measures. Methods of Psychological Research, 8(2), 28–74.
35.
SinghK.JunnarkarM.KaurJ. (2016). Measures of positive psychology, development and validation. Springer.
36.
TabachnickB.FidellL. (2013). Using multivariate statistics. Pearson Education Inc.
37.
United Nations. (1997, April08). Commission on sustainable development begins fifth session meeting as preparatory body for assembly’s review of agenda 21[Press release]. https://www.un.org/press/en/1997/19970408.endev408.html
38.
Van BuurenS.Groothuis-OudshoornK. (2011). mice: Multivariate imputation by chained equations in R. Journal of Statistical Software, 45(3), 1–63. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v045.i03
39.
Van der HelS. (2016). New science for global sustainability? The institutionalisation of knowledge co-production in Future Earth. Environmental Science and Policy, 61, 165–175. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2016.03.012
40.
WattsR. J.FlanaganC. (2007). Pushing the envelope on youth civic engagement: A developmental and liberation psychology perspective. Journal of Community Psychology, 35(6), 779–792. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcop.20178
41.
World Commission on Environment and Development. (1987) . Our common future. World commission on environment and development. Oxford University Press.
