Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

The Positive Youth Development (PYD) framework emphasizes adolescents’ strengths and the role of supportive environments in fostering positive development (Lerner et al., 2015). This study investigates the role of psychological need satisfaction (PNS) in PYD outcomes across structured and unstructured out-of-school time (OST) contexts. Data were collected from 832 U.S. adolescents (mean age = 15.78, SD = 1.16, 56.2% female, 53.4% non-Hispanic White) involved in afterschool programs (structured context) who also reported using local parks (unstructured context). Structural equation modeling assessed the relationship between demographic variables, participation frequency, PNS, and PYD. Results indicate that participation frequency had the strongest relationship with PNS in both types of OST. Furthermore, satisfaction of the need for relatedness in parks, and competence and relatedness in programs, were significantly related to adolescents’ PYD. These findings underscore the importance of fostering psychological need satisfaction in both structured and unstructured OST to support adolescents’ developmental needs.

Keywords

adolescents positive youth development (PYD)need satisfaction out-of-school-time structured leisure unstructured leisure

Supporting adolescents’ development requires understanding how different contexts influence them (Smetana et al., 2006). Positive youth development (PYD) emphasizes that development occurs through interactions between individuals and their contexts, which include physical settings, social environments, and broader societal norms (Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 2006; Lerner et al., 2014). These contexts can amplify adolescents’ strengths by offering opportunities for exploration, fostering supportive relationships, and promoting values (Daniel et al., 2012; Zarrett et al., 2009), making it essential to explore their role in fostering PYD. Several frameworks have been designed to operationalize PYD. In this study, we adopt the five Cs model of PYD developed by Lerner et al. (2005), which identifies five foundational components of adolescent thriving: competence, confidence, connection, character, and caring. These dimensions are theorized to collectively support the sixth C of contribution to self, family, community, and civil society (Lerner et al., 2005).

In Western industrialized countries, adolescents spend nearly half of their day outside school, highlighting the importance of out-of-school time (OST) as a developmental context (Wight et al., 2009). OST activities provide valuable opportunities for skill-building, social connection, and a sense of belonging, all of which support PYD (Zarrett et al., 2009). These activities can be categorized as structured or unstructured, differing in organization, supervision, and emphasis on skill-building (L. L. Caldwell & Faulk, 2013; Mahoney et al., 2006).

This study focuses on two OST contexts: after-school programs as structured OST and local public parks as unstructured OST, to explore how these settings relate to psychological need satisfaction (PNS) and PYD. Examples of afterschool programs in our study include academic programs, community service programs, arts and music clubs, organized sports, and recreation programs. Specifically, we examine whether psychological need satisfaction (autonomy, competence, and relatedness) mediates the relationship between adolescents’ demographic variables and participation frequency in these contexts and their PYD outcomes. PNS is a critical mechanism through which PYD is fostered (Deci & Vansteenkiste, 2004) as it supports outcomes such as prosocial behaviors, positive affect, and mental health (Alivernini et al., 2023; Buenconsejo & Datu, 2024). However, there is a lack of research comparing how structured and unstructured OST contexts satisfy adolescents’ psychological needs. Addressing this gap can provide valuable insights to help families and community organizations create environments that effectively support youth development.

Positive Youth Development in Out of School Time Contexts

The PYD framework highlights adolescents’ strengths, such as competence, confidence, character, caring, and connection, and emphasizes that these strengths can be fostered through supportive environments (Lerner, 2018). Structured OST contexts, like afterschool programs, are considered to be supportive environments that enable growth and well-being through positive interactions and skill-building opportunities (Lerner et al., 2015). Participation in structured programs and organized sports is associated with positive developmental outcomes (Ettekal & Agans, 2020) such as socioemotional development (Berger et al., 2020), physical and psychological well-being (H. A. Caldwell et al., 2022), and academic achievement (Vandell et al., 2022).

However, adolescents also spend time in unstructured OST contexts (Afterschool Alliance, 2020). Unstructured OST includes activities without structured goals, guidance, or supervision, like watching TV or going to parks or malls (Kim et al., 2020). While there is a common assumption that unsupervised time may lead to delinquency or risky behavior (L. L. Caldwell & Faulk, 2013), it is important to recognize that adolescents seek an increased sense of autonomy during this period of life (Harris-McKoy & Cui, 2013). Unstructured OST offers adolescents an opportunity to exercise autonomy by choosing activities independently (Walker et al., 2020). Additionally, unstructured OST contexts such as parks and green spaces promote physical activity, enhanced mental well-being, and prosocial behavior (Hunter et al., 2019). However, unstructured OST contexts such as parks and green spaces have received less attention in developmental literature (Mainella et al., 2011).

Participation frequency significantly impacts the benefits of OST involvement; adolescents who consistently engage in OST activities are more likely to experience PNS and PYD (Fredricks, 2011). However, the availability of both structured and unstructured OST opportunities and the quality of adolescents’ experiences in them are related to individual and community-level demographic factors. For instance, systemic inequalities shape access, as Black and Latinx communities disproportionately encounter barriers like limited programs, transportation challenges, and high costs, restricting participation in high-quality OST programs (Afterschool Alliance, 2020). These inequalities also contribute to disparities in experiences within parks, with safety and comfort often varying by racial and ethnic background (Hoover & Lim, 2021). Residential community type adds another layer of complexity; urban youth may have access to more structured OST programs, but face challenges like overcrowded parks or safety concerns that discourage unstructured outdoor activities (Rivera et al., 2022). In contrast, rural youth may have greater access to natural environments but fewer structured programs (Afterschool Alliance, 2020). Gender differences further shape participation; female adolescents, for example, report a reduced sense of safety in parks (Liu et al., 2024). It is therefore important to examine PYD in OST contexts in relation to these demographic factors.

Psychological Need Satisfaction: A Tool for Positive Youth Development

Psychological need satisfaction (PNS) is essential for optimal development (Deci & Vansteenkiste, 2004). As operationalized in Ryan and Deci’s (2000) self-determination theory (SDT), the three basic psychological needs are autonomy, competence, and relatedness. Autonomy refers to perceiving one’s actions as voluntary and self-endorsed. Competence involves perceiving one’s actions as effective and having mastery over one’s environment. Relatedness includes feelings of closeness and connection in daily interactions (Deci & Ryan, 2000; Ryan & Deci, 2020).

Studies show that satisfaction of these psychological needs predicts positive developmental experiences in youth (Alivernini et al., 2023; Tadesse et al., 2022). Specifically, prior research shows that PNS can positively predict prosocial behaviors and positive affect in youth and greater psychological well-being (Alivernini et al., 2023; Buenconsejo & Datu, 2024). Afterschool programs can foster PNS and promote PYD (Bean et al., 2021), helping youth internalize skills and apply them in other settings (Deci & Vansteenkiste, 2004). However, because such programs are designed for specific skill-building goals, they may offer less autonomy than unstructured OST contexts. The freedom offered in unstructured OST activities has the potential to both promote PYD (Ward & Zabriskie, 2011) and to be detrimental to youth health and development (Weybright et al., 2019). Unstructured OST may increase the likelihood of risky behaviors (L. L. Caldwell & Faulk, 2013) and has been linked to higher odds of substance use (Kotlaja et al., 2018). However, the heightened need for autonomy during adolescence (Harris-McKoy & Cui, 2013) makes autonomy-supportive contexts crucial for fostering self-determination (Ramsing & Sibthorp, 2008).

Parks and green spaces have only recently begun to be specifically studied for their potential association with PNS (Landon et al., 2021). Previous qualitative work demonstrates that parks and green spaces offer adolescents opportunities to explore behaviors autonomously, develop social and individual identities by meeting peers and exploring their own world, unaccompanied and unsupervised by adults (Lloyd et al., 2008). Unstructured OST supports healthy development by enabling self-expression (e.g., Kleiber, 1999). Additionally, local park use enhances place attachment (Bazrafshan et al., 2021), fulfilling the need for belonging by reinforcing social ties and community connection (Scannell & Gifford, 2017). Given the distinct characteristics of OST contexts, it is crucial to explore the nuances of need satisfaction within these contexts and its relationship with adolescent development.

The Present Study

Employing structural equation modeling, this study examines the relationships among demographic variables such as age, gender, race, residential type, and our focal constructs: PNS in afterschool programs and parks, and PYD. Specifically, this study addresses the following research questions:

How does frequency of attendance/visitation relate to PNS in afterschool programs and parks?

What is the relationship between demographic variables (age, race, gender, and community type) and PNS in afterschool programs and parks?

What is the relationship between PYD and PNS in afterschool programs and parks?

Understanding how OST activities support adolescents’ PNS and foster PYD provides insights for improving program efficacy and guiding families, community organizations, and municipalities in creating contexts that better support youth.

Method

This study used cross-sectional survey data from U.S. adolescents, exploring their experiences in afterschool programs and local parks. Mplus (version 8.10) was used for modeling analyses. Missingness analysis showed that out of 832 participants, only 24 (2.8%) submitted surveys containing missing data. Little’s MCAR test showed that the missingness was not completely at random (χ² = 1,315.353, df = 984, p = .000). A pattern of missingness was identified for the variable age, however, age was not a key variable in this study and showed less than 1% missingness. To address this missingness and mild non-normality, maximum likelihood estimation with robust standard errors (MLR) was used in the analyses (Shi et al., 2021).

Procedures

A nationally representative sample was collected using a survey distributed through a Qualtrics panel to adolescents aged 13 to 17 between April 2023 and July 2023. Qualtrics is a national research panel, which maintains a diverse pool of U.S.-based respondents (Qualtrics, 2020). Adult members of the research panel received an invitation to allow their adolescent children to take this study’s survey. Prior to participation, both parental consent and adolescent assent were obtained in accordance with institutional review board (IRB) guidelines. Rigorous data screening was conducted by the Qualtrics team and the authors to ensure data quality. Participants who failed multiple attention check questions, provided nonsensical responses to open-ended questions, and completed the survey in an unreasonably short amount of time were removed from the sample. Responses coming from the same IP address with matching demographic information were also removed (see Agans et al., 2024 for the importance of careful screening of online data).

Participants

Participants in this study were representative of the U.S. adolescent population. 832 U.S. adolescents (average age = 15.78, SD = 1.16, 39.8% male, 56.2% female, 4.0% nonbinary) participating in an afterschool program and with access to a local park within 15 min participated in the study. When completing the racial demographic question, participants could select all that applied to describe their racial identity. In this sample, 112 (13.5%) participants were identified as multiracial, 539 (64.7%) participants identified as White, 181 (21.7%) identified as Hispanic or Latino/Latina, 108 (12.9%) identified as Black or African American, 76 (9.1%) identified as Asian or Asian American, 17 (2.0%) identified other race/ethnicity, 16 (1.9%) identified as Middle Eastern or North African, and 10 (1.2%) identified Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander as a part of their racial identity. Participants occupied the following residential community types: 93 (11.2%) large city, 252 (30.3%) suburb of a large city, 200 (24.0%) smaller city, 218 (26.2%) town, and 69 (8.3%) rural area. Regarding afterschool program attendance, 34 adolescents (4.1%) reported attending once a month, 100 (12%) several times a month, 154 (18.5%) once a week, 260 (31.3%) multiple times a week, 189 (22.7%) almost every day, and 94 (11.3%) every day. In terms of park visitation frequency, 98 adolescents (11.8%) reported visiting parks once a year, 114 (13.7%) once every 6 months, 134 (16.1%) once every 3 months, 239 (28.7%) once a month, 145 (17.4%) once a week, 74 (8.9%) three times a week, and 28 (3.4%) every day.

Measures

Demographics

Participants reported demographic information including age, race/ethnicity, gender, and residential community type. Age was reported as an open-ended response. For gender, participants selected from male, female, and nonbinary. Race/ethnicity was reported by selecting all applicable options: White, American Indian or Alaska Native, Asian or Asian American, Black or African American, Hispanic or Latino/Latina, Middle Eastern or North African, Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander, and Other. Participants who marked more than one option were labeled multiracial. To report residential community type, participants selected from large city, suburb of a large city, smaller city, town, or rural area.

Program Attendance Frequency

Participants were first asked if they participated in an afterschool program. If they answered yes, they were then asked, “How frequently do you participate in your afterschool program?” Response options included: once a month, multiple times a month, once a week, multiple times a week, almost every day, and every day.

Park Visitation Frequency

To assess how frequently adolescents use their local park, they were asked to answer the question “How frequently do you visit your local park?” with the response options being never, yearly, once in 6 months, once in 3 months, once a month, once a week, 3 times a week, and daily. A local park was defined as “a park you can get to in 15 min or less.”

Psychological Need Satisfaction

To assess PNS in afterschool programs and parks, we adapted Ryan and Deci’s (2000) need satisfaction scale, which includes 22 items on a 7-point Likert scale (1 = lowest level, and 7 = highest level). Item examples are “My youth program helps me make friends” for afterschool programs, and “I consider the people I regularly interact with in my local park to be my friends” for parks. We observed Cronbach’s alphas of .61 for park autonomy, .41 for park competence, .77 for park relatedness, .74 for program autonomy, .69 for program competence, and .83 for program relatedness. As suggested by Taber (2018), the value for an individual Cronbach’s alpha coefficient should exceed .7 to show the construct’s reliability. However, the lower reliability of park autonomy, park competence, and program competence is consistent with previous CFA analyses, which have shown lower reliability for the constructs of autonomy and competence (Johnston & Finney, 2010).

Positive Youth Development

Levels of PYD were measured using Geldhof et al.’s (2014) 17-item very short measure of the five Cs of PYD. This measure assessed a total PYD score with subscales for each of the five Cs: competence, confidence, connection, character, and caring. Participants used Likert scales from 1 (Strongly disagree) to 5 (Strongly agree) to indicate their agreement with items such as “I have a lot of friends” and to rate how important items were to their lives (e.g., “Helping to make the world a better place”). Cronbach’s alpha for the overall PYD scale in our sample is .84. Prior studies suggest that the total score for the very short measure of the five Cs of PYD should be used because it reliably reflects the overall positive youth development construct, and subscale scores may not provide reliable information beyond the total score (Geldhof et al., 2014).

Data Analysis

Structural equation modeling (SEM) was used to explore our proposed model . SEM combines multiple regression and confirmatory factor analyses (CFA) to estimate complex relationships among multiple dependent and independent variables, allowing researchers to holistically test a model (Hair et al., 2021). To assess the proposed SEM model, we utilized both measurement models and structural models. The first phase evaluated the measurement model, while the second phase assessed the structural model. Within the structural model, simple effect contrast coding was applied to the categorical variables. The simple effect contrast coding allowed for the estimation of parameter estimates for sociodemographic characteristics in the context of a reference category (Kline, 2023). The reference categories -white (race), male (gender), and living in a large city (residential community type)—were chosen as these groups were expected to have the greatest access to, and higher PNS in, local parks and youth programs.

Results

Phase One: Measurement Model

CFAs assessed the validity of each latent construct (Table 1). The first CFA confirmed that indicators loaded as expected on the three latent constructs of PNS (i.e., autonomy, competence, and relatedness) in the park context. The second CFA confirmed loadings on the same three latent constructs of PNS in afterschool programs. The third CFA confirmed a bi-factor model of PYD, with 17 indicators loading on the latent construct of PYD and on the five latent constructs representing the 5Cs of PYD (i.e., competence, confidence, connection, character, and caring).

Table 1.

Summary of Global Fit Statistics for Confirmatory Factor Analyses.

Model	χ²	df	CFI	RMSEA	SRMR	AIC	BIC
CFA—original
PNS in parks	2,018.41	186	0.64	0.11	0.08	65,699.00	66,011.32
PNS in afterschool programs	971.22	186	0.82	0.08	0.07	43,127.33	43,439.66
PYD	1,629	119	0.60	0.13	0.11	38,833.88	39,075.23
CFA—after modification indices
PNS in parks	596.05	160	0.92	0.06	0.07	64,113.19	64,548.56
PNS in afterschool programs	321.41	169	0.96	0.04	0.04	42,365.84	42,758.61
PYD	265	96	0.95	0.05	0.06	37,236.27	37,586.45

The initial CFA models for PNS in parks and after-school programs showed poor model fit, as none of the indicators met acceptable thresholds. Following Johnston and Finney’s (2010) approach, who first tested PNS as a model through CFA, and based on the recommendation of the modification indices (e.g., MI, STDYX EPC), alternative models were created in which a fourth latent method factor was used for reverse coded items. Model fit was further improved by adding error covariances where theoretically appropriate. After these modifications, the overall fit of the PNS CFA models suggested a good fit to the data (Table 1).

The third CFA focused on PYD and aimed to confirm a bi-factor model previously identified as the best fitting model for the construct (Geldhof et al., 2014). Our initial bi-factor CFA model for PYD did not converge. After several modifications via error covariances (i.e., MI, STDYX EPC), the model showed acceptable fit statistics. The modified model had a lower AIC and BIC than the original, suggesting a better fit to the data (Table 1). Overall, all CFA results suggest an acceptable fit to the data, allowing for the addition of structural paths between latent constructs. A summary of the final CFA models is displayed in Table 2.

Table 2.

Confirmatory Factor Analyses for Structural Equation Model.

Code^a	Item	Estimate^b	SE ^b	p-Value
Park autonomy
V1	I feel like I am free to decide for myself how to be in my local park.	0.223	0.038	.001***
V2	I feel pressured in my local park.	0.092	0.038	.017*
V3	I generally feel free to express my ideas and opinions in my local park.	0.594	0.027	.001***
V4	In my local park I frequently have to do what I am told.	−0.243	0.041	.001***
V5	People I interact with in my local park tend to take my feelings into consideration.	0.776	0.022	.001***
V6	I feel like I can pretty much be myself in my local park.	0.442	0.034	.001***
V7	There is not much opportunity for me to decide for myself how to do things in my local park.	0.118	0.036	.001***
Park competence
V1	People I know in my local park tell me I am good at what I do.	0.663	0.026	.001***
V2	I have been able to learn interesting new skills in my local park.	0.681	0.024	.001***
V3	I mostly feel a sense of accomplishment from what I do in my local park.	0.718	0.024	.001***
V4	In my local park I do not get much of a chance to show how capable I am.	0.139	0.039	.001***
Park relatedness
V1	I really like the people I interact with in my local park.	0.598	0.027	.001***
V2	I get along with people I come into contact within my local park.	0.577	0.029	.001***
V3	I pretty much keep to myself and don’t have a lot of social contacts in my local park.	0.410	0.036	.001***
V4	I consider the people I regularly interact with in my local park to be my friends.	0.660	0.025	.001***
V5	People in my local park care about me.	0.814	0.017	.001***
V6	There are not many people that I am close to in my local park.	0.325	0.040	.001***
V7	The people I interact with in my local park regularly do not seem to like me much.	0.113	0.036	.002**
V8	People are generally pretty friendly towards me in my local park.	0.535	0.028	.001***
Park method factor^c
—	I feel pressured in my local park.	0.385	0.048	.001***
—	In my local park I frequently have to do what I am told.	0.271	0.046	.001***
—	There is not much opportunity for me to decide for myself how to do things in my local park.	0.605	0.035	.001***
—	Often, I do not feel very competent in my local park.	0.387	0.043	.001***
—	In my local park I do not get much of a chance to show how capable I am.	0.534	0.034	.001***
—	I often do not feel very capable in my local park.	0.727	0.029	.001***
—	I pretty much keep to myself and don’t have a lot of social contacts in my local park.	0.169	0.038	.001***
—	There are not many people that I am close to in my local park.	0.182	0.043	.001***
—	The people I interact with in my local park regularly do not seem to like me much.	0.668	0.034	.001***
Program autonomy
V1	I feel like I am free to decide for myself how to be in my youth program.	0.492	0.036	.001***
V2	I feel pressured in my youth program.	0.343	0.035	.001***
V3	I generally feel free to express my ideas and opinions in my youth program.	0.666	0.027	.001***
V4	People I interact with in my youth program tend to take my feelings into consideration.	0.714	0.025	.001***
V5	I feel like I can pretty much be myself in my youth program.	0.659	0.027	.001***
V6	There is not much opportunity for me to decide for myself how to do things in my youth program.	0.422	0.039	.001***
Program competence
V1	Often, I do not feel very competent in my youth program.	0.318	0.040	.001***
V2	People I know in my youth program tell me I am good at what I do.	0.633	0.032	.001***
V3	I have been able to learn interesting new skills in my youth program.	0.499	0.039	.001***
V4	I mostly feel a sense of accomplishment from what I do in my youth program.	0.665	0.032	.001***
V5	In my youth program, I do not get much of a chance to show how capable I am.	0.393	0.037	.001***
V6	I often do not feel very capable in my youth program.	0.354	0.039	.001***
Program relatedness
V1	I really like the people I interact with in my youth program.	0.714	0.024	.001***
V2	I get along with people I come into contact within my youth program.	0.728	0.023	.001***
V3	I pretty much keep to myself and don’t have a lot of social contacts in my youth program.	0.423	0.035	.001***
V4	I consider the people I regularly interact with in my youth program to be my friends.	0.653	0.029	.001***
V5	People in my youth program care about me.	0.737	0.024	.001***
V6	There are not many people that I am close to in my youth program.	0.436	0.035	.001***
V7	The people I interact with in my youth program regularly do not seem to like me much.	0.455	0.038	.001***
V8	People are generally pretty friendly towards me in my youth program.	0.655	0.028	.001***
Program method factor^c
—	I feel pressured in my youth program.	0.354	0.043	.001***
—	In my youth program, I frequently have to do what I am told.	0.187	0.043	.001***
—	There is not much opportunity for me to decide for myself how to do things in my youth program.	0.448	0.041	.001***
—	Often, I do not feel very competent in my youth program.	0.407	0.042	.001***
—	In my youth program, I do not get much of a chance to show how capable I am.	0.489	0.040	.001***
—	I often do not feel very capable in my youth program.	0.567	0.033	.001***
—	I pretty much keep to myself and don’t have a lot of social contacts in my youth program.	0.306	0.045	.001***
—	There are not many people that I am close to in my youth program.	0.345	0.042	.001***
—	The people I interact with in my youth program regularly do not seem to like me much.	0.474	0.042	.001***
Positive youth development
V1	I have a lot of friends.	0.500	0.030	.001***
V2	I do very well in my class work at school.	0.511	0.033	.001***
V3	I am better than others my age at sports.	0.333	0.036	.001***
V4	I am happy with myself most of the time.	0.598	0.026	.001***
V5	I hardly ever do things I know I shouldn’t do.	0.395	0.034	.001***
V6	I really like the way I look.	0.465	0.032	.001***
V7	All in all, I am glad I am me.	0.522	0.031	.001***
V8	I receive a lot of encouragement at my school.	0.648	0.026	.001***
V9	I am a useful and important member of my family.	0.665	0.026	.001***
V10	I feel like an important member of my local community.	0.734	0.023	.001***
V11	I feel my friends are good friends.	0.449	0.033	.001***
V12	Helping to make the world a better place to live in.	0.388	0.037	.001***
V13	Accepting responsibility for my actions when I make a mistake or get into trouble.	0.382	0.035	.001***
V14	I enjoy being with people who are of a different race than I am.	0.233	0.036	.001***
V15	When I see someone being taken advantage of, I want to help them.	0.230	0.039	.001***
V16	When I see someone being picked on, I feel sorry for them.	0.223	0.039	.001
V17	When I see another person who is hurt or upset, I feel sorry for them.	0.206	0.041	.001

Variable code refers to SEM model.

Standardized estimates and SE values using STDYX standardization. All estimates were significant at p < .05.

Measured variables were allowed to cross-load onto a fourth need satisfaction latent variable Method Factor.

p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

Phase Two: Structural model

The proposed structural model examined park visitation, program attendance frequency, and sociodemographic variables (age, race, gender, and residential community type), and their relationship with the three latent constructs of PNS in parks and programs, and subsequently PYD . Although age was included in the proposed model for due diligence, prior studies have found age to be unrelated to PNS (Gagné, 2003) and PYD (Conway et al., 2015). Therefore, it was removed from the final model when no significant paths between any of the PNS constructs and PYD were found. The final model, using robust maximum likelihood estimation (MLR), is displayed in Figure 1. Regarding model fit, multiple global fit indices were assessed and suggested an overall acceptable fit to the data (χ²/df = 5,322.22/2,583, p = .000, CFI/TLI = 0.88/0.87, RMSEA = 0.03, SRMR = 0.07).

Figure 1.

Final structural equation model predicting PYD in structured and unstructured contexts.

Table 3.

Structural Pathways for Structural Equation Model.

Variable	Estimate^a	SE ^a	p-Value
Park autonomy (R² = .131)
Local park use	0.335	0.038	.001***
Race^b,c—Hispanic or Latino/Latina	−0.188	0.074	.011*
Race^b,c—Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander	0.764	0.167	.001***
Race^b,c—Other	−0.502	0.104	.001***
Race^b,c—Multiracial	−0.126	0.064	.048*
Park competence (R² = .199)
Local park use	0.431	0.037	.001***
Race^b,c—American Indian or Alaskan Native	−0.492	0.092	.001***
Race^b,c—Black	0.153	0.061	.011*
Race^b,c—Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander	0.354	0.101	.001***
Gender^b,c—Female	−0.070	0.064	.014*
Park relatedness (R² = .015)
Local park use	0.370	0.036	.001***
Race^b,c—Hispanic	−0.138	0.062	.026*
Race^b,c—Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander	0.406	0.122	.001***
Race^b,c—Other	−0.344	0.096	.001***
Gender^b,c—Female	−0.088	0.025	.001***
Program autonomy (R² = .016^d)
Race^b,c—Middle Eastern or North African	−0.091	0.036	.012*
Residential community type^b,c—Small City	−0.089	0.039	.023*
Program competence (R² = .061)
Program frequency	0.184	0.033	.001***
Race^b,c—Asian	−0.133	0.040	.001***
Residential community type^b,c—Small city	−0.096	0.044	.028*
Program relatedness (R² = .033)
Program frequency	0.081	0.026	.002**
Race^b,c—Hispanic or Latino/Latina	0.179	0.059	.003**
Race^b,c—Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander	−0.358	0.090	.001***
Race^b,c—Multiracial	0.113	0.055	.042*
Residential community type^b,c—Small city	−0.109	0.036	.003**
Positive youth development (R² = .403)
Park relatedness	0.452	0.037	.001***
Program competence	0.278	0.089	.002**
Program relatedness	0.173	0.086	.044*

Standardized estimates and SE values using STDYX standardization.

Category designation refers to SEM model.

Reference category for race = white; reference category for gender = male; reference category for community type = large city.

Program autonomy R² insignificant at p < .05.

p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

While a significant chi-square test alone indicates a poor-fitting model, chi-square analyses are sensitive to sample size, and given the large sample used for this study’s SEM analyses, a significant chi-Square result was expected. In these instances, the ratio of a model’s Chi-Square value to the degrees of freedom is often used to assess model fit, with a ratio of 3:1 serving as the acceptable threshold (Hooper et al., 2008; Kline, 2023). This ratio in our final model was 2.06:1 (χ²/df = 5,322.22/2,583) and well below that threshold, suggesting that the significant Chi-Square test result is not indicative of poor model fit. Further, our CFI/TLI values (0.88/0.87) are just below the traditional cutoff of 0.90, and prior research (Hooper et al., 2008; Hu & Bentler, 1999; Kline, 2023) has established that this minimal divergence is acceptable given that all other reported indices suggest a good fit to the data. As such, the final model was deemed acceptable.

Structural Model for Park Visitation Frequency, Demographics, and PNS

Using Cohen’s (1988) effect size benchmarks, the R² values indicated that frequency of park visitation and participants’ race/ethnicity together significantly explained a moderate portion of the variance in park autonomy (R² = .131). Additionally, frequency of park visitation, race/ethnicity, and gender together explained a moderate portion of the variance in park competence (R² = .199) and relatedness (R² = .158). Specifically, the local fit of the model showed that frequency of park visitation had a moderate significant relationship with all three constructs of PNS in parks: autonomy (β = .335), competence (β = .431), and relatedness (β = .370). Results also indicated that adolescents’ race/ethnicity and gender were significantly associated with PNS in parks, although we only interpret the results for groups with at least 5% representation in our sample. Specifically, results suggest that when compared to white adolescents, multiracial (β = −.126) and Hispanic or Latino/Latina (β = −.188) youth exhibited significantly lower scores on autonomy satisfaction in parks. Adolescents identifying as Hispanic or Latino/Latina (β = −.138) exhibited lower scores on relatedness satisfaction in parks when compared to white adolescents. Adolescents that identified as Black (β = .153) exhibited significantly higher scores on competence satisfaction in parks when compared to white adolescents. Gender was also found to have a significant relationship with PNS in parks as female adolescents exhibited significantly lower scores on competence (β = −.070) and relatedness (β = −.088) satisfaction in parks than males (Table 3).

Structural Model for Afterschool Program Attendance Frequency, Demographics, and PNS

Frequency of afterschool program attendance, race, and residential community type significantly explained the variance in program competence (R² = .061) and relatedness (R² = .033), with minimal explained variance (Cohen, 1988). The variance explained in program autonomy was not statistically significant (p = .103). Frequency of program attendance was only significantly associated with competence (β = .184) and relatedness (β = .081). Race/ethnicity and residential community type were also significantly related to PNS in programs. Specifically, Asian adolescents exhibited significantly less competence satisfaction in programs than white adolescents (β = −.133), while Hispanic or Latino/Latina (β = .179) and multiracial (β = .113) adolescents displayed more. Adolescents in small cities showed significantly less program autonomy (β = −.089), competence (β = −.096), and relatedness (β = −.109) compared to adolescents from a large city (Table 3).

Structural Model for PNS and PYD

The local fit of this model showed that, of the three PNS constructs in parks, only park relatedness (β = .452) was significantly associated with participants’ PYD. Of the three PNS constructs in afterschool programs, only program competence (β = .278) and relatedness (β = .173) were significantly associated with participants’ PYD. Overall, park relatedness, program competence, and program relatedness explained a substantial portion of the variance in PYD (R² = .403) (Cohen, 1988) (Table 3).

Discussion

This study explored the relationship between PNS and PYD in structured and unstructured OST activities. The findings help understand how demographic variables, visitation/attendance frequency, and residential community type are related to PNS in parks and programs. Additionally, the study compares how these structured and unstructured OST activities satisfy adolescents’ psychological needs and examines the relationship between park and afterschool program PNS and PYD.

Park & Afterschool Program Visitation/Attendance Frequency and PNS

We found significant positive associations between park and program visitation/attendance frequency and PNS. For parks, we found that more frequent visitation was associated with satisfaction of the needs for relatedness, competence, and autonomy, extending research linking time in nature with benefits like improved mood (Li et al., 2018) and mental health (Piccininni et al., 2018). The relationship between parks and PNS has only recently begun to be explored (Landon et al., 2021), and to our knowledge, no prior studies have assessed adolescents’ PNS in parks. This makes the findings of this study especially important, as they begin to set a course for future research. For programs, attendance frequency was positively associated only with competence and relatedness satisfaction, and these associations were weaker than those for parks. Compared to parks, where adolescents can visit more freely, attendance in structured OST contexts may feel less autonomous due to parents’ schedules (Mahoney et al., 2009) or registration fees (Jayanthi et al., 2018). Afterschool program practitioners could foster a sense of autonomy by offering choice and ensuring adolescents’ voices are heard. Measuring program engagement quality rather than mere attendance (Fredricks, 2011) may also provide a better window into how afterschool programs satisfy psychological needs.

Although the path to relatedness was significant in both contexts, our findings revealed a stronger association for park visitation frequency than afterschool program attendance. Parks are often seen as places for socialization (Lloyd et al., 2008), likely because they offer more freedom in choosing companions. This freedom may be related to both visitation frequency and adolescents’ relatedness. In contrast, afterschool programs are typically grouped by age, skill level, or activity type (Mahoney et al., 2009). These findings suggest that while parks naturally support the need for relatedness, structured OST might benefit from intentional approaches to support relatedness among participants.

It was surprising to find that competence satisfaction was more strongly associated with park visitation than with program attendance, especially since afterschool programs are often designed to promote skill development (Mahoney et al., 2006). One possible explanation is that adolescents may attend afterschool programs to develop skills in which they feel less competent (e.g., music lessons, sports practice, tutoring), while in parks, they may engage in activities in which they already excel. Additionally, the voluntary nature of park visitation allows adolescents to disengage if they feel less competent, while attendance is expected in structured programs. Thus, attendance in each context could be motivated by different factors, shaping the relationship between visitation/attendance frequency and PNS. Further research is needed to explore the directionality of these associations.

Demographic Variables and PNS in Parks and Afterschool Programs

Our findings demonstrate that demographic factors are associated with PNS in both parks and afterschool programs. In parks, gender and race/ethnicity were associated with PNS constructs, while race/ethnicity and residential community type were associated with PNS constructs in afterschool programs. Regarding gender, females reported lower levels of competence and relatedness in parks compared to males. Previous research suggests that females often feel less safe in parks (Danis et al., 2014; Lloyd et al., 2008), and a reduced sense of safety has been linked to lower PNS (Liu et al., 2024). Gender was not significant in afterschool program PNS, as both girls and boys reported equal developmental opportunities (Fusco, 2008).

Regarding race/ethnicity, there is an unfortunate lack of research on adolescents of various racial and ethnic backgrounds and their PNS in parks and afterschool programs. Related research in park contexts has mainly focused on racial identity’s association with adolescent park use, producing inconsistent results (Marquet et al., 2019; Ries et al., 2009), and some research has shown racial/ethnic variation in the sense of belonging in afterschool programs (Corbolotti, 2023). Our findings show that race/ethnicity is associated with all three PNS constructs in both parks and afterschool programs. These associations varied widely and, given the small sample sizes in several of the groups showing significant results, suggest a need for more focused research in this area rather than representing generalizable findings. Future research should recruit racially diverse samples and examine the role of race/ethnicity in adolescents’ park and program experiences rather than simply their frequency of visitation or attendance.

Regarding residential community type, residents of small cities reported lower PNS in programs compared to those in larger cities. This may reflect differences in resources, program quality, or public funding support in smaller cities (Afterschool Alliance, 2020). It suggests that efforts to enhance PNS and PYD outcomes should consider the unique challenges and opportunities presented by different residential community types.

Park & Afterschool Program PNS and PYD

Our study revealed that PNS in both parks and programs is related to PYD, consistent with prior research showing that contexts supporting PNS promote PYD outcomes (Tadesse et al., 2022; Ward & Zabriskie, 2011). However, the strength of the relationship between PNS and PYD varied by context. Satisfaction of the need for relatedness in parks had the strongest relationship with PYD, followed by competence satisfaction in programs, and relatedness satisfaction in programs. This finding was unexpected, as unstructured OST contexts like parks have often been described as negatively impacting youth health and development (L. L. Caldwell & Faulk, 2013; Weybright et al., 2019).

Moreover, contrary to our expectations, autonomy satisfaction was not significantly associated with PYD in either context. Prior research suggests that autonomy in unstructured settings enables adolescents to explore freely and make independent choices (Walker et al., 2020), but autonomy may also contribute to some youth making unhealthy choices in these contexts (L. L. Caldwell & Faulk, 2013). In structured settings, autonomy support and providing opportunities for youth to make choices have been recognized as a key factor for fostering engagement and positive development (Zarrett et al., 2021). Future research should explore whether specific aspects of autonomy, such as freedom in social interactions or activity choice, relate to PYD.

Overall, our findings highlight the developmental potential of unstructured environments like parks, which may be overlooked in favor of more structured programs. While structured OST contexts, such as afterschool programs, are typically designed to promote skill development and competence (Lerner et al., 2015), unstructured settings like parks appear to offer important opportunities for social connection. This distinction challenges the assumption that structured settings are inherently superior for promoting positive development (L. L. Caldwell & Faulk, 2013) and underscores the importance of understanding how different activities and contexts are related to various psychological needs. Future research and interventions should leverage the unique strengths of both structured and unstructured contexts to create balanced OST contexts that support relatedness, competence, and autonomy to better support youth development.

Limitations and Future Directions

There are several limitations to consider when reviewing our findings. First, in SEM, it is best practice to use continuous data or Likert scales with more than five response options (Hair et al., 2021), and the PYD measure was on a 5-point Likert scale. Second, while we accounted for several demographic variables, we did not account for SES (e.g., parental education, household income) due to data limitations. This is an important limitation, as social class may intersect with race/ethnicity and influence access to OST contexts, experiences of need satisfaction, and developmental outcomes. Future research should incorporate measures of socioeconomic background to better understand these dynamics. Additionally, while our study provides valuable insights into the role of PNS in structured and unstructured OST contexts, it did not include the interrelation between demographic variables and participation frequency. This decision was made to reduce model complexity and maintain a clear focus on our primary research questions. Future research could investigate how demographic characteristics influence participation in these contexts and whether such factors moderate the relationship between PNS and PYD. Moreover, longitudinal, mixed-methods research will be needed for a deeper understanding of the relationship between PNS in different OST contexts and PYD over time. Additionally, longitudinal studies could investigate whether PNS mediates the relationship between demographic variables and PYD, or whether prior levels of PYD influence youth experiences of PNS in OST contexts.

Another limitation relates to the internal consistency of some of the psychological need satisfaction subscales. Specifically, we observed Cronbach’s alphas below the conventional threshold of 0.70 (Taber, 2018) for park autonomy, park competence, and program competence. While low internal reliability can raise concerns about the precision of measurement, it does not fundamentally compromise the validity of the study, particularly in the context of structural equation modeling, which estimates latent constructs and accounts for measurement error directly (Kline, 2023). Furthermore, these results align with previous studies that have noted similarly modest reliability coefficients for autonomy and competence subscales (e.g., Johnston & Finney, 2010). Nonetheless, these lower alphas suggest that future studies should further refine the measurement of autonomy and competence in OST settings.

Conclusion

This study explored associations between PYD and PNS within structured and unstructured OST contexts. Our findings illustrate the importance of both types of OST contexts for promoting PYD. Specifically, we found that satisfaction of the need for relatedness in both structured and unstructured OST was positively associated with PYD, aligning with literature that underscores social connection as a crucial component of PYD (Lerner et al., 2005). These findings underscore the importance of PNS across contexts where young individuals spend time (Deci & Vansteenkiste, 2004) and support research highlighting the social benefits of afterschool programs and identifying parks as places where adolescents can build and explore social connections (Lloyd et al., 2008). Future research should investigate how different OST contexts can be optimized to support PYD, considering the varying influences of demographics and participation frequency. To foster PYD, it is essential for both structured and unstructured OST contexts to focus on fulfilling adolescents’ psychological needs.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

The authors gratefully acknowledge the valuable support of Dr. Pui-Wa Lei, who provided expert guidance on statistical analyses. We also extend our gratitude to the study participants for sharing their data, making this research possible.

Data Availability Statement

Data can be requested from the last author.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This work was supported by funding from the Pennsylvania State University College of Health and Human Development.

Ethics Approval

APA ethical standards were followed in the conduct of the study; and the Institutional Review Board at the Pennsylvania State University approved the study.

ORCID iD

Kimia Shirzad

Author Biographies

Kimia Shirzad is a Ph.D. candidate in Recreation, Park, and Tourism Management at Pennsylvania State University with a minor in Human Development and Family Studies. Her research focuses on Positive Youth Development, with particular attention to character development, and the role of structured and unstructured out-of-school contexts such as parks and afterschool programs in adolescents’ development.

Dr. Steven R. Hanna is an assistant teaching faculty of Biobehavioral Health at the Pennsylvania State University. His research focuses on understanding how parks and public green space can be used to promote positive developmental outcomes among adolescents.

Alexander R. Caraynoff is a Ph.D. candidate in Recreation, Park, and Tourism Management at Pennsylvania State University with a dual-title in Transdisciplinary Research on Environment and Society. His research focuses on the human dimensions of natural resource management, particularly outdoor recreation visitor behaviors and sustainable wildlife conservation policy implementation.

Dr. Jennifer P. Agans is an Associate Professor of Recreation, Park, and Tourism Management at the Pennsylvania State University. Her research focuses on adolescent and young adult experiences in sport and other recreational contexts and the links between these experiences and positive development and health across the life span. She also collaborates with practitioners to evaluate youth programs and understand their impact on participants.

References

Afterschool Alliance. (2020). America after 3PM: Demand grows, opportunity shrinks. https://afterschoolalliance.org/documents/AA3PM-2020/AA3PM-National-Report.pdf

Agans

J. P.

Schade

S. A.

Hanna

S. R.

Chiang

S. C.

Shirzad

Bai

(2024). The inaccuracy of data from online surveys: A cautionary analysis. Quality & Quantity, 58(3), 2065–2086. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-023-01733-5

Alivernini

Bianchi

Cavicchiolo

Manganelli

Cozzolino

Lucidi

Park

(2023). Positive youth development among youth living in poverty: The role of psychological needs satisfaction. Youth & Society, 55(5), 947–969. https://doi.org/10.1177/0044118X21103595

Bazrafshan

Tabrizi

A. M.

Bauer

Kienast

(2021). Place attachment through interaction with urban parks: A cross-cultural study. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 61, Article 127103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2021.127103

Bean

Shaikh

Kramers

Forneris

(2021). Does context matter? Unpacking differences in program quality and developmental experiences across competitive and recreational youth sport. International Journal of Sports Science & Coaching, 16(5), 1204–1213. https://doi.org/10.1177/17479541211001879

Berger

Deutsch

Cuadros

Franco

Rojas

Roux

Sanchez

(2020). Adolescent peer processes in extracurricular activities: Identifying developmental opportunities. Children and Youth Services Review, 118, Article 105457. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2020.105457

Bronfenbrenner

Morris

P. A.

(2006). The bioecological model of human development. In Lerner

R. M.

Damon

(Eds.), Handbook of child psychology: Theoretical models of human development (6th ed., pp. 793–828). John Wiley & Sons, Inc. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470147658.chpsy0114

Buenconsejo

J. U.

Datu

J. A. D.

(2024). Does positive youth development predict academic functioning and well-being outcomes? Cross-sectional and longitudinal evidence in Filipino adolescents. Journal of School Psychology, 107, Article 101355. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2024.101355

Caldwell

H. A.

Miller

M. B.

Tweedie

Zahavich

J. B.

Cockett

Rehman

(2022). The impact of an after-school physical activity program on children’s physical activity and well-being during the COVID-19 pandemic: A mixed-methods evaluation study. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19(9), Article 5640. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19095640

10.

Caldwell

L. L.

Faulk

(2013). Adolescent leisure from a developmental and prevention perspective. In Freire

(Ed.), Positive leisure science: From subjective experience to social contexts (pp. 41–60). Springer Science + Business Media. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-5058-6_3

11.

Cohen

(1988). The effect size. In Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (pp. 77–83). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203771587

12.

Conway

R. J.

Heary

Hogan

M. J.

(2015). An evaluation of the measurement properties of the five Cs model of positive youth development. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, Article 1941. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01941

13.

Corbolotti

(2023). Afterschool programs: Participation and belonging in Latinx students [Master of Science in Education | Master’s theses. 66]. https://doi.org/10.33015/dominican.edu/2023.EDU.03

14.

Daniel

Schiefer

Möllering

Benish-Weisman

Boehnke

Knafo

(2012). Value differentiation in adolescence: The role of age and cultural complexity. Child Development, 83(1), 322–336. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2011.01694.x

15.

Danis

Sidek

Md. Yusof

(2014). Environmental characteristics influences on physical activity among overweight adolescents: Urban neighbourhood parks. Procedia—Social and Behavioral Sciences, 153, 402–409. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.10.073

16.

Deci

E. L.

Ryan

R. M.

(2000). The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11(4), 227–268. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327965PLI1104_01

17.

Deci

E. L.

Vansteenkiste

(2004). Self-determination theory and basic need satisfaction: Understanding human development in positive psychology. Ricerche di Psicologia, 27(1), 23–40.

18.

Ettekal

A. V.

Agans

J. P.

(2020). Positive youth development through leisure: Confronting the COVID-19 pandemic. Journal of Youth Development, 15(2), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.5195/jyd.2020.962

19.

Fredricks

J. A.

(2011). Engagement in school and out-of-school contexts: A multidimensional view of engagement. Theory into Practice, 50(4), 327–335. https://doi.org/10.1080/00405841.2011.607401

20.

Fusco

D. R.

(2008). School vs. afterschool: A study of equity in supporting children’s development. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 22(4), 391–403. https://doi.org/10.1080/02568540809594635

21.

Gagné

(2003). Autonomy support and need satisfaction in the motivation and well-being of gymnasts. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 15(4), 372–390. https://doi.org/10.1080/714044203

22.

Geldhof

G. J.

Bowers

E. P.

Mueller

M. K.

Napolitano

C. M.

Callina

K. S.

Lerner

R. M.

(2014). Longitudinal analysis of a very short measure of positive youth development. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 43, 933–949. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-014-0093-z

23.

Hair

J. F.

Jr. Hult

G. T. M.

Ringle

C. M.

Sarstedt

Danks

N. P.

Ray

(2021). An introduction to structural equation modeling. Partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) using R: A workbook (pp. 1–29). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-80519-7_1

24.

Harris-McKoy

Cui

(2013). Parental control, adolescent delinquency, and young adult criminal behavior. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 22, 836–843. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-012-9641-x

25.

Hooper

Coughlan

Mullen

M. R.

(2008). Evaluating model fit: A synthesis of the structural equation modelling literature. https://doi.org/10.21427/D79B73

26.

Hoover

F. A.

Lim

T. C.

(2021). Examining privilege and power in US urban parks and open space during the double crises of antiblack racism and COVID-19. Socio-Ecological Practice Research, 3(1), 55–70. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42532-020-00070-3

27.

Bentler

P. M.

(1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118

28.

Hunter

R. F.

Cleland

Cleary

Droomers

Wheeler

B. W.

Sinnett

Nieuwenhuijsen

M. J.

Braubach

(2019). Environmental, health, wellbeing, social and equity effects of urban green space interventions: A meta-narrative evidence synthesis. Environment International, 130, Article 104923. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2019.104923

29.

Jayanthi

N. A.

Holt

D. B.

Jr. LaBella

C. R.

Dugas

L. R.

(2018). Socioeconomic factors for sports specialization and injury in youth athletes. Sports Health, 10(4), 303–310. https://doi.org/10.1177/1941738118778510

30.

Johnston

M. M.

Finney

S. J.

(2010). Measuring basic needs satisfaction: Evaluating previous research and conducting new psychometric evaluations of the Basic Needs Satisfaction in General Scale. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 35(4), 280–296. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2010.04.003

31.

Kim

Kono

Lee

E. Y.

McDaniel

(2020). The reciprocal effects between structured/unstructured leisure and delinquent behaviors among South Korean youth: A cross-lagged longitudinal approach. International Journal of the Sociology of Leisure, 3, 241–257. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41978-020-00057-0

32.

Kleiber

D. A.

(1999). Leisure experiences and human development: A dialectical interpretation. Basic Books.

33.

Kline

R. B.

(2023). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (4th ed.). Guilford Publications.

34.

Kotlaja

M. M.

Wright

E. M.

Fagan

A. A.

(2018). Neighborhood parks and playgrounds: Risky or protective contexts for youth substance use?. Journal of Drug Issues, 48(4), 657–675. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022042618788834

35.

Landon

A. C.

Woosnam

K. M.

Kyle

G. T.

Keith

S. J.

(2021). Psychological needs satisfaction and attachment to natural landscapes. Environment and Behavior, 53(6), 661–683. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916520916255

36.

Lerner

R. M.

(2018). Concepts and theories of human development (4th ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203581629

37.

Lerner

R. M.

Lerner

J. V.

Almerigi

J. B.

Theokas

Phelps

Gestsdottir

Naudeau

Jelicic

Alberts

Smith

L. M.

Bobek

D. L.

Richman-Raphael

Simpson

Christiansen

E. D.

Von Eye

(2005). Positive youth development, participation in community youth development programs, and community contributions of fifth-grade adolescents: Findings from the first wave of the 4-H study of positive youth development. The Journal of Early Adolescence, 25(1), 17–71. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272431604272461

38.

Lerner

R. M.

Lerner

J. V.

Bowers

E. P.

John Geldhof

(2015). Positive youth development and relational developmental-systems. In Lerner

R. M.

(Ed.), Handbook of child psychology and developmental science (pp. 1–45). John Wiley & Sons, Inc. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118963418.childpsy116

39.

Lerner

R. M.

Wang

Chase

P. A.

Gutierrez

A. S.

Harris

E. M.

Rubin

R. O.

Yalin

(2014). Using relational developmental systems theory to link program goals, activities, and outcomes: The sample case of the 4-H Study of Positive Youth Development. New Directions for Youth Development, 2014(144), 17–30. https://doi.org/10.1002/yd.20110

40.

Deal

Zhou

Slavenas

Sullivan

W. C.

(2018). Moving beyond the neighborhood: Daily exposure to nature and adolescents’ mood. Landscape and Urban Planning, 173, 33–43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2018.01.009

41.

Liu

Shen

Zhen

Zhou

(2024). Basic psychological need satisfaction and depression in adolescents during the COVID-19 pandemic: The mediating roles of feelings of safety and rumination. Child Psychiatry & Human Development, 55(1), 219–226. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10578-022-01395-8

42.

Lloyd

Burden

Kiewa

(2008). Young girls and urban parks: Planning for transition through adolescence. Journal of Park & Recreation Administration, 26(3), 21–38.

43.

Mahoney

J. L.

Harris

A. L.

Eccles

J. S.

(2006). Organized activity participation, positive youth development, and the over-scheduling hypothesis. Social Policy Report/Society for Research in Child Development, 20(4), 1–31. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2379-3988.2006.tb00049.x

44.

Mahoney

J. L.

Vandell

D. L.

Simpkins

Zarrett

(2009). Adolescent out-of-school activities. Handbook of Adolescent Psychology, 2, 228–269. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470479193.adlpsy002008

45.

Mainella

F. P.

Agate

J. R.

Clark

B. S.

(2011). Outdoor-based play and reconnection to nature: A neglected pathway to positive youth development. New Directions for Youth Development, 2011(130), 89–104. https://doi.org/10.1002/yd.399

46.

Marquet

Hipp

J. A.

Alberico

Huang

J. H.

Fry

Mazak

Lovasi

G. S.

Floyd

M. F.

(2019). Park use preferences and physical activity among ethnic minority children in low-income neighborhoods in New York City. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 38, 346–353. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2019.01.018

47.

Piccininni

Michaelson

Janssen

Pickett

(2018). Outdoor play and nature connectedness as potential correlates of internalized mental health symptoms among Canadian adolescents. Preventive Medicine, 112, 168–175. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ypmed.2018.04.020

48.

Qualtrics. (2020). Unlock breakthrough insights with market research panels. https://www.qualtrics.com/research-services/online-sample/

49.

Ramsing

Sibthorp

(2008). The role of autonomy support in summer camp programs: Preparing youth for productive behaviors. Journal of Park & Recreation Administration, 26(2), 61–77. https://doi.org/10.1177/105382590803100203

50.

Ries

A. V.

Voorhees

C. C.

Roche

K. M.

Gittelsohn

Yan

A. F.

Astone

N. M.

(2009). A quantitative examination of park characteristics related to park use and physical activity among urban youth. Journal of Adolescent Health, 45(3), S64–S70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2009.04.020

51.

Rivera

Timperio

Loh

V. H.

Deforche

Veitch

(2022). Adolescents’ perceptions of park characteristics that discourage park visitation. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 74, Article 127669. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2022.127669

52.

Ryan

R. M.

Deci

E. L.

(2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55(1), 68. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.68

53.

Ryan

R. M.

Deci

E. L.

(2020). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation from a self-determination theory perspective: Definitions, theory, practices, and future directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 61, Article 101860. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2020.101860

54.

Scannell

Gifford

(2017). Place attachment enhances psychological need satisfaction. Environment and Behavior, 49(4), 359–389. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916516637648

55.

Shi

DiStefano

Zheng

Liu

Jiang

(2021). Fitting latent growth models with small sample sizes and non-normal missing data. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 45(2), 179–192. https://doi.org/10.1177/0165025420979365

56.

Smetana

J. G.

Campione-Barr

Metzger

(2006). Adolescent development in interpersonal and societal contexts. Annual Review Psychology, 57(1), 255–284. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.57.102904.190124

57.

Taber

K. S.

(2018). The use of Cronbach’s alpha when developing and reporting research instruments in science education. Research in Science Education, 48, 1273–1296. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-016-9602-2

58.

Tadesse

Asmamaw

H/Mariam

Edo

(2022). A survey of contextual factors and psychological needs satisfaction as correlates of youth athletes’ developmental outcomes in the Ethiopian sports academy context. BMC Sports Science, Medicine and Rehabilitation, 14(1), 156. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13102-022-00545-8

59.

Vandell

D. L.

Simpkins

S. D.

Pierce

K. M.

Brown

B. B.

Bolt

Reisner

(2022). Afterschool programs, extracurricular activities, and unsupervised time: Are patterns of participation linked to children’s academic and social well-being?. Applied Developmental Science, 26(3), 426–442. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888691.2020.1843460

60.

Walker

G. J.

Yan

Kono

(2020). Basic psychological need satisfaction and intrinsic motivation during leisure: A cross-cultural comparison. Journal of Leisure Research, 51(4), 489–510. https://doi.org/10.1080/00222216.2020.1735973

61.

Ward

P. J.

Zabriskie

R. B.

(2011). Positive youth development within a family leisure context: Youth perspectives of family outcomes. New Directions for Youth Development, 2011(130), 29–42. https://doi.org/10.1002/yd.395

62.

Weybright

E. H.

Son

J. S.

Caldwell

L. L.

(2019). “To have healthy leisure is to have balance”: Young adults’ conceptualization of healthy and unhealthy leisure. Journal of Leisure Research, 50(3), 239–259. https://doi.org/10.1080/00222216.2019.1588694

63.

Wight

V. R.

Price

Bianchi

S. M.

Hunt

B. R.

(2009). The time use of teenagers. Social Science Research, 38(4), 792–809. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssresearch.2009.05.009

64.

Zarrett

Fay

Carrano

Phelps

Lerner

(2009). More than child’s play: Variable- and pattern-centered approaches for examining effects of sports participation on youth development. Developmental Psychology, 45(2), 368–382. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0014577

65.

Zarrett

Law

L. H.

Wilson

D. K.

Abraczinskas

Taylor

Cook

B. S.

Roberts

(2021). Connect through PLAY: A randomized-controlled trial in afterschool programs to increase adolescents’ physical activity. Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 44, 379–391. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10865-021-00206-0

Need Satisfaction in Structured and Unstructured Out-of-School-Time: A Positive Youth Development Approach

Abstract

Keywords

Positive Youth Development in Out of School Time Contexts

Psychological Need Satisfaction: A Tool for Positive Youth Development

The Present Study

Method

Procedures

Participants

Measures

Demographics

Program Attendance Frequency

Park Visitation Frequency

Psychological Need Satisfaction

Positive Youth Development

Data Analysis

Results

Phase One: Measurement Model

Phase Two: Structural model

Structural Model for Park Visitation Frequency, Demographics, and PNS

Structural Model for Afterschool Program Attendance Frequency, Demographics, and PNS

Structural Model for PNS and PYD

Discussion

Park & Afterschool Program Visitation/Attendance Frequency and PNS

Demographic Variables and PNS in Parks and Afterschool Programs

Park & Afterschool Program PNS and PYD

Limitations and Future Directions

Conclusion

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

Data Availability Statement

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

Funding

Ethics Approval

ORCID iD

Author Biographies

References