1. sports

Journal of Sport Management, 2014, 28, 236-249
http://dx.doi .org/10,1123/jsm,2012-0237
©2014 Human Kinetics, Inc,
Maximizing Youth Experiences in Community Sport
Settings: The Design and impact of the LiFE Sports Camp
Dawn Anderson-Butcher
Ohio State University
Allison Riley
Ohio State University
Anthony Amorose
Illinois State University
Aidyn lachini
University of South Carolina
Rebecca Wade-Mdivanian
Ohio State University
Maximizing youth experiences in community sport programs is critical, particularly for vulnerable and/or
marginalized youth who may have limited access and opportunity to these experiences. Using second-order
latent growth modeling, this study explores the impact of a community sport program, the LiFE Sports Camp,
on the development of social and sport skills among vulnerable youth. The importance of a sense of belonging
as a key mechanism that contributes to youth outcomes also is examined. The findings of this research point
to the value of community sport that is strategically designed to promote both sport and social outcomes in
youth, as well as highlights the role of belonging in tbese contexts. Implications for sports management leaders and practitioners are discussed.
Sport is recreational, skillful physical activity
that has an element of competition and is organized in
some manner (Rogers, 1977; Siedentop, Hastie, & van
der Mars, 2004). Broader definitions recognize sports
as physical activity that promotes physical fitness,
improves well-being, fosters social relationships, and
obtains results in competition (World Health Organization, 2011). Systematic reviews of research showcase
the many physical, psychological, social, emotional,
and intellectual benefits of youth sport participation
(Anderson-Butcher, Riley, lachini, Wade-Mdivanian,
Anderson-Butcher is with the College of Social Work, Ohio
State University, Columbus, OH, Riley is with the College of
Social Work, Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, Amorose
is with the Department of Kinesiology and Recreation, Illinois
State University, Normal, IL, lachini is with the College of
Social Work, University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC,
Wade-Mdivanian is with the College of Social Work, Ohio State
University, Columbus, OH,
236
& Davis, 2012; Fraser-Thomas, Côté, & Deakin, 2005;
Hedstrom & Gould, 2004), Oftentimes youth sport
involvement happens via participation in communitybased sport. Community sport is organized physical
activity based in the community that encompasses both
recreational and competitive elements (Dixon & Bruening, 2011), Community sport programs and activities are
offered through local sport clubs, as well as youth service
organizations such as the YMCA, Boys and Girls Clubs,
nonprofit sport-specific associations, community centers,
and parks and recreation departments. While the exact
number of participants is difficult to determine given
the diversity of activities and organizations sponsoring programs, a recent analysis of data from the Sports
and Fitness Industry Association estimated that in 2011
approximately 21,47 million youth between the ages of
6—17 years of age participated in organized youth sport in
the United States of America (Kelley & Carchia, 2013),
Scholars have estimated the number of sport participants
to range anywhere from 15-46 million for youth 6-18
years of age (see Coakley, 2009). Yet others suggest that
Youth Experiences in Community Sport
approximately three out of every four youth is involved
in organized team sports (see Sabo & Feliz, 2008), Given
the broad reach of these offerings, it is important to understand the role of community sport in promoting positive
youth development. As such, this study examines the
impact of one community sport program on the development of sport and social skills among vulnerable youth,
those that may benefit the most from these experiences.
It also explores the unique role of belonging, wbich has
been identified in the literature as one mechanism affecting the relationship between participation and outcomes.
Literature Review
Community sport is defined by its dual focus on both
developing sport specific competence and fostering
positive developmental outcomes (Dixon & Bruening,
2011 ; Hedstrom & Gould, 2004), For instance, community sport programs traditionally focus on enhancing the
knowledge of the rules and traditions of sport, promoting
the understanding and the application of key strategies
and tactics, and the mastering of skills and techniques
relative to the sport context. While not always the case,
conamunity sport programs also can specifically integrate
positive youth development (PYD) principles into program designs, developing and enhancing positive youth
assets and protective factors including self-esteem and
social and life skills (Anderson-Butcher, Riley, Iachini,
Wade-Mdivanian, & Davis, 2012; Fraser-Thomas, Côté,
& Deakin, 2005; Larson, Hansen, & Moneta, 2006), In
these cases, PYD programming is integrated with sport
specific instruction for participants.
The Design and Management
of Community Sport Programs
The degree to which community sport is organized and
managed to simultaneously promote both of these foci
varies greatly depending on the sport context, program
design and management, and leadership priorities. For
instance, one recent trend points to the increased prioritization of the development of physical competence,
especially as youth sport designs have become more
professionalized, as characterized by year-round training, early specialization, and increased pressures to win
(Gould & Carson, 2008; Visek & Watson, 2005), In
other words, emphasis is primarily focused on sport skill
development and social skills are "caught" as a result,
as opposed to being intentionally taught (see Gould &
Carson, 2008), Other approaches strategically design the
sport context to create specific PYD outcomes such as
personal responsibility and are relatively less concerned
with sport-related skill instruction and athletic outcomes.
For instance, Hellison's Teaching Personal and Social
Responsibility in Sport (TPSR) model (Hellison, 2003;
Hellison & Cutforth, 1997; Martinek, Schilling, & Johnson, 2001) focuses on the reinforcement and application
of key values (i,e,, respect) through sport and physical
activity participation. Likewise, SUPER (Brunelle,
237
Danish, & Fomeris, 2007; Danish, Fomeris, Hodge, &
Heke, 2004) promotes life skills through specific curriculum that is implemented before or after from sportspecific training sessions.
Regardless of the primary focus, researchers have
wondered whether PYD outcomes, such as enhanced selfconfidence and life skills, are automatic by-products of
community sport participation (Coakley, 2009; Weiss &
Smith, 2002); or if PYD outcomes might be maximized
with more targeted design strategies (Chalip, 2006; Hedstrom & Gould, 2004; Hodge, 1989; Iachini & AndersonButcher, 2012), As a result, a number of scholars have
proposed the need for more intentional community sport
programs that systematically teach life skills within their
designs. For example, Chalip (2006), in his argument to
advance thefieldof sport management, called for research
that examines the "characteristics of interventions that
are effective or ineffective" in promoting healthy youth
outcomes (p, 6), Other sport researchers have made
similar claims (Anthony, Alter, & Jenson, 2009; Eccles
et al„ 2003; Gould & Carson, 2008; Hedstrom & Gould,
2004; Weiss & Smith, 2002),
Qualitative studies have helped advance some theoretical understanding of possible mechanisms to examine
in the context of community youth sport programs. For
example, Riley and Anderson- Butcher(2012) examined
the broader impacts of a dual-focused community youth
sport program and documented important mechanisms
leading to youth outcomes. In their qualitative study,
parents/guardians of participants mentioned important
impacts at the individual, family, parent, and community
level (including the development of social and personal
skills, increased and enhanced communication among
family members, and parent peace of mind due to child
involvement in the program). Study participants attributed
these outcomes to mechanisms such as the focus on sport
and life skills, as well as factors related to opportunities
for youth to engage with program staff and peers. These
findings suggest that the dual focus on teaching sport and
life skills may have broader impacts than program designs
focusing primarily on sport skill development. Others
also report outcomes associated with community sport
participation and further emphasize the added benefits of
designs that intentionally develop life and social skills
(see Cecchini, Montero, Alonso, Izquierdo, & Contreras,
2007; Papacharisis, Goudas, Danish, & Theodorakis,
2005; Gould & Carson, 2008),
In addition, mechanisms and process-related factors,
such as emphases on relationship-building and positive
connections, have been described as essential program
qualities that foster greater impacts (McDonough,
UlMch-French, Anderson-Butcher, Amorose, & Riley,
2013; Riley & Anderson-Butcher, 2012), Further research
in this area is called for; however, especially in relation
to the need to better understand what program aspects
or mechanisms contribute to specific growth and learning (Fraser-Thomas et al,, 2005), One key mechanism
increasingly identified as important in the literature
involves promoting a sense of belonging.
238
Anderson-Butcher et al.
A Sense of Beionging
The value of promoting a sense of belonging has been
identified in quantitative research as an important aspect
of community sport. For instance, research has found that
strong, positive adult-youth relationships are critical for
promoting decreased problem behaviors and increased
prosocial behaviors in afterschool programs with sport
components (Anderson-Butcher, Cash, Saltzburg, Midle,
& Pace, 2004). Ullrich-French & Smith (2009) demonstrated the importance of peer relationships to continued
participation in sport and in turn resultant outcomes. Still
others highlight the importance of team identities, peer
groups, and member structures for the adoption of prosocial values and norms through sports (Eccles, Barber,
Stone, & Hunt. 2003; Youniss & Yates, 1997). In fact,
some research proposes that belonging to a program or
team, beyond just attendance, may be the most important
factor for promoting positive developmental outcomes
(Anderson-Butcher & Fink, 2006). In other words,
attendance alone is not enough. Participants must feel
a sense of belonging and relatedness to a program and
the others involved (i.e., coaches, peers, etc). Although
not specifically examined in past research, there is some
suggestion that a sense of belonging, in turn, fosters
deeper engagement in activities, the adoption of norms
and behaviors of the group, and the further development
of skills (Anderson-Butcher, 2010; Anderson-Butcher
& Fink, 2006).
Gaps in the research remain. In addition, a better
understanding of the specific mechanisms and setting
features contributing to PYD is needed, especially given
some research in this area documents positive youth outcomes and other research does not (Anthony et al., 2009;
Eccles et al., 2003; Fraser-Thomas et al, 2005; Gould &
Carson, 2008). Other limitations exist. For instance, most
of the research in sports-based PYD examines extracurricular activities in general (with sport being one of many
activities). Several researchers (Fraser-Thomas et al.,
2005; Gould & Carson, 2008; Hedstrom & Gould, 2004)
suggest that research is needed in sport-specific contexts,
as well as in sports-based PYD programs intentionally
designed to create social development outcomes. Longitudinal evaluations also are needed to examine growth
over time and the factors contributing to learning (Gould
& Carson, 2008). Last, research is lacking in relation to
understanding the unique challenges and outcomes of
sports-based PYD programs in underserved communities
(Fraser-Thomas et al, 2005).
As such, the purpose of this study is to address
these gaps in the research by using quantitative methods
to examine how one community sport program design
strategy—one that promotes social and sport skills among
vulnerable youth—influences youth outcomes. Gaining
the answer to this question is essential, particularly for
sport managers serving instrumental roles in the design,
management and implementation of community sport
programs (Chalip, 2006).
Method
Specifically, this study examines the impact of participation in one community sport program on key developmental outcomes using growth curve analysis. In addition,
this study examines the influence of a sense of belonging
in contributing to changes in youth outcomes. Before
describing the community sport context and study design,
we will first discuss research positionality related to the
camp that served as the setting for this study.
Specifically, the camp is situated in a broader university initiative that focuses on service and outreach,
teaching and learning, and research related to positive
youth development through sport. As such, research is an
overall objective within the camp and its operations. Thus,
the researchers' backgrounds, experiences, and relationships with the camp, its campers, and the staff are linked
with the study context. More specifically, the researchers
here served as leaders within the overall initiative and
supported capacity-building and program improvement
efforts. The role was similar to Misener and Doherty's
position of "insider/collaborator" (2009, p. 466). This
blended role may bring limitations to the study design
and findings due to concerns with objectivity. Strategies
were used to reduce potential bias and subjectivity. For
instance, the researchers responsible for data collection
and management were not involved in the day-to-day
operations of the camp. Likewise, the researcher primarily responsible for data analysis was external to the
university and camp, providing a more neutral perspective and form of member checking. The relationship
and engagement of researchers, however, may also be
seen as a strength given the intimate knowledge among
the researchers of the overall LiFE Sports design and
implementation efforts. This in-depth understanding
may promote a better understanding of the results and
their linkage to the overall program design. Nonetheless,
it is important to acknowledge the possible influence of
researcher positionality in the construction of knowledge
in this study before describing the methods and results.
The methods, results, and findings should be interpreted
with this positionality in mind.
Context
The study was completed at one summer community
sport program called the Learning in Fitness and Education (LiFE) Sports Camp. The LiFE Sports Camp is
designed to provide approximately 600 economically
disadvantaged youth ages 9-16 from the Columbus,
Ohio community with the opportunity to participate in a
four-week summer sports-based PYD program. The mission of the camp is: "to foster social competence among
youth through their involvement in sport, fitness, and
educational activities" (see osulifesports.org). In addition
to focusing on social competence development, the LiFE
Sports Camp also strives to: (a) increase participants'
perceptions of sport competence, and (b) enhance youth
Youth Experiences in Community Sport
sense of belonging and connection to the program and its
staff. Thus, there is a dual emphasis on social and sport
skills development, as well as an emphasis on promoting belonging, to strengthen the relationship between
participation and outcomes. Further details related to the
Camp design are provided next.
The LiFE Sports Camp Design
The LiFE Sports Camp design and curriculum were
developed through a collaborative effort between the LiFE
Sports Camp staff and researchers. To create the LiFE
Sports model, researchers and LiFE Sports administrators
consulted past theory and research in PYD, community
sport, and sports-based PYD, especially drawing from
the Teaching Personal and Social Responsibility Model
(TPSR; Hellison, 2003; Hellison & Cutforth, 1997), effective principles of PYD programming (Eccles & Gootman,
2003), elements of the sports-education model (Siedentop
et al., 2004), initiative-building concepts (Larson, 2000),
and best practices in youth development skills training
(Durlak & Weissberg, 2007). Once the LiFE Sports camp
model was developed, LiFE Sports administration and
graduate students involved in the program wrote curriculum specific to each program activity area.
Each day of the 19-day camp, there is a specific curriculum used that is comprised of classroom-, play- and
sport-based activities to increase social and sport competence. More specifically, youth participate in one hour of
play-based social skill instruction, as well as three one hour
sessions of sport-related instruction that incorporates social
skill practice each day. Sports included as part of the camp
design are basketball, football, lacrosse, health and fitness,
soccer, social dance, softball, and swimming. In addition,
as part of the curriculum, daily activities include scenarios
and role plays where youth practice the application of
skills in reference to other settings, such as the home and
in the community. Throughout the camp, youth also work
individually and in teams to prepEu^e for the LiFE Sports
Olympics, a culminating event where the teams compete
among similar age groups in the sports focused on at camp.
Specific skills targeted in the LiFE Sports Camp and
designed to promote overall social competence include
Self-control, Effort, Teamwork, and Social Responsibility (S.E.T.S). The first target social skill. Self-control, is
defined as the ability to have control of oneself and own
actions (Gresham & Elliott, 1990). An individual must
first be able to control his or her attitudes and behaviors
before he or she can successfully engage with peers and
adults in social settings (Beelmann, Pfingsten, & Lösel,
1994; Hellison, 2003), Other social skill training models
(e,g., Gresham & Elliott, 1990) and sport-based PYD
programs (i.e., TPSR; Hellison, 2003) include this skill
in their program design. In the LiFE Sports curriculum,
self-control is targeted through skill development related
to problem solving, listening, and reading social cues.
Closely linked to self-control is self-directed behavior
and initiative, also known as Effort. Once an individual
239
learns to control actions and behaviors, those actions and
behaviors can become more goal directed and purposeful
(Larson, 2000). The LiFE Sports curriculum includes three
sessions focusing on this social skill, providing opportunities
for campers to demonstrate perseverance and goal-setting.
They also have opportunities to apply effort to specific tasks
and receive positive reinforcement for the apphcation of
effort during sport skill instruction and practice.
Teamwork involves working together as a group to
achieve a common goal or outcome, and is particularly
relevant in the sport and academic contexts (Weinburg
& Gould, 1999), At LiFE Sports, campers have opportunities to create teams, work on group problem solving,
practice negotiation skills, and build social networks. For
instance, campers participate in cooperative games where
success is measured by group effort as opposed to individual achievements. Likewise, campers work together in
teams to prepare for the LiFE Sports Olympics at the end
of camp, making decisions about which teammates will
participate in certain events such as football and dance.
The last skill focused on in LiFE Sports prioritizes
the development of social responsibility. Social responsibility involves adherence to social rules and expectations (Wentzel, 1991), and incorporates an individuals'
contribution to the broader society. Self-control, effort,
and teamwork all have strong ties with social responsibility. Given this, activities that focus on integrating the
four skills together that comprise social competence are
included. Specifically, campers have opportunities to
develop social responsibility through activities focused
on giving back to LiFE Sports, to peers at the camp, to
their families, and to the community. For instance, youth
strategize together in relation to how to acknowledge and
thank LiFE Sports staff and leaders. They create thank
you notes for their counselors and LiFE Sports administrators, as well as implement strategies to engage parents,
family members, and the community in the LiFE Sports
Olympics. Curriculum activities also ask youth to practice
social responsibility in other settings outside of camp.
LiFE Sports staff will ask youth to share ways they've
demonstrated social responsibility in their homes, as well
as provide "homework" activities challenging the youth
to practice this skill outside of LiFE Sports sessions.
In addition to sport and social skill development
focused on S.E.T.S., LiFE Sports also incorporates other
best practices in positive youth development into its
design strategy. Foremost, there is an explicit focus on
promoting a sense of belonging among campers through
the use of multiple strategies. For instance, campers are
organized in age-appropriate groups that transition into
teams with camper-created names, logos, and cheers,
Stafï forge bonds and connections with campers through
one-on-one and group instruction and interactions. Peer
relationships are fostered as campers become teammates
who together accomplish certain tasks and activities
throughout the camp. In addition, the camp is based on
a university campus, and fosters a sense of connection
to the university through promoting university athletics.
240
Anderson-Butcher et al.
sharing information about various majors and departments, and exposing youth to university facilities and
experiences (such as eating in the dining hall and riding
campus buses). Staff are also specifically trained in sport
and social skill development, as well as in positive youth
development practices (i.e., Eccles & Gootman, 2002)
involving nurturing relationships with youth and fostering
a sense of belonging.
The LiFE Sports Curriculum also embeds Durlak and
Weissberg's (2007) tenets of successful youth development skills training. First, the curriculum is sequential,
as skills are introduced in small steps throughout the
camp during play-based education activities. Skills targeted throughout the curriculum build upon one other.
Each session focuses on a different skill, yet campers
have the opportunity to connect and build upon skills
across all sessions. The curriculum also includes active
learning and play-based applications. As such, campers
learn about each specific social competence skill within
a structured educational setting and are provided the
opportunity to practice the skills they have learned in a
sport and recreation setting.
In addition, campers apply effort over a period of
time toward achieving an end goal, a strategy known
to develop initiative and intrinsic motivation (Larson,
2000). Specifically, campers work together to plan for
the LiFE Sports Olympics described above. Building
from the sport education model (Siedentop et al., 2004),
teams identify roles and responsibilities of all members
as they prepare for the competition (which is attended
by family members and local community volunteers).
Youth compete in age-appropriate teams and celebrate
their achievements and those of their peers at this final
culminating event.
Finally, research suggests that the most effective
way to enhance social skills is to demonstrate "acquisition, performance, and generalization" (Gresham, 1990,
p. 233) of skills in other settings. Therefore, campers
have the opportunity to transfer their learning to other
contexts within LiFE Sports (i.e., in the sport activities), as well as to other settings such as at home and
in their community. More specifically, youth also have
opportunities for the application and transference of
skills through involvement in six, two hour LiFE Sports
clinics offered throughout the school year after camp
has concluded. Clinics are organized and implemented
by LiFE Sports staff in partnership with various partners
such as university student-athletes and coaches, staff
from local professional sports teams, and leaders from
local nonprofit organizations. During clinics, youth have
opportunities to learn new tactics and techniques related
to sports such as soccer, basketball, and dance. They also
are reinforced for their demonstration of S.E.T.S. at the
clinic, and asked about how they are applying these life
skills at school and in other social settings during the
year. In summary, the LiFE Sports Camp is one community sport program focused on both sport and social
skill development simultaneously. The 2011 LiFE Sports
Camp served as the context for this study.
Participants
In 2011, 599 youth registered for the LiFE Sports camp.
The parents/guardians of these youth were given a verbal
overview of the study at registration and asked if they
were interested in having their child participate. Of all
youth who registered, 287 youth were granted written
consent from their parents/guardians and met the following criteria for inclusion: (a) attended the camp on
at least 15 of the 19 days, (b) had no more than a single
item on the key study variables missing, and (c) reported
being honest in completing the survey. Please note youth
14 years of age and older also provided assent.
The final participant sample included 169 boys and
118 giris between the ages of 9-16 (M age = 11.85, SD
= 1.54). Participants self-reported a variety of ethnic
backgrounds (72.5% Black, 11.8% multiracial, 4.9%
White, 4.2% Native American, 1.4% Hispanic, 0.7%
Asian, 4.2% other, and 0.3% unreported). The majority of
youth came from disadvantaged circumstances, as 61.3%
reported receiving free and/or reduced lunch at school.
The participants attended an average of 17.38 out of 19
days ofthe camp, and 127 (44.3%) indicated that they had
attended LiFE sports in previous years with an average
of 2.05 (SD = 1.21) years of attendance.
iVIeasures
Given the dual focus on sports and social skills within the
LiFE Sports Camp, measurement focused on assessing
campers' perceptions related to several key outcomes,
including overall social competence in sport, sport
competence, self-control, effort, teamwork, and social
responsibility. Campers also reported on their sense of
belonging to LiFE Sports and provided basic demographic information. Each measure is described in the
following.
Social Competence in Sport Participants' abilities to
interact prosocially and maintain positive relationships
with others in the sport context (i.e., social competence)
was measured using a modified version of the Perceived
Social Competence Scale (PSCS) developed by Anderson-Butcher, Iachini, and Amorose (20()8). Given the
sport context of the study, the PSCS was modified for
this setting by adding "in sport" to the end of each item.
Sample items included "I help other people in sport"
and "I get along well with others in sport." Responses
for the 10-item scale fall along a 5-point Likert scale
ranging from 1 (Not true at all) to 5 (Really true). The
internal consistency estimates in this study, which were
computed using Cronbach's Alpha (a), were .85 for both
the pre- and post-camp assessments. These values were
greater than .70 indicating an acceptable level of internal
consistency based on Nunnally (1978).
Sport Competence Athletic competence was assessed
using three items that measure youths' perceptions
of their ability in the sport context (Amorose, 2002).
The first item asked: "How good do you think you are
at sport?" Responses fell along a 5-point Likert scale
Youth Experiences in Community Sport
ranging from 1 {Not good at all) to 5 {Very good). The
second item asked: "When it comes to sports, how much
ability do you think you have?" Responses ranged from 1
{Not much ability at all) to 5 (A whole lot of ability). The
third item asked: "How skilled do you think you are at
sports?" and responses ranged from 1 {Not skilled at all)
to 5 {Very skilled). The internal consistency reliability of
these three items in this study was a = ,88 for the pre- and
post-camp assessment. In addition, the scale has shown
good reliability in past research (Amorose, 2002),
Self-Control Self-control in sport was assessed using
the Social Sports Experience Scale (Anderson-Butcher
et al,, 2010). The items assess participants' perceptions
of their ability to keep control in sports. Some example
items include "I control my temper when I play sports"
and "I play sports fairly even when an adult is not around,"
Responses fell along a 5-point Likert scale ranging from
1 {Not at all true) to 5 {Really true). The Social Sports
Experience Scale demonstrated acceptable internal consistency reliability in this study, with a =,88 for each of
the two assessments. Additional psychometric support
for this measure was found by McDonough, et al. (2013).
Effort The commitment subscale of the Multidimensional Sportspersonship Orientations Scale (MSOS-25)
was used to measure effort in sport (Vallerand, Brière,
Blanchard, & Provencher, 1997). This subscale consisted
of 5 items assessing participants' perceptions of their
respect for commitment to sports participation (i.e.,
"I don't give up even after making many mistakes").
Responses fell along a 5-point Likert scale ranging from
1 {Doesn 't correspond to me at all) to 5 {Corresponds to
me exactly). Internal consistency reliability was demonstrated in this study, with a = .78 at the pre-camp assessment and a = ,79 at the post-camp assessment.
Teamwork Teamwork in sport was measured using The
Teamwork Scale used in previous program evaluations
(Anderson-Butcher et al,, 2010), The scale is comprised
of items assessing participant's perceptions of different
aspects of teamwork in the sport context. The stem "Wlien
playing sports,,." is followed by several items such as "I
think teamwork is important" and "I feel confident in my
ability to work in a team." The 10-item measure employs
a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 {Not true at all)
and 5 {Really true). The internal consistency estimates in
this study were a = .84 for both the pre- and post-camp
assessments.
Sociai Responsibiiity Social responsibility was
assessed using three items that measure participants'
thoughts about helping others in their community. This
scale was originally created to measure 21st-century
skills (Anderson-Butcher, Ball, Medalan, Davis, & WadeMdivanian, 2010.) An example item from the ,scale is "I
believe it is important to help others in my community."
Participants responded on a 5-point Likert scale with
the anchors 1 {Not true at all) and 5 {Really true). The
internal consistency estimates in this study were a - .79
for both the pre- and post-camp assessments.
241
Belonging Participants' sense of connection and
belonging to the LiFE Sports Camp was measured using
the 5-item Belonging Scale developed by AndersonButcher & Conroy (2002). Example items include "I feel
comfortable with people at LiFE Sports" and "I am part
of LiFE Sports." The measure employs a 5-point Likert
scale with the anchors 1 {Not true at all) and 5 {Really
true). This measure has been shown to have adequate
psychometric properties (Anderson-Butcher & Conroy,
2002) and has been used in other sports-based positive
youth development research (McDonough et al,, 2013),
The internal consistency reliability was a = .90 in this
study.
Procedures
Parents/guardians of youth who registered for the LiFE
Sports camp in 2011 were asked by trained research
assistants to include their children in the study. Youth
with parent consent were also asked to assent to participate. Youth participants in the study completed pretest
surveys on the first day of camp. The posttest survey was
completed during the final two days of camp. Respondents took approximately 30 min to complete the battery
of instruments. Please note, youth were allowed to ask
clarifying questions. Some participants required further
assistance with reading the items. All study procedures
were approved by the Ohio State University Institutional
Review Board.
Data Analysis
Our primary data analyses involved a series of second
order latent growth curve models (Hancock, Kuo, &
Lawrence, 2001; Sayer & Cumsille, 2001). This procedure was used for a number of reasons including that it:
(a) allowed us to explore changes in the variables after
controlling for measurement error, (b) gave us information about group level and individual level change, and
(c) enabled us to explore predictors (i.e., belonging) of
change in the key outcomes. Thus, growth curve analyses allow for the distillation of whether participation in
the camp made a difference across the entire sample of
campers, as well as the examination of whether there was
significant variance in individual camper's growth over
the course of the camp. Last, it allows for the exploration of whether sense of belonging at the end of camp
impacted camper outcomes.
The analyses occurred in two steps. The first step in
these analyses involved the modeling of the initial level
and change in each of the key outcomes. The second step
in our analyses involved exploring potential predictors
of both the initial level and—more importantly—the
change in each of the variables. The details of modeling change using a latent growth curve analyses can be
found in Duncan, Duncan and Strycker (2006). Hancock
and colleagues' (2001) work illustrates how the use of
latent growth curve analyses can be extended to latent
constructs. Very basically, for each construct of interest,
242
Anderson-Butcher et al.
we used multiple indicators (items or item parcels) to
model latent variable scores at the beginning and end of
the camp. To assure a degree of factorial invariance across
time (see McArdle & Nesselroade, 1994), the factor
loadings of identical indicators were constrained to be
equal for the pre-camp and post-camp latent variables.
While estimating these first order factors, we simultaneously modeled an intercept and slope factor to represent
the growth pattern in the underlying latent pre-camp
and post-camp factors. The intercept factor represents
the initial status on the latent variable, while the slope
factor is reflective of the rate of change over time. In our
case, we tested for a simple linear change in the slope.
Regressing the second order intercept and slope factors
on a unit vector of 1 allowed for the estimation of the
mean structure, thus providing estimates of the mean and
variance of both the initial level of the variable as well as
the average rate of growth and the variation in the rate of
growth from pre- to post-camp.
We also estimated the relationship between initial
level and rate of change by allowing the intercept and
slope variances to covary. Some other specific aspects
of the second order latent growth curve model testing
include the following: (a) a single indicator factor loading
was set equal to 1 to set the metric for each first order
latent variable, (b) a unit vector of 1 was regressed on
all observed indicators not used to set the metric of the
first order latent variables, (c) the disturbances of first
level latent variables were constrained to 0, and (d) the
error terms in corresponding observed indicators were
allowed to covary across time. The rationale for these
model specifications are described in Hancock and colleagues (2001),
The next step in our analyses involved adding
predictors of both the intercept (initial level) and slope
(rate of change) factors. Our primary interest here was to
examine whether the campers' perceptions of belonging
at the end of the camp predicted the change in each of
the key outcome variables after controlling for age and
pre-camp scores on the remaining outcome variables.
Please note that we included age as a predictor given that
age is known to be related to developmental outcomes
(Anderson-Butcher & Fink, 2006), In the end, we conducted a separate analysis for each of the key outcome
variables. For simplicity sake, a single observed score—
calculated as a mean of the scale items—was used to
represent each predictor variable. These variables were
included into the second order latent growth curve model
we estimated in Step 1 of our analyses. Details on incorporating predictors into latent growth curve models can
be found in Duncan and colleagues (2006) and Hancock
and Lawrence (2006),
All analyses were conducted using LISREL 8,71
(Scientific Software International), Initial data screening
revealed significant (p < .01) multivariate skewness and
kurtosis, so we employed robust maximum likelihood
estimation procedures (Finney & DiStefano, 2006) in
all model testing. Multiple fit indices were employed to
evaluate the adequacy of the estimated models. Model
fit was considered good based on the following criteria:
a nonsignificant (p > ,05) Satorra-Bentler Scaled x^ f S-B
X^y, root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) <
,06,90% CI < ,60; test of close fit (CFit) nonsignificant at
p<.05; standardized root mean square residual (SRMR) <
,08; comparative fit index (CFI) > ,95; and Tucker-Lewis
index (TLI) > ,95 (Hu & Bentler, 1999),
In addition, we used random item aggregates of the
observed variables to estimate the first order latent variables on measurement scales with greater than 5 items.
Essentially, this procedure decreases the ratio of number
of subjects to the number of measured variables and in
turn the resultant parcels are more reliable and normally
distributed (see Marsh, Richards, Johnson, Roche &
Tremayne, 1994), For the Self-Control Scale, we aggregated the 8 scale items into 4 item parcels and the 10 items
on the Social Competence in Sport Scale and Teamwork
Scale were aggregated into 5 item parcels each. For each
item parcel, we randomly selected 2 of the scale items and
created a mean score, which was subsequently treated as
a single indicator for that respective scale.
Results
Thefirststep in our analysis of the data involved modeling
the initial level and change in each of the key outcome
variables, A summary of the overall model fit for each
of the analyses is presented in Table 1, In general, the
various fit indices provide evidence that the modelsfitthe
data reasonably well for each of the outcome variables.
For instance, SRMR, CFI, TLI, and the 90% CI of the
RMSEA estimates all meet the criteria we established as
indicating a good fit,
A summary of the critical parameter estimates from
these analyses is presented in Table 2,' The table shows
the estimated mean scores (and standard deviations) at
the beginning of the camp (i,e,, initial level). Further,
the table presents estimates about the change from
pre- to post-camp. The mean scores for each variable in
this column represent the average rate of change for all
campers. Results focused on the group level aspect of
latent growth analyses, therefore providing information
related to the change in outcomes among the total sample.
Of the six outcome variables, only social responsibility
significantly changed at the group level—showing an
increase of, 11 from pre- to post-camp. For all the other
variables, we did not see significant group level increases
or decreases over time; however, the results do indicate
different scores for individuals.
Interestingly, the estimated standard deviations
associated with the change scores revealed significant
individual differences in all the outcome variables. In
other words, there was considerable variability in the rate
and direction of change. This indicates that some campers
increased in their perceptions among the various outcome
indicators, while some campers decreased in their perceptions from pre- to post-camp. For instance, 53.5% of the
participants had an increase in social competence in sport
scores from pre to post camp, while the remaining 46.5%
Youtb Experiences in Community Sport
Table 1
243
Summary of Overall Model Fit From the Second Order Latent Growth Curve Analyses
S-B x2 (df)
RMSEA
(90% CI)
CFit
SRMR
CFi
TLi
social competence in sport
72.90 (37)*
.06 (.04-.08)
.22
.04
.99
.99
perceived sport competence
28.09 (9)*
.09(.05-.12)
.04
.06
.99
.98
self-control
19.67(21)
.00 (.00-.05)
.96
.05
1.00
1.00
social responsibility
27.54 (9)*
.09 (.05-. 12)
.05
.06
.98
.97
effort
31.75(37)
.00 (.00-.03)
1.00
.04
1.00
1.00
teamwork
76.72 (37)*
.06 (.04-.08)
.15
.05
.98
.98
social competence in sport
157.27 (96)*
.05 (.03-.06)
.60
.05
.99
.99
perceived sport competence
97.49 (40)*
.07 (.05-.09)
.03
.14
99
.97
self-control
72.13(66)
11.44(40)*
.02 (.00-.04)
.99
.05
LOO
LOO
social responsibility
.08 (.06-. 10)
.00
.06
.98
.96
effort
101.76(96)
.02 (.00-.04)
1.00
.04
1.00
1.00
teamwork
176.75 (96)
.06 (.04-.07)
.27
.06
.99
.98
Model
Step 1 - Modeling the initial Levei and Change
Step 2 - Predicting tlie initial Level and Change
Notes: S-B x2 = Satorra-Bentler Scaled x2; RMSEA = root mean square error of approximation; CI = RMSEA confidence interval; CFit = p value
for RMSEA test of close fit; SRMR = standardized root mean square residual; CFI = comparative fit index; TLI = Tucker-Lewis index. * significant
at p < .05.
Table 2 Key Parameter Estimates From the Growth Portion of the Second Order Latent Growth
Curve Analyses
Initial Level
Relationship
Between
Initial Level and
Change
Change
Outcome Variabie
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
r
social competence in sport
3.75*
.71*
.03
.78*
-.81*
perceived sport competence
4.19*
.81*
.00
.58*
-.45*
self-control
4.16*
.69*
-.08
.71*
-.36*
social responsibility
4.11*
.58*
.11*
.53*
-.44*
effort
4.00*
.76*
-.04
.72*
-.26*
teamwork
4.05*
.68*
.03
.71*
-.38*
Notes: * Indicates value is significantly different than zero (p < .05).
had no change or decreased over time. The percentage of
participants found to increase in the remaining variables
was 50% for perceived sport competence, 39.3% for selfcontrol, 72.6% for social responsibility, 44.7% for effort,
and 54% for teamwork. Finally, the last column of Table
1 sbows that there was a significant negative relationship
between where campers started on each variable and
the amount they changed, suggesting that campers with
lower scores to begin with tended to demonstrate greater
rates of change over the camp. On the other hand, those
who had more favorable perceptions at the beginning of
camp showed lower rates of change. This suggests that
campers who entered the camp with poorer self-reported
social skills had more positive growth than those campers
entering camp with more favorable perceptions.
Our next set of analyses examined the influence of
belonging on changes in each of the outcomes measured.
Our primary interest here was to examine whether the
campers' perceptions of belonging at the end of the
camp predicted the change in each of the key outcome
variables after controlling for age and pre-camp scores on
the remaining outcome variables. This would allow us to
better understand belonging as an underlying mechanism
affecting variations in change. Before running the main
244
Anderson-Butcher et al.
analyses, we checked the internal consistency of each of
the predictor variables that were included in the models,
with the exception of age which was based on a single
score. All variables demonstrated acceptable reliability,
with alpha (a) coefficients ranging from .79-.90.
A summary of the overall model fit for each of the
second order growth curve models incorporating predictors is included in Table 2. Once again, the fit indices
generally provide evidence that the models fit the data
reasonably well for each of the outcome variables. Table
3 provides a summary of the key parameter estimates
predicting the initial level and change in the outcome
variables. Overall, the results indicated that the set of
predictors explained a significant amount of variation
in both the initial level (R^ ranged from ,46-,89) and
changes (R^ ranged from , 17-,38) in each outcome variable. While there were some unique relationships that
emerged in each analysis, perceived belonging was a
significant positive predictor of change in each of the
key outcome variables. In other words, the more campers
felt connected to and supported at LiFE Sports, the more
likely they experienced positive changes.
Discussion
Overall, the study provides support for the role of dualfocused community sport programs in promoting both
positive youth development. Specifically, the results of
this study suggest that the LiFE Sports Camp had an
impact on campers who participated in the study, particularly in relation to documenting changes in social
responsibility (one key life skill targeted within the
program's overall design). Changes in the other outcome
variables, such as teamwork and self-control, also were
not noted. The results also suggest that the camp may be
most effective for those campers who report lower scores
on the youth development outcomes at pretest and for
those who perceived a stronger sense of connection with
the camp. Last, campers who reported a stronger sense
of belonging were more likely to increase their scores
on the various outcomes over the course of the camp.
Together these results provide initial evidence to support
the importance of sport programs strategically designed
to foster both sport and social skills and foster a sense of
belonging among participants.
Overall, however, there was mixed evidence
regarding the effectiveness of the camp for promoting
both sport and social skill development. Of the six outcome variables, only social responsibility significantly
changed, showing increases from pre- to post-camp.
This is a positive finding, pointing to the positive impact
of LiFE Sports on promoting one important aspect
of social competence (Wentzel, 1991), This finding
also supports previous research that has demonstrated
the impact of sport programs that incorporate TPSR
on social responsibility (Cecchini, Montero, Alonso,
Izquierdo, & Contreras, 2007), It is surprising, however,
that the other outcome variables did not significantly
change across the group level, especially given the
specific focus of this particular community sport program on developing these competencies. As others have
suggested (Fraser-Thomas et al,, 2005), there may be
different paths to positive youth development through
sport, and youth may experience sports-based PYD
settings differently even though they are engaged in the
same sport context. Qualitative research supports this as
well, documenting individual variations in the mechanisms and outcomes experienced by youth participants
in the same sports-based PYD program (see Riley &
Anderson-Butcher, 2012), Our findings related to the
individual variability in perceptual changes across the
course of camp (discussed next) appear to help explain
the lack of significant group-level change.
More specifically, the second analyses showcased
significant variability among campers' perceptions
related to outcomes of LiFE Sports over time. This may be
one reason why significant group level differences were
not found across all outcome variables. More specifically,
the estimated standard deviations associated with the
change scores revealed significant individual differences
in all the outcome variables. In other words, there were
some campers who increased in their perceptions from
pre- to post-camp, and some campers who decreased on
each of the variables across the camp. As such, when
grouped together, all campers as a group did not change
in scores. Some campers, however, did improve. Campers
with lower scores to begin with tended to demonstrate
greater rates of change over the camp; whereas those who
started camp with more favorable perceptions showed
lower rates of change. These findings point to the value
of LiFE Sports and other community sport programs for
youth who enter the programs with the greatest needs. In
other words, those who enter community sport programs
with poorer social skills may benefit particularly from
these types of experiences. In the case of youth from
vulnerable circumstances, such as those participating in
the LiFE Sports camp, these programs may be of special
import as they may need further support in developing
age-appropriate social skills (see Klebanoff & Muramatsu, 2002; Nowicki, 2003).
Additional findings suggest that participants' sense
of belonging explained a significant amount of variation
in both the initial level and changes in each outcome
variable. While there were some unique relationships
that emerged in each analysis, these findings suggest
that the more campers felt connected to and supported
at LiFE Sports, the more likely they were to experience
positive changes in the outcome variables. The positive
influence of belonging was not surprising given that both
theory and research have highlighted the role of this construct in predicting psychological functioning and wellbeing. For instance, belonging, or sense of relatedness,
is considered one of three fundamental psychological
needs, along with autonomy and perceived competence,
according to Ryan and Deci's self-determination theory
(2002,2007). Research in multiple domains has provided
support for the links between the extent to which these
fundamental needs are satisfied and a host of outcomes
c o> w
o a> "
(O
.SS
o
I
m o — ro
o
o
a>
o
u
.a
O
ro
Q.
.—
175 S
+j
%
h
ie
Q.
(O
lU
- 2I
p
V
o
-* — (N
0 0 0
ffi
s s
ü
D,
•o
re
1
a
'E
0)
D)
C
si^ S 7 - ° ^
Q. a> o
i|II
" ^
5
(O
60
tu
B
ca
>
D
u
00 Ü
00
q
C
3 in
"câ ^
.c [g x:
0
c
•3 -G
ç
>
aJ
3C
j23 "g!t;
c
'"^
• " ^
>
0) >
00 _«
_c
u
00
c
ca
x:
"^
lard
••5
••5
2
0
'c
S
re
E
o
»s
•5 g
.re
U (fl
S.E
g 0)
'Sa.
•(O
o
II Ir
(O
O
245
246
Anderson-Butcher et ai.
(e,g., motivation, affective responses, self-perceptions,
well-being; see Ntoumanis, 2012; Weiss & Amorose,
2008, for reviews). Likewise, specific research in community sport and afterschool programs also points to the
value of belonging for promoting positive developmental
outcomes (Anderson-Butcher et al,, 2004; AndersonButcher & Fink, 2006; Eccles et al., 2003; Ullrich-French
& Smith, 2009), This seems to support the hypothesis
advanced in the outset of this study, particularly in that
sense of belonging may be critical for fostering engagement, promoting the adoption of norms and behaviors,
and thus critical for supporting both social and sport skill
development (Anderson-Butcher, 2010; McDonough et
al., 2013), In the end, the role of belonging as a mechanism contributing to greater growth in skills was supported by this research.
Limitations
The findings of this research should be interpreted with
study limitations in mind. Foremost, this study used youth
self-report measures. In the future, it will be important
to consider objective measures of social competence, as
well as reports from diverse sources, including parents/
guardians or coaching staff in the program. This may
shed further light on the specific components of social
competence that community sport programs such as
LiFE Sports contribute to the most. It also may be valuable to incorporate a mixed method approach where data
are obtained through participant surveys, focus groups,
and interviews with key stakeholders. In addition, the
members of the research team also were involved in the
program design. Researcher positionality may have added
bias in the research methodology and when interpreting the results. Further, this study employed a pre and
post study design with no control or comparison group.
Future research might consider using more rigorous
methods incorporating mixed methods, randomizedcontrol groups, and longitudinal designs that further track
youth outcomes over several time points. This study also
only explored one potential mechanism for maximizing
youth experiences (i.e., belonging). Future studies may
explore other potential mechanisms such as perceptions
of autonomy-support and peer relationships that may
also be important for promoting outcomes in community
sport. Overall, results should be interpreted with these
limitations in mind.
Implications
Several implications can be derived from this study that
are relevant to sport management leaders and practitioners
who design and implement community sport programs.
Study findings found that participants in LiFE Sports
experienced significant improvements in perceptions of
social responsibility from preto-post camp. No support
was found in relation to the other measured outcomes.
The findings, however, suggest that youth who come to
the program with poorer social skills benefit the most.
This suggests that community sport programs designed
to specifically promote positive youth development may
have particular import for the most vulnerable youth
participants. As such, sport management leaders and
practitioners might become more strategic in their design
strategies by specifically teaching skills and promoting
social competence through their sport activities, striving
to impact broader outcomes such as social responsibility, effort, teamwork, and self-control. In addition,
findings suggest that community sport programs may
have more value for youth coming from disadvantaged
circumstances. As such, sport management leaders and
practitioners (as well as funders) may want to target their
resources toward vulnerable youth coming from at-risk
environments, as the impact of their programs on the
individuals served may be greater.
Likewise, it is clear that youths' perceptions of
belonging were related to changes in youth outcomes.
Several programmatic design strategies might be considered by sport management practitioners as they aim
to foster these feelings of connectedness in youth. For
example, providing opportunities within the context of
community sport programs for youth to connect with
peers and staff are critical (Amorose, 2007; Eccles et
al., 2003; Ullrich-French & Smith, 2009). Sport could
be designed more specifically to provide opportunities
for participants to socialize both inside and outside of
the sport setting (lachini, Amorose, & Anderson-Butcher,
2010), It is oftentimes through these experiences and connections with peers and adults that youth feel a stronger
sense of belonging to the program. Perhaps some of the
strategies used in LiFE Sports might be useful for others
to replicate.
Sport organizers also could ensure coaches and program staff are using inclusive language that allows all participants to feel welcomed and supported. For instance,
Anderson-Butcher (2005) suggests that programs should
be designed to be inclusive of all youth participants, and
program staff should encourage, reinforce, and incentivize participation and relationship-building throughout
the duration of the program. Similarly, Schilling and
colleagues (Schilling, 2001; Schilling, Martinek, &
Carson, 2007) promote a focus on fostering commitment
among participants in their community sports programs.
They emphasize strategies focused on developing leaders, mentoring, and supporting autonomy, again signaling the importance of instruction that uses these design
strategies. Clearly there is a value for including these
elements in the future management and implementation
of community sport.
Another implication for sport management leaders
and practitioners relates to hiring and administrative practices within community sport. For example, hiring qualified staff who reñect the diversity of youth being served
is important for fostering a sense of belonging among
youth. Sport management practitioners might consider
not only including sport-based components in the design
of their programs. As within LiFE Sports, hiring coaches
and staff who have skills in designing and implementing
Youth Experiences in Community Sport
community sport that emphasize both sport and social
skills development is important, particularly when these
practitioners operate programs for vulnerable youth. In
addition, training and professional development for staff
and coaches that focuses on how to nurture a sense of
belonging and intentionally teach life skills through sports
may also be necessary. Furthermore, emphasis within
training programs and sports organizations on serving
youth from vulnerable circumstances is increasingly
important, especially given that these youth may benefit
the most from these types of programs.
Conclusion
In conclusion, this study examined the impact of the LiFE
Sports Camp, a community sport program for youth from
disadvantaged circumstances designed to promote social
competence development. Findings provide initial evidence supporting the role of strategically designed community sport in promoting PYD outcomes, particularly for
youth who enter the programs with greater needs related to
social development. Fostering a sense of belonging among
participants to community sport progiams also emerged as
an important element in the program design, reflecting its
importance as an instructional strategy for sport management leaders and practitioners.
References
Amorose, A, J, (2002), The influence of reflected appraisals on
middle school and high school athletes' self-perceptions
of sport competence. Pédiatrie Exercise Science, 14(4),
377-390,
Amorose, A, J, (2007), Coaching effectiveness: Exploring the
relationship between coaching behavior and self-determined motivation. In M,S, Hagger & N,L,D, Chatzisarantis
(Eds,), Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in
exercise and sport (p, 209-228), Champaign, IL: Human
Kinetics,
Anderson-Butcher, D, (2005), Recruitment and retention in
youth development programming. Prevention Researcher,
12(2), 3-6,
Anderson-Butcher, D, (2010), The promise of afterschool
programs for promoting school connectedness and other
youth outcomes. Prevention Researcher, 17(3), 11-14,
Anderson-Butcher, D, (2012), Sport as a context for building
community and supporting families. In R,J,R, Levesque
(Ed,), Encyclopedia of Adolescence (p, 2835-2845), New
York: Springer,
Anderson-Butcher, D,, Cash, S,J,, Saltzburg, S,, Midle, T, &
Pace, D, (2004), Institutions of youth development: The
significance of supportive staff-youth relationships. Journal of Human Behavior in the Social Environment, 9( 1-2),
83-99, doi: 10,1300/J137vO9nO 1 _07,
Anderson-Butcher, D, & Conroy, D, E, (2002), Factorial, convergent, and predictive validity of a measure of belonging
in youth development programs. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 62, 857-876,
247
Anderson-Butcher, D, & Fink, J, (2006), The importance of a
sense of belonging to youth service agencies: A risk and
protective factor analysis. Journal of Child and Youth Care
Work, 20,] 1-2L
Anderson-Butcher, D,, Iachini, A,, & Amorose, T, (2008), Initial
reliability and validity evidence of the Perceived Social
Competence Scale, Research on Social Work Practice,
18(1), 47-54,
Anderson-Butcher, D,, Ball, A,, Medalan, T,, Davis, S,, & WadeMdivanian, R, (2010), Mobile Learning Institute: Adoption
of innovation key findings and conclusions, Columbus,
OH: College of Social Work, Ohio State University,
Anderson-Butcher, D,, Midle, T,, Hansford, C , Fallara, L,, &
Grotevant, S, (2004), Raising the bar, School-Age Review,
7,4-12,
Anderson-Butcher, D,, Riley, A,, Iachini, A,, Wade-Mdivanian,
R,, & Davis, J, (2012), Using sport to enhance adolescent
development. In R,J,R, Levesque (Ed,), Encyclopedia of
Adolescence, New York: Springer,
Anderson-Butcher, D,, Wade-Mdivanian, R,, Riley, A,, Amorose, A, J,, & Davis, J, (2011), LiFE Sports 2011 annual
evaluation, Columbus, OH, USA,
Anderson-Butcher, D,, Wade-Mdivanian, R,, Riley, A,, & Davis,
J, (2010), 2009 Ohio State University LiFE Sports program
annual evaluation report, Columbus, OH, USA,
Anthony, E, K,, Alter, C, F, & Jenson, J, M, (2009), Development of a risk and resilience-based out-of-school time
program for children and youths. Social Work, 54(1),
45-55, doi:10,1093/sw/54,l,45,
Beelmann, A,, Pfingsten, U„ & Lösel, E, (1994), Effects
of training social competence in children: A metaanalysis of recent evaluation studies. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 23(3), 260-271, doi:10,1207/
sl5374424jccp2303_4,
Brunelle, J,, Danish, S, J,, & Fomeris, T, (2007), The impact
of a sport-based life skill program on adolescent prosocial
values. Applied Developmental Science, 11(1), 43-55,
doi: 10,1080/10888690709336722,
Cecchini, J, A,, Montero, J,, Alonso, A,, Izquierdo, M,, & Contreras, O, (2007), Effects of personal and social responsibility on fair play in sports and self-control in school-aged
youths, European Journal of Sport Science, 7(4), 203-211,
doi: 10,1080/17461390701718497,
Chalip, L, (2006), Toward a distinctive sport management
discipline. Journal of Sport Management, 20(1), 1-21,
Coakley, J, (2009), Sports in society: Issues and controversies
(10th ed,). New York: McGraw Hill,
World Health Organization, (2011), Promoting sport and
enhancing health in European Union Countries: A
policy content analysis to support action, Copenhagen,
Denmark: Regional Office for Europe, World Health
Organization,
Danish, S,, Eomeris, T,, Hodge, K,, & Heke, I, (2004), Enhancing youth development through sport. World Leisure Journal, 46(3), 38^9, doi:10,1080/04419057,2004,9674365,
Dixon, M, A, & Bruening, J, E, (2011), Youth and community
sport. In P,M, Pederson, J,B, Parks, J, Quarterman, & L,
Thibault (Eds,), Contemporary sport management (p,
188-203), Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics,
248
Anderson-Butcher et ai.
Duncan, T. E., Duncan, S. C , & Strycker, L. A. (2006). An
introduction to latent variable growth curve modeling:
Concepts, issues, and applications. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Durlak, J. A. & Weissberg, R. P. (2007). The impact of afterschool programs that promote personal and social skills.
Chicago, IL: Collaborative for Academic, Social, and
Emotional Leaning, University of Illinois at Chicago.
Eccles, J. S., Barber, B. L., Stone, M., & Hunt, J. (2003).
Extracurricular activities and adolescent development.
The Journal of Social Issues, 59(4), 865-889. doi: 10.1046/
J.0022-4537.2003.00095.X.
Eccles, J. & Gootman, J. A. (2002). Community programs to
promote youth development. Washington, DC: National
Academy Press.
Einney, S. J. & DiStefano, C. (2006). Nonnormal and categorical data in structural equation modeling. In G.R. Hancock
& R.O. Mueller (Eds.), Structural equation modeling: A
second course (p. 269-314). Greenwich, CT: Information
Age Publishing.
Eraser-Thomas, J. L., Côté, J., & Deakin, J. (2005). Youth sport
programs: An avenue to foster positive youth development.
Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, 10(1), 19^0. doi
: 10.1080/1740898042000334890.
Gould, D. & Carson, S. (2008). Life skills development through
sport: Current status and future directions. International
Review of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 7(1), 58-78.
doi: 10.1080/17509840701834573.
Gresham, E M. & Elliott, S. N. (1990). Social skills rating
system. Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service.
Gresham, E. M. (1997). Social competence and students with
behavior disorders: Where we've been, where we are, and
where we should go. Education and Treatment of Children,
20, 233-250.
Hancock, G. R., Kuo, W., & Lawrence, E. R. (2001). An
illustration of second-order latent growth models. Structural Equation Modeling, 8(3), 470-489. doi: 10.1207/
S15328007SEM0803_7.
Hancock, G. R. & Lawrence, E. R. (2006). Using latent growth
models to evaluate longitudinal change. In G.R. Hancock
& R.O. Mueller (Eds.), Structural equation modeling: A
second course (p. 171-196). Greenwich, CT: Information
Age Publishing.
Hedstrom, R., & Gould, D. (2004). Research in youth sports:
Critical issues. East Lansing, MI: Institute for the Study
of Youth Sports.
Hellison, D. R. (2003). Teaching responsibility through physical activity (2nd ed.). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Hellison, D. R. & Cutforth, N. J. (1997). Extended day programs
for urban children and youth: Erom theory to practice. In
H. Walberg, O. Reyes, & R. Weissberg (Eds.), Children
and youth: Interdisciplinary perspectives (p. 223-249).
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Hodge, K. P. ( 1989). Character-building in sport: Eact or fiction?
New Zealand Journal of Sports Medicine, 17(2), 23-25.
Hu, L. & Bentler, K. A. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indices
in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria
versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling,
6(1), 1-55. doi:10.1080/10705519909540118.
Iachini, A. L. & Anderson-Butcher, D. (2012). The contribution
of extracurricular activities to school priorities and student
success. In R.J. Waller (Ed.), Mental Health Promotion in
Schools: Foundations. Oak Park, IL: Bentham Science.
Iachini, A. L., Amorose, A., & Anderson-Butcher, D. (2010).
Exploring high school coaches' implicit theories of
motivation from a self-determination theory perspective.
International Journal of Sports Science & Coaching, 5(2),
291-308. doi:10.1260/1747-9541.5.2.291.
Kelley, B. & Carchia, C. (2013, July 11). "Hey, data d a t a swing!" The hidden demographics of youth sports.
ESPN The Magazine. Retrieved from http://espn.go.com/
espn/story/_/id/9469252/hidden-demographics-youthsports-espn-magazine.
Klebanoff, R. & Muramatsu, N. (2002). A community-based
physical education and activity intervention for African
American préadolescent girls: A strategy to reduce racial
disparities in health. Health Promotion Practice, 3(2),
276-285. doi:10.1177/152483990200300222.
Larson, R. W. (2000). Toward a psychology of positive youth
development. American Psychologist, 55(1), 170-183.
doi:10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.170.
Larson, R. W, Hansen, D. M., & Moneta, G. (2006). Differing profiles of developmental experiences across types of
organized youth activities. Developmental Psychology,
42(5), 849-863. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.42.5.849.
Larson, R. & Verma, S. (1999). How children and adolescents
around the world spent time: Work, play, and developmental opportunities. Psychological Bulletin, 125(6), 701-736.
doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.125.6.701.
Marsh, H. W., Richards, G. E., Johnson, S., Roche, L., &
Tremayne, P. (1994). Physical Self-Description Questionnaire: Psychometric properties and a multitraitmultimethod analysis of relations to existing instruments.
Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 16(3), 270-305.
Martinek, T., Schilling, T, & Johnson, D. (2001). Transferring personal and social responsibility of underserved
youth to the classroom. The Urban Review, 33(1), 2 9 ^ 5 .
doi:10.1023/A:1010332812171.
McDonough, M. H., UUrich-Erench, S., Anderson-Butcher, D.,
Amorose, A. J., & Riley, A. (2013). Social responsibility
among low-income youth in physical activity-based positive youth development programs: Scale development and
associations with social responsibility. Journal ofApplied
Sport Psychology, 25(4), 431^47. doi: 10.1080/1041320
0.2012.751563.
McArdle, J. J. & Nesselroade, J. R. (1994). Using multivariate
data to structure developmental change. In H.C. Stanley &
R. Hayne Wring (Eds.), Life-span developmental psychology: Methodological contributions (p. 223-267). Hillsdale,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Misener, K. & Doherty, A. (2009). A case study of organizational capacity in nonprofit community sport. Journal of
Sport Management, 23(4), 457^82.
Nowicki, E. A. (2003). A meta-analysis of the social competence of children with learning disabilities compared
to classmates of low and average to high achievement. Learning Disability Quarterly, 26(3), 171-188.
doi: 10.2307/1593650.
Youth Experiences in Community Sport
Ntoumanis, N. (2012). A self-determination theory perspective
on motivation in sport and physical education: Current
trends and possible future research directions. In G.C.
Roberts & D.C. Treasure (Eds.), Advances in motivation
in sport and exercise (p. 91-128). Champaign, IL: Human
Kinetics.
Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory (2nd ed.). New
York: McGraw-Hill.
Papacharisis, V, Goudas, M., Danish, S. J., & Theodorakis, Y.
(2005). The effectiveness of teaching a life skills program
in a sport context. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology,
17(3), 247-254. doi:10.1080/10413200591010139.
Riley, A, & Anderson-Butcher, D. (2012). Participation in
a summer sport-based youth development program for
disadvantaged youth: Getting the parent perspective.
Children and Youth Services Review, 34(7), 1367-1377.
doi: 10.1016/j.childyouth.2012.03.008.
Rogers, B. (1977). Rationalising sports policies. Sport in
the Social Context: Technical Supplement. Strasbourg:
Council of Europe.
Ryan, R. M. & Deci, E. L. (2002). An overview of self-determination theory: An organismic-dialectical perspective.
In E.L. Deci & R.M, Ryan (Eds,), Handbook of selfdetermination research (p. 3-33). Rochester, NY: The
University of Rochester Press.
Ryan, R. M. & Deci, E. L. (2007). Active human nature: Selfdetermination theory and the promotion and maintenance
of sport, exercise, and health. In N. Chatzisarantis & M.S.
Hagger (Eds.), Self-determination in sport and exercise (p.
1-20), Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics,
Sabo, D, & Feliz, R (2008), Go out and play: Youth sports in
America. East Meadow, NY: Women's Sports Foundation,
Sayer, A. G. & Cumsille, P. E. (2001). Second-order latent
growth models. In L.M. Collins & A.G. Sayer (Eds.),
New methods for the analysis of change (p. 177-200).
Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Schilling, T, Martinek, T, & Carson, S. (2007). Youth leaders' perceptions of commitment to a responsibility-based
249
physical activity program. Research Quarterlyfor Exercise
and Sport, 75(2), 48-60. doi:10.1080/02701367.2007.10
599403.
Schilling, T. A. (2001 ). An investigation of commitment among
participants in an extended day physical activity program. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 72(4),
355-365. doi: 10.1080/02701367.2001.10608972.
Siedentop, D., Hastie, P. A., & van der Mars, H. (2004). Complete guide to sport education. Champaign, IL: Human
Kinetics.
Ullrich-French, S., & Smith, A.L. (2009). Social and motivational predictors of continues youth sport participation. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 10(1), 87-95.
doi:10.1016/j.psychsport.2008.06.007.
Vallerand, R. J., Brière, N. M., Blanchard, C , & Provencher,
P. (1997). Development and validation of the multidimensional sportspersonship orientations scale. Journal ofSport
& Exercise Psychology, 19(2), 197-206,
Visek, A. & Watson, J. (2005). Ice hockey players' legitimacy
of aggression and professionalization of attitudes. The
Sport Psychologist, 19(2), 178-192.
Weinberg, R. S., & Gould, D. Foundations of sport and exercise
psychology, 1999. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Weiss, M. R. & Amorose, A. J. (2008). Motivational orientations and sport behavior. In T.S. Horn (Ed.), Advances in
sport psychology (3rd ed., p. 115-155). Champaign, IL:
Human Kinetics.
Weiss, M. R. & Smith, A. L. (2002). Friendship quality in
youth sport: Relationship to age, gender, and motivation
variables. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 24(4),
420^37.
Wentzel, K. R. (1991). Relations between social competence
and academic achievement in early adolescence. Child
Development, 62(5), 1066-1078.
Youniss, J. & Yates, M. (1997). Community service and social
responsibility in youth. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press.
Copyright of Journal of Sport Management is the property of Human Kinetics Publishers, Inc.
and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without
the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or
email articles for individual use.