American Journal of Evaluation Evaluating youth empowerment: the construction and validation of an inventory of dimensions and indicators Journal: American Journal of Evaluation Manuscript ID AJE-19-10-0007.R3 Manuscript Type: Article Fo Process Evaluation, Qualitative Methods, youth empowerment, Validation Keyword: Study, Youth. rP ee rR ev iew http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/ajeval Page 1 of 47 American Journal of Evaluation 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Evaluating youth empowerment: 11 the construction and validation of an inventory of dimensions and 12 13 indicators 14 15 16 17 Introduction 18 19 20 21 The concept of empowerment emerged in the social sciences in the 1970s, and since Fo 22 then has become increasingly adopted by scientists and professionals. Nonetheless, it 23 24 remains a complex one. Ambiguous and not clearly defined, the concept can be applied rP 25 26 in numerous ways and in numerous contexts and processes (Christens & Peterson 2012; 27 28 Morton & Montgomery 2012; Mohajer & Earnest 2009). While it has mainly focused ee 29 30 on adults (Gong & Wright 2007), the past twenty years have seen its use in work with 31 rR young people and in particular those in situations of social risk or vulnerability 32 33 (Chinman & Linney (1998) as cited by Russell et al. 2009, p. 901; Muturi et al., 2018; 34 ev 35 Funes Rivas & Robles, 2016; Bulanda & Johnson, 2016: Travis & Bowman, 2011, 36 37 2012). 38 iew One of the main problems with researching empowerment, which stems largely 39 40 from this imprecision, is how to evaluate it; indeed, prior studies have focused on very 41 42 specific fields, making it difficult to transfer results between them. This is probably, as 43 44 Wagaman (2011) stated, because few studies offer definitions of youth empowerment 45 that provide a clear and logical interpretation of results. As the same author also noted, 46 47 most studies are limited to recognizing youth empowerment on only one of the 48 49 individual, inter-relational, or community levels and soand so rarely address all. 50 51 Another limitation to have a whole perspective is that youth empowerment can be 52 53 conceptualized as either a process or an outcome (Luttrell et al., 2009). 54 55 56 1 57 58 59 60 http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/ajeval American Journal of Evaluation Page 2 of 47 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Our research team has produced knowledge on youth empowerment over the 11 course of three consecutive national research projects (2010-2018) funded by the 12 13 Spanish Ministry of Education and Professional Training. In the first, ("Participatory 14 15 evaluation as a learning methodology for personal and community empowerment" 16 17 EDU2010-15122XXXXXXX), among other products we constructed an inventory of 18 19 indicators for personal and community empowerment (Soler et al.XXXX, 2014). 20 In the second, “XXXX” (HEBE project. Youth empowerment: analysis of the 21 Fo 22 moments, spaces and processes that contribute to youth empowerment. EDU2013- 23 24 42979-RXXXX), we designed a range of products. Firstly, we conducted a systematic rP 25 26 analysis of the literature published on youth empowerment since 2000 (Úcar et 27 al.XXXX, 2016) and then, on the basis of this, produced a pedagogical model of youth 28 ee 29 empowerment (Soler et al.XXX, 2017). 30 31 Within the framework of this project, the initial inventory of general personal rR 32 33 and community empowerment indicators was adapted to the sphere of youth 34 empowerment (Cevallos Trujillo & Paladines, 2016; Planas et al.XXXX, 2016a; Planas ev 35 36 et al. XXX, 2016b;). Our aim here was to determine how valid this inventory of 37 38 iew indicators was in analyzing and evaluating youth empowerment once said adaptation 39 40 has been made. And this is the aim of the current research: to present the results of the 41 42 academic and professional validation of this inventory of youth empowerment 43 dimensions and indicators on the basis of the aforementioned theoretical framework. 44 45 The inventory constitutes a qualitative tool that can be used to develop different 46 47 instruments, whether quantitative or qualitative. The proposal will allow researchers to 48 49 design evaluation questionnaires and other instruments to evaluate empowerment 50 projects with regards to improvements and impacts.on the impact of empowerment 51 52 projects, instruments to evaluate empowerment projects, etc. We are currently working 53 54 55 56 2 57 58 59 60 http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/ajeval Page 3 of 47 American Journal of Evaluation 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 on the third project, (HEBE II project. Identification of potentiating and limiting factors 11 of youth empowerment: Analysis of discourses and practices of educators. EDU2017- 12 13 83249-R), “XXX”, which will be completed by the end of 2021. The work done by our 14 15 research group can be consulted at https://www.projectehebe.com/en/. The project aims 16 17 to use the validated inventory of indicators to produce a rubric for evaluating youth 18 19 empowerment. 20 The article is structured in five parts. The first outlines a brief theoretical 21 Fo 22 approach to youth empowerment. This is followed by a review of some of the most 23 24 important research identifying dimensions and indicators of youth empowerment. The rP 25 26 third section examines the methodological process followed to produce and validate the 27 dimensions and indicators inventory presented here. The fourth section presents the 28 ee 29 main results obtained, and the final section outlines the resulting inventory of 30 31 dimensions and indicators along with some conclusions arising from the research rR 32 33 process. 34 ev 35 36 37 1. An approach to empowerment and youth empowerment 38 iew 39 40 Despite the rapid popularization of the term in scientific, social, and political fields 41 (Peterson, 2014; Pick et al., 2007; Somerville, 1998), research shows that the precise 42 43 concept of empowerment is unclear, and that coming to a homogenous, accepted 44 45 definition is a complex task (Wagaman, 2011; Mohajer & Earnest, 2009; Pick et al., 46 47 2007). This is due, firstly, to the wide range of perspectives used when analyzing 48 empowerment, and the fact that it can be applied in a number of very different fields 49 50 (psychology, education, politics, economics, health, the social and cultural fields, etc.) 51 52 (Luttrell et al., 2009). Research programs tend to connect empowerment with their 53 54 55 56 3 57 58 59 60 http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/ajeval American Journal of Evaluation Page 4 of 47 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 particular field of knowledge. Lutrell et al. (2009) make reference to economic factors 11 (skills, capabilities, resources, and access to secure and sustainable incomes and 12 13 livelihoods); to politics (capacity to analyze, organize and mobilize); to culture (the 14 15 redefining of rules and norms and the recreating of cultural and symbolic practices); and 16 17 to human and social aspects (a multidimensional social process that helps people gain 18 19 control over their own lives). A second contributor to the ambiguity of the concept 20 concerns the difficulties arising from translation into other languages Second, because 21 Fo 22 of the difficulties arising from its translation into other languages (Richez, et al., 2012; 23 24 Luttrell et al., 2009). rP 25 26 Úcar, Jiménez-Morales, Soler & TrillaXXXX (2016) conducted a systematic 27 28 ee analysis of research carried out on how empowerment has been conceptualized over the 29 30 past 15 years and has been applied to young people. They concluded that empowerment 31 rR 32 refers to the change and transformation of people, groups, and communities; it is also the 33 process by means of which a context where there is a lack of power changes to one where 34 ev 35 people gain control over their own lives and situations. Furthermore, they noted that the 36 37 analyzed research revealed the three concepts most frequently used when referring to 38 iew 39 empowerment: power (Fortunati, 2014; Ricaurte, et al., 2013; Travis & Bowman, 2012), 40 41 participation (Checkoway, 2011; Boluijt & de Graaf, 2010; Martínez, 2010), and 42 education (Bacqué & Biewener, 2013; Özmete, 2011; Mackinnon & Stephens, 2010). In 43 44 addition, in recent years, a significant increase in research on youth empowerment has 45 46 also been highlighted in fields such as health and social networks, and also in the 47 48 development and implementation of programs aimed at youth empowerment (Buccieri & 49 Molleson, 2015; Law et al., 2019; Muturi et al., 2018; Zimmerman et al., 2018). 50 51 As a theoretical starting point, the vast majority of the academic literature 52 53 analyzed on empowerment continues to cite the founding definition by Zimmerman 54 55 56 4 57 58 59 60 http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/ajeval Page 5 of 47 American Journal of Evaluation 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 (1995, 2000; Perkins & Zimmerman, 1995), which states that experiences that empower 11 are those that allow the objectives themselves to be connected to the actions necessary 12 13 to achieve them, so that greater access to and control over resources are gained and the 14 15 decisions that affect one’s life can be influenced. Zimmerman also distinguished 16 17 between empowerment as an outcome and as a process. However, Silva and Martínez 18 19 (2004) pointed out that said author did not clarify this distinction sufficiently, while 20 noting that the way in which Zimmerman exemplified the distinction is also unclear. 21 Fo 22 They justified their argument by saying that process and outcome are not "intrinsically 23 24 or essentially different" (p.31). According to this idea, a process is understood to be rP 25 26 nothing but a sequence of micro results (XXXXÚcar, 2012, p. 54) or partial results. 27 Process and outcome are two different views or perspectives on the same object, in this 28 ee 29 case, empowerment. Empowerment as a process seeks the continuities and sequences of 30 31 actions, while as a result it focuses on finished acts or actions. These two perspectives rR 32 33 that can be, depending on the characteristics of the research, exclusive or 34 complementary. ev 35 36 Our work is situated within the framework of studies that have connected 37 38 iew empowerment and education. In relation to research on empowerment, education is 39 40 organized around five axes (XXXXXÚcar et al., 2016): a) education and learning; b) 41 42 the acquisition of knowledge and skills; c) the acquisition of capabilities; d) the 43 acquisition of some kinds of resources; and, finally, e) awareness, which is often 44 45 associated with the ideas posited by Freire. 46 47 Given the social and educational perspective of all of our investigations, we 48 49 have taken Bauman’s more detailed and updated version of said definition as a basis for 50 this work. This definition is clearly based on the perspective of the capability approach 51 52 proposed by Sen (20001999) and Nussbaum (20112). To be empowered means to be 53 54 55 56 5 57 58 59 60 http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/ajeval American Journal of Evaluation Page 6 of 47 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 able to choose and act effectively according to what is chosen, something that entails 11 the ability to influence the set of alternative options available and the social scenarios 12 13 in which those options are chosen and materialized (Bauman, 2010, p.270) 14 15 As can be deduced from this definition, empowerment is always the result of a 16 17 negotiation that, to a greater or lesser degree, is deliberately instigated between a 18 19 person’s abilities and the possibilities the context in which they live offer them to 20 develop them or put them into practice. 21 Fo 22 As for youth empowerment in particular, some authors have stated that, although 23 24 the term is used in youth development programs, adults have been the main focus of the rP 25 26 research done to date (XXXX, 2016; Rojas, 2014; Russell et al., 2009; Úcar et al., 27 2016). Kaplan et al. (2009) consider the concept of youth empowerment to have been 28 ee 29 constructed out of the literature on empowerment, positive youth development, 30 31 resilience, and community-based prevention programs, which is why Batista et al. rR 32 33 (2018) note that there are many definitions and alternative names for youth 34 empowerment. They specifically cite: positive youth development, youth power, youth ev 35 36 voice, youth participation, youth engagement, youth agency, youth governance, and 37 38 iew youth organizing (2018, p. 533). That said, however, Christens and Peterson (2012) 39 40 pointed out that very little is yet known about the role empowerment plays in the youth 41 42 development process. 43 According to Russell et al. (2009), studies on youth empowerment tend to use 44 45 the concept when discussing “youth leadership”, “civic involvement”, “self-efficiency”, 46 47 or “youth activism”. They also note Chinman and Linney (1998, cited in Russel et al, 48 49 2009, p.901) stated that studies have mainly focused on oppressed groups, or those at 50 risk, ignoring the multidimensional nature of the social contexts where youth 51 52 empowerment may take place. 53 54 55 56 6 57 58 59 60 http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/ajeval Page 7 of 47 American Journal of Evaluation 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Despite this, there is a general consensus in the academic literature in seeing 11 youth empowerment as referring to the effective growth of a young person through 12 13 acquiring competences and abilities that enable them to overcome specific situations 14 15 (XXXXÚcar et al., 2016). As has been noted, however, these elements will be 16 17 influenced or conditioned by the policies deployed in the environment (Jennings et al., 18 19 2006; Úcar et al.XXXX, 2016) 20 The main dimensions that shape, or are associated with, the concept of youth 21 Fo 22 empowerment are: a) those related to growth and well-being; b) the relational; c) the 23 24 enabling; d) the political; e) the transforming; and, finally, d) the emancipating rP 25 26 dimension (Úcar et al.XXXX, 2016). 27 As a result of the above, and in accordance with that posited by various authors 28 ee 29 (Augsberger et al., 2019; Law, et al., 2019; Speer et al., 2019; Muturi et al. 2018; 30 31 Brickle & Evans-Agnew, 2017; Huscroft-D’Angelo et al., 2017; Mohajer & Earnest, rR 32 33 2009; Özmete, 2011; Wagaman, 2011), we view youth empowerment as a process and a 34 result that increases the possibilities young people have to decide and act consistently ev 35 36 on everything that affects their own life. 37 38 iew Furthermore, it enables them to take part in decision-making processes and intervene 39 40 responsibly in issues that affect the community they form part of. 41 42 43 44 2. Research on youth empowerment indicators 45 46 47 As noted in the previous section, much has been theorized about the concept of 48 empowerment in recent decades. However, empowerment continues to be treated as a 49 50 reflective construct without paying the necessary attention to the relationships between 51 52 measures, dimensions, and the higher-order construct (Rodrigues et al. 2018, p. 2). 53 54 55 56 7 57 58 59 60 http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/ajeval American Journal of Evaluation Page 8 of 47 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Given the importance of context in empowerment processes, a universal measure for 11 empowerment may not be entirely desirable (Zimmerman, 1995), but that does not 12 13 mean that its measurement cannot be improved in concrete contexts. Peterson (2014) 14 15 pointed out that in order to advance both theoretically and practically, more research is 16 17 needed that links different levels of empowerment analysis. This means research should 18 19 address models that include the dimensions and indicators that define it and facilitate its 20 measurement. 21 Fo 22 Interesting contributions have come from the field of the psychological 23 24 empowerment in this respect (Rodrigues et al., 2018; Christens et al.,, 2011; Wilke & rP 25 26 Speer, 2011; Peterson et al, 2008). Many of these have been based on the theoretical 27 model posited by Zimmerman (1995), which includes three components in its 28 ee 29 theoretical construction of empowerment: the intrapersonal (belief in individual 30 31 abilities and competences and level of control, as well as motivation to influence rR 32 33 personal situations), the interactional (relationship of individuals with their 34 environments - ability to mobilize resources, and skills for handling the resources they ev 35 36 have obtained) and the behavioral (involvement in the community, social 37 38 iew participation, and constructive behavior in new situations). Subsequently Christens 39 40 (2012) added a fourth component: relational or interpersonal empowerment 41 42 (interpersonal transactions and processes to the effective exercise of transformative 43 power in the sociopolitical domain), also incorporated in later research (such as 44 45 Rodrigues et al., 20187). These same authors point out that empirical studies based on 46 47 Zimmerman’s conceptualization have focused on one or two components. Some have 48 49 developed scales for measuring specific dimensions of empowerment, including: the 50 Sociopolitical Control Scale (Zimmerman & Zahniser, 1991) (intrapersonal 51 52 component); the Youth Cognitive Empowerment Scale (Y-CES) (Speer et al., 2019) 53 54 55 56 8 57 58 59 60 http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/ajeval Page 9 of 47 American Journal of Evaluation 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 (cognitive component according to three dimensions; source of social power, the nature 11 of social power, and the instruments of social power); the Collective Action and 12 13 Interpersonal Relationship Scale (Speer, 2000) (interactional component); and, finally, 14 15 the Behavioral Empowerment Scale (Speer & Peterson, 2000) (behavioral component). 16 17 We also find proposals aiming to measure empowerment from a more holistic 18 19 perspective, such as those devised by van Dop et al. (2016) and Rodrigues et al. (2018). 20 The Service User Psychological Empowerment Scale (SUPES) (van Dop et al., 2016) is 21 Fo 22 a 28-item scale that can be used to measure the intrapersonal, interactional, and 23 24 behavioral dimensions of psychological empowerment among service users, while rP 25 26 Rodrigues et al. (2018) compiled a 52-item index for measuring psychological 27 empowerment that assesses cognitive, emotional, behavioral and relational components. 28 ee 29 Their proposal contains items from the Sociopolitical Control Scale (Peterson et al., 30 31 2011), the Cognitive Empowerment Scale (Speer & Peterson, 2000), the Sense of rR 32 33 Community in Adolescents Scale (Chiessi et al., 2010), and, lastly, the Civic and 34 Political Action Scale (Rodrigues et al., 2018). ev 35 36 37 That being said, the studies that have been carried out focus on assessing the outcomes 38 iew 39 of interventions in specific contexts or groups. Some concrete examples of these are: 40 41 Damen, et al. (2017), who focused their study on measuring parental empowerment in 42 raising children; Rodrigues et al. (2018), who focused on the youth community- 43 44 organizing context; Huscroft-d’Angelo et al. (2017), who focused on youth 45 46 empowerment in mental health; Travis and Bowman (2015), who researched individual 47 48 and community empowerment from rap music engagement; and finally, Speer and 49 Peterson (2000), who investigated community organizing. 50 51 52 At another level, research into the impact of youth empowerment programs may also 53 54 55 56 9 57 58 59 60 http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/ajeval American Journal of Evaluation Page 10 of 47 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 provide information on the characteristics of empowerment processes and the indicators 11 on which they are based. Programs aimed at youth empowerment focus on developing 12 13 youth capacity, participation and agency at the individual and community level, and 14 15 include young people in some or several parts of the program process (design, 16 17 implementation, and/or evaluation). These programs or projects are based on various 18 19 different paradigms, including positive youth development (Maloney, 2015), the Youth 20 Development and Empowerment Program Model (Batista et al., 2018; Bulanda & 21 Fo 22 Johnson, 2016), the Transactional Partnering Model (Kim, et al. 1998), Critical Youth 23 24 Empowerment (Jennings, et al. 2006) and Empowerment Education Model (Mohajer & rP 25 26 Earnest, 2009) based on Freire, among others. Such diversity poses a challenge for 27 evaluation (Bulanda & Johnson, 2016). To this end, the study carried out by Morton and 28 ee 29 Montgomery (2012), which reviewed evidence of the impact of youth empowerment 30 31 programs on adolescents, is relevant. The study detected that the most important rR 32 33 outcomes of such programs are self-esteem and self-efficiency. And the same results are 34 to be found in Wagaman (2011), who added social capital, the ability to solve problems, ev 35 36 and feeling safe. 37 38 iew Holte-McKenzie et al. (2006) also detected these indicators in their study, proposing 13 39 40 empowerment indicators grouped into five life abilities (teamwork, leadership, 41 42 organization, trust, and self-esteem). Further results from studies on empowerment are 43 related to youth participatory behavior, such as the ability to work and participate in a 44 45 team; critical ability; self-management; and acquiring responsibility (Batista et al., 46 47 2018; Claret, 2013; Ricaurte et al., 2013; Whiteside Tsey et al., 2006). 48 49 The study by Jennings et al. (2006) is worthy of special attention. It analyzed 50 four youth empowerment programs. Among the results, the authors noted six points that 51 52 any youth empowerment program should take into account: (a) safe, comfortable 53 54 55 56 10 57 58 59 60 http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/ajeval Page 11 of 47 American Journal of Evaluation 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 surroundings; (b) significant participation and involvement; (c) equal power-sharing 11 between adults and young people; (d) involvement in critical reflection on interpersonal 12 13 and socio-political processes; (e) participation in socio-political processes that lead to 14 15 change; and (f) the integration of empowerment at the individual and community levels. 16 17 The inclusion of these points results in great benefits: increased self-esteem, safety, 18 19 competences, abilities, cooperativism, and appreciation of and respect for others. 20 Finally, tTo give one more example, the study conducted by Batista et al. (2018) 21 Fo 22 into the effects of a Youth Empowerment Program on young people in the foster care 23 24 system evidenced an improvement in psychological empowerment. This study was rP 25 26 based on the use of survey methods and a comparison group, and revealed how the 27 young participants on the program increased their levels of perceived control, 28 ee 29 motivation to influence, sociopolitical skills, and participatory behavior. 30 31 rR 32 The bibliography consulted indicates that a large part of the contributions in relation to 33 research on indicators of youth empowerment is carried out from a psychological 34 ev 35 perspective. Even so, from the social sciences and education, interesting contributions 36 37 can also be glimpsed when analysing the impacts and outcomes of youth empowerment 38 iew 39 projects. 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 3. Methodology for developing an inventory of youth empowerment dimensions 47 and indicators 48 49 50 51 The youth empowerment dimensions and indicators were constructed using qualitative 52 53 methods that included expert opinions, participatory assessment, life stories, and a 54 55 56 11 57 58 59 60 http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/ajeval American Journal of Evaluation Page 12 of 47 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 review of the literatureThe methodological process we followed for constructing youth 11 empowerment dimensions and indicators was qualitative and incorporated a range of 12 13 techniques, a review of various publications, expert opinions, participatory assessment, 14 15 and life stories. The process gave us access to the different perspectives of researchers, 16 17 young people, and professionals. Five versions of the youth empowerment dimensions 18 19 and indicators inventory were produced during this process. 20 21 Figure 1 depicts the methodological process followed. Fo 22 23 24 rP 25 Figure 1: Methodological process for constructing a youth empowerment indicators Commented [u1]: Comentari revisor 1- several tipologies and models of dimensins have been presented. This section could use a inventory (authors’ own data) 26 statement summariging an overall conclusion regarding research on youth empowerment indicators 27 28 ee As a starting point, we compiled an inventory of community empowerment 29 30 indicators. This formed part of the first Spanish national research project we carried out 31 rR 32 ((EDU2010-15122)XXXXXXX) and was based on community actions, participatory 33 evaluation and personal and community empowerment. The community empowerment 34 ev 35 inventory was built through a literature analysis and discussion with researchers, public 36 37 policy managers and community workers. In addition, it was tested on three case 38 iew 39 studies, which allowed us to verify its effectiveness. Each case study involved the use of 40 41 questionnaires, a content analysis of the minutes and transcriptions from community 42 sessions and semi-structured interviews with members of participatory evaluation 43 44 groups. The inventory contains 13 empowerment dimensions and 36 indicators, most 45 46 with both an individual and community component, resulting in a final proposal of 58 47 48 indicators (see Table 1). The same concept (responsibility, for example) can be applied 49 at both personal (assuming tasks) and community levels (collective will and action, 50 51 being aware of shared responsibility for implemented actions) (Soler et al.XXX, 2014). 52 53 Table 1: Inventory of community empowerment indicators 54 55 56 12 57 58 59 60 http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/ajeval Page 13 of 47 American Journal of Evaluation 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Ind: individual dimension 10 Com: community dimension 11 Source: (XXXSoler et al., 2014) 12 13 14 15 A group of five project researchers reviewed the inventory and eliminated three 16 17 of the dimensions (inclusion and community integration, community identity and 18 community organization) with their respective indicators, and two other indicators that 19 20 were deemed inadequate for the analysis of youth empowerment (improvement of other 21 Fo 22 capacities and evaluation relevance). The eliminated dimensions and indicators were 23 24 mainly related to the community dimension of empowerment and the participatory rP 25 evaluation process. The review took place in October 2014. The resulting inventory 26 27 included 10 dimensions and 25 indicators. 28 ee 29 A number of phases were involved in the methodological process for 30 31 reformulating the inventory, listed below. rR 32 33 34 3.1- Phase 1: Contrast phase ev 35 36 37 The dimensions and indicators we had formulated were compared with scientific 38 iew publications on youth empowerment. Twenty-three project researchers analyzed a total 39 40 of 297 bibliographical references published between 2000 and 2014 (scientific articles, 41 42 books, book chapters, doctoral theses, websites, and other documents). Three 43 44 instruments were created to help researchers identify the presence of indicators in the 45 46 analyzed works: 47 48 a) a table providing an overview of empowerment dimensions and indicators 49 50 b) a table with definitions for each dimension and indicator 51 52 c) a file with information for each reference, specifying the identified dimensions 53 or indicators. 54 55 56 13 57 58 59 60 http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/ajeval American Journal of Evaluation Page 14 of 47 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 The presence of indicators in the articles was identified on two levels. On the 11 one hand, researchers analyzed what the articles said in literal terms, and on the other 12 13 they used their own interpretation of the content. By way of examples, Tremblay and 14 15 Gutberlet (2010) used the label agency for what in our proposal appears as the indicator 16 17 to voluntarily and realistically assume tasks and compromises, and the dimension self- 18 19 esteem is considered by Holte-McKenzie et al. (2006) to be a life skill. Furthermore, 20 indicators can often appear as the result of empowerment processes, rather than as 21 Fo 22 indicators themselves. For example, the indicator to be aware of having acquired or 23 24 improved ones’ capacities or learning appears as an outcome in the work by Shrestha rP 25 26 (2013). The researchers were also told to take note of new dimensions or indicators, 27 should they appear. The process was carried out between November 2014 and May 28 ee 29 2015 and can be consulted in XXXXX Planas et.al, 2016b. 30 31 rR 32 33 3.2- Phase 2: Validation phase 34 ev 35 The aim here was to use expert opinion to validate the dimensions and indicators 36 37 resulting from the previous phase. The consulted experts were asked to assess the 38 iew 39 following attributes of each dimension and indicator: comprehensibility, clarity, 40 measurability, and relevance. 41 42 The expert validation document included: 43 44 a) an explanation of the validation process 45 46 b) the definition of the attributes to be assessed, and 47 c) a form that included the dimensions and indicators that were to be assessed on 48 49 the X-axis, and the attributes on the Y-axis. 50 51 52 The experts were asked to mark those attributes they felt the indicator possessed 53 as follows: comprehensibility (“It has a clear and intelligible definition that allows for 54 55 56 14 57 58 59 60 http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/ajeval Page 15 of 47 American Journal of Evaluation 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 easy interpretation. It is understandable for anyone to use. It is comprehensible”); clarity 11 (“Everyone interprets the indicator in the same way”); and measurability (“It generates 12 13 data that can be treated quantitatively or qualitatively”). Relevance (“It has the capacity 14 15 to represent or capture aspects of what we aim to study. It is important”) was assessed 16 17 on a Likert scale (where 1 was not at all relevant, and 5 highly relevant). 18 19 Each indicator also had a space for comments and observations: at the end of the 20 list of indicators for each dimension there was a space for general comments that could 21 Fo 22 be used to refer to the whole dimension. 23 24 The criteria used to choose experts were as follows: rP 25 26 a) professionals involved in developing youth policies and programmes, and; 27 28 ee b) scholars involved in youth research and teaching young people; youth 29 30 empowerment; and empowerment and assessment. 31 rR 32 The first group comprised six professionals and the second six researchers from 33 34 six different Spanish universities (see Table 2). Experts were selected according to the ev 35 36 relevance of the work they undertake in their respective fields. This process took place 37 38 between May and October 2015. iew 39 40 41 Table 2: Profile of validators 42 43 44 45 3.3-Phase 3: Contrast phase, involving participatory evaluation with young 46 people 47 48 Participatory evaluation (Cousins, 2003; Cousins & Whitmore, 1998) was used to 49 50 obtain groups of young people’s validation of the dimensions and indicators identified 51 through the expert review process. Carrying out the first national research project 52 53 mentioned above between 2010 and 2014, which was based on the relationships 54 55 56 15 57 58 59 60 http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/ajeval American Journal of Evaluation Page 16 of 47 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 between participatory evaluation and empowerment, allowed us to verify the practical 11 utility of this methodology (Soler et al.XXXX, 2014). In that project, participatory 12 13 evaluation was linked to empowerment and the participants’ learning processes 14 15 (XXXXXXNúñez & Úcar, 2020). Participatory evaluation is included within so-called 16 17 Collaborative Approaches to Evaluation (CAE) (Cousins et al., 2020). Among other 18 19 functions of evaluation, these same authors base CAE on the functions of learning and 20 transformation. Applying participatory evaluation within the framework of our project 21 Fo 22 made it possible not only to validate the inventory but also to generate learning and 23 24 empowerment processes among the groups of young participants. These latter rP 25 26 objectives were essential given the social and educational orientation of our work. This 27 process took from September 2015 to May 2016. 28 ee 29 30 The participants comprised four groups of young people, 22 females and 20 31 rR 32 males, with ages ranging from 14 to 25. The concept of youth is a social construct 33 linked to the characteristics of each social and cultural context, which is why we 34 ev 35 decided to take a broad perspective when recruiting participants. It was not so much 36 37 about delimiting rigid selection criteria for each group, but about all four groups 38 iew 39 containing young people with the most common profiles in our context 40 41 (emancipated/not emancipated; with/without work; studying/not studying; 42 native/foreign, etc.). The selection of young people was intentional, given that a central 43 44 criterion of participatory evaluation processes is that participants who are not experts in 45 46 evaluation, in our case, the young people, want to participate voluntarily in this process 47 48 together with expert evaluators (Cousins, 2003). 49 The participatory evaluation processes involved between 4 and 6 work sessions, 50 51 lasting some two hours. One of the aims of this process, among others, was to analyze 52 53 and validate the inventory of youth empowerment indicators produced by the research 54 55 56 16 57 58 59 60 http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/ajeval Page 17 of 47 American Journal of Evaluation 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 team. Depending on the group, one or two of the participatory evaluation sessions 11 focused on this specific objective. The methodology used was developed around 12 13 theatrical techniques for representing concepts, role-playing and discussion dynamics in 14 15 small groups aimed at prioritizing dimensions and indicators. Tthis process and results 16 17 can be seen in (Úcar et al.XXXX, 2017). 18 19 Ethical confidentiality criteria were followed. Informed consent was gained for 20 participation and the recording, transcription and publication of the sessions; all the 21 Fo 22 participatory sessions were transcribed and encoded to ensure anonymity. 23 24 rP 25 26 3.4. Phase 4: Contrast phase with young people through life stories 27 28 The aim of the final phase was to contrast the inventory with the life stories of six ee 29 30 young people (see Llena-Berñe et al.XXXX, 2017). This involved creating a purposive 31 rR 32 sample of young people aged between 25 and 29 who felt that they had become 33 empowered in their lives and were willing to tell their stories. Other variables taken into 34 ev 35 account were gender, place of residence (rural/urban), and origin, with a range of 36 37 educational and professional backgrounds being sought. This diversity helped ensure 38 iew 39 that the narrations provided variety in terms of experiences and places. 40 41 A number of youth bodies and associations were asked to recommend young 42 43 people who, from their point of view, were empowered. Preliminary interviews were 44 45 carried out with 11 young people, and those who had the profiles we were looking for, 46 were willing to participate, had better narrative ability and claimed to have a good 47 48 memory were selectedPreliminary interviews were held with 11 young people, and 49 50 those who had the profiles we were looking for, were willing to participate, and had 51 52 better memory and narrative ability were selected. From these 11 young people, six 53 54 profiles were selected (Table 3). 55 56 17 57 58 59 60 http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/ajeval American Journal of Evaluation Page 18 of 47 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Table 3: Description of narrators 12 13 14 15 Each of the 6 young people told their life stories over the course of two in-depth 16 17 interviews which each lasted around 90 minutes. They were asked to explain those 18 19 situations, moments, and processes that had in some way facilitated or contributed to the 20 development of certain abilities, attitudes, and competences that had helped increase 21 Fo 22 their decision-making possibilities, and thus act in consequence in their life and in the 23 24 group they formed part of. rP 25 26 As with the previous phase, ethical confidentiality criteria were followed. 27 Informed consent was gained for their participation, and the recording, transcription and 28 ee 29 publication of the stories; all the interviews were transcribed and encoded to ensure 30 31 anonymity. The life stories were treated using a categorical-thematic analysis. A rR 32 33 triangulation of researchers was used to guarantee the reliability and validity of the 34 analysis. ev 35 36 37 a) Firstly, the researcher who had interviewed the young person carried out an 38 iew 39 intra-story analysis, identifying the empowering situations. These were 40 41 systemized in a file, which recorded: (a) the people involved; (b) the time; (c) 42 the place; (e) the processes; and (f) the dimensions and indicators of 43 44 empowerment. 45 46 b) Those aspects that appeared in more than one story were highlighted using inter- 47 48 story analysis. Seven categories were proposed for analysis of the dimensions 49 and indicators: (1) the time/situation of empowerment; (2) education; (3) 50 51 membership of an association and community life; (4) family; (5) partner; (6) 52 53 work; and (7) friendships and how others see them. Three researchers selected, 54 55 56 18 57 58 59 60 http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/ajeval Page 19 of 47 American Journal of Evaluation 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 catalogued, and counted the appearance of indicators in each of the stories and 11 for each of the times/situations of empowerment encountered. 12 13 14 15 16 4. Results 17 18 The results are presented following the same four methodological phases. 19 20 21 4.1 Results of document review and formulation of first youth empowerment Fo 22 indicators proposal 23 24 rP 25 Empowerment indicators were detected in 57 of the 297 bibliographical references 26 consulted. The results showed that all indicators in our inventory were confirmed by 27 28 ee published works. The most frequent dimension was self-esteem, followed by teamwork 29 30 and responsibility. A new dimension (participation) was detected, as were 6 indicators 31 rR 32 (1 each in self-esteem, critical ability, and autonomy; and 3 in the new dimension, i.e. 33 participation). These are highlighted in italics and bold in Table 4, which shows the 34 ev 35 frequency of dimensions and indicators identified in the bibliographical review. The 36 37 result is an inventory of 11 dimensions and 30 indicators. 38 iew 39 40 Table 4: Number of references per indicator and dimension 41 42 43 44 45 46 4.2 Results of expert validation 47 48 Once all assessments had been received, the SPSS Statistics 20 programme was used to 49 analyze the data. Kendell’s co-efficient of concordance (W) was applied to measure the 50 51 degree of agreement between experts. This shows the concordance between their 52 53 opinions depending on the consulted criteria (comprehensibility, clarity, measurability, 54 55 56 19 57 58 59 60 http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/ajeval American Journal of Evaluation Page 20 of 47 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 and relevance) for all of the system’s indicators (see Table 5). Kendall’s W is usually 11 used for ordered categories. In our case, with the binary categories of comprehensibility, 12 13 clarity and measurability, new ordinal variables were created by adding together all of 14 15 the scores for the indicators in each dimension (in the case of the dimension self-esteem, 16 17 for example, the 5 indicators that comprise it). These new variables were the ones used 18 19 to calculate Kendall’s W. 20 21 The result of the Kendall’s W for all criteria showed significant concordance between Fo 22 23 the experts (The Kendall's coefficient of concordance can vary from 0 to 1. The higher 24 rP 25 the Kendall's value, the stronger the concordance).. There was a moderate degree of 26 concordance for comprehensibility, clarity, and measurability, while there was a larger 27 28 ee concordance for relevance. An analysis of the group co-efficient by type of expert 29 30 showed that there was greater concordance among the professionals than among the 31 rR 32 scholars (see table 5). 33 34 ev 35 Table 5: Kendell’s co-efficient of concordance (W) for assessment of 36 37 comprehensibility, clarity, measurability, and relevance by expert groups 38 iew 39 40 Once all the data and expert comments had been analyzed, we established the 41 process for reformulating the indicator inventory. Broadly speaking, some 30% of the 42 43 indicators required changes to improve their comprehensibility; 50% of the indicators 44 45 presented problems regarding their clarity or interpretation; and 26% regarding 46 47 measurability. All but two of the indicators were deemed highly relevant (above 4 on 48 the 1-5 Likert scale) (see Table 6). 49 50 51 52 Table 6: Frequency of attributes per indicator 53 54 55 56 20 57 58 59 60 http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/ajeval Page 21 of 47 American Journal of Evaluation 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 The assessors’ contributions were analyzed in a meeting attended by seven 12 researchers (six members of the research team, and an international expert youth 13 14 researcher). This analysis resulted in a new inventory of indicators in which: 15 16 17 a) 18 indicators presented slight modifications (the indicator became an infinitive 18 and/or odd words were deleted in order to simplify it); 19 20 b) 5 indicators were substantially changed (the indicators were reconsidered, above 21 Fo 22 all to improve clarity); 23 24 c) 2 dimensions and their 5 indicators were deleted; rP 25 d) 2 dimensions were renamed (community knowledge became community identity 26 27 and knowledge, while learning became meta-learning); 28 ee 29 e) 4 new indicators were introduced. 30 31 rR 32 33 This produced an inventory with 9 dimensions and 29 indicators (Table 7). 34 ev 35 36 37 Table 7: Modification of indicators and dimensions following expert assessment 38 iew 39 (1 = Slight modification; 2 = Significant modification; 3 = New indicator) 40 41 42 43 44 45 4.3 Results of participatory evaluation 46 47 The revised dimensions and indicators inventory were validated in practice by 48 49 undertaking four participatory assessment processes with the young people. 50 51 Given the large number of indicators and the complexity of working with such a 52 large quantity of data, the groups of young people worked solely on the dimensions 53 54 55 56 21 57 58 59 60 http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/ajeval American Journal of Evaluation Page 22 of 47 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 rather than trying to evaluate specific indicators. All groups required a definition of 11 some or all of the dimensions of empowerment. However, some groups had a greater 12 13 understanding of the dimensions than others; the higher their instructional level, the 14 15 greater their understanding. All groups found the meta-learning dimension the hardest 16 17 to understand. 18 19 All groups validated the inventory of empowerment dimensions and ranked 20 them according to their importance. 21 Fo 22 The autonomy and self-esteem dimensions were deemed by all groups to be the 23 24 most important. There was less agreement regarding the other dimensions, as a wide rP 25 26 range of answers was given. Most of the young people felt that effectiveness was not 27 very relevant. Community identity and knowledge led to some debate, the young people 28 ee 29 feeling that it did not allow them to distinguish between the individual and the 30 31 communal. One group suggested separating personal identity from community rR 32 33 knowledge. 34 Most groups suggested new dimensions, that autonomy be added to the idea of ev 35 36 leadership, for example. Some groups suggested adding confidence, trust, self- 37 38 iew knowledge, strength, motivation and energy to the self-esteem dimension; and values 39 40 and responsibility to that of identity. However, it should be noted that most of these are 41 42 already present as indicators in their relevant dimensions. 43 44 45 4.4 Results of the life stories 46 47 The analysis highlighted the fact that all of the dimensions in the inventory were 48 49 identified in the young peoples’ life stories. Self-esteem, critical ability, autonomy, 50 51 meta-learning, and responsibility were those that appeared most frequently. 52 53 Nonetheless, the methodology itself may have led to some dimensions and indicators 54 55 56 22 57 58 59 60 http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/ajeval Page 23 of 47 American Journal of Evaluation 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 appearing more than others. Table 8 shows the frequency of indicators and dimensions 11 in the life stories. 12 13 14 15 Table 8: Frequency of dimensions and indicators in life stories 16 17 18 19 The results obtained led to a name change for 1 dimension, the elimination of 2 20 indicators, and modification of the indicators in 2 dimensions. 21 Fo 22 Specifically, from the Community identity and knowledge dimension, one 23 24 indicator did not appear in any of the stories (To know the different agents and rP 25 26 organizations of the community), and another appeared very infrequently (Knowing the 27 services, resources and facilities of the area). This led the team to reflect on and 28 ee 29 reformulate the dimension and its indicators. The name of the dimension was changed, 30 31 becoming Community Identity, and the indicators were changed so that the 4 original rR 32 33 ones became the following 3: 34 ev 35  To share the area’s linguistic and cultural heritage 36 37  To actively identify with the civic and associative processes that occur in the 38 iew 39 area 40 41  To identify and make use of public space as one’s own 42 43 44 It should be highlighted that the analysis and interpretation of results included 45 46 analyzing when the inventory can be applied. This led to a blurring of boundaries, and 47 48 made it hard to distinguish the nuances between some indicators included in the same 49 dimension. The clearest example of this was in the dimensions effectiveness and 50 51 responsibility. Separating the 3 indicators in the effectiveness dimension was a complex 52 53 task. Despite this, the research team felt that there were important nuances between the 54 55 56 23 57 58 59 60 http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/ajeval American Journal of Evaluation Page 24 of 47 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 3, and that all should be retained. As for the responsibility dimension, we noted that the 11 indicator to be able to share functions and tasks would fit better in the dimension of 12 13 teamwork. This change was made. 14 15 As has already been mentioned, the methodology hindered the emergence of 16 17 further indicators, such as having developed the ability to learn how to learn in the 18 19 meta-learning dimension. The teamwork dimension indicators were not frequently 20 referred to in the stories. Despite this infrequency, the research team decided that the 21 Fo 22 importance of these indicators to socio-educational actions warranted their inclusion as 23 24 they stood. rP 25 26 27 28 ee 29 4.5 Final inventory 30 31 rR 32 The result of the validation process within the HEBE II project Project XXXX 33 framework (EDU2017-83249-R) was an inventory of 9 dimensions and 27 indicators 34 ev 35 related to empowerment (Table 9). 36 37 38 Table 9: Dimensions and indicators of youth empowerment iew 39 40 41 42 5 Conclusions and discussion 43 44 45 We can state that this century has seen a significant increase in both research and 46 47 programs addressing youth empowerment in very diverse fields (politics, education, 48 49 health, social networks, culture, etc.). The same is not true, however, of youth 50 empowerment evaluation specifically. The confluence of four possible reasons may 51 52 explain why there has not been much progress in this field of evaluative research. 53 54 55 56 24 57 58 59 60 http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/ajeval Page 25 of 47 American Journal of Evaluation 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Firstly, because it is a relatively new concept, which became popular very quickly and 11 began to be used in many fields without being conceptually and practically constructed 12 13 in a consistent manner. Secondly, the complexity of the “youth empowerment” 14 15 construct, which, as we have seen, is linked not only to many fields of action, but also to 16 17 numerous, and very heterogeneous, psychological, political, social and cultural 18 19 dimensions (intra/inter; personal/community; process/result, etc.). Thirdly, the 20 associated problem of identifying, separating, including, distinguishing or equating the 21 Fo 22 concept of “youth empowerment” with other specific concepts in the field of youth 23 24 work that have a longer tradition (such as positive youth development, youth power, rP 25 26 youth participation, youth engagement, etc.). Fourthly, and finally, the importance of 27 diversity and the heterogeneity of social and cultural contexts in which the 28 ee 29 empowerment of young people occurs. Perhaps it is these problems, among others, that 30 31 led Zimmerman (1995) to point out that a universal measure of empowerment may not rR 32 33 be desirable. 34 We have noted that although numerous studies provide valuable theoretical ev 35 36 contributions, very little high-quality research provides evidence regarding the results of 37 38 iew youth empowerment interventions. Another element that has received little attention in 39 40 the literature is the long-term impact of youth engagement in empowering processes on 41 42 individuals (Speer et al., 2019). Further research is therefore needed to understand how, 43 and in which contexts, youth empowerment programs lead to improvements in the 44 45 socio-emotional welfare of young people. 46 47 48 Even so, we feel that it is necessary to work to provide evidence-based programs 49 in both the political and social spheres. Consequently, it is important to improve the 50 51 evaluation processes of social and educational interventions and build evaluation 52 53 instruments. These should serve not only to render accounts, but above all to guide and 54 55 56 25 57 58 59 60 http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/ajeval American Journal of Evaluation Page 26 of 47 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 improve the educator’s practices and new projects. 11 12 This work presents an inventory of youth empowerment dimensions and 13 14 indicators. In contrast with other proposals for indicators or measuring instruments 15 16 based on psychology, a discipline that has seen the most proposals developed for 17 18 measuring empowerment (for example, Christens et al., 2011; Peterson et al, 2008; 19 Rodrigues et al., 2018; Wilke & Speer, 2011), our proposal is based on a socio- 20 21 educational approach and aims to include those dimensions of empowerment that can be Fo 22 23 worked on with a young person or with a group of young people via socio-educational 24 rP 25 intervention. In this article, we have described the methodological process used to 26 produce these dimensions and presented the results obtained in the various phases 27 28 ee aimed at validating and contrasting them. 29 30 The methodological process displays the difficulties that can arise in the 31 rR 32 categorization process in the social sciences. Despite having set out a methodical, 33 rigorous process with the triangulation of data for both different methods and different 34 ev 35 researchers, the categories can never be conclusive. 36 37 Our proposal for an inventory of dimensions and indicators of youth 38 iew 39 empowerment is a first step towards the definition, specification of, and research into, 40 41 the characteristics and traits that shape, affect and demonstrate the empowerment of 42 young people. Nonetheless, we present the resulting product as an open inventory of 43 44 empowerment dimensions and indicators, part of an on-going process of reformulation 45 46 that results from analysis and implementation. As part of this process, we will continue 47 48 reaching out to other groups that are developing related inventories so that we might all 49 better understand and learn from the different approaches. The inventory is flexible, 50 51 allowing researchers and practitioners to adapt it to the specific characteristics of the 52 53 context and reality in which it is applied. 54 55 56 26 57 58 59 60 http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/ajeval Page 27 of 47 American Journal of Evaluation 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Each implementation of the inventory in the evaluation of youth empowerment 11 projects can provide new data that, if systematically collected and treated, may 12 13 contribute to improving, strengthening, or expanding it. However, it should be 14 15 highlighted that one of the attributes that we deem to be positive is precisely the 16 17 manageability of the inventory, given its reduced number of dimensions and indicators. 18 19 Among the limitations of the proposal we present here, on the one hand we 20 would emphasize that a further stage would be useful, with a methodological process 21 Fo 22 that can detect the relevance of each indicator. And on the other, that it requires 23 24 different applications at the practical level. To this end, specific instruments can be rP 25 26 developed that specify the indicators and become practical tools for their use in socio- 27 educational intervention; either for the evaluation of programs and projects, or for the 28 ee 29 design of didactic proposals. This would undoubtedly facilitate its use in socio- 30 31 educational interventions, training and research processes. rR 32 33 As an example of possible applications, over the last year our research group has 34 developed a rubric for each indicator to use the inventory as an assessment tool for ev 35 36 youth projects. The aim here is for the tool to be applicable in projects that have been 37 38 iew designed as part of the work carried out by pedagogical teams, educators, or social 39 40 workers working with young people. So far, it has been applied in 20 youth 41 42 empowerment projects, which have been well received by the youth workers who have 43 implemented it. Our ultimate aim is to develop the instrument as an electronic platform. 44 45 The rubric can be found at the following web address 46 47 https://rubrica.projectehebe.com/eshttps://n9.cl/ct95. 48 49 The deployment of empowerment tools may thus respond to the challenges 50 facing youth empowerment programs according to Wagaman (2011): (a) the 51 52 53 54 55 56 27 57 58 59 60 http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/ajeval American Journal of Evaluation Page 28 of 47 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 development of opportunities; (b) the measurability of results; and (c) obtaining 11 practical parameters for a range of groups of young people. 12 13 Our proposal is also in line with the European guidelines on youth and working 14 15 with young people set out by the European Commission in “An EU Strategy for Youth- 16 17 Investing and Empowering” (European Commission, 2009). This strategy emphasizes 18 19 the importance of youth work and the need for cross-departmental work and to provide 20 evidence that can aid in assessing policy. The inventory of dimensions and indicators of 21 Fo 22 youth empowerment may furnish evidence regarding the value of work done with 23 24 young people, and how this contributes to their personal and social development. rP 25 26 We are convinced that having an inventory of youth empowerment indicators 27 will prove useful in guiding and understanding the transformative potential of many 28 ee 29 socio-educational programs and actions addressed at young people. 30 31 rR 32 33 References 34 ev 35  Augsberger, A., Gecker, W., & Collins, M.E. (2019). “We make a direct impact 36 37 on people's lives”: Youth empowerment in the context of a youth-led 38 iew participatory budgeting Project. Journal of Community Psychology, 47, 462– 39 476. doi: 10.1002/jcop.22131 40 41  Bacqué, M.-H., & Biewener, C. (2013). L’empowerment, une practique 42 émancipatrice.Éditions L 43  Batista, T., Johnson, A., & Baach, L. (2018). The Effects of Youth 44 45 Empowerment Programs on the Psychological Empowerment of Young People 46 Aging Out of Foster Care. Journal of the Society for Social Work and Research, 47 9 (4), 531-549. doi: 10.1086/700275 48 49  Bauman, Z. (2010). Mundo consumo. Ética del individuo en la aldea global. 50 Paidós. 51 52 53 54 55 56 28 57 58 59 60 http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/ajeval Page 29 of 47 American Journal of Evaluation 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10  Boluijt, B., & de Graaf, L. (2010). Preaching Empowerment, Practicing 11 Participation: The use of empowerment and citizen participation in Duch local 12 democracies. Tilburgse School voor Politiek en Bestuur. 13 14  Buccieri, K. & Molleson, G. (2015). Empowering Homeless Youth: Building 15 Capacity through the Development of Mobile Technology. Journal of Community 16 Practice, 23, 238–254. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705422.2015.1027802 17 18  Brickle, M.B., & Evans-Agnew, R. (2017). Photovoice and Youth 19 Empowerment in Environmental Justice Research: A Pilot Study Examining 20 Woodsmoke Pollution in a Pacific Northwest Community. Journal of community 21 Fo 22 health nursing, 34 (2), 89–101. doi: 10.1080/07370016.2017.13041 23  Bulanda, J., & Johnson, T.B. (2016). A Trauma-Informed Model for 24 Empowerment Programs Targeting Vulnerable Youth. Child and Adolescent rP 25 26 Social Work Journal, 33, 303-312. doi: 10.1007/s10560-015-0427-z 27  Cevallos Trujillo, B., & Paladines, B. (2016). La Autonomía Personal: un 28 ee 29 Indicador del Empoderamiento Juvenil. In P. Soler, J. Bellera, A. Planas (Eds.) 30 Pedagogía Social, Juventud y Transformaciones Sociales, (pp. 370-377). 31 Universitat de Girona. rR 32 33  Checkoway, B. (2011). What is youth participation? Children and Youth Services 34 Review, 33(2), 340-345. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2010.09.017 ev 35  Chiessi, M., Cicognani, E., & Sonn, C. (2010). Assessing Sense of Community 36 37 on adolescents: validating the brief scale of Sense of Community in adolescents 38 iew (SOC‐A). Journal of Community Psychology, 38 (3). doi: 10.1002/jcop.20364 39  Christens, B., & Peterson, N. (2012). The role of empowerment in youth 40 41 development: A study of sociopolitical control as mediator of ecological 42 systems’ influence on developmental outcomes. Journal of Youth and 43 Adolescence, 41, 623–635. doi:10.1007/s10964-011-9724-9 44 45  Christens, B.D, Speer, P.W., & Peterson, N.A (2011). Social class as moderator 46 of the relationship beween (dis)empowering processes and psychological 47 empowerment. Journal of Community Psychology, 39 (2), 170-182. 48 49 doi:/10.1002/jcop.20425 50  Claret, A. (2013). Tot el poder als joves! Apoderament juvenil i democràcia 51 avançada en temps de crisi (1a ed.). Edicions Els Llums. 52 53 54 55 56 29 57 58 59 60 http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/ajeval American Journal of Evaluation Page 30 of 47 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10  European Commission (2009). An EU Strategy for Youth – Investing and 11 Empowering: A renewed open method of coordination to address youth 12 challenges and opportunities, [online] Retrieved 13 14 from:.http://eurlex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2009:0200: 15 FIN:EN:PDF 16  Cousins, J. B. (2003). Utilization effects of participatory evaluation. In T. 17 18 Kellaghan, D. L. Stufflebeam, L. A. Wingate (Eds.), International handbook of 19 educational evaluation (pp. 245-265). Kluwer. 20  Cousins, J. B., & Whitmore, E. (1998). Framing participatory evaluation. In E. 21 Fo 22 Whitmore (Ed.), Understanding and practicing participatory evaluation. New 23 directions in evaluation (pp 3-23). Jossey Bass. 24  Cousins, J.B., Shulha, L., Whitmore, E., Al Hudib, H., & Gilbert, N. (2020). rP 25 26 Situating evidence-based principles to guide practice in collaborative approaches 27 to evaluation (CAE). In J. Bradley Cousins (Ed.) (2020). Collaborative 28 ee approaches to evaluation. principles in use (pp 3-46). Sage 29 30  Christens, B. D. (2012). Toward relational empowerment. American Journal of 31 Community Psychology, 50, 114–128. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10464-011-9483- rR 32 33 5 34  Damen, H., Veerman, J.W., Vermulst, Ad A., Nieuwhoff, R., Meyer, R.E., & ev 35 Scholte, R.H.J. (2017). Parental Empowerment: Construct Validity and 36 37 Reliability of a Dutch Empowerment Questionnaire (EMPO). Journal of Child 38 and Family Studies, 26 (2), 424-436. doi:10.1007/s10826-016-0568-5 iew 39  Fortunati, L. (2014). Media Between Power and Empowerment: Can We Resolve 40 41 This Dilemma? The Information Society, 30(3), 169-183. 42 http://doi.org/10.1080/01972243.2014.896676 43  Funes Rivas, M.J. & Robles, J.M. (2016). Civic Participation as Means of 44 45 Empowerment. Preventing Social Exclusion of Youth in Precarious Life 46 Conditions in Spain. Papers, 101(3) 315-337 47  Gong, J., &Wright, D. (2007). “The Context of Power: Young People as 48 49 Evaluators.” American Journal of Evaluation 28 (3): 327-333. doi: 50 10.1177/1098214007306680. 51  Holte-McKenzie, M., Forde, S., & Theobald, S. (2006). Development of a 52 53 participatory monitoring and evaluation strategy. Evaluation and Program 54 55 56 30 57 58 59 60 http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/ajeval Page 31 of 47 American Journal of Evaluation 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Planning, 29(4), 365–376. doi:10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2006.08.007 11  Huscroft-D’Angelo, J., Trout, A.L., Lambert, M.C., & Thompson, R. (2017): 12 Caregiver perceptions of empowerment and self-efficacy following youths’ 13 14 discharge from residential care, Journal of Family Social Work. 20 (5), 433-456. 15 doi: 10.1080/10522158.2017.1350893 16  Jennings, L. B., Parra-Medina, D. M., Hilfinger Messias, D. K., & McLoughlin, 17 18 K. (2006). Toward a Critical Social Theory of Youth Empowerment. Journal of 19 Community Practice, 14 (1-2), 31–55. doi:10.1300/J125v14n01 20  XXXXX. 2017. XXXX. 21 Fo 22  Kaplan, S. J., Skolnik, L., & Turnbull, A. (2009). Enhancing the empowerment 23 of youth in foster care: Supportive services. Child Welfare, 88, 133–161. 24 doi:0009-4021/2009/0109133-161 rP 25 26  Kim, S., Crutchfield, C., Williams, C., & Hepler, N. (1998). Toward a new 27 paradigm in substance abuse and other problem behavior prevention for youth: 28 ee 29 Youth development and empowerment approach. Journal of Drug Education, 30 28(1), 1-17. 31  rR Law, Y.W., Kwok, Ch.L., Chan, P.Y., Chan, M., & Yip, P. (2019) Online 32 33 social work engagement and empowerment for young internet users: A quasi- 34 experiment. Journal of Affective Disorders, 250, 99–107. ev 35 doi:10.1016/j.jad.2019.02.061 36 37  Llena-Berñe, A., Agud-Morell, I., Páez de la Torre, S., & Vila Mumbrú, C. 38 iew (2017). Exploring key moments of empowerment of young people through their 39 own life stories. Pedagogía Social. Revista Interuniversitaria. Journal of 40 41 Research in Social Pedagogy, (30), 81-94 42  Luttrell, C., Quiroz, S., Scrutton, C., & Bird, K. (2009). Understanding and 43 operationalising empowerment. Retrieved from http://goo.gl/a4KQ2a 44 45  Mackinnon, S., & Stephens, S. (2010). Is Participation Having an Impact?: 46 Measuring Progress in Winnipeg’s Inner City through the Voices of 47 Community-Based Program Participants. Journal of Social Work, 10(3), 283- 48 49 300. http://doi.org/10.1177/1468017310363632 50  Maloney, S (2015). Positive Youth Development in a School-Based Setting. A 51 study of the Los Angeles Police Academy Magnet School Program. Pardee 52 53 RAND Graduate School. 54 55 56 31 57 58 59 60 http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/ajeval American Journal of Evaluation Page 32 of 47 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10  Martínez, M. J. (2010). La participación: un proceso de crecimiento compartido 11 que facilita el empoderamiento personal y colectivo. Experiencias significatives 12 en Cáritas, espacios para «volver a ser». Documentación Social, (159), 121-142. 13 14  Mohajer, N., & Earnest, J. (2009). Youth empowerment for the most 15 vulnerable. Health Education, 109, 424–438. doi:10.1108/09654280910984834 16  Morton, M. H., & Montgomery, P. (2012). Youth Empowerment Programs for 17 18 Improving Adolescents’ Self-Efficacy and Self-Esteem: A Systematic Review. 19 Research on Social Work Practice, 23(1), 22–33. 20 doi:10.1177/1049731512459967 21 Fo 22  Muturi, N., Kidd, T., Daniels, A.M:, Kattelmann, K.K., Khan T., Lindshield, E., 23 Zies, S., & Adhikari, K. (2018). Examining the role of youth empowerment in 24 preventing adolescence obesity in low-income communities. Journal of rP 25 26 Adolescence, 68, 242-251. doi: 10.1016/j.adolescence.2018.08.001. 27  Núñez. H. & Úcar, X. (2020) Roles and functions of the community manager 28 ee 29 within the framework of Collaborative Approaches to Evaluation (CAE): Case 30 analysis of the Galibar community development plan (Spain). In Bradley 31 Cousins, J. (Ed.) Collaborative approaches to evaluation. Principles in use. (pp rR 32 33 135-161). Los Angeles: SAGE 34  Nussbaum, M. C. (20112). Creatingr capabilitiescidades. Propuesta para el ev 35 desarrolloThe human development approach . The Belknap Press of Harvard 36 37 University Press.humano. Paidós. 38  iew XXXXXXXX (2020) 39  Özmete, E. (2011). Building life skills for empowerment of young people: a 40 41 conceptual analysis. Ankara University. 42 http://www.sdergi.hacettepe.edu.tr/OZMETE-lifeskills.pdf 43  Perkins, D.D., & Zimmerman, M. A. (1995). Empowerment theory, research, 44 45 and application. American Journal of Community Psychology, 23, 569–579. 46 doi:10.1007/BF02506982 47  Peterson, N. A. (2014). Empowerment Theory: Clarifying the Nature of Higher- 48 49 Order Multidimensional Constructs. American Journal Community Psychology, 50 53, 96 - 108. doi: 10.1007/s10464-013-9624-0. 51  Peterson, N.A., Speer, P.W., Hughey, J., Armstead, T.L., Schneider, J.E., & 52 53 Sheffer, M.A (2008). Community organizations and sense of community: 54 55 56 32 57 58 59 60 http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/ajeval Page 33 of 47 American Journal of Evaluation 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Further development in theory and measurement. Journal of Community 11 Psychology, 36(6). 798-813. doi:10.1002/jcop.20260 12  Pick, S., Sirkin, J., Ortega, I., Osorio, P., Martínez, R., Xocolotzin, U. &, 13 14 Givaudan, M. (2007). Escala Para Medir Agencia Personal y Empoderamiento 15 (ESAGE). Revista Interamericana de Psicología, 41(3), 295-304. 16  Planas, A., Úcar, X., Páez de la Torre, S., Trilla, J. & Garriga, P. 17 18 (2016a). Aproximación a los indicadores de empoderamiento juvenil. XVI 19 Congreso Nacional y VII Congreso Iberoamericano de Pedagogía, Madrid 20 (España), 28-30 Juny 2016. https://dugi-doc.udg.edu/handle/10256/16345 21 Fo 22  Planas, A., Trilla, J., Garriga, P., Alonso, A. & Monseny, M. (2016b). ¿Qué 23 dimensiones conforman el empoderamiento juvenil? Una propuesta de 24 indicadores. En Soler, P., Bellera, J. i Planas, A. (Eds.) (2016). Pedagogía rP 25 26 Social, Juventud y Transformaciones Sociales (pp. 311-318). Girona: Universitat 27 de Girona. 28 ee  XXXX. (2016). XXXXa. 29 30  XXXX. (2016). "AXXXX. 31  rR Ricaurte, K. M., Ojeda, E., Betancourth, S., & Burbano, H. M. (2013). 32 33 Empoderamiento en jóvenes en situación de desplazamiento. El caso de la 34 Unidad de Atención y Orientación (UAO) de la Alcaldía de Pasto. Revista CS, ev 35 11, 177–214. doi: 10.18046/recs.i11.1570. 36 37  Richez, J.-C., Labadie, F., & De Linares, C. (2012). “ Youth empowerment” 38 iew dans l’espace euroméditerranéen. Rapport d’étude. Paris: INJEPR. 39 http://www.injep.fr/IMG/pdf/Empower_Youth_DEF_2_.pdf 40 41  Rojas, L. (2014). Unstandardizing teaching: the classroom teacher as an 42 institutional and emposerment agent for latina/o youth’s college access. 43 California State University. 44 45  Rodrigues, M., Menezes, I., & Ferreira, P.D. (2018) Validating the formative 46 nature of psychological empowerment construct: Testing cognitive, emotional, 47 behavioral, and relational empowerment components. Journal of Community 48 49 Psychology, 46 (1), 58-78. doi: 10.1002/jcop.21916 50  Russell, S. T., Muraco, A., Subramaniam, A., & Laub, C. (2009). Youth 51 empowerment and high school Gay-Straight Alliances. Journal of youth and 52 53 adolescence, 38(7), 891-903. doi: 10.1007/s10964-008-9382-8 54 55 56 33 57 58 59 60 http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/ajeval American Journal of Evaluation Page 34 of 47 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10  Sen, A. (19992000). Desarrollo y libertadevelopment as freedom. 11 Planeta.Oxford University Press 12  Shrestha, Sarala. (2003). A Conceptual Model for Empowerment of the Female 13 14 Community Health Volunteers in Nepal. Education for Health, 16 (3), 318 – 15 327. doi: 10.1080/1357628031000701607668 16  Silva, C. & Martínez, M.L (2004). Empoderamiento: proceso, nivel y contexto. 17 18 Psykhe, 13(2), 29-39. 19  Soler, P., Planas, A., Ciraso-Calí, A. & Ribot-Horas, A. (2014). Empowerment 20 21 in the community. The design of an open indicators system from participatory Fo 22 evaluation processes Pedagogía Social. Revista Interuniversitaria, 24, 49-77. 23 doi: 10.7179/PSRI_2014.24.03 24  rP 25 Soler, P.; Trilla, J.; Jiménez-Morales, M. & Úcar, X. (2017) “The construction of 26 a pedagogical model of youth empowerment: spaces, moments and processes”/ 27 “La construcción de un modelo pedagógico del empoderamiento juvenil: 28 ee 29 espacios, momentos y procesos”. Pedagogía Social. Revista Interuniversitaria. 30 30, 19-34. Tercera época. 31  rR Speer, P. W. (2000). Intrapersonal and interactional empowerment: Implications 32 33 for theory. Journal of Community Psychology, 28(1), 51–61. doi: 34 10.1002/(SICI)1520-6629(200001)28:1<51::AID-JCOP6>3.0.CO;2- ev 35  Speer, P. W., & Peterson, N. A. (2000). Psychometric properties of an 36 37 empowerment scale: testing cognitive, emotional, and behavioral domains. 38 iew Social Work Research, 24(2), 109–118. doi: 10.1093/swr/24.2.1096 39  Speer, P.W., Peterson, N.A., Christens, B.D., & Reid, R.J (2019). Youth 40 41 cognitive Empowerment: Development and Evaluation of an Instrument. 42 Journal of Community Psychology. ddoi: 10.1002/ajcp.12339 43  SXXXX. (2014). 44 45  XXXX. (2017). 46  Somerville, P. (1998). Empowerment through Residence. Housing Studies, 47 13(2), 233-257. doi: 10.1080/02673039883425 48 49  Travis, R., & Bowman, S. W. (2011). Negotiating Risk and Promoting 50 Empowerment through Rap Music: Development of a Measure to Capture Risk 51 and Empowerment Pathways to Change. Journal of Human Behavior in the Social 52 53 Environment, 21(6), 654-678. 54 55 56 34 57 58 59 60 http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/ajeval Page 35 of 47 American Journal of Evaluation 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10  Travis, R. & Bowman, S. W. (2012). Ethnic identity, self-esteem and variability 11 in perceptions of rap music’s empowering and risky influences. Journal of Youth 12 Studies, 15(4), 455-478. 13 14  Travis, R., & Bowman, S.W. (2015). Validation of the Individual and 15 Community Empowerment Inventory: A Measure of Rap Music Engagement 16 among First-Year College Students. Journal of Human Behavior in the Social 17 18 Environment, 25, 90-108. doi: 10.1080/10911359.2014.9744433 19  Úcar, X. (2012) “La comunidad como elección: teoría y práctica de la acción 20 comunitaria” (p. 37-73) in Zambrano, A.; Berroeta, H. (Comps.) Teoría y 21 Fo 22 práctica de la acción comunitaria. Aportes desde la psicología comunitaria. 23 Santiago de Chile: Ril Editores. XXXXX (2012) 24  Úcar, X.; Jiménez-Morales, M.; Soler, P. & Trilla, J. (2016) “Exploring the rP 25 26 conceptualization and research of empowerment in the field of youth”. 27 International Journal of Adolescence and Youth, 28 ee doi:10.1080/02673843.2016.1209120 29 30  Úcar, X., Planas, A., Novella, A., & Rodrigo, M. P. (2017). Participatory 31 evaluation of youth empowerment in youth groups. Cases analysis. Pedagogía rR 32 33 Social. Revista Interuniversitaria. Journal of Research in Social Pedagogy, (30), 34 67-80. ev 35  van Dop, N., Depauw, J., & Driessens, K (2016). Measuring empowerment: 36 37 Development and validation of the Service User Psychological Empowerment 38 Scale. Journal of Social Service Research, 42(5), 651-664. doi: iew 39 10.1080/01488376.2016.1216915 40 41  Wagaman, M. A. (2011). Social Empathy as a Framework for Adolescent 42 Empowerment. Journal of Social Service Research, 37(3), 278–293. 43 doi:10.1080/01488376.2011.564045 44 45  Whiteside, M., Tsey, K., McCalman, J., Cadet-James, Y., & Wilson, A. (2006). 46 Empowerment as a Framework for Indigenous Workforce Development and 47 Organisational Change. Australian Social Work, 59(4), 422–434. 48 49 doi:10.1080/03124070600985996 50  Wilke, L.A., & Speer, P.W. (2011). The mediating influence of organizational 51 characteristics in the relationship between organizational type and relational 52 53 power: An extension of psychological empowerment research. Journal of 54 55 56 35 57 58 59 60 http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/ajeval American Journal of Evaluation Page 36 of 47 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Community Psychology, 39(8), 972-986. doi:10.1002/jcop.20484 11  Zimmerman, M. A., & Zahniser, J. H. (1991). Refinements of sphere-specific 12 measures of perceived control: Development of a sociopolitical control scale. 13 14 Journal of Community Psychology, 19(19), 189–204. doi: 10.1002/1520- 15 6629(199104)19:2<189::AID-JCOP2290190210>3.0.CO;2-6Zimmerman, M. 16 (1995). Psychological empowerment: Issues and illustrations. American Journal 17 18 of Community Psychology, 23, 581–599. doi:10.1007/BF02506983 19  Zimmerman, M. (2000). Empowerment theory: Psychological, organizational 20 and community levels of analysis. In J. Rappaport, E. Seidman (Eds.), 21 Fo 22 Handbook of community psychology (pp.43–63). SpringerZimmerman, M.A., 23 Eisman, A.B., Reischl, T.M., Morrel-Samuels, S., Stoddard, S., Miller, A.L., 24 Hutchison, P., Franzen, S., & Rupp, L. (2018). Youth Empowerment Solutions: rP 25 26 Evaluation of an after-school program to engage middle school students in 27 community change. Health Educational Behavior, 45 (1), 20–31. 28 ee doi:10.1177/1090198117710491 29 30 31 rR 32 33 34 ev 35 36 37 38 iew 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 36 57 58 59 60 http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/ajeval Page 37 of 47 American Journal of Evaluation 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Fo 15 16 17 rP 18 19 20 ee 21 22 23 rR 24 25 26 ev 27 28 29 ie 30 31 w 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/ajeval 48 49 50 American Journal of Evaluation Page 38 of 47 1 2 3 Table 1: Inventory of community empowerment indicators 4 5 6 Dimension Indicator Ind Com 7 8 Self-esteem Self satisfaction progress x 9 Bravery (To face with determination some actions and compromises) x 10 Shyness (Ability to face public without fear) x 11 Security (To believe in oneself) x 12 13 Responsibility To assume voluntarily and realistically tasks and compromises x x 14 To assume oneself role x x 15 Capacity for community actions x 16 Efficacy Capacity to make decisions in the right moments x x 17 Be systemic and constant in the task performance x x 18 Critical capacity Analysis capacity x x 19 20 Have own criteria x x 21 Autonomy Initiative x x Fo 22 Self-management x x 23 Consider oneself as an actor and valid interlocutor x x Acknowledgment 24 Consider the others as actors and valid interlocutors x x rP 25 26 Team working To show team working implication x 27 To contribute with a proactive role in the team working x 28 ee Communication capacity x x 29 Capacity to integrate the community or group x Inclusion and com- 30 munity integration New residents welcome x 31 rR 32 Community Community or group feeling x x 33 identity To be aware of the shared problems x x 34 knowledge Community general knowledge x x ev 35 Community services, resources and equipment knowledge x x 36 Knowledge of the community agents and organizations x x 37 38 Community Organization capacity x iew 39 organization Fluid information flow in the community x 40 Community response capacity x 41 Alliance working capacity x 42 Person and group participation x x 43 44 Participation areas creation or disposition x 45 Learning To be aware of having acquire or improve oneself capacities or learning x x 46 Improvement of the other capacities x x 47 Evaluation Evaluation capacity x x 48 Evaluation relevance x x 49 50 Self-evaluation capacity x x 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/ajeval Page 39 of 47 American Journal of Evaluation 1 2 3 Table 2: Profile of Validators 4 5 6 Validator Gender Type Institution Field 7 Validator 1 Woman Professional Local government Youth 8 Validator 2 Woman Professional Tertiary sector Youth 9 Validator 3 Man Professional Tertiary sector Youth 10 Validator 4 Man Professional Local government Youth 11 12 Validator 5 Man Professional Tertiary sector Youth 13 Validator 6 Man Professional Private sector Youth 14 Validator 7 Woman Scholar Public University Education 15 Validator 8 Woman Scholar Public University Social pedagogy 16 Validator 9 Man Scholar Public University Youth 17 18 Validator 10 Man Scholar Public University Social pedagogy 19 Validator 11 Man Scholar Public University Social pedagogy 20 Validator 12 Man Scholar Public University Social pedagogy 21 Fo 22 23 24 rP 25 26 27 28 ee 29 30 31 rR 32 33 34 ev 35 36 37 38 iew 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/ajeval American Journal of Evaluation Page 40 of 47 1 2 3 4 Table 3: Description of narrators 5 6 Level of 7 Narrator Age Gender Surrounding Observation studies 8 R1 29 F Rural Intermediate Young mother 9 R2 24 M Urban Higher Associationism 10 R3 26 F Rural Higher Socially mobilized 11 R4 29 M Urban Secondary Country of origin/ 12 Casual work R5 26 M Urban Higher Permanent contract 13 R6 25 F Urban Higher Family of Moroccan origin 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Fo 22 23 24 rP 25 26 27 28 ee 29 30 31 rR 32 33 34 ev 35 36 37 38 iew 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/ajeval Page 41 of 47 American Journal of Evaluation 1 2 3 Table 4: Number of references per indicator and dimension 4 5 Dimension Indicator Nº Total 6 References dimension Nº 7 8 1.1 Satisfaction with oneself 9 9 1.2 Ability to face difficulat or adverse sitautions 2 (courage) 10 Self-esteem 1.3 Ability to appear in public without being afraid 3 32 11 1.4 Self-confidence 15 12 1.5 Self-knowledge 3 13 2.1 Consciously, voluntarily and realistically take 14 7 on tasks and commitments 15 Responsibility 2.2 Take one’s own role in the community 4 17 16 2.3 Ability to share responsibilities 6 17 3.1 Ability to take decisions to reach goals 7 18 19 Effectiveness 3.2 Carry out tasks systematically and with 14 3 20 continuity 21 3.3 Meet established goals 4 Fo 22 7 4.1 Ability to analyse problems or situations 23 24 Critical capacity 4.2 Have own criteria regarding problems or 4 12 rP 25 situations 26 4.3 Be pro-active 1 27 5.1 Have initiative 8 Autonomy 13 28 5.2 Self-determination ability 5 ee 29 30 6.1 Consider oneself a valid interlocutor and actor 3 31 Recognition 4 rR 32 6.2 Consider others valid interlocutors and actors 1 33 34 7.1 Implication in teamwork 4 ev 35 Teamwork 7.2 Leadership in teamwork 10 20 36 7.3 Communicative ability 6 37 8.1 Knowledge of community services, resources, 38 2 iew and facilities 39 Community 8.2 Knowledge of different agents and 6 40 knowledge 2 organizations in community 41 42 8.3 General knowledge of community 2 43 9.1 Awareness of having acquired or improved own 44 Learning knowledge and abilities 13 13 45 46 10.1 Assessment ability 2 47 Assessment 3 10.2 Self-assessment ability 1 48 11-1 Involvement in local actions or projects 7 49 50 Participation 11.2 Ablity to influence surroundings 6 19 51 11.3 Feeling of belonging 6 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/ajeval American Journal of Evaluation Page 42 of 47 1 2 3 Table 5: Kendell’s co-efficient of concordance (W) for assessment of 4 5 6 comprehensibility, clarity, measurability, and relevance by judge groups 7 8 Criteria All judges Scholar judges Professional 9 judges 10 Comprehensibility 0.598 0.593 0.715 11 12 Clarity 0.518 0.532 0.561 13 Measurability 0.548 0.524 0.617 14 Relevance 0.761 0.687 0.882 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Fo 22 23 24 rP 25 26 27 28 ee 29 30 31 rR 32 33 34 ev 35 36 37 38 iew 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/ajeval Page 43 of 47 American Journal of Evaluation 1 2 3 Table 6: Frequency of attributes per indicator 4 5 Dimension Ind. Comprehensible Clear Measurable Relevant 6 1.1 9 8 10 4.75 7 1.2 7 3 5 4.50 Self-esteem 1.3 7 8 7 4.00 8 1.4 10 10 6 4.33 9 1.5 8 4 7 4.20 10 2.1 8 8 10 4.67 11 Responsibility 2.2 6 4 7 4.25 12 2.3 9 8 8 4.08 13 3.1 11 11 11 4.91 14 Effectiveness 3.2 5 6 8 5.50 15 3.3 8 7 8 4.73 16 4.1 11 8 10 4.33 17 Critical capacity 4.2 10 9 11 4.60 4.3 6 6 10 4.44 18 5.1 11 10 11 4.73 19 Autonomy 5.2 5 3 4 3.27 20 6.1 6 4 8 4.27 21 Recognition 6.2 5 3 7 3.80 Fo 22 7.1 10 10 11 4.73 23 Teamwork 7.2 12 10 10 4.33 24 7.3 11 8 10 4.58 rP 25 8.1 10 11 11 4.33 26 Community knowledge 8.2 10 7 11 4.17 8.3 5 2 5 4.00 27 Learning 9.1 9 7 9 4.80 28 ee 10.1 8 6 9 4.36 29 Assessment 10.2 8 7 8 4.50 30 11.1 11 10 12 4.58 31 Participation 11.2 9 7 10 4.27 rR 32 11.3 9 8 8 4.80 33 34 ev 35 36 37 38 iew 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/ajeval American Journal of Evaluation Page 44 of 47 1 2 3 Table 7: Modification of indicators and dimensions following expert assessment 4 5 6 (1-Slight modification, 2- Profound modification, 3-New indicator) 7 8 9 Dimension Indicator Modification 10 1.1 Satisfaction with oneself 1.1 To be satisifed with oneself1 11 1.2 Ability to face difficulat or adverse 1.2 To be able to face difficult or adverse 12 sitautions (courage) situations1 13 1.3 Ability to appear in public without being 1.3 To be able to appear in public1 Self-esteem afraid 14 1.4 Self-confidence 1.4 To feel confident with oneself1 15 1.5 To know own abilities and recognize 16 1.5 Self-knowledge one’s limits2 17 1.6 To feel acknowledged by others3 18 2.1 Consciously, voluntarily and realistically 2.1 To asume commitments and tasks 19 take on tasks and commitments voluntarily and realistically1 20 2.2 Take one’s own role in the community 2.2 To take on roles in the groups one 21 Responsibility forms part of2 Fo 22 2.3 To be able to share functions and 23 2.3 Ability to share responsibilities tasks1 24 3.1 To be able to take decisions in order rP 25 3.1 Ability to take decisions to reach goals to reach goals1 26 Effectiveness 3.2 Carry out tasks systematically and with 3.2 To be methodical and constant in 27 continuity carryong out tasks1 28 3.3 Meet established goals 3.3 To meet the established goals ee 29 4.1 To be able to anylze problems or 4.1 Ability to analyse problems or situations 30 situations1 31 Critical capacity 4.2 Have own criteria regarding problems or 4.2 To have one’s own critera regarding rR 32 situations problems or situations1 4.3 Be pro-active Deleted 33 5.1 Have initiative 5.1- To have initiative 34 Autonomy 5.2- To be able to choose and act ev 35 5.2 Self-determination ability accroding to one’s own convictions2 36 6.1 Consider oneself a valid interlocutor and 37 Deleted actor Recognition 38 6.2 Consider others valid interlocutors and iew Deleted 39 actors 40 7.1 Implication in teamwork 7.1 To invlve oneself in teamwork1 41 7.2 To be able to carry out roles of 7.2 Leadership in teamwork 42 leadership in teamwork1 Teamwork 43 7.3 Communicative ability 7.3 To be able to commuicate1 44 7.4 To be able to negotiatie and reach agreement3 45 8.1 Knowledge of community services, 8.1 To know the history and socio- 46 resources, and facilities cultural dynamics of the community2 Community 47 knowledge- 8.2 Knowledge of different agents and 8.2 To know the different agents and 48 Change of name organizations in community orgamnizations of the community1 49 (Community 8.3 To know the various services, identity and 8.3 General knowledge of community 50 resources, and facilities of the area2 51 knowledge) 8.4 To have a feelng of belonging1 52 9.1 Awareness of having acquired or 9.1 To be aware of having acquired or 53 improved own knowledge and abilities improved own knowledge and abilities1 Learning- Change 54 of name (Meta- 9.2 To have developed the ability to learn 55 learning) how to learn3 56 9.3 To be aware of the power acquired in 57 order to be able to act3 58 10.1 Assessment ability Deleted Assessment 59 10.2 Self-assessment ability Deleted 60 http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/ajeval Page 45 of 47 American Journal of Evaluation 1 2 3 11.1 To involve oneself in actions or 11-1 Involvement in local actions or projects 4 projects1 5 11.2 To be able to influence one’s Participation 11.2 Ablity to influence surroundings 6 surroundings1 Includes the Community identity and 7 11.3 Feeling of belonging knowledge dimension 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Fo 22 23 24 rP 25 26 27 28 ee 29 30 31 rR 32 33 34 ev 35 36 37 38 iew 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/ajeval American Journal of Evaluation Page 46 of 47 1 2 3 Table 8: Frequency of dimensions and indicators in life stories 4 5 Dimensions Indicators Indicator Dimension 6 7 frequency frequency 8 1.1- To be satisifed with oneself 19 9 10 1.2 To be able to face difficult or adverse situations 24 11 1- Self-esteem 1.3 Ability to appear in public 9 83 12 1.4 To feel confident with oneself 4 13 14 1.5 To know own abilities and recognize one’s limits 11 15 1.6 To feel acknowledged by others 16 16 17 3.1- To ba able to anylze problems or situations 27 18 3- Critical 63 capacity 3.2- To have one’s own critera regarding problems or 19 36 20 situations 21 2.1- To have initiative 14 Fo 22 2-Autonomy 2.2- To ba able to choose and act accroding to one’s 52 23 37 own convictions 24 6.1- To be aware of having acquired or improved own rP 25 28 knowledge and abilities 26 27 6-Meta-learning 6.2- Having developed the ability to learn how to learn 1 51 28 ee 6.3- To be aware of the power acquired in order to be 29 22 able to act 30 31 8.1- To asume commitments and tasks voluntarily and 19 rR 32 realistically 8-Responsibility 33 33 8.2- Take on roles in the groups one forms part of 14 34 8.3- To be able to share functions and tasks - ev 35 4.1- To be able to take decisions in order to reach goals 14 36 4.2- To be methodical and constant in carryong out 37 4-Effectiveness 4 22 tasks 38 iew 4.3- Achieve the established goals 4 39 5.1- To know the history and socio-cultural dynamics 40 13 of the community 41 5- Community 5.2- To know the different agents and orgamnizations 42 - Identity and of the community 21 43 Knowledge 5.3- To know the various services, resources, and 44 3 facilities of the area 45 5.4- To have a feelng of belonging 5 46 9.1- Involve onesefl if teamwork 6 47 9.2- To be able to carry out roles of leadership in 48 teamwork 8 9-Teamwork 19 49 9.3- To be able to commuicate 3 50 9.4- To be able to negotiatie and reach agreement 2 51 7.1- Involve oneself in actions or projects 14 52 7-Participation 18 7.2- To be able to influence one’s surroundings 4 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/ajeval Page 47 of 47 American Journal of Evaluation 1 2 3 Table 9: Dimensions and indicators of youth empowerment 4 5 6 Dimensions Indicators 7 1.1- To be satisifed with oneself 8 1.2 To be able to face difficult or adverse situations 9 1.3 Ability to appear in public 10 1-Self-esteem 1.4 To feel confident with oneself 11 12 1.5 To know own abilities and recognize one’s limits 13 1.6 To feel acknowledged by others 14 2.1- To have initiative 2-Autonomy 15 2.2- To ba able to choose and act accroding to one’s own convictions 16 3.1- To ba able to anylze problems or situations 17 3-Critical capacity 3.2- To have one’s own reasoned, contrasted critera regarding problems or 18 situations 19 4.1- To be able to take decisions in order to reach goals 20 4-Effectiveness 4.2- To be methodical and constant in carryong out tasks 21 4.3- Achieve the established goals Fo 22 5.1- To share the area’s linguistic and cultural heritage 23 5- Community 5.2- To actively identify with the civic and associative processes that occur in 24 identity the area rP 25 5.3- To identify and make use of public space as one’s own 26 6.1- To be aware of having acquired or improved own knowledge and abilities 27 6-Meta-learning 28 6.2- Having developed the ability to learn how to learn ee 29 6.3- To be aware of the power acquired in order to be able to act 30 7.1- Involve oneself in group actions of projects 7-Participation 31 7.2- To be able to influence one’s surroundings rR 32 8.1- To asume commitments and tasks voluntarily and realistically 8-Responsibility 33 8.2- Assume the consequences of one’s own decisions and actions 34 9.1- Involve onesefl if teamwork ev 35 9.2- To be able to carry out roles of leadership in teamwork 36 9-Teamwork 37 9.3- To be able to commuicate 38 9.4- To be able to negotiatie and reach agreement iew 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/ajeval