
==== Front
PLoS One
PLoS One
plos
PLOS ONE
1932-6203
Public Library of Science San Francisco, CA USA

10.1371/journal.pone.0309909
PONE-D-23-40747
Study Protocol
Engineering and Technology
Measurement
Biology and Life Sciences
Psychology
Psychometrics
Social Sciences
Psychology
Psychometrics
Research and Analysis Methods
Research Assessment
Systematic Reviews
Research and Analysis Methods
Research Design
Survey Research
Surveys
Research and Analysis Methods
Mathematical and Statistical Techniques
Statistical Methods
Metaanalysis
Physical Sciences
Mathematics
Statistics
Statistical Methods
Metaanalysis
Research and Analysis Methods
Database and Informatics Methods
Database Searching
Research and Analysis Methods
Research Design
Survey Research
Questionnaires
Research and Analysis Methods
Mathematical and Statistical Techniques
Statistical Methods
Factor Analysis
Physical Sciences
Mathematics
Statistics
Statistical Methods
Factor Analysis
Systematic review and meta-analysis of developmental assets scales: A study protocol for psychometric properties
Systematic review protocol of developmental assets scales
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5011-2823
Habibi Asgarabad Mojtaba Conceptualization Investigation Methodology Project administration Supervision Validation Writing – original draft Writing – review & editing 1 *
Salehi Yegaei Pardis Investigation Methodology Project administration Validation Writing – original draft Writing – review & editing 2
Trejos-Castillo Elizabeth Investigation Writing – review & editing 3 4
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9218-4825
Seyed Yaghoubi Pour Nazanin Validation Writing – original draft Writing – review & editing 5
Wiium Nora Investigation Writing – review & editing 6
1 Department of Psychology, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim, Norway
2 Health Promotion Research Center, Iran University of Medical Science, Tehran, Iran
3 Department of Health Psychology, School of Behavioral Sciences and Mental Health (Tehran Psychiatric Institute), Iran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
4 Human Development & Family Sciences, Texas Tech University, Lubbock, Texas, United States of America
5 Department of Psychology, Faculty of Education and Psychology, University of Tabriz, Tabriz, Iran
6 Department of Psychosocial Science, Faculty of Psychology, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway
Lioupi Chrysanthi Editor
University of Nicosia, CYPRUS
Competing Interests: The authors have no commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

* E-mail: Mojtaba.h.asgarabad@ntnu.no
10 9 2024
2024
19 9 e03099098 12 2023
18 8 2024
© 2024 Habibi Asgarabad et al
2024
Habibi Asgarabad et al
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Background and aims

Application of developmental assets, one of existing Positive Youth Development (PYD) frameworks, has gained momentum in research, policy formulations, and interventions, necessitating the introduction of the most efficient scales for this framework. The present study protocol aims to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of developmental assets scales to document the underlying logic, objectives, and methodologies earmarked for the identification, selection, and critical evaluation of these scales.

Methods and materials

In accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols (PRISMA-P), the intended search will encompass databases of PubMed, Scopus, Web of Knowledge, and PsycINFO, spanning from the inception of 1988 to 1st of April 2024. The review will include articles published published in English language focusing on individuals aged 10 to 29 years and reporting at least one type of reliability or validity of developmental assets scales. The review process will be in compliance with the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN), and the overall quality of evidence will be determined using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) guidelines.

Discussion

This comprehensive assessment aims to identify potential biases in prior research and offer guidance to scholars regarding the optimal scales for developmental assets in terms of validity, reliability, responsiveness, and interpretability The evidence-based appraisal of the scales strengths and limitations is imperative in shaping future research, enhancing their methodological rigor, and proposing refinements to existing instruments for developmental assets.

Norwegian University of Science and Technology Thanks go to the Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU) for providing financial support for the publication of this article as an open-access article. The funders played no role in the design of the study, the collection of data, the analysis, the decision to publish, or the preparation of the manuscript. Data AvailabilityDeidentified research data will be made publicly available when the study is completed and published.
Data Availability

Deidentified research data will be made publicly available when the study is completed and published.
==== Body
pmc1. Introduction

Positive youth development (PYD) is a strength-based developmental perspective that puts emphasis on meaningful and constructive involvement of young individuals in their communities, educational institutions, social circles, and families with the aim of empowering and enabling them to achieve their maximum capabilities [1]. PYD concentrates on boosting young people’s strengths, establishing supportive contexts, and promoting reciprocal and constructive youth ↔ context interactions [2, 3].

PYD has gained ground in organizations, community-based services, and youth-serving programs providing opportunities for young people to foster their competencies [4]. Thus, an array of frameworks over the past decades has been conceptualized and designed to define and capture PYD. The Search Institute in collaboration with Benson et al. [5] proposed the conceptual framework of PYD that includes 40 developmental assets, comprising 20 individual assets and contextual assets (e.g., home, school, community). To assess this model, Benson et al. [6] developed the 58-item developmental assets profile (DAP) which includes two asset types: a) the “asset category” perspective that organizes items into measures representing eight internal and external developmental asset categories (Table 1); and b) “asset context” perspective that regroup items based on how young individuals experience these assets in various ecological contexts (i.e., personal, family, school, social, and community). DAP items are scored using a scale ranging from “not at all/rarely” to “extremely/almost always.” In terms of psychometric properties, the DAP is found to possesses invariance over time [7], and has acceptable to good reliability and validity in both individual projects and group aggregates [6]. For instance, higher scores in the developmental assets have been linked to adolescent achievement [8], avoidance of risky behaviors [9], and improvement of pro-social behavior, resiliency, and leadership [7, 10].

10.1371/journal.pone.0309909.t001 Table 1 Overview of sample developmental assets scales and their characteristics.

Scale	Target population (Administration method)	Number of items (Scoring type)	Subscales	Alpha	
Developmental Assets Profile (DAP) [6]	Adolescents aged 8–11 & 12–18 (Self-report)	58 (Likert scale)	1. Support
2. Empowerment
3. Boundaries & expectations
4. Constructive use of time
5. Commitment to learning
6. Positive values
7. Social competencies
8. Positive identity	.80
.74
.84
.36
.83
.85
.79
.79	
Youth Asset Survey (YAS) [11]	Adolescents (Self-report)	37 (Likert scale)	1. Family communication
2. Peer role models
3. General future aspirations
4. Responsible choices
5. Community involvement
6. Non-parental role models
7. Use of time on groups/sports
8. Use of time on religion
9. Cultural respect
10. Good health practices (exercise/nutrition)	.61
.81
.67
.69
.78
.74
.71
.71
- (One item)
- (One item) [11]	
Youth Asset Survey -Revised (YAS-R) [12]	Adolescents (Self-report)	68 (Likert scale)	1. Family communication
2. Peer role models
3. General future aspirations
4. Responsible choices
5. Community involvement
6. Non-parental role models
7. Use of time on groups/sports
8. Use of time on religion
9. Cultural respect
10. Good health practices (exercise/nutrition)
11. Religiosity
12. School connectedness
13. Relationship with father
14. Relationship with mother
15. General self-confidence
16. Parental monitoring
17. Educational aspirations for the future	.77
.83
.77
.76
.89
.82
.79
.76
.76
.84
.91
.73
.91
.89
.74
.90
.72 [12]	

Another scale, Youth Asset Survey (YAS; [11]), was designed to assess the associations of developmental assets with risky behaviors in a prospective study on adolescents and their parents. This 37-item survey encompasses eight subscales corresponding to eight developmental assets of family communication, peer role models, general future aspirations, responsible choices, community involvement, non-parental role models, use of time on groups/sports, and use of time on religion, along with two one-item subscales of cultural respect and good health practices (exercise/nutrition). Although the construct validity and internal consistency of YAS has been supported, subscales of family communication and future aspirations have reported low alpha coefficients (< .68). Additionally, the number of items was limited for two additional assets; cultural respect and good health practices, including exercise and nutrition [11]. In an attempt to modify this scale, Oman, Lensch [12] conducted a longitudinal cohort study and provided an improved 68-item scale, Youth Asset Survey -Revised (YAS-R). The YAS-R appraises seven additional developmental assets, namely, religiosity, school connectedness, relationship with father, relationship with mother, general self-confidence, parental monitoring, and educational aspirations for the future.

Taken together, as PYD programs and frameworks grow in popularity, there is a compelling need to globally and culturally adapt appropriate and relevant measures of developmental assets that are psychometrically sound across various contexts [13]. The extensive utilization of these scales warrants a systematic review to examine the caliber of their psychometric properties, describe their plausible psychometric shortcomings and strengths, and identify the best measures for researchers. Despite the availability of numerous developmental assets scales, the comparison of psychometric characteristics of the most employed scales have been mostly understudied. Therefore, there is a pressing need for a summary of available developmental assets scales and their psychometric robustness to serve as a guide for choosing the right measurement tool when conducting investigations and implementing youth programs.

Furthermore, a growing body of evidence is concerned with the prevalence of publication bias in the context of systematic reviews [e.g., 14] suggesting that the failure to publish complete studies might pose a challenge for systematic reviews. For instance, Silagy, Middleton [15]’ study underscored the potential bias towards favoring positive findings in published systematic reviews. Given these observations, it becomes paramount that a predefined protocol is established before the review, articulating whether the review outcomes align with the original study plan, and enhancing the transparency in both the execution and eventual reporting of systematic review [16]. Thus, a review protocol that is subjected to peer review contributes to preventing ad hoc decisions in the review process, as well as reducing publication bias and selective reporting [17, 18].

The proposed systematic review is the first-of-its-kind study that will fill the existing gap on the characteristics and psychometric properties of measures of developmental assets. In particular, our objectives are to: 1) prepare a comprehensive list of available tools developed for developmental assets, 2) summarize the characteristics of these tools/questionnaires (e.g., number of components/items, assessment method, language, and scoring type), 3) identify the most commonly used psychometric indexes for the evaluation of these tools/measures (e.g., reliability, validity, measurement error, responsiveness, and interpretability), 4) appraise the extent to which the measurement properties of these tools/questionnaires possess the methodological quality in accordance with the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) criteria [19], and 5) compare the quality of the measurement properties related to these tools based on the results of COSMIN (if applicable).

2. Methods

Reporting the proposed review aligns with the guidelines of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) [20]. See S1 Table for a completed PRISMA-P-checklist.

2.1. Eligibility criteria

The three main eligibility criteria for papers containing developmental assets scales are as follows: a) being published in English, b) targeting young people aged 10–29 in line with Catalano, Skinner [21] suggestion, and c) being published after 1998 (when developmental assets were first conceptualized by Benson, Leffert [5]). Besides these primary criteria, studies must have followed at least one of the following aims: 1) reporting quantitative information on the appropriateness or acceptability of the measurement tools for developmental assets, 2) providing at least one of the reliability indexes of these tools, 3) containing information on the validity of these tools, or 4) using these tools to evaluate risk factors (i.e., predictor variable) and/or study outcomes. Papers with different methodological designs, such as cohort studies, randomized/non-randomized controlled trials, cross-sectional, post-intervention, and case-control studies, as well as grey literature will be included if they meet eligibility criteria. Studies will be excluded if they: 1) contain no empirical evidence (i.e., theoretical framework discussions and editorials) and 2) are literature reviews.

2.2. Information sources and strategy for search

A quick literature review based on Medical Subject Heading (MeSH) [22] will be used to identify keywords in two domains, namely, “developmental assets,” and “tools/ questionnaire” [the extended keywords are presented in syntax search in Table 2]. A preliminary search strategy will be developed with the aid of a senior librarian. A sample search strategy for PubMed is presented in Table 2 (This syntax is subject to vary based on the final search strategy). This search strategy has been adjusted according to the second version of the COSMIN initiative’s search filter [23]. Each domain will be searched individually to launch pilot searches. Following that, a comprehensive search will be conducted by combining all domains to ensure that an appropriate search strategy is implemented. Subsequently, the databases Scopus, PubMed, PsycINFO, and Web of Science will be searched starting on the establishment date of the developmental assets framework (1998) through the 1st of April 2024 (This date is subject to vary based on the final date of coverage). To include additional studies and explore references further, we will check the studies’ references and conduct a broader search across scientific journals covering related fields. Furthermore, we will contact specialists in the field to obtain unpublished or under-review papers, where possible. Ultimately, we will search gray literature through the Healthcare Management Information Consortium (HMIC) and the European Association for Grey Literature Exploitation (EAGLE).

10.1371/journal.pone.0309909.t002 Table 2 Search strategy for PubMed database.

	Search Strategy	Number of records	
#1	Positive Youth Development[Title/Abstract]	908	
#2	(instrumentation[sh] OR methods[sh] OR "Validation Studies" OR "psychometrics" OR psychometr*[tiab] OR "outcome assessment"[tiab] OR "outcome measure*" OR "discriminant analysis" OR reliab*[tiab] OR unreliab*[tiab] OR valid*[tiab] OR "internal consistency"[tiab] OR (cronbach*[tiab] AND (alpha[tiab] OR alphas[tiab])) OR (item[tiab] AND (correlation*[tiab] OR selection*[tiab] OR agreement OR test-retest[tiab] OR (test[tiab] AND retest[tiab]) OR (reliab*[tiab] AND (test[tiab] OR retest[tiab])) OR stability[tiab] OR interrater[tiab] OR inter-rater[tiab] OR intrarater[tiab] OR intra-rater[tiab] OR intertester[tiab] OR intratester[tiab] OR intratester[tiab] OR intra-observer[tiab] OR kappa[tiab] OR kappa’s[tiab] OR kappas[tiab] AND (measure OR measures OR (intraclass[tiab] AND correlation*[tiab]) OR "factor analysis"[tiab] OR "factor analyses"[tiab] OR "factor structure"[tiab] OR "factor structures"[tiab] OR dimension*[tiab] OR subscale*[tiab] OR (multitrait[tiab] AND scaling[tiab] AND (analysis[tiab] OR analyses[tiab])) OR "item discriminant"[tiab] OR "interscale correlation*"[tiab] OR error[tiab] OR errors[tiab] OR (uncertainty[tiab] AND (measurement[tiab] OR measuring[tiab])) OR "standard error of measurement"[tiab] OR "Item response model"[tiab] OR IRT[tiab] OR Rasch[tiab] OR "Differential item functioning"[tiab] OR DIF[tiab] OR "computer adaptive testing"[tiab] OR "item bank"[tiab] OR "cross-cultural equivalence"[tiab])	610116	
#3	(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((Surveys and Questionnaires[MeSH Terms]) OR ("Surveys and Questionnaires"[Title/Abstract])) OR (Survey Methods[MeSH Terms])) OR ("Survey Methods"[Title/Abstract])) OR (Questionnaires and Surveys[MeSH Terms])) OR ("Questionnaires and Surveys"[Title/Abstract])) OR (Methods, Survey[MeSH Terms])) OR ("Methods, Survey"[Title/Abstract])) OR (Survey Method[MeSH Terms])) OR ("Survey Method"[Title/Abstract])) OR (Methodology, Survey[MeSH Terms])) OR ("Methodology, Survey"[Title/Abstract])) OR (Survey Methodology[MeSH Terms])) OR ("Survey Methodology"[Title/Abstract])) OR (Surveys[MeSH Terms])) OR (Surveys[Title/Abstract])) OR (Survey[MeSH Terms])) OR (Survey[Title/Abstract])) OR (Questionnaire Design[MeSH Terms])) OR ("Questionnaire Design"[Title/Abstract])) OR (Design, Questionnaire[MeSH Terms])) OR ("Design, Questionnaire"[Title/Abstract])) OR (Designs, Questionnaire[MeSH Terms])) OR ("Designs, Questionnaire"[Title/Abstract])) OR (Questionnaire Designs[MeSH Terms])) OR ("Questionnaire Designs"[Title/Abstract])) OR (Baseline Survey[MeSH Terms])) OR ("Baseline Survey"[Title/Abstract])) OR (Baseline Surveys[MeSH Terms])) OR ("Baseline Surveys"[Title/Abstract])) OR (Survey, Baseline[MeSH Terms])) OR ("Survey, Baseline"[Title/Abstract])) OR (Surveys, Baseline[MeSH Terms])) OR ("Surveys, Baseline"[Title/Abstract])) OR (Respondents[MeSH Terms])) OR (Respondents[Title/Abstract])) OR (Respondent[MeSH Terms])) OR (Respondent[Title/Abstract])) OR (Questionnaires[MeSH Terms])) OR (Questionnaires[Title/Abstract])) OR (Questionnaire[MeSH Terms])) OR (Questionnaire[Title/Abstract])) OR ((((((((Self Report[MeSH Terms]) OR ("Self Report"[Title/Abstract])) OR (Report, Self[MeSH Terms])) OR ("Report, Self"[Title/Abstract])) OR (Reports, Self[MeSH Terms])) OR ("Reports, Self"[Title/Abstract])) OR (Self Reports[MeSH Terms])) OR ("Self Reports"[Title/Abstract]))) OR (index)) OR (indices)) OR ("self-report")) OR ("self-report measures")) OR ("assessment tools")) OR ("measurement scale")) (instrument)) OR ("measurement instrument")) OR (scale)) OR (measure)) OR (tool)	5,887,880	
#4	#1 AND #2 AND 3	105	
Filters applied: Full text, Humans, English, from 1998/1/1–2024/1/1	

2.3. Data screening

The Rayyan QCRI online software [24] will be utilized to organizing references, titles, and abstracts of the papers and identifying duplicates. The titles and abstracts will be examined in the screening stage; papers that are not compatible with the proposed study’s purpose will be excluded. In the eligibility phases, the entire articles will be reviewed to determine if they fit the inclusion criteria to be considered for the meta-analysis. An independent reviewer will assess the manuscripts (PSY) and a senior researcher (MHA) will review the results. The details of the screening procedure are displayed in the flowchart of the PRISMA extension for systematic reviews (Fig 1).

10.1371/journal.pone.0309909.g001 Fig 1 The PRISMA flowchart of search and screening process.

2.4. Data extraction

A data extraction form will be designed in Microsoft Excel 2016 (a sample form is presented in Table 3). In the following step, data from three papers will be extracted to identify and modify possible flaws and deficiencies in the data extraction form. Two expert researchers (PSY and MHA) will extract the information from chosen papers individually, and, in case of any ambiguity, a senior researcher will further evaluate the extraction process (NW). In cases where data in the papers are missing, we will contact the authors and ask for original data via Email. The final form of extracted data will contain details on authors, year of publication, country, language, sample size, participant’s age and gender, classification of country and family by income level (ranging from low to high income), minority group, study setting (e.g., family/home, community, or school), measurement tool title, measurement tool development (with objectives) or adaptation, how initial questions were generated (e.g., theory- and literature review-derived, expert panel, focus group discussion, combining previous measurement tools), assessment method (self/proxy/teen/teacher-report questionnaire, interview, observation), scoring type (multiple-choice, Likert, etc.), number of subscales and items, reliability (i.e., internal consistency and measurement error), validity (i.e., face, content, construct, structural, cross-cultural, criterion, known-group, and longitudinal validity), responsiveness, and interpretability.

10.1371/journal.pone.0309909.t003 Table 3 Preliminary data extraction form.

Data	Included studies	
1	2	3	4	5	
Author(s) (Published year)						
Country						
Language						
Participants (N; age; gender)						
Country income level (family income level)						
Minority/majority						
Study setting						
Measurement tool title						
Measurement tool development/adaptation						
Item formulation type						
Assessment method (scoring type)						
Number of subscales (number of items)						
Internal consistency						
Measurement error						
Content validity						
Face validity						
Construct validity						
Structural validity						
Cross-cultural validity						
Criterion validity						
known-group validity						
Longitudinal validity						
Responsiveness						
Interpretability						
Notes. N = number.

2.5. Outcomes

Expected outcomes of this study will include offering an exhaustive and clear description of the measurement tools accessible for developmental assets and discovering possible shortcomings and strengths of these measurement tools. Additional outcomes may include: a) aiding researchers to select appropriate measurement tools in future investigations, and b) assisting researchers in selecting appropriate tool by assessing the utility and adaptability of the chosen instrument in their region and cultural context.

2.6. Potential biases in single studies

To facilitate the evaluation of risk of bias in every research study, we will apply the COSMIN criteria for systematic reviews of PROMs [19, 25]. The 116-item checklist of COSMIN’s Risk of Bias consists of ten criteria, as detailed in Table 4, including validity (e.g., content, structural, and criterion validity), reliability (e.g., stability and measurement error), responsiveness, and interpretability. The assessment uses a four-point rating scale: “very good”, “adequate”, “doubtful”, and “inadequate”. The quality of measurement properties will be graded as sufficient (+), insufficient (-), or indeterminate (?) based on the COSMIN criteria for good measurement properties.

10.1371/journal.pone.0309909.t004 Table 4 Defining the domains, sub-domains, and aspects of measurement properties using COSMIN.

Domain	Measurement property	Aspects	Definition	
Reliability			Presenting consistent scores in similar conditions	
1. Internal consistency		The extent the items of a measurement tool are inter-correlated	
2. Measurement error		The dissimilarity between the unobserved true value of a variable and its observed value	
Validity			The extent to which a measurement tool assesses the construct it is intended to assess	
1. Content validity		A measurement tool’s ability to adequately capture all aspects of the intended latent construct	
	1.1 Face validity	The extent to which a measurement tool’s items truly reflect the construct they were developed to measure	
2. Construct validity/ Hypotheses testing		The level that the measurement tool’s scores are compatible with hypotheses or theoretical model	
	2.1 Structural validity	How well a measurement tool is able to reflect the dimensionality of the latent construct it was developed to measure	
	2.2 Cross-cultural validity/measurement invariance	How well a measurement tool can function similar to the original tool in various cultural groups	
3. Criterion validity		The extent to which a measurement tool’s scores are correlated with a “gold standard” measure	
4. known-group validity		How well the PROM is able to distinguish the subgroups of a sample	
Responsiveness			The capability of a measurement tool to discover the change in the scores of the aimed construct over time	
1. Longitudinal validity		How well a measurement tool is able to discover the “expected changes” in the scores of the aimed construct over time	
Interpretability			How well the qualitative meaning (i.e., everyday understanding or clinical meaning) can be assigned to a measurement tool’s scores	
Notes. The Table is derived from Mokkink, Terwee [26] and Mokkink, Terwee [27]. Interpretability is not one of the measurement properties, but a critical characteristic of a measure.

2.7. Data synthesis and meta-analysis

Prior to data synthesis and if feasible, data pooling will be conducted. A standard psychometric meta-analysis approach, posited by Hunter and Schmidt [28, 29] will be performed based on the psychometrics principles. This approach suggests that measurement errors (caused by unreliable measures), errors in sampling process, and range limitations are some of the sources that cause artifact variability and account for a large portion of the observed variation in the relationship between two variables in original studies. Consequently, it is crucial to conduct meta-analyses to identify potential moderating factors influencing these relationships and address artifact variability across studies. By identifying these factors, researchers can control artifact variability through either selecting appropriate study designs or subtracting artifact validity from the overall observed variability.

Meta-analysis will be based on Fisher’s Z transformed partial correlation coefficient, known to have the lowest root mean square error and bias [30] in comparison with the partial correlation coefficients of meta-analysis [31]. The standardized effect size will be Fisher’s Z that ranges from −∞ to +∞ and the standards used to interpret them are similar to those used for a correlation coefficient. If intraclass, Pearson, or Spearman correlations are provided, we will apply the Fisher’s variance stabilizing transformation [32, 33] to convert them into Fisher’s Z scores. If the coefficients of unstandardized beta and F-ratios are provided, we will primarily convert them to r and afterwards to Fisher’s Z score [32, 33]. If only p values are provided, we will convert them to Z-score, r, and Fisher’s Z, respectively [33]. We will extract the overall effect size for each psychometric property and the effect sizes for each follow-up interval from studies that include follow-up assessments.

Data analysis will be carried out utilizing Comprehensive Meta-Analysis v.3 software [34]. With the presumption that heterogeneity is probable and that the mean of the effect size is not stable across studies, random-effects models will be applied. To assess heterogeneity, the Cochrane’s Q test (the presence of heterogeneity) and the I2 statistic (diversity in heterogeneity effect estimates) will be utilized [35]. Based on the standard interpretation [36], I2 statistic will be defined as “not important” (0–40%), “moderate” (30–60%), “substantial” (50–90%), and “considerable” (75–100%). Furthermore, where appropriate, funnel plots will be provided to identify reporting bias and the effects size of small studies [36]. To ensure that the meta-analysis’s findings are robust in case of considerable heterogeneity, a sensitivity analysis will be conducted.

We will create a qualitative abstract based on studies’ outcomes concerning the measurement properties of each measurement tool when it is not feasible to pool the data. If there are discrepancies between the findings across various studies, possible explanations will be provided. If a consistent pattern appears, we will consolidate the results for each subgroup with consistent findings. In case that no clear justifications or discernible patterns emerge, the majority of the findings will be employed to assess the results.

2.8. Quality assessment of individual studies

As described in Table 5, the quality of results of every study will be evaluated via the COSMIN criteria for good measurement properties. These properties will be rated as “insufficient, (-)” “indeterminate, (?)” or “sufficient (+)”. The total score of a property will be equal to the lowest score it obtains, and its interpretation will be on the basis of the COSMIN criteria: 50% (high quality), 30–50% (moderate quality), and less than 30% (low quality) [19, 37, 38]. Four domains of reliability, validity, responsiveness, and interpretability will be included in the quality assessment taxonomy. This study will assess the quality of Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) using the guidelines outlined by Terwee, Bot [39]. According to these guidelines, in the absence of a theoretical or empirically emerged structural model, EFA is preferable. In contrast, when a model has already been theoretically proposed and/or has empirically emerged in the literature, should Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) be tested [40, 41]. The results of EFA’s quality assessment will be interpreted as follows: (+) the chosen factors can explain at least 50% of the variance OR they can explain less than 50% of the variance but a justification for this selection is proposed by authors; (?) the vague or incomplete information (e.g., failure to mention the explained variance) prevents scoring the EFA’s quality; and (-) criteria for a “plus” rating was not met [39].

10.1371/journal.pone.0309909.t005 Table 5 COSMIN criteria for good measurement properties.

Measurement property	Rating	Criteria	
Structural validity	+	CTT: One of the following criteria in CFA should be met:CFI/ TLI/ comparable measure >.95

SRMR < .08

RMSEA < .06

IRT/Rasch: All of the following criteria should be met:No violation of unidimensionality: CFI/ TLI/ comparable measure >.95 OR SRMR < .08 OR RMSEA < .06

No violation of local independence: residual correlations among the items after controlling for the dominant factor < .20 OR Q3’s < .37

No violation of monotonicity: adequate looking graphs/ item scalability >.30 and adequate model fit: IRT: χ2>.01; Rasch: infit and outfit mean squares ≥.5 and ≤1.5 OR Z standardized values > −2 and <2

	
?	CTT: Not reporting all information for “+”

IRT/Rasch: Not reporting model fit

	
-	Not meeting criteria for “+”	
Internal consistency	+	At least low evidence for sufficient structural validity (assessed via GRADE) and α(s)≥0.70 for each unidimensional scale or subscale	
?	Not meeting criteria for low evidence or higher	
-	At least low evidence for sufficient structural validity and Cronbach’s alpha(s) < .70 for each unidimensional scale or subscale	
Reliability	+	ICC/ weighted Kappa ≥.70	
?	ICC/ weighted Kappa not reported	
-	ICC/ weighted Kappa < .70	
Measurement error	+	SDC/ LoA < MIC	
?	MIC is not defined	
-	SDC/ LoA >MIC	
Hypotheses testing/construct validity	+	Most evidence in studies (75% or more) are in line with the hypotheses	
?	Hypotheses are not defined (by review team)	
-	Evidence are not in line with the hypotheses	
Cross‐cultural validity/measurement invariance	+	No important difference between group factors (e.g., age) in multiple group factor analysis OR no important DIF for group factors (McFadden’s R2 < .02)	
?	The absence of multiple group factor analysis or DIF analysis	
-	Important differences between group factors or DIF	
Criterion validity	+	Correlation with gold standard/ AUC ≥.70	
?	Not reporting all information for sufficient rating	
-	Correlation with gold standard/ AUC < .70	
Responsiveness	+	Results are in line with the hypothesis or AUC ≥.70	
?	No hypotheses was defined (by review team)	
-	Results are not in line with the hypotheses or AUC < .70	
Notes. The Table is derived from Prinsen, Mokkink [37] and Mokkink, Prinsen [42]. “+” = Sufficient, “?” = Indeterminate, “-” = Insufficient, CTT = Classical test theory, CFA = Confirmatory factor analysis, IRT = Item response theory, CFI = Comparative fit index, TLI = Tucker-Lewis index, RMSEA = Root mean square error of approximation, SRMR = Standardized root mean residuals, α = Cronbach’s alpha, GRADE = Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations, ICC = Intra-class correlation coefficient, SDS = Smallest detectable change, LoA = Limits of agreement, MIC = Minimal important change, DIF = Differential item functioning, AUC = Area under curve.

2.9. Confidence in consolidated findings

The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) working group approach [43] will be used to test the credibility of each piece of research posterior to provide a summary of general ratings on each psychometric property. The quality of evidence will be examined using five categories: risk of bias, publication bias, imprecision, inconsistency, and indirectness. Two researchers (PSY and MHA) will independently appraise the overall quality of the summarized findings. In the event of any disagreement, a third researcher (ETC) will further review the findings. The quality of outcomes will be classified as high (indicating a high degree of confidence in the measurement property’s estimate being close to the true value), moderate (indicating a reasonable belief that the true estimate of the measurement property is likely close to the estimated value), low (suggesting a substantial potential for a significant difference between the true estimate and the estimated property), or very low (indicating a high likelihood of a substantial deviation between the actual measurement property and its estimated value).

2.10. Recommendations for instrument choice

The assessment of the psychometric soundness of the measurement tools for developmental assets, along with providing recommendations for their forthcoming applications will be carried out in accordance with a composite of general ratings for each psychometric property and the grading outcomes, as outlined by Prinsen, Mokkink [37]. The outcomes derived from all included studies pertaining to each measurement property will be stratified into three distinct recommendation classifications, as articulated by Mokkink, Prinsen [42] and Mokkink, De Vet [19]: (a) the developmental assets scale has the potential to be introduced as the most suitable instrument for evaluating its intended theoretical model; (b) the scale may be tentatively endorsed, though further investigations into its validation are imperative; and (c) the scale should not be endorsed. The rationale underlying the assignment of each measurement tool to the aforementioned categories will be further explained. Subsequently, prospective trajectories for research will be delineated, where pertinent.

2.11. Ethics and dissemination

As this project did not recruit participants, it is not a prerequisite to obtain ethical approval. The findings of the intended review will be reported in a peer-reviewed journal.

3. Discussion

The present study protocol aims to systematically review the underlying logic and aims of developmental assets scales, and to specify the methods that will be employed to critically evaluate primary studies on these scales. The main objective of the proposed systematic review and meta-analysis is to compile, summarize, and critically evaluate the psychometric properties (i.e., validity, reliability, measurement error, interpretability, and responsiveness) of measurement tools including but not limited to: a) the 58-item developmental assets profile (DAP) [6] derived from the developmental assets model proposed by Benson, Leffert [5], Youth Asset Survey (YAS; [11]), and Youth Asset Survey -Revised (YAS-R) [12].

Given that the PYD frameworks including developmental assets have gained traction in various areas, such as youth research, policy formulations [44], school-based organization programs [45], adolescents behavior interventions [46], community-based health services [47], socializing systems [48], and cross-sectoral interventions in education [49], it is crucial to identify the most efficient and preferred measures for developmental assets. To the best of our knowledge, no systematic review of the psychometric properties of developmental assets scales has been carried out to date. Thus the proposed systematic review will be the first. In general, we strive to incorporate an in-depth summary and collection of the most used measurement tools in the developmental assets framework, the purpose of their development, their characteristics, and psychometric indexes. In addition, we aim to delve into the methodological quality of their measurement properties based on COSMIN criteria. Consequently, by discerning the strength of those measurement tools, we wish to assist researchers, clinicians, and community-health specialists in making informed choices and select more optimal measures aligned with their desired objectives. Besides, through the detection of potential shortcomings, researchers may underscore the need for enhancing current measures. Furthermore, considering the rigorous quality assessments of the aforementioned scales, the level of validity, reliability, feasibility, productivity, as well as potential risk of bias of earlier published studies will become evident.

The present study protocol has several implications. First, the rigor and reliability of a systematic review on the developmental assets scales are contingent upon the meticulous pre-planning that preemptively identifies potential challenges [18]. In the process of publication, a documented protocol undergoes the rigorous peer review that scrutinize it and guarantees its appropriateness prior to its publication [16]. The second factor that ensures the trustworthiness of a systematic review is the thorough documentation of the methodology used in the review process prior to commencing the review. This documentation permits other researchers to compare the protocol with the finalized review, thus identifying instances of selective reporting or deviations and assess the proposed methodologies’ validity [17]. Third, a study protocol prevents making arbitrary decisions regarding inclusion of studies and data extraction, and mitigates publication bias in favor of only reporting “positive” findings (or those findings in line with authors’ hypotheses) [50]. Finally, a properly conducted research protocol allows for the potential replication of (revised) review methods. Given that the current protocol does not include measurement tools and studies in other languages, local researchers will receive a published protocol, which they can adapt for use in their context and language, with some modifications.

The present study protocol is not without potential limitations. The first drawback is the exclusion of locally standardized/developed developmental assets scales that are not accessible in English. As a result, we will possibly miss significant related research published in other languages. Second, given that existing studies using developmental assets scales have been carried out in different locations and periods, the accuracy of the assessment may have been inadvertently affected by the external/environmental factors. Third, since research incorporates a wide range of study methods and samples, the assessment of statistical heterogeneity is frequently overlooked or reported insufficiently. Hence, data synthesis and meta-analysis may be impacted by high rates of heterogeneity.

Supporting information

S1 Table PRISMA-P (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic review and Meta-Analysis Protocols) 2015 checklist: Recommended items to address in a systematic review protocol.

(DOC)

The authors gratefully thank those who kindly participated in this research.

10.1371/journal.pone.0309909.r001
Decision Letter 0
Arab-Zozani Morteza Academic Editor
© 2024 Morteza Arab-Zozani
2024
Morteza Arab-Zozani
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Submission Version0
13 Feb 2024

PONE-D-23-40747Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Developmental Assets Scales: A Study Protocol for Psychometric PropertiesPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Habibi Asgarabad,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

==============================

Dear Authors We received the reviewer's comment. Please respond to the comment point by point. Cheers

==============================

Please submit your revised manuscript by Mar 29 2024 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Morteza Arab-Zozani, Ph. D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Does the manuscript provide a valid rationale for the proposed study, with clearly identified and justified research questions?

The research question outlined is expected to address a valid academic problem or topic and contribute to the base of knowledge in the field.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

********** 

2. Is the protocol technically sound and planned in a manner that will lead to a meaningful outcome and allow testing the stated hypotheses?

The manuscript should describe the methods in sufficient detail to prevent undisclosed flexibility in the experimental procedure or analysis pipeline, including sufficient outcome-neutral conditions (e.g. necessary controls, absence of floor or ceiling effects) to test the proposed hypotheses and a statistical power analysis where applicable. As there may be aspects of the methodology and analysis which can only be refined once the work is undertaken, authors should outline potential assumptions and explicitly describe what aspects of the proposed analyses, if any, are exploratory.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

********** 

3. Is the methodology feasible and described in sufficient detail to allow the work to be replicable?

Descriptions of methods and materials in the protocol should be reported in sufficient detail for another researcher to reproduce all experiments and analyses. The protocol should describe the appropriate controls, sample size calculations, and replication needed to ensure that the data are robust and reproducible.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

********** 

4. Have the authors described where all data underlying the findings will be made available when the study is complete?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception, at the time of publication. The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

********** 

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

********** 

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above and, if applicable, provide comments about issues authors must address before this protocol can be accepted for publication. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about research or publication ethics.

You may also provide optional suggestions and comments to authors that they might find helpful in planning their study.

(Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: This study will contribute to the topic of positive youth development via offering guidance regarding the optimal scales for developmental assets. And the protocol is well-organized and can be accepted after revising the citation format in the text.

Reviewer #2: Thanks for receiving the opportunity to review your paper. Overall, I appreciate the thoroughness and importance of your study in assessing the psychometric properties of developmental assets scales. Your focus on systematically reviewing and conducting a meta-analysis adds significant value to the existing literature. However, the manuscript must undergo minor revisions suggested below before it can be considered for publication.

I suggest a minor adjustment in the structure of the Abstract. I recommend you to consider incorporating your key results and conclusions section in place of the discussion section.

The introduction provides comprehensive background information that is highly relevant to the study. However, the authors must significantly expand on it by highlighting the significance and novelty of the study.

In methodology, address how you will assess and manage heterogeneity among the included studies. Mention all the statistical tests used in the study.

I noted an issue with the PRISMA flowchart presented as Figure [1]. It appears that the chart is incomplete as the value of 'k' (number of studies included in the meta-analysis) is not reflecting accurately. This discrepancy undermines the clarity and transparency of your methodology, which are essential aspects of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. I kindly request that you review and revise the PRISMA flowchart to ensure that it accurately represents the number of studies included in your analysis. Providing an accurate depiction of the study selection process is crucial for readers to assess the rigor and comprehensiveness of your review.

In result section, the data are well-organized. However, I suggest to add a well-constructed forest plot which can help to concisely convey the results of a meta-analysis. Incorporating this graphical depiction will not only aid in understanding the individual study contributions but also provide a holistic view of the overall effect size and its variability. Ensure consistency in the representation of odds ratios across the forest plot.

In discussion section, it should be more objective and clearer according to the purpose of the study and focus more on potential implications of your study's findings for both research and practice. Also add future research direction based on current findings.

Expand the reference list as systematic reviews and meta-analyses are expected to include a comprehensive collection of literature.

I suggest English language revisions and other typos and grammar errors should be corrected.

Reviewer #3: The authors performed a study addressing “Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Developmental Assets Scales: A Study Protocol for Psychometric Properties”. I didn't find any major problems with your manuscript.

********** 

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Attachment Submitted filename: Reviewer Comment Plos One.docx

10.1371/journal.pone.0309909.r002
Author response to Decision Letter 0
Submission Version1
7 Apr 2024

Reviewer #2:

Thanks for receiving the opportunity to review your paper. Overall, I appreciate the thoroughness and importance of your study in assessing the psychometric properties of developmental assets scales. Your focus on systematically reviewing and conducting a meta-analysis adds significant value to the existing literature. However, the manuscript must undergo minor revisions suggested below before it can be considered for publication.

1. I suggest a minor adjustment in the structure of the Abstract. I recommend you to consider incorporating your key results and conclusions section in place of the discussion section.

Response: We appreciate your insightful suggestions regarding the structure of the abstract. However, we would like to clarify that this study is a protocol study, and as such, we have not yet generated any results to include in the abstract. Nevertheless, we will ensure that the abstract effectively outlines the aims, methods, and anticipated contributions of our protocol study.

2. The introduction provides comprehensive background information that is highly relevant to the study. However, the authors must significantly expand on it by highlighting the significance and novelty of the study.

Response: Thank you for your attention to detail. We have addressed the significance and novelty of our study on Lines 118-141 and Lines 376-379 of the manuscript.

3. In methodology, address how you will assess and manage heterogeneity among the included studies. Mention all the statistical tests used in the study.

Response: Thank you for requesting this clarification. We will address heterogeneity among included studies through subgroup analysis, sensitivity analysis, and potentially meta-regression. Statistical tests will include meta-analyses for pooled effect sizes and assessments for publication bias. We appreciate your concise guidance and will ensure these aspects are clearly outlined in the methodology section of our manuscript. This has been clarified on lines 273-281.

4. I noted an issue with the PRISMA flowchart presented as Figure [1]. It appears that the chart is incomplete as the value of 'k' (number of studies included in the meta-analysis) is not reflecting accurately. This discrepancy undermines the clarity and transparency of your methodology, which are essential aspects of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. I kindly request that you review and revise the PRISMA flowchart to ensure that it accurately represents the number of studies included in your analysis. Providing an accurate depiction of the study selection process is crucial for readers to assess the rigor and comprehensiveness of your review.

Response: We appreciate your suggestions regarding the PRISMA flowchart. However, we would like to clarify that this study is a protocol study which involves no study selection process. Therefore, as a standard practice for study protocols and a requirement of the PLOS ONE, an incomplete PRISMA flowchart is presented.

5. In result section, the data are well-organized. However, I suggest to add a well-constructed forest plot which can help to concisely convey the results of a meta-analysis. Incorporating this graphical depiction will not only aid in understanding the individual study contributions but also provide a holistic view of the overall effect size and its variability. Ensure consistency in the representation of odds ratios across the forest plot.

Response: We appreciate your suggestions. However, as explained above, we would like to clarify that this study is a protocol study, and as such, we generated no results and forest plots yet.

5. In discussion section, it should be more objective and clearer according to the purpose of the study and focus more on potential implications of your study's findings for both research and practice. Also add future research direction based on current findings.

Response: We appreciate this comment. The study objectives are outlined in the discussion part on lines 345-352. As for the potential implications for research and practice, we have explained them in the discussion part on lines 365-387.

6. Expand the reference list as systematic reviews and meta-analyses are expected to include a comprehensive collection of literature.

Response: As the studies on psychometric properties of the developmental assets scales were limited in numbers, and as this study protocol has not conducted a systematic review of all such studies (that gives us a list of them), not all of these studies are cited in the present protocol. However, the main and primary studies of the scales [e.g., Benson, Scales, and Syvertsen (2011); Oman et al. (2002; 2018)], as well as the theoretical studies in this field [e.g., Catalano et al. (2004); Benson, Leffert, Scales, and Blyth (1998)] are included in the introduction and discussion parts.

7. I suggest English language revisions and other typos and grammar errors should be corrected.

Response: We appreciate the thorough review and have reexamined the entire manuscript for spelling errors. Moreover, one of our coauthors, a US native scholar with expertise in PYD and developmental psychopathology (ETC), has re-reviewed the manuscript for readability.

Note:

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Response: We have now changed the format of Fig 1 to “tif” using the PACE and have uploaded it beside the revised manuscript.

10.1371/journal.pone.0309909.r003
Decision Letter 1
Lioupi Chrysanthi Guest Editor
© 2024 Chrysanthi Lioupi
2024
Chrysanthi Lioupi
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Submission Version1
21 Aug 2024

Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Developmental Assets Scales: A Study Protocol for Psychometric Properties

PONE-D-23-40747R1

Dear Dr. Mojtaba Habibi Asgarabad,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager® and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. If you have any questions relating to publication charges, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Chrysanthi Lioupi

Guest Editor

PLOS ONE

10.1371/journal.pone.0309909.r004
Acceptance letter
Lioupi Chrysanthi Guest Editor
© 2024 Chrysanthi Lioupi
2024
Chrysanthi Lioupi
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
30 Aug 2024

PONE-D-23-40747R1

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Habibi Asgarabad,

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now being handed over to our production team.

At this stage, our production department will prepare your paper for publication. This includes ensuring the following:

* All references, tables, and figures are properly cited

* All relevant supporting information is included in the manuscript submission,

* There are no issues that prevent the paper from being properly typeset

If revisions are needed, the production department will contact you directly to resolve them. If no revisions are needed, you will receive an email when the publication date has been set. At this time, we do not offer pre-publication proofs to authors during production of the accepted work. Please keep in mind that we are working through a large volume of accepted articles, so please give us a few weeks to review your paper and let you know the next and final steps.

Lastly, if your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at customercare@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Chrysanthi Lioupi

Guest Editor

PLOS ONE
==== Refs
References

1 Lerner RM, editor Promoting positive youth development: Theoretical and empirical bases. White paper prepared for the workshop on the science of adolescent health and development, national research council/institute of medicine Washington, DC: National Academies of Science; 2005: Citeseer.
2 Lerner JV , Phelps E , Forman Y , Bowers EP . Positive youth development: John Wiley & Sons Inc; 2009.
3 Larson RW . Toward a psychology of positive youth development. American psychologist. 2000;55 (1 ):170. doi: 10.1037//0003-066x.55.1.170 11392861
4 Catalano RF , Berglund LM , Ryan JA , Lonczak HS , Hawkins DJ . Positive Youth Development in the United States: Research Findings on Evaluations of Positive Youth Development Programs. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science. 2004;591 (1 ):98–124.
5 Benson PL , Leffert N , Scales PC , Blyth DA . Beyond the’village’rhetoric: Creating healthy communities for children and adolescents. Applied developmental science. 1998;2 (3 ):138–59.
6 Benson PL , Scales PC , Syvertsen AK . The contribution of the developmental assets framework to positive youth development theory and practice. Advances in child development and behavior. 2011;41 :197–230. doi: 10.1016/b978-0-12-386492-5.00008-7 23259193
7 Bleck J , DeBate R . Long-term association between developmental assets and health behaviors: an exploratory study. Health Education & Behavior. 2016;43 (5 ):543–51. doi: 10.1177/1090198115606915 26462541
8 Scales PC , Benson PL , Roehlkepartain EC , Sesma A Jr , van Dulmen M . The role of developmental assets in predicting academic achievement: A longitudinal study. Journal of adolescence. 2006;29 (5 ):691–708. doi: 10.1016/j.adolescence.2005.09.001 16274739
9 Uka F , Bërxulli D , Hasani A , Peci B , Taravari G , Wiium N . Developmental assets, academic achievement and risky behaviors among Albanians in Albania, Kosovo, Macedonia and Serbia. Handbook of Positive Youth Development: Advancing Research, Policy, and Practice in Global Contexts. 2021:135–51.
10 Greene KM , Eitle D , Eitle TM . Developmental assets and risky sexual behaviors among American Indian youth. The Journal of early adolescence. 2018;38 (1 ):50–73. doi: 10.1177/0272431615596427 29290640
11 Oman R , Vesely S , McLeroy K , Harris-Wyatt V , Aspy C , Rodine S , et al . Reliability and validity of the youth asset survey (YAS). The Journal of Adolescent Health: Official Publication of the Society for Adolescent Medicine. 2002;31 (3 ):247–55. doi: 10.1016/s1054-139x(02)00363-4 12225737
12 Oman R , Lensch T , Amroussia N , Clements-Nolle K , Lu M , Yang Y . The Revised Youth Asset Survey (YAS-R). American Journal of Health Promotion: AJHP. 2018;33 (5 ):768–73. doi: 10.1177/0890117118814390 30486663
13 Dukakis K, London RA, McLaughlin M, Williamson D. Positive youth development: Individual, setting and system level indicators. Issue Brief. 2009.
14 Tricco AC , Brehaut J , Tetroe J , Cappelli M , Hopewell S , Lavis JN , et al . An international survey indicated that unpublished systematic reviews exist. Journal of clinical epidemiology. 2009;62 (6 ):617–23. e5. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2008.09.014 19162440
15 Silagy CA , Middleton P , Hopewell S . Publishing protocols of systematic reviews: comparing what was done to what was planned. Jama. 2002;287 (21 ):2831–4. doi: 10.1001/jama.287.21.2831 12038926
16 Higgins J, Green S. Rationale for protocols. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions: The Cochrane Collaboration. www.handbook.cochrane.org.; 2011.
17 Shamseer L , Moher D , Clarke M , Ghersi D , Liberati A , Petticrew M , et al . Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015: elaboration and explanation. Bmj. 2015;349. doi: 10.1136/bmj.g7647 25555855
18 Moher D , Shamseer L , Clarke M , Ghersi D , Liberati A , Petticrew M , et al . Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement. Systematic reviews. 2015;4 (1 ):1–9. doi: 10.1186/2046-4053-4-1 25554246
19 Mokkink LB , De Vet HC , Prinsen CA , Patrick DL , Alonso J , Bouter LM , et al . COSMIN risk of bias checklist for systematic reviews of patient-reported outcome measures. Quality of Life Research. 2018;27 (5 ):1171–9. doi: 10.1007/s11136-017-1765-4 29260445
20 Moher D , Liberati A , Tetzlaff J , Altman DG , PRISMA Group* t. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Annals of internal medicine. 2009;151 (4 ):264–9.19622511
21 Catalano RF , Skinner ML , Alvarado G , Kapungu C , Reavley N , Patton GC , et al . Positive youth development programs in low-and middle-income countries: A conceptual framework and systematic review of efficacy. Journal of Adolescent Health. 2019;65 (1 ):15–31. doi: 10.1016/j.jadohealth.2019.01.024 31010725
22 Lipscomb CE . Medical subject headings (MeSH). Bulletin of the Medical Library Association. 2000;88 (3 ):265. 10928714
23 Terwee CB , Jansma EP , Riphagen II , de Vet HC . Development of a methodological PubMed search filter for finding studies on measurement properties of measurement instruments. Quality of Life Research. 2009;18 (8 ):1115–23. doi: 10.1007/s11136-009-9528-5 19711195
24 Ouzzani M , Hammady H , Fedorowicz Z , Elmagarmid A . Rayyan—a web and mobile app for systematic reviews. Systematic reviews. 2016;5 (1 ):1–10. doi: 10.1186/s13643-016-0384-4 26729230
25 Shafiee E , Farzad M , Karbalaei M . A systematic review of self-reported outcome measures assessing disability following hand and upper extremity conditions in persian population. Archives of Bone and Joint Surgery. 2021;9 (2 ):141. doi: 10.22038/abjs.2020.48859.2423 34026930
26 Mokkink LB , Terwee CB , Knol DL , Stratford PW , Alonso J , Patrick DL , et al . The COSMIN checklist for evaluating the methodological quality of studies on measurement properties: a clarification of its content. BMC medical research methodology. 2010;10 (1 ):1–8. doi: 10.1186/1471-2288-10-22 20053272
27 Mokkink LB , Terwee CB , Patrick DL , Alonso J , Stratford PW , Knol DL , et al . The COSMIN study reached international consensus on taxonomy, terminology, and definitions of measurement properties for health-related patient-reported outcomes. Journal of clinical epidemiology. 2010;63 (7 ):737–45. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.02.006 20494804
28 Hunter JE , Schmidt FL . Methods of meta-analysis: Correcting error and bias in research findings. Newbury Park, CA: Sage; 2004.
29 Schmidt FL , Hunter JE . Methods of meta-analysis: Correcting error and bias in research findings: Sage publications; 2014.
30 van Aert RC. Meta-analyzing partial correlation coefficients using Fisher’s z transformation. 2023.
31 Stanley T , Doucouliagos H . Correct standard errors can bias meta‐analysis. Research Synthesis Methods. 2023;14 (3 ):515–9. doi: 10.1002/jrsm.1631 36880162
32 Rosenthal R , Cooper H , Hedges L . Parametric measures of effect size. The handbook of research synthesis. 1994;621 (2 ):231–44.
33 Rosenberg MJ, Adams DC, Gurevitch J. Metawin 2.0 User’s manual: statistical software for meta-analysis. 2000.
34 Borenstein M. Comprehensive meta‐analysis software. Systematic Reviews in Health Research: Meta‐Analysis in Context. 2022:535–48.
35 Higgins JP , Thompson SG , Deeks JJ , Altman DG . Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. British Medical Journal. 2003;327 (7414 ):557–60. doi: 10.1136/bmj.327.7414.557 12958120
36 Higgins JP , Thomas J , Chandler J , Cumpston M , Li T , Page MJ , et al . Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions: John Wiley & Sons; 2019.
37 Prinsen CA , Mokkink LB , Bouter LM , Alonso J , Patrick DL , De Vet HC , et al . COSMIN guideline for systematic reviews of patient-reported outcome measures. Quality of life research. 2018;27 (5 ):1147–57. doi: 10.1007/s11136-018-1798-3 29435801
38 Terwee CB , Prinsen CA , Chiarotto A , Westerman MJ , Patrick DL , Alonso J , et al . COSMIN methodology for evaluating the content validity of patient-reported outcome measures: a Delphi study. Quality of Life Research. 2018;27 (5 ):1159–70. doi: 10.1007/s11136-018-1829-0 29550964
39 Terwee CB , Bot SD , de Boer MR , van der Windt DA , Knol DL , Dekker J , et al . Quality criteria were proposed for measurement properties of health status questionnaires. Journal of clinical epidemiology. 2007;60 (1 ):34–42. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2006.03.012 17161752
40 Bollen KA . Structural equations with latent variables: John Wiley & Sons; 1989.
41 Vet HCd , Adèr HJ , Terwee CB , Pouwer F . Are factor analytical techniques used appropriately in the validation of health status questionnaires? A systematic review on the quality of factor analysis of the SF-36. Quality of life research. 2005;14 :1203–18. doi: 10.1007/s11136-004-5742-3 16047498
42 Mokkink LB , Prinsen C , Patrick DL , Alonso J , Bouter L , de Vet HC , et al . COSMIN methodology for systematic reviews of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). User manual. 2018;78 (1 ).
43 Schünemann H , Brożek J , Guyatt G , Oxman A . Handbook for grading the quality of evidence and the strength of recommendations using the GRADE approach. Updated October. 2013;2013 .
44 Dimitrova R , Wiium N . Handbook of positive youth development: Advancing the next generation of research, policy and practice in global contexts: Springer; 2021.
45 Curran T , Wexler L . School‐based positive youth development: A systematic review of the literature. Journal of school health. 2017;87 (1 ):71–80. doi: 10.1111/josh.12467 27917486
46 Shek DT , Leung KH , Dou D , Zhu X . Family functioning and adolescent delinquency in mainland China: positive youth development attributes as a mediator. Frontiers in psychiatry. 2022;13 :883439. doi: 10.3389/fpsyt.2022.883439 35573365
47 Melendez-Torres G , Dickson K , Fletcher A , Thomas J , Hinds K , Campbell R , et al . Systematic review and meta-analysis of effects of community-delivered positive youth development interventions on violence outcomes. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2016;70 (12 ):1171–7. doi: 10.1136/jech-2015-206132 27445348
48 Evans AB , Banerjee M , Meyer R , Aldana A , Foust M , Rowley S . Racial socialization as a mechanism for positive development among African American youth. Child Development Perspectives. 2012;6 (3 ):251–7.
49 Jessee C , Moore AM , Olenik C , Trevelline CP , Taggart N . Listening to youth through 17 cross-sectoral youth assessments: Implications for programming and policy. Journal of Youth Development. 2021;16 (2–3 ):20–54.
50 Straus S , Moher D . Registering systematic reviews. CMAJ: Canadian Medical Association Journal. 2010;182 (1 ):13. doi: 10.1503/cmaj.081849 19620270
