Community Support—Chicago Youth Development Study

Abstract

The Community Support—Chicago Youth Development Study (CS-CYDS) scale, developed by Tolan, Gorman-Smith, and Henry in 2001, is a brief, psychometrically informed instrument designed to measure perceived levels of informal neighborhood support and cohesion among youth populations. Derived from the broader Chicago Youth Development Study, this measure focuses specifically on a respondent’s engagement with and trust in their immediate neighbors. High scores typically indicate strong feelings of connection and access to Social Support within the local community, a factor often associated with positive developmental outcomes and reduced risk behaviors among adolescents.

Keywords

Community support, neighborhood involvement, social cohesion, youth development, Chicago Youth Development Study, neighborhood trust, Psychometrics, adolescent assessment.

Authors

Patrick H. Tolan, Deborah Gorman-Smith, Dennis B. Henry.

Purpose

The primary purpose of the CS-CYDS is to quantify the degree to which an individual, particularly an adolescent, perceives their neighborhood as a source of reliable support and positive social interaction. This measure helps researchers and practitioners assess the strength of informal social networks and the level of neighborhood capital available to young people. Understanding these dynamics is crucial for developing effective community-based interventions aimed at violence prevention and youth resilience.

The scale serves as a practical tool for monitoring community-level factors that influence individual behavior, allowing for standardized comparison across diverse urban settings. By focusing on concrete behaviors (e.g., visiting neighbors, asking for help) and attitudes (e.g., comfort level), the instrument provides a measurable index of neighborhood social health.

Construct

The scale measures the Psychological Construct of Neighborhood Cohesion and Informal Support. This construct encompasses several dimensions of community life, including perceived interpersonal trust, the density of social ties, and the willingness of neighbors to engage in mutual aid. Specifically, it assesses whether the respondent views their immediate residential area as a supportive environment where reciprocity and familiarity exist.

The items emphasize practical forms of support and interaction, moving beyond simple residence duration to gauge active involvement and reliance on neighbors. The resulting mean score is intended to reflect a single, unified dimension representing the availability of social resources within the youth’s immediate environment.

Validity

The foundational validity of the Community Support scale is rooted in its development within the context of the comprehensive Chicago Youth Development Study, which focused on environmental risk factors and protective mechanisms. While specific coefficients (e.g., convergent or discriminant validity) are not provided in the summary source, the items were constructed based on established theories linking neighborhood social capital to youth outcomes.

Further evidence of validity is typically detailed within the technical report cited by the authors. Researchers utilizing the scale are advised to consult the 2001 technical report to examine the established relationship between the scale scores and other relevant measures of social functioning, environmental risk, and behavioral outcomes.

Reliability

Information concerning the internal consistency and test-retest Reliability of the Community Support scale is documented in the technical report published by the Families and Communities Research Group. Reliability analysis, likely including Cronbach’s alpha, was performed to ensure the five scored items consistently measure the intended construct of neighborhood support.

The scoring methodology, which involves computing a mean score from five specifically selected items and ignoring a sixth, suggests that the authors employed rigorous psychometric procedures to maximize the internal coherence of the final measure. The careful selection and coding of items aim to produce a reliable score that minimizes measurement error.

Factor Analysis

Although the technical report must be consulted for definitive details, the structure of the CS-CYDS suggests it is intended to be a unidimensional measure of neighborhood support. Standard practice in developing such scales involves conducting exploratory or confirmatory factor analysis (EFA or CFA) to confirm that the retained items load strongly onto a single factor.

The instruction to compute a mean score from only five of the six presented items (ignoring item 6) strongly implies that factor analysis determined that the sixth item either did not load sufficiently onto the primary factor or introduced undesirable complexity or measurement noise, thus necessitating its exclusion from the final composite score.

Instrument

Test Type: Self-report questionnaire / Psychometrics Scale

Format: 5-point Likert Scale format, ranging from “Strongly agree” to “Strongly disagree.”

Language Available: English (Original administration in the Chicago Youth Development Study).

Population Group: Youth / Adolescents.

Age Group: Typically utilized with middle-to-late adolescents, consistent with participants in the Chicago Youth Development Study.

Population Details: Developed and validated within a cohort of youth residing in high-risk urban communities in Chicago, focusing on factors related to violence exposure and prevention.

Test Methodology: Respondents rate their level of agreement with six statements regarding their interaction with and trust in their neighbors. Five of the items are scored and averaged to produce the final Community Support score. Items are reverse-coded to ensure higher numerical scores reflect lower levels of support.

Keywords

Community involvement, neighborhood cohesion, social capital, youth research, urban studies, violence prevention, psychological assessment, scale development.

Authors

Author ORCID Identifier: Not provided in the source documentation.

Affiliation Email addresses: Not provided in the source documentation.

Correspondence Address: Families and Communities Research Group, Department of Psychiatry, The University of Illinois at Chicago (as of 2001).

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

Test Year: 2001 (Date of technical report).

Permissions: Researchers must contact the primary authors (Tolan, Gorman-Smith, or Henry) or the Families and Communities Research Group at the University of Illinois at Chicago for formal permission regarding use, adaptation, or translation of the instrument.

Fee: Fee information is not provided; usage may be subject to standard academic licensing agreements.

Reference’s

The primary technical documentation for the development and initial validation of the scale is:

Tolan PH, Gorman-Smith D, Henry DB. Chicago Youth Development Study Community and Neighborhood Measure: construction and reliability technical report. Families and Communities Research Group, Department of Psychiatry, The University of Illinois at Chicago, 2001.

The instrument, including scoring instructions, can also be found on page 353 of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) publication, Measuring Violence-Related Attitudes, Behaviors, and Influences Among Youths: A Compendium of Assessment Tools. The original PDF can be downloaded here: http://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/YV_Compendium.pdf

Items of the Community Support—Chicago Youth Development Study

IMPORTANT: The following scale items must be preserved in their original language and must not be changed in any way.

1. I visit with my neighbors in their homes.

2. If I needed advice about something I could go to someone in my neighborhood.

3. I regularly stop and talk with people in my neighborhood.

4. I know most of the names of people on my block.

5. I would feel comfortable asking to borrow some food or a tool from people on my block.

6. I would feel comfortable asking people on my block to watch my home while I was away.

Point values are assigned as follows:

Strongly agree=1

Agree=2

Neither=3

Disagree=4

Strongly disagree=5

Reverse code items 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5. Compute a mean score from these five items. Ignore item 6.