![Sample our Behavioral Sciences journals, sign in here to start your access, latest two full volumes FREE to you for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/110801/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Behavioral-Sciences.jpg"})
Abstract
The Five Cs model of PYD and associated instruments have received sound empirical support in the USA, but little validation in other cultural contexts. Moreover, initially measured as a second-order factor model, recently it has been reconsidered as a bifactor model. Our study aimed to compare the two proposed structures of the Five Cs model (second order vs. bifactor) and test whether the measure based on the Five Cs model was a valid instrument for use with Lithuanian adolescents. Analysis using the data of 1686 adolescents aged 14–20 (Mage = 16.61, SDage = 1.23, 52.8% girls) revealed that the bifactor PYD model fit well with the Lithuanian data and accounted for the variance in the data better than the second-order PYD model. Support for the bifactor model suggests that manifestations of the Five Cs can be partly explained by the general construct of PYD. Besides, the Five Cs may also have manifestations and associations that are independent of PYD. Further analyses of the Lithuanian version of PYD instrument supported invariance of the bifactor structure across gender groups, grade levels and socio-economic statuses. The study also demonstrated construct validity and internal consistency of PYD and all Cs, except competence. Overall, our findings suggest that the Lithuanian version of the measure can be used with late adolescents for assessment of PYD and the Five Cs in Lithuania.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank the associate editor Dr Rens van de Schoot and two anonymous reviewers for their valuable comments on previous versions of this manuscript. We are also grateful to our colleague Rimantas Vosylis for consultations on statistical analyses.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.