Roth Jodie L, Brooks-Gunn Jeanne
Teachers College, Columbia University, National Center for Children and Families, 525 West 120th Street, New York, NY 10027, USA.
Teachers College and the College of Physicians & Surgeons, Columbia University, New York, NY, USA.
Appl Dev Sci. 2016;20(3):188-202. doi: 10.1080/10888691.2015.1113879. Epub 2015 Dec 17.
Advances in theories of adolescent development and positive youth development have greatly increased our understanding of how programs and practices with adolescents can impede or enhance their development. In this paper the authors reflect on the progress in research on youth development programs in the last two decades, since possibly the first review of empirical evaluations by Roth, Brooks-Gunn, Murray, and Foster (1998). The authors use the terms Version 1.0, 2.0 and 3.0 to refer to changes in youth development research and programs over time. They argue that advances in theory and descriptive accounts of youth development programs (Version 2.0) need to be coupled with progress in definitions of youth development programs, measurement of inputs and outputs that incorporate an understanding of programs as contexts for development, and stronger design and evaluation of programs (Version 3.0). The authors also advocate for an integration of prevention and promotion research, and for use of the term youth development rather than positive youth development.
青少年发展理论和积极青年发展理论的进展极大地增进了我们对针对青少年的项目和实践如何阻碍或促进其发展的理解。在本文中，作者回顾了自罗斯、布鲁克斯 - 冈恩、默里和福斯特（1998年）首次对实证评估进行综述以来的过去二十年里青少年发展项目的研究进展。作者使用1.0版、2.0版和3.0版来指代青少年发展研究和项目随时间的变化。他们认为，青少年发展项目的理论和描述性进展（2.0版）需要与青少年发展项目定义的进展、纳入将项目理解为发展背景的投入和产出的衡量，以及更强有力的项目设计和评估（3.0版）相结合。作者还主张将预防研究和促进研究整合起来，并主张使用“青少年发展”一词而非“积极青年发展”。
