Defining contribution: A scoping review

Abstract

Introduction

The term contribution is a key feature of approaches to positive youth development but has yet to be adequately defined. The purposes of this study were to identify properties that underlie contribution and to establish a theoretical definition of the construct.

Methods

A two‐phase scoping review was conducted. The first phase involved the systematic search, selection, and analysis of studies from which six properties of contribution were identified and a preliminary theoretical definition was constructed. In the second phase expert judges rated the degree to that the proposed definition and the six properties of contribution fit with their conceptualization of the construct on a 6‐point scale.

Results

Mean ratings for the definition and the six properties ranged from 5.05 to 5.70. Judges' ratings for the overall definition of contribution and the six properties were evaluated using Aiken's content validity coefficient (V). All V coefficients ranged in size from 0.81 to 0.94 and were statistically significant (p's < .01) indicating that the definition of contribution and the corresponding six properties fit well with experts' conceptualizations of the construct.

Conclusion

This study provides a theoretical definition of contribution that will serve as a foundation upon which future research in the area of positive youth development can build.

There is a growing body of sport‐based positive youth development research (Holt, 2016). Early work involved researchers applying models of positive youth development that originated in the general developmental psychology literature to sport settings (e.g., Forneris et al., 2015; Jones et al., 2011; Strachan et al., 2018). More recently, researchers have developed sport‐specific approaches to the study of positive youth development (e.g., Holt et al., 2017) and life skills development and transfer (Pierce et al., 2017). Furthermore, sport‐based researchers have examined related constructs such as prosocial behavior in sport (e.g., Bruner et al., 2014), social identity development (e.g., Bruner et al., 2017), and character development (e.g., Herbison et al., 2018). However, contribution, one of the key markers of lifespan development (Hershberg et al., 2015), has received little attention in the sport‐based positive youth development research literature. This limitation may be, in part, due to the lack of a clear theoretical definition of the term contribution, both in sport and in the general positive youth development literature.

In fact, a major factor that limits the progress of intellectual fields of study is “the use of sloppy, careless, or subjective definitions” (Locke, 2003, p.415). This issue of weak definitions and poorly operationalized terms are critical issues in the positive youth development literature highlighted by Camiré et al. (2023) which have resulted in a proliferation of different measures purported to be assessing the same concepts (i.e., construct stretching) as well as operationalizations of positive youth development constructs which have often conflated the causes and outcomes of positive youth development. Weak definitions can make it difficult to distinguish one concept from other similar constructs, potentially leading to concept proliferation (i.e., the emergence of constructs with different names but overlapping conceptual domains; Podsakoff et al., 2016), construct stretching (Camiré et al., 2023), jingle fallacies (i.e., the assumption that two constructs are the same because they have the same or similar names), or jangle fallacies (i.e., the assumption that two constructs are different because they have different names; Marsh, 1994). However, establishing clear theoretical definition will clearly define the boundaries of what contribution means and facilitate the focused operationalization of the term in the future. Therefore, this study was designed to establish a theoretical definition of contribution with the goal of informing both the general and sport‐specific positive youth development literature.

1. CONTRIBUTION IN POSITIVE YOUTH DEVELOPMENT

Within the general positive youth development literature, the term contribution is a central feature of the work of Richard Lerner (see Lerner et al., 2005; Lerner, 2004). A premise underpinning Lerner's work is that integrated actions, within person ↔ context interactions, constitute the fundamental unit of analysis for studying adolescent development. It is hypothesized that positive functioning will be enhanced if the strengths of adolescents are aligned with resources for healthy growth in key developmental contexts (e.g., home, sport, school). Accordingly, the developmental systems theory‐based conception of positive youth development presents an individual ↔ context process model of thriving (Lerner et al., 2010). For Lerner, positive youth development is comprised of the 5Cs (i.e., confidence, competence, connection, character, and caring). He further hypothesized that young people who manifest the 5Cs over time (i.e., when they are thriving) will be on a trajectory toward an idealized adulthood marked by the 6th C of contribution. Research with adolescents in the US has shown that the 5Cs exist as latent constructs, and that the 5Cs are correlated positively with the 6th C of contribution (Jelicic et al., 2007; Lerner et al., 2005).

Lerner (2004) described contribution as an adult life characterized by integrated and mutually reinforcing contributions to self (e.g., maintaining one's health and one's ability to remain an active agent in one's development) and to family, community, and the institutions of civil society. Contribution was therefore envisioned to have both a behavioral (action) component and an ideological component (i.e., that an individual possesses an identity that specifies such contributions are predicated on moral and civic duty; Lerner et al., 2003). As Lerner et al. (2005) explained, “when youth believe that they should contribute to self and context and when they act on these beliefs, they will both reflect and promote further advances in their own positive development and, also, the health of their social world” (p.23).

Jelicic et al. (2007) examined the relationship between positive youth development and contribution using data from the first two waves of the 4‐H study of positive youth development. Contribution was measured as a composite score derived from 12 items across four subsets: (a) leadership (e.g., during the last 12 months, how many times have you been a leader), (b) services (in which participants indicated if an activity such as “volunteer work” applied to them), (c) helping (i.e., average amount of time spent each week helping friends), and (d) ideology (e.g., it is important to me to contribute to my community and society). The same items were also used to measure contribution in subsequent studies (Geldhof, Bowers, Boyd, et al., 2014; Geldhof, Bowers, Mueller, et al., 2014). These items reflect the distinction between contribution as a set of behaviors or activities and the ideological component of contribution.

Lerner et al. (2010) later distinguished between contribution to self, family, and community and contribution as a form of active and engaged citizenship. Research with subsequent waves of the 4H longitudinal study suggested that links between the 5Cs of positive youth development and contribution are influenced by developmental factors. Zaff et al. (2010) proposed that, due to cognitive, socioemotional, and behavioral changes in middle adolescence, the contribution of the early adolescent (i.e., contributions to self, family, and community) becomes transformed into an integrated construct of civic engagement (referred to as active and engaged citizenship). As Lerner et al. (2010) observed, while the 5Cs of positive youth development appear to remain invariant across the early‐through‐middle adolescent period, contribution appears to reflect developmental transformation. It is possible that this developmental transformation is a function of the broader range of contexts in which middle‐aged adolescents can engage, thus providing them with more opportunities to participate in active and engaged citizenship activities.

Despite contribution being regarded as a central marker of healthy development across the lifespan (Hershberg et al., 2015), a clear theoretical definition has not yet been put forward for the term. Rather, contribution has been broadly described (Lerner, 2004), distinguished in terms of activities that reflect developmental change (Lerner et al., 2010; Zaff et al., 2010), and conceived as having a behavioral (action) component and an ideological component (Lerner et al., 2003). Without an established theoretical definition, it is unclear whether operationalizations for measurement (e.g., Jelicic et al., 2007; Lerner et al., 2005) accurately capture what it is that the term contribution has come to mean as it is used within the literature more broadly. Theoretical definitions are statements of what a concept means and capture the real‐world essence of a phenomenon. Such a definition would facilitate differentiation of contribution from other prosocial behaviors that it may resemble.

1.1. Prosocial behavior

Given that contribution appears to share similarities with forms of prosocial behavior and has been assessed using other prosocial behaviors (i.e., volunteering and helping), it is useful to consider other prosocial behavior concepts. Some examples include volunteerism, civic service, civic engagement, and social activism. Whereas each of these terms encompasses different actions, they share a focus on prosocial behaviors that promote the well‐being of others, the community, and/or society. For example, similar to descriptions of contribution, volunteerism may also refer to a broad range of prosocial activities benefiting others within a community. Penner (2002) defined volunteerism as ongoing, planned, and discretionary prosocial behavior benefiting strangers within the community and typically occurring within an organizational setting. Examples may include serving at a soup kitchen operated by a food bank or church, or working with organizations such as Habitat for Humanity. However, others have argued that the long‐term (i.e., on‐going) service in Penner's (2002) definition is more indicative of civic service, and volunteerism may be occasional or episodic in nature rather than sustained (Tang et al., 2003). Despite disagreements over the temporal features of volunteerism, the term clearly emphasizes a discretionary or volitional component of prosocial actions. This discretionary or volitional component differentiates volunteerism with mandated or required forms of communal prosocial behaviors, such as court ordered community service or service hours required to graduate high school in some educational jurisdictions (e.g., the Canadian province of Ontario requires all secondary school students to complete 40 h of community service as a graduation requirement). Nonetheless, volunteerism appears to represent a form of community‐based contribution.

Civic service is another term used to refer to communal prosocial behavior. Sherraden (2001) defined civic service as “an organized period of substantial engagement and contribution to the local, national, or world community, recognized and valued by society, with minimal monetary compensation to the participant” (p.2). Civic service focuses on public benefits, whether in terms of local community objectives or larger scale national or transnational goals (McBride & Sherraden, 2004; McBride et al., 2003). Individuals performing civic service are usually involved for a specified period of time and work towards an objective within a defined role as a part of a service organization (McBride et al., 2006). Due to the public benefit focus of civic service, it seems to represent a type of contribution that may be at the community or civil society level depending on the scale of service and specific goals.

Civic engagement is a similar term to civic service. However, the term civic engagement implies a political orientation that may not necessarily be present in civic service or other prosocial behaviors such as volunteerism. Civic engagement has been defined as how an active citizen participates in the life of the community to improve conditions for others or to help shape the community's future (Crowley, 2007). Other researchers have defined civic engagement as an integrative mechanism that brings individuals together to address shared issues and pursue goals of communal benefit through coordinated, collaborative work (Balsano, 2005). There appears to be general agreement that civic engagement involves individual and collective actions intended to address communal or political concerns (Adler & Goggin, 2005). Components of civic engagement include an interrelated set of knowledge, skills, attitudes, and civic behaviors relating to community, the common good, and political institutions and systems (Bebiroglu et al., 2013). Examples of civic engagement activities include voting or involvement with political campaigns. In this vein, youth civic engagement has been viewed as crucial for maintaining a healthy democratic system (Balsano, 2005).

The term social activism also involves a focus on the common good. Typically, social activism involves pursuing large scale social change or social justice on issues such as LGBTQ+ rights, environmental protection, and movements against discrimination (Piliavin et al., 2002). These activities involve collaborative efforts of individuals and organizations with little or no financial compensation involved (Harré, 2007). Thus, social activism primarily aims to improve societal well‐being and influences communities and individuals indirectly.

1.2. Contribution in sport

The term contribution has been used in the sport‐based positive youth development literature. For example, Holt et al. (2016) defined positive youth development through sport in the following way:

[Positive youth development] through sport is intended to facilitate youth development via experiences and processes that enable participants in adult‐supervised programs to gain transferable personal and social life skills, along with physical competencies. These skill and competency outcomes will enable participants in youth sport programs to thrive and contribute to their communities , both now and in the future. (p.231, italics in original, bold for emphasis)

This definition specifically includes contribution to communities as an important aspect of positive youth development through sport. In a sense, the inclusion of contribution within the definition of positive youth development through sport serves to link the individual development of youth with the communities in which they live. However, Holt et al. (2016) did not define or elaborate upon the concept of contribution in their definition of positive youth development through sport.

Few studies have specifically examined contribution through sport as opposed to other constructs related to social outcomes or social development. An exception was a pair of studies by Deal & Camiré, (2016a, 2016b). The first study (Deal & Camiré, 2016a) examined university student athletes' motives for contribution. These motives included learning new career related skills; practicing or displaying existing skills; and building or strengthening relationships with teammates, friends, and community members. In the second study, Deal and Camiré (2016b) interviewed eight university student athletes to understand facilitators and barriers to contribution. Participants described coaches, administrators, and teammates as important others who facilitated their contribution by creating opportunities (e.g., coaches hosting sports camps with their student athletes as camp coaches) or inviting others to contribute with them (e.g., being asked by a teammate to volunteer in a program together). However, the term contribution was not well defined in these studies. In the Deal and Camiré (2016a) study, contribution was operationalized as “the actions taken by individuals that benefit their own wellbeing or that of their family, community, and civil society” (p.116). No definition of contribution was provided in the Deal and Camiré (2016b) study.

1.3. The current study

Although contribution is a central feature of approaches to positive youth development (Lerner, 2004), definitions of positive youth development through sport (Holt et al., 2016), and has been studied in sporting contexts (Deal & Camiré, 2016a, 2016b), it has yet to be clearly defined from a theoretical perspective. The lack of a clear definition suggests that there may not be a shared understanding of contribution among positive youth development researchers. Such a lack of shared understanding can create difficulties (both in terms of measurement and theory development) for researchers who wish to study, critique, and communicate ideas around the construct and its role in positive youth development (cf. Watt & van den Berg, 2002). The purposes of this study were (a) to identify properties that underlie contribution and (b) to establish a theoretical definition of the construct. This theoretical definition of contribution should represent the original presentation of contribution within positive youth development, how the term has been used since, and its relation to other related terms for prosocial behaviors.

One problem with terms used in the psychological literature is that ordinary words, such as contribution, are used in a special sense or as a technical term without a precise definition or clear examples being provided (Dohme et al., 2017; Lourenço, 2001). A definition can be understood to be “a hypothesis about the meaning of a word” (Wierzbicka, 1992, p.551). Watt and van den Berg (2002) differentiated between theoretical definitions and operational definitions. Theoretical definitions clearly state the meaning of a concept and allow “others to understand the researcher's vision of the concept and to criticize it, if they disagree” (Watt & van den Berg, 2002, p.22). A strong theoretical definition captures the essence of a real‐world phenomenon. In contrast, operational definitions are used to define a construct in such a way that a phenomenon may be observed and measured in the real world (Watt & van den Berg, 2002). Thus, the operational definition forms a bridge between the abstracted concept and its properties that may be observed in the real world. Whereas contribution has been described and operationalized for measurement, we suggest that the lack of a clear theoretical definition is a gap in the literature that must be addressed.

Definitions and specification of meaning can also be understood in terms indicators and referents (Kaplan, 1946; Watt & van den Berg, 2002). An indicator is a statement about or description of a term that conveys some, but not all, of the meaning of the term. The meaning of a term (e.g., contribution) is conveyed to varying degrees by each individual indicator. The full meaning of a term is conveyed through the overlap of several indicators (Kaplan, 1946). The term contribution may share several indicators of the prosocial behaviors discussed in the previous section such as volitional involvement, sustained engagement, and benefiting others. Referents are observable cases or examples from which a concept may be abstracted (Watt & van den Berg, 2002). For example, helping to coach a youth sport team and serving in a soup kitchen are observable cases (i.e., referents) from which the concept of volunteering may be abstracted; both examples share a common feature of not receiving monetary benefit (i.e., an indicator of volunteering). Therefore, this scoping review was designed to identify properties that underlie contribution and to establish a theoretical definition of the construct. This study was guided by two research questions: What are the properties of contribution and what is contribution through sport?

2. METHOD

A two‐phase scoping review was conducted. The first phase involved the systematic search, selection, and analysis of studies to produce a preliminary theoretical definition of contribution. The second phase involved consultation with a panel of expert judges who evaluated the preliminary definition of contribution (and corresponding properties of contribution) which were generated in the first phase. Scoping reviews are systematic literature searches designed to collect and critique available literature and are useful for examining the extent, range, and nature of research in a given area or on a specific topic (Arksey & O'Malley, 2005). As a broad review of literature in an area, scoping reviews may be used to establish how a particular term is used, for what purposes, and by whom (Anderson et al., 2008). Scoping (and systematic) reviews have recently been used to define terms including children's active play (Truelove et al., 2017), food literacy (Truman et al., 2017), and youth resilience (Christmas & Khanlou, 2018). As such, a scoping review was deemed to be an appropriate methodological selection given a purpose of the current study was to establish a theoretical definition.

3. PHASE 1: REVIEW

3.1. Procedure

This study followed Levac et al.'s (2010) updated six stage scoping review procedure based on the framework originally proposed by Arksey and O'Malley 2005. These stages are (a) identifying the research question; (b) identifying relevant studies; (c) study selection; (d) charting the data; (e) collating, summarizing, and reporting the results; and (f) consultation.

In the first stage, researchers identify the research question(s), purpose(s), and rationale for conducting a scoping review. Given that there is not a clear definition of contribution in the extant literature, the purposes of this review were to identify the properties of contribution and establish a theoretical definition of contribution. Initially, two research questions guided this review: “What are the properties of contribution?” and “What is contribution through sport?” However, in the process of conducting this study it became clear that there was not a sport‐specific definition of contribution. Therefore, this review focused on identifying the properties of contribution and establishing a theoretical definition of contribution in general rather than establishing a definition that was solely focused on the context of sport.

In the second stage of the scoping review procedure, relevant studies were identified using a systematic search strategy. Scoping reviews use a comprehensive search approach that includes published, unpublished, and gray literature (e.g., theses and dissertations; Arksey and O'Malley 2005). A search of electronic databases was conducted with the assistance of a research librarian to ensure the search terms and strategy would yield comprehensive coverage. The initial electronic search strategy consisted of retrieving database entries written in English from PsycINFO and ERIC using OVID. The search was conducted using the explode function (i.e., all narrower subject headings were included) for the subject headings “adolescent development” and “prosocial behavior.” The explode function includes all narrower subject headings under the subject heading used in the search which increases the number of returned results by including relevant subtopics. For example, narrower subject headings under adolescent development include narrower headings include “adolescent behavior,” “adolescent characteristics,” and narrower subject headings under prosocial behavior include “altruism,” “assistance (social behavior),” and “charitable behavior.” The search was conducted as follows:

• (1)exp/adolescent development
• (2)exp/prosocial behavior
• (3)1 AND 2.

All searches were limited to publications in English that were published after 1980 and included both peer‐reviewed and gray literature. The initial electronic searches were supplemented by manual searches of the reference lists of studies retained through the third stage and manual searches of the indices of journals from which multiple articles were included (e.g., Journal of Adolescent Development) as well as adding manuscripts that were known to the authors but were not identified through other means.

In the third stage, identified manuscripts were screened for inclusion (i.e., selected for analysis). Although the second and third are separate stages in the scoping review procedure, Levac et al. (2010) recommend reviewing the search strategy and supplementing the initial search as researchers become more familiar with the literature retained through the third stage. The inclusion and exclusion criteria were refined through a process in which a random subsample of 100 abstracts was screened by two reviewers. After screening, the reviewers met to compare agreement and discuss the inclusion and exclusion criteria. For example, the initial exclusion criteria did not include any statement regarding review articles and, as a result, one reviewer included review articles while the other reviewer did not. This process was repeated twice until the final inclusion and exclusion criteria were established and interrater agreement was over 90%. Manuscripts were excluded if any exclusion criteria were met. Manuscripts were excluded if they (a) were not written in English, (b) were not in the social sciences, (c) did not mention contribution or a related prosocial term (e.g., volunteerism, community involvement, community engagement, civic engagement) in the abstract, (d) were reviews of books (though review articles and reviews of literature were included), or (e) focused on a special population (e.g., individuals with cognitive or developmental impairment). Additionally, to be included in the scoping review, manuscripts had to (a) have a social science focus (e.g., psychology, pedagogy, and sociology) and (b) include a definition or description of contribution or a related prosocial term (e.g., volunteerism, community involvement, community engagement, civic engagement). The screening was performed by the lead researcher and an assistant in two stages. First, the reviewers examined the titles and abstracts of each manuscript. Only manuscripts that clearly met exclusion criteria were excluded at this stage to minimize the risk of excluding relevant sources of data. Next, full‐text versions of the manuscripts were retrieved and screened against both the inclusion and exclusion criteria by both reviewers. When the reviewers failed to make the same decision regarding the inclusion or exclusion of a manuscript, the reviewers discussed their decisions until an agreement was reached. The lead researcher and assistant met before, midway through, and upon completion of each phase of screening to discuss problems and trends and to revise inclusion/exclusion criteria as necessary.

Once the final screening was completed the fourth stage, data charting, began. Data were extracted from the manuscripts using a spreadsheet with columns for bibliographic information (e.g., authors, year of publication, title), type of manuscript (e.g., journal article, thesis, dissertation), type of data reported (i.e., quantitative, qualitative, mixed, no original data), and whether the manuscript was focused on sport. Definitions or descriptions of contribution or other prosocial terms were copied verbatim into a word document and were recorded as quotations from the manuscript (i.e., quoted material was copied and an in‐text citation including authors, year of publication, and pagination were recorded). For the purpose of this study, definitions were statements that explicitly stated the meaning of the term (e.g., “Altruistic behavior is defined as voluntary, intentional behavior that benefits another and i.e., not motivated by the expectation of external rewards or avoidance of externally produced punishments,” Chou, 1998, p.195) and descriptions included statements that provided information that may be considered an indicator or referent for the term (e.g., “Volunteerism is often considered a kind of expression of altruism. Volunteers devote their time to providing services to others without payment,” Sui et al., 2012, p.20).

The fifth stage (i.e., collating, summarizing, and reporting the results) took the form of using reflexive thematic analysis to identify patterns in the extracted definitions and description. This process is detailed in the following data analysis section of phase one. The sixth stage (i.e., consultation) is described and reported in phase two.

The initial search was supplemented by manual searches of the indices of key journals (i.e., journals from which three or more articles were included) and for authors known to the first author to publish on related topics. Additionally, an updated search was conducted in February 2024 to identify records published between 2019 (overlapping slightly with the initial searches conducted in early 2019) and the February 10, 2024. This updated search used the same search terms and conditions and records were screened using the same criteria described above.

3.2. Data analysis

After data were extracted from the manuscripts, findings were collated, summarized, and reported in the fifth stage of the scoping review procedures. Consistent with Levac et al. (2010), numerical summaries were used to describe the sample of manuscripts, including the types of manuscripts, and how many were sport‐focused. Descriptions and definitions for contribution and other prosocial terms were analyzed inductively to identify the properties of contribution and establish a theoretical definition of the construct.

Extracted descriptions and definitions were analyzed using a reflexive thematic analysis modeled after Braun and Clarke's (2019) procedure. Reflexive thematic analysis is useful for determining common ways that ideas are represented and may be used in a wide variety of types of data including pre‐existing textual data (Braun et al., 2016). Given that the term contribution has not yet been defined and there is no theory to draw from, an inductive (i.e., data‐driven) approach was used. Braun and Clarke (2006) described two types of themes that may be developed in a thematic analysis: semantic and latent. Semantic themes are developed from the explicit or surface meaning of the data and latent themes are developed by interpreting deeper underlying meanings, assumptions, and conceptualizations (Braun & Clarke, 2006; Braun et al., 2016). Given that the purposes of this study were to identify the properties of contribution and develop a theoretical definition of contribution, the themes developed in this analysis were primarily latent themes.

The six phases of thematic analysis are not steps to be taken sequentially; rather these phases are recursive with researchers moving back and forth between them as needed (Braun & Clarke, 2006, 2019; Braun et al., 2016). In the first phase, the extracted phrases used to describe or define contribution were read multiple times to gain familiarity with these descriptions. In the second phase, initial codes were developed that described the underlying idea expressed within an extracted definition or description. In the third phase, codes that appeared to share conceptualizations or ideas about contribution were grouped together into themes. Then, in the fourth phase, themes were reviewed to ensure they contained coded segments that were consistent within the theme and sufficiently different from the content of other themes. Additionally, the themes as a whole were examined to ensure that they provided an accurate reflection of the data set as a whole. In the fifth stage, the themes were given a brief description of their central concept and a name was assigned to the theme that best captured the essence of the theme. These themes were then used as a basis for the construction of a theoretical definition of contribution in the final step, such that each property was reflected within the definition as a whole.

4. RESULTS

The initial electronic searches returned a total of 1124 records. Additional manual searches of key journals and authors identified another 29 manuscripts. After filtering out 15 duplicates, a total of 1138 manuscripts were retained and screened for inclusion. Of the 1138 titles and abstracts screened in this stage, 235 were retained for full‐text review to determine eligibility for inclusion. Reviews of the full‐text manuscripts resulted in the exclusion of an additional 182 manuscripts, resulting in 53 manuscripts being included for analysis. The updated search in February 2024 identified 158 manuscripts and an additional three through manual searches. Removal of duplicates (11) left 150 manuscripts to be screened for inclusion. Of these 150 manuscripts, 98 were retained for full‐text review. Review of the full‐text manuscripts resulted in the exclusion of 50 manuscripts and inclusion of 48 manuscripts for analysis. Combining the screening results from the initial, manual, and updated searches resulted in a final total of 101 manuscripts. A list of all manuscripts included in the scoping review is contained in Supporting Information S1: Appendix A.

In total, 84 journal articles, 12 book chapters, three PhD dissertations, one brief report, and one book were included in the scoping review. Original data were not reported in 22 manuscripts (e.g., book chapters, review articles, and meta‐analyses), 72 reported quantitative data, five reported qualitative data, and two reported both quantitative and qualitative data. Only six of these manuscripts were situated in the context of sport. Given the small number of manuscripts that focused on sport, we elected to define contribution at a general level rather than within the sole context of sport.

A total of 281 definitions and descriptions of contribution or other prosocial terms (e.g., civic engagement, volunteering/ism) were extracted from the manuscripts. The following list presents a summary of the terms obtained from the manuscripts: prosocial behavior (57 manuscripts), contribution (22 manuscripts), civic engagement (18 manuscripts), volunteerism or volunteering (14 manuscripts), and community service (11 manuscripts). The three remaining terms (i.e., thriving, generativity, and altruistic behavior) were defined or described in fewer than 10 manuscripts.¹

The reflexive thematic analysis of the data points obtained through the initial search resulted in the identification of six properties (i.e., themes) underlying contribution. These properties were labeled action, intentional, self‐transcendent, mutually beneficial, contextually specific, and multilevel. These properties are described and an example of the data extracted that informed each property is included in Table 1. The updated search conducted in February 2024 was completed after the consultation with experts in phase two and as a result the data from manuscripts included from the updated search were not used to develop the initial properties or definition of contribution. However, analysis of the additional definitions or descriptions did not suggest any additional properties beyond those initially identified nor indicate a need to further change the final definition given in these results.

Table 1.

Properties of contribution derived from scoping review analysis.

Property	Description	Example of extracted data
Action	Contribution involves actions or behaviors that an individual performs. Contribution is active rather than passive such as simply having a belief.	“The second measure pertains to the behavioral component of contribution and describes the amount of participation in activities that reflect active engagement with the world around oneself. These activities consist of being a leader in a group, helping friends and neighbors, helping in sports activities, participating in school government and religious youth groups, volunteering in the community, and mentoring and tutoring others.” (Lerner et al., 2005, p.54)
Intentional	Contribution is purposeful and performed with the intent of positively influencing other individuals, groups, or social structures.	“Pro‐social behavior—voluntary cooperative or helping behavior intended to benefit another person—is a common value in schools and within families and is often promoted within these institutions.” (Champagne, 2005, p.58)
Self‐transcendent	Contribution involves moving beyond self‐interest or a focus on oneself to benefit others or the common good.	“When youth possess these Five Cs, a ‘Sixth C’, contribution, is believed to emerge. That is, when youth develop the Five Cs, they are likely to exhibit transcendence of self and self‐interest in support of communal needs.” (Balsano, 2005, p.189)
Mutually beneficial	Contribution benefits other individuals, communities, or social structures and may directly or indirectly benefit the individual making the contribution as well.	“Such behaviors reflect, then, contribution and, consistent with the mutually beneficial individual ← →context relations that comprise adaptive developmental regulations, such contributions should support the health and positive development of self, others, and the institutions of civil society.”
Contextually specific	The specific behaviors that constitute contribution vary across contexts and reflect the values and social norms of each context.	“Civic engagement in social democratic and conservative welfare states, such as Finland and Germany, serves more to express personal values and to champion individual and group interests, whereas in liberal welfare states such as the US, volunteering involves more helping activities and is therefore more prosocial by nature.” (Pavlova et al., 2016, p.2212)
Multilevel	Contribution can influence multiple levels of social ecology ranging from smaller scale contributions to individuals, up to larger scale contributions that primarily benefit communities or broader society.	“Our civic constructs include both overtly interpersonally prosocial behaviors (i.e., informal helping, volunteering) as well as other civic values, skills, beliefs, and behaviors that allow for broader contributions to community and politics.” (Metzger et al., 2018, p.1676)

These properties were combined such that each property of contribution identified from the literature appeared in a preliminary definition. Each property was considered equally important and the authors crafted the wording of the definition with the goals of (a) each property being identifiable within the definition and (b) avoiding unnecessary repetition. Combining the properties of contribution identified from the literature resulted in the following preliminary definition of contribution (version 1):

Contribution involves actions or behaviors that an individual performs purposefully with the intent of positively influencing other individuals, groups, or social structures. These actions involve moving beyond self‐interest or a focus on oneself to benefit others or the common good. However, an individual making a contribution may benefit directly or indirectly as well. The specific behaviors that constitute contribution vary across contexts and reflect the values and social norms of each context.

5. PHASE 2: EXPERT CONSULTATION

Levac et al. (2010) proposed that consultation with stakeholders is an essential sixth stage in the scoping review framework. Consultation can be useful for assessing the validity of the outcomes of scoping reviews (Anderson et al., 2008). As such, this study included consultation with a panel of expert judges who had extensive research experience in positive youth development.

5.1. Participants

Purposeful sampling (Patton, 2015) was used to recruit expert judges who could evaluate the definition of contribution that we developed and the six underlying properties of contribution that we had identified from the scoping review. Of the 28 potential judges who were invited to participate using their publicly available institutional email addresses, 20 agreed. Nineteen of the 20 participants had a PhD (with one judge in the process of completing their PhD). Judges ranged in age from 29 to 73 years and reported anywhere from 5 to 30 years of experience conducting research and publishing in the area of positive youth development (M = 12.3 years, SD = 5.85). Before beginning recruitment, research ethics board approval was obtained and all participants provided informed consent electronically on the first page of the online questionnaire.

5.2. Data collection

Using an online questionnaire, the expert judges were asked to describe what contribution meant to them, and to provide a specific example to illustrate this meaning. Next, judges were asked to rate how well the definition of contribution and the six properties of contribution fit with their own conceptualizations of contribution. Ratings were made on a 6‐point scale ranging from 1 (fit very poorly) to 6 (fit very well). This process is analogous to the assessment of item content relevance that is used in the initial stages of scale construction (and construct validation) research (see Dunn et al., 1999). Finally, judges were asked if they had any comments or suggestions to improve the definition of contribution and the descriptions of the six properties that had been presented.

5.3. Data analysis

Using statistical procedures outlined by Dunn et al. (1999), expert judges' ratings were assessed using Aiken's (1985) content validity coefficient (V). Aiken's V enabled us to statistically determine whether the set of ratings provided by the 20 judges on (a) the overall definition of contribution, and (b) each of the six contribution‐properties, were sufficiently high that conclusions supporting the fit (or content validity) of the definition of contribution and associated properties could be reached. Values of V can range from 0 (i.e., all judges provide the lowest possible rating [1 = fits very poorly] in relation to their conceptualization of contribution) to 1 (i.e., all judges provide the highest possible rating [6 = fits very well] with their conceptualization of contribution). Each V coefficient is then compared against a right‐tailed binomial probability table provided by Aiken (1985) to determine if it is statistically significant.

6. RESULTS

Table 2 contains the descriptive statistics and corresponding V coefficients for the judges' ratings on the definition of contribution and the six properties of contribution that they evaluated. All mean ratings were >5.0 (on the 6‐point rating scale), and all corresponding V coefficients were statistically significant (p's < .01). Collectively, these results indicate that that the panel of expert judges believed that there was a good degree of fit between the judges' conceptualization of contribution in positive youth development and (a) the definition of contribution that we developed and (b) the six properties of contribution that we presented following the scoping review.

Table 2.

Descriptive statistics and content‐validity of expert researchers' ratings.

Property/Definition	Mean rating	SD	Content‐validity (Aiken's V)
Definition	5.60	0.60	0.92*
Action	5.35	0.75	0.87*
Intentional	5.05	1.05	0.81*
Self‐transcendent	5.25	0.85	0.85*
Mutually beneficial	5.70	0.57	0.94*
Contextually specific	5.58	0.77	0.92*
Multilevel	5.55	0.60	0.91*

^* p < .01.

Based upon the written feedback that judges provided in conjunction with their ratings, a small number of minor changes were incorporated into the definition of contribution and descriptions of contribution properties. For example, the word “exclusive” was added to the self‐transcendent property to clarify that a contribution can still be performed with some self‐interest or focus as long as the behavior is not entirely self‐focused. After incorporating these minor changes, the following definition of contribution was retained (version 2; final definition):

Contribution involves acting on beliefs and the behaviors that an individual performs purposefully with the intent of positively influencing other individuals, groups, or broader society to bring about a positive outcome for the beneficiaries. These actions involve moving beyond an exclusive self‐interest or focus on oneself to benefit others or the common good. Additionally, an individual making a contribution to others may benefit directly or indirectly themselves. The specific behaviors that constitute contribution vary across contexts and reflect the values and social norms of each context.

7. DISCUSSION

This study represents a first attempt to systematically identify the properties of contribution and establish a theoretical definition of contribution. The results offer some valuable additions to the literature because contribution has not been clearly defined to date though it is a marker of healthy development across the lifespan (Hershberg et al., 2015), an important outcome in models of positive youth development as the manifestation of the 5Cs over time (Lerner et al., 2005), and features in definitions of positive youth development through sport (Holt et al., 2016). Poorly articulated definitions constrain the development of fields of study (Camiré et al., 2023; Locke, 2003) and a lack of conceptual clarity leads to concept proliferation (Podsakoff et al., 2016), and jingle‐jangle fallacies (Marsh, 1994), which seems to have been the case with contribution given the range of terms that have been used previously. A strong theoretical definition should capture the essence of a phenomenon and allow other researchers to understand the vision of a concept, so that it can be critiqued, challenged, or supported in the future (Watt & van den Berg, 2002). The expert judges were in very strong agreement with the definition of contribution we presented. As such, the theoretical definition of contribution may provide some conceptual clarity and a foundation for future research, critique, and examination.

A key feature of our theoretical definition is that it was constructed from a set of properties identified through a systematic review of the literature. These properties act as indicators (Watt & van den Berg, 2002), which when layered over one another collectively describe what contribution is and how the individual behaviors which make up contribution can differ across contexts and scales of impact (i.e., benefiting individuals up to and including benefiting entire communities or society broadly). As a result, no one property is more important or more informative than another and does not individually define contribution. For example, an action alone does not constitute contribution (e.g., simply joining a running club). However, starting a running club with the mission to help people within the community to lose weight and improve their cardiovascular fitness exhibits all of the properties of contribution. It is clearly an action, that is self‐transcendent, performed intentionally, and is mutually beneficial (e.g., the creator could experience greater relatedness or connection to their community). Such a club could reflect the multilevel property because through the club there is a contribution to an individual (e.g., a member who sees improvements in their cardiovascular fitness), the group (e.g., the individuals who attend the running club), and even benefits to the community (e.g., fostering social ties between participants that extend beyond the running club setting or even—in the longer term—reducing the burden on the health care system by improving the health of participants).

Our theoretical definition suggests that contribution exists independent of context. It may be that the personal and social qualities that lead to contribution (e.g., the 5Cs) can be acquired and refined in a range of developmental contexts. The developmental contexts in which contribution is fostered may not be limited to a particular activity (e.g., sport), but rather it is likely that the alignment of the strengths of youth and their developmental contexts (including, but not limited to, home, sport, school; Lerner et al., 2005; Lerner, 2004) is what is important. Contribution may therefore transcend the (multiple) contexts in which it can be developed. For instance, it is possible that much of an individual's development may occur in relatively few contexts (i.e., home, school, and sport), yet that individual may later primarily contribute in a different context entirely (e.g., municipal government). Furthermore, we found that contribution behaviors varied across cultures (e.g., Frensch et al., 2007; Lerner et al., 2003; Pavlova et al., 2016; Ungar et al., 2011), societies (e.g., Lerner, 2004; Lerner et al., 2002), and specific contexts (Voight & Torney‐Purta, 2013). That is to say, contribution is contextually specific. For example, a young athlete may contribute by helping a coach to set up drill whereas a student may contribute by distributing assignment materials to help their teacher. Hence, youth may acquire qualities that lead to contribution in a range of developmental contexts, and the contribution behaviors in which they engage may also vary across settings.

The extent to which contribution is related to or predicted by involvement in particular developmental contexts must be examined via future research. For instance, it may be possible to assess and compare contribution among groups of athletes versus individuals who engage in other types of organized activities (e.g., youth clubs, faith‐based organizations). In doing so, it would be important to assess the intensity (i.e., frequency) and sustained engagement (i.e., continuity) of activities over time, because frequency and continuity influence the attainment of developmental outcomes in organized activities (Zarrett et al., 2008). Furthermore, it will be important to consider developmental factors, because while the 5Cs of positive youth development appear to remain invariant across the early‐through‐middle adolescent period, contribution may reflect developmental transformation and changing roles and expectations of adolescents (Lerner et al., 2010).

Lerner (2004) initially described contribution as an adult life characterized by integrated and mutually reinforcing contributions to self (e.g., maintaining one's health and one's ability to remain an active agent in one's development), and to family, community, and the institutions of civil society. The definition of contribution presented in this study shares some of these components by way of the multilevel property. For instance, our definition of contribution involves positively influencing others (individuals, groups, or broader society). However, somewhat in contrast to Lerner's focus on contributions to self, we found that the manuscripts included in this scoping review seldom described contributions made directly or solely to the self. That is, our definition, while recognizing that individuals contributing to others may benefit themselves directly or indirectly (i.e., the mutually beneficial property), highlights the importance of moving beyond self‐interest or focus on oneself (i.e., the self‐transcendent property). This difference with Lerner's (2004) description of contribution may reflect the evolution of the construct over time. Furthermore, what Lerner would call contribution to the self may be a different concept from contribution or represent different underlying values similar to the differences between personal responsibility and social responsibility (Martinek & Hellison, 2016).

Lerner (2004) and Lerner et al. (2003) envisioned contribution as having a behavioral (action) component and an ideological component. The definition we presented reflects the behavioral component (i.e., behaviors individuals perform purposefully with the intent of positively influencing others) and the ideological component (i.e., contribution involves acting on beliefs). The ideological component of our definition focuses more on individuals' beliefs than identity, which is more consistent with Lerner et al.'s (2005) view that “when youth believe that they should contribute to self and context and when they act on these beliefs…” (p.23). Contribution has been measured in terms of leadership, services, helping, and ideology (Geldhof, Bowers, Boyd, et al., 2014; Geldhof, Bowers, Mueller, et al., 2014; Jelicic et al., 2007). Services and helping reflect contribution behaviors, consistent with our definition (and, as noted above, beliefs can be associated with ideology). Leadership was not a feature of contribution in our definition. Despite leadership being a subset of items used in some operationalizations of contribution, authors have generally placed greater emphasis on other behaviors representing contribution. This suggests that contribution does not necessarily involve engaging in leadership. That is, individuals may be able to engage in contribution without necessarily leading a group or organization.

In addition to providing greater conceptual clarity for research, this theoretical definition may inform coach and sport stakeholder educational materials and program delivery. Much of the positive youth development literature in sport highlights the importance of intentional coaching practices and explicit processes in connection to other positive youth development outcomes (e.g., Holt et al., 2017). However, in order for this to happen, coaches must be aware of positive youth development principles and as a result there is growing support for including such topics in coach education programs (Newman et al., 2024; Santos et al., 2019). Previous contribution research in the context of sport has found that coaches discussing their own contributions or causes that are personally meaningful to them may be a facilitator to university student‐athletes' contributions (Deal & Camiré, 2016b). Increasing youth sport coaches' understanding of contribution and encouraging them to discuss their own contributions with the youth they coach could support the development of contribution among youth athletes. Similarly, youth sport programs can integrate contribution into their programming through activities such supporting older athletes with coach education and opportunities to coach younger athletes with a mentor coach. Alternatively, sport organizations may create partnerships with community organizations that align with their own mission to provide meaningful opportunities for young athletes to contribute within their community (Deal & Camiré, 2016b).

Finally, the establishment of a theoretical definition does not completely solve the problems limiting research on contribution. A theoretical definition bridges between the phenomenon as it exists in the “real world” and the concept in the “verbal world” (Watt & van den Berg, 2002). Our theoretical definition does this as suggested by the expert judges rating the theoretical definition and properties as fitting well with their conceptualization of contribution. However, further work is needed to operationalize contribution and ensure there are valid measures linking the concept of contribution to observable variables.

An important caveat to consider is that the definition of contribution that we have put forward may reflect a primarily North American orientation because the majority of studies that met the inclusion criteria in this scoping review were conducted in North America. Additionally, the majority of the expert judges in this study lived and worked in North America. Future research aimed at determining the generalizability of the proposed theoretical definition of contribution should consider locations outside North America to assess the degree to which properties may differ across cultures. For example, mutual benefit (i.e., the individual who makes a contribution also benefiting) may or may not be as salient in cultures with a greater emphasis on collectivism. Another limitation of the present study concerns the somewhat superficial consultation with expert judges. Judges were asked to provide comments and feedback in text boxes. It is likely that more detailed and insightful information could have been gathered through the use of more interactive methods such as interviews or focus groups.

A key objective of any scoping review is to include all manuscripts that are relevant to the research question (Levac et al., 2010). Although an extensive search strategy was developed and executed, it is always difficult to be certain that all relevant manuscripts were identified (Cooper & Lindsay, 1998). This is a potential limitation shared by all systematic reviews (Paterson et al., 2001) and one that we attempted to mitigate by working with a research librarian when developing the search strategy (Sandelowski & Barroso, 2003) as well as supplementing the electronic search with manual searches of key journals and conducting an updated search. Another limitation of this study pertains to the fact that the search was limited to English‐language manuscripts that introduces the possibility that important and relevant manuscripts in other languages were missed in our review. Finally, given the exploratory nature of this scoping review, manuscripts were not assessed for quality; differences in the quality and academic rigor that may be applied to different manuscripts has the potential to influence the findings of any scoping review, however we note that the majority of manuscripts that met our inclusion criteria (n = 84) came from peer reviewed journals. Despite these limitations, the properties of contribution identified with this scoping review and the proposed definition of contribution form a sound foundation upon which future research that examines contribution in the positive youth development process can be developed (Figure 1).

Figure 1.

Search and screening results.

In conclusion, this study adds to the positive youth development literature by identifying the properties of contribution and offering a theoretical definition of contribution based on academic literature and in consultation with positive youth development experts. This is valuable given the central importance of the term contribution, both within definitions of positive youth development through sport (Holt et al., 2016), and as an ultimate outcome of sustained positive youth development over time (Lerner et al., 2005). By identifying properties and establishing a theoretical definition, we propose that a shared understanding of the term contribution has been established that, in turn, will be useful for assessing and studying individual outcomes arising from positive youth development in future research.

ETHICS STATEMENT

Ethical approval was obtained from REB2 at the University of Alberta before collecting data. Data that support the findings of this study are openly available in the Loughborough University Research Repository at http://doi.org/10.17028/rd.lboro.25808803.

Supporting information

Supporting information.

Deal, C. J. , Jørgensen, H. , Sivak, A. , & Holt, N. L. (2025). Defining contribution: A scoping review. Journal of Adolescence, 97, 17–30. 10.1002/jad.12399

DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT

The data that support the findings of this study are openly available in Loughborough University Research Repository at https://doi.org/10.17028/rd.lboro.25808803.v1.