Exploring Culturally Adaptive Definitions and Measurement of Positive Youth Development among Second-generation Chinese American Youth: A Qualitative Study

Abstract

This research aims to explore cultually adaptable definisitions and measurement of Positive Youth Development for second-generation Chinese American youth. We conducted semi-structured interviews with 17 second-generation Chinese American youth (ages 12–18) and developed survey items for future quantitative PYD research. Using both inductive and deductive analysese, the study identified 118 items for a PYD measure, revealing six potential constructs, the Five Cs (Competence, Confidence, Character, Caring, and Connection), and a novel construct, Culture. The findings suggest that the positive development of Chinese American youth may differ from the conventional PYD model, emphasizing the importance of including Culture as a distinct construct. The research provides valuable insights into PYD among second-generation Chinese American youth, offering a theoretically and developmentally appropriate approach for assessing their positive development. The inclusion of Culture as a distinct construct expands the understanding of PYD within this population and underscores the need for nuanced considerations in future research and intervention efforts.

Children of immigrants are currently the fastest-growing population of children in the United States (US), accounting for nearly 26% of all children in the country (Migration Policy Institute, 2023). These children often reside in culturally diverse contexts shaped by historical and social changes, facing potential challenges like poverty, bicultural conflicts, and discrimination (Lerner et al., 2012; Mistry & Wu, 2010). However, these youth also possess the potential to thrive (Kagitcibasi, 2012; Motti-Stefanidi et al., 2012). Prior research on positive youth development (PYD) has yet sufficiently examined PYD among children of immigrants (Lerner et al., 2017). Moreover, research on the multidimensional nature of PYD is particularly scarce in Asian ethnic groups, where positive development is often narrowly defined by the “model minority myth” (Ishii-Kuntz et al., 2010; Kiang et al., 2016; Qin et al., 2008).

Asian Americans represent a highly heterogeneous ethnic group, comprising over 50 distinct ethnic groups, speaking more than 30 different languages (Sue et al., 1994). Scholars advocate for exploring variations associated with ethnic groups and generational status within the Asian American population (Kiang et al., 2016; Mistry et al., 2016; Yoshikawa et al., 2016). Researchers have shown a growing interest in studying specific ethnic groups, such as Chinese Americans and Filipino Americans, as well as differences across generations (Coll et al., 2012; Coll & Marks, 2012; Pew Research Center, 2013; Portes & Rumbaut, 2001). However, no research has yet explored the bases and processes of positive development for specific generations within a particular ethnic group of Asian Americans, such as “second generation” individuals (U.S.-born individuals with at least one foreign-born parent). Understanding the ethnic backgrounds and generational status of Asian American youth is crucial for understanding and promoting positive development in different historical and cultural settings. This study aimed to conduct a qualitative analysis to understand the elements and contents of PYD and create an item pool for subsequent quantitative analysis among second-generation Chinese American youth.

PYD Model

According to the widely used PYD model (Lerner et al., 2015), healthy development is characterized by the Five Cs: Competence, Confidence, Caring, Character and Connection. Competence refers to positive actions in specific domains, such as social, academic, cognitive, and vocational competences (Geldhof et al., 2014; Lerner et al., 2015). Confidence involves positive self-worth, self-efficacy, and global self-regard (Lerner et al., 2015), while Caring relates to empathy and sympathy (Lerner et al., 2015). Character encompasses adherence to societal and cultural rules, moral integrity, and respect (Lerner et al., 2015). Connection emphasizes positive bonds with others and institutions, reflecting bidirectional exchanges (Lerner et al., 2005).

Although initially developed for White participants, the Five Cs have been applied in various sociocultural settings with good psychometric properties (Erentaite & Raiziene, 2015; Gestsdóttir et al., 2017; Holsen et al., 2017; Tirrell et al., 2019). However, their applicability to bicultural groups such as second-generation Chinese American youth and other racial groups is uncertain. For these youth, specific competencies, such as emotional and social competence, may be crucial for coping with unique challenges, like discrimination and bicultural conflicts.

Understanding PYD Among Chinese American Youth: From a Cultural Perspective

Second-generation Chinese American youth live in culturally diverse contexts shaped by historical changes and family experiences, presenting distinct challenges and resources compared to other U.S.-based youth. Accordingly, their positive development may involve unique facets shaped by their experiences in diverse cultural backgrounds and connections with different groups. Western definitions of PYD may not fully encompass the attributes valued by Chinese culture. For instance, research in China highlights “Xin” (trustworthiness) and “Caring” (affection) as crucial character attributes for Chinese youth (Guo et al., 2017; Lin et al., 2017; Wen et al., 2015). Confucian virtues, including loyalty, filial piety, benevolence, trustworthiness, righteousness, harmony, peace, propriety, wisdom, integrity, shame, and diligence, may influence their academic performance, connections with others, and adaptation to varying contexts.

To understand PYD among second-generation Chinese American youth in their culturally diverse context, the concept of embodiment is relevant. Embodiment goes beyond physical structures and involves how events and environments are experienced, actively engaging with the sociocultural and physical world (Overton, 2006; Overton & Müller, 2013). The lived experience concept underscores the inseparability of culture and context in the developmental process and provides insights into how historical factors shape sociocultural contexts and positive development among second-generation Chinese American youth (Kiang et al., 2016; Mistry et al., 2016; Yoshikawa et al., 2016). Culture serves as the context of interpretive meaning-making processes, through which individuals selectively interpret, instantiate, or reject the shared ideologies and belief systems of their groups (Mistry et al., 2016). These perspectives guided the design and analysis processes of understanding PYD in different sociocultural contexts at different times.

The significance of identity and culture in shaping PYD has been recognized for youth from diverse racial/ethnic backgrounds (Astroth, 2017; Cabrera & Leyendecker, 2017; Leman et al., 2017; Smith et al., 2017). Although Culture has been introduced as a potential new dimension of PYD for racial-ethnic minority youth (Smith et al., 2017), its applicability to second-generation Chinese American youth remains uncertain. Previous research identifies various cultural aspects, like ethnic identity, discrimination experience, bicultural conflicts, and cultural values, as crucial for the development of Asian or Chinese American youth (e.g., Kiang & Fuligni, 2010; Kiang et al., 2016; Mistry et al., 2016; Mistry & Wu, 2010; Qin et al., 2008). Accordingly, it is hypothesized that PYD among second-generation Chinese American youth may be characterized with cultural aspects.

The Present Study

The present qualitative study aims to reexamine and redefine elements of PYD among second-generation Chinese American youth while creating an item pool for quantitative measures of PYD tailored to these youth. Semi-structured qualitative interviews were conducted with participants to gather information about their perceptions and experiences of positive development. Results were analyzed to identify themes and statements related to the Five Cs of PYD, as well as other emerging themes, to form the item pool for future quantitative research. The elements of PYD for second-generation Chinese American youth were anticipated to reflect both unique cultural/contextual experiences and commonalities with PYD as defined for other youth groups in previous studies.

Method

Participants and Procedures

Participants were 17 second-generation Chinese American youth (ages 12–18 years) in the Boston area. There were nine (52.94%) female youth (M _age = 15.33, SD = 2.18) and eight (47.06%) male youth (M _age = 13.75, SD = 2.05). Seven (41.18%) were high school students, and the rest (58.82%) were middle school students. All participants were from families with two Chinese immigrant parents. Our sample size met the minimum sample required for qualitative research (≥9 participants; Hennink & Kaiser, 2022).

Participants were primarily recruited from Chinese immigrant families in the Boston area via flyers and newsletters delivered by non-profit organizations in the Chinese immigrant community. Criteria for participation were: (a) US-born youth who are 12–18 years old; (b) have at least one Chinese immigrant parents (was born in China); and (c) are living in the US. Parents/guardians of eligible youth were invited to complete consent and permission forms for their children’s participation in the interview. As soon as parents/guardians completed the forms, they were contacted to schedule a time to do in-person key informant interviews with their children.

Each youth participant was asked to sign an assent form before they started the interview. During the interview, participants were asked questions about their lives and experiences. All interview was audio recorded. The length of the interviews ranged from 16 to 55 min (M = 26.06, SD = 9.38). Each participant received a $20 gift card as incentives. We believed that the study has reached data saturation because less than 5% new information threshold was confirmed with three interviews as base size and four as run length after all interviews completed (Guest et al., 2020). The interviews were transcribed using a U.S.-based interview transcription service. This study was approved by the Tufts University Institutional Review Board (IRB).

Research Material

A semi-structured interview protocol was designed under the supervision of two PYD scientists. Interviews asked youth about their experiences regarding their relationships with other people and with their contexts, how they responded to changes (e.g., experiencing problems/difficulties) in their contexts, and what ecological assets they identified in their various contexts. Questions also asked youth for their perspectives regarding which assets were most beneficial to their development. These questions also covered several aspects of development (e.g., ethnic identity and cultural values) through which positive developmental elements (e.g., competence: coping with discrimination and conflicts) may be raised. The interview protocol (see Appendix) was pilot-tested with a youth who consented to participate in this study. No change was made to the questions, and the pilot interview was included in the analyses.

Data Analysis

Data Analysis.

Both deductive (“top-down”) and inductive (“bottom-up”) approaches (Richards & Morse, 2007; Saldaña, 2015) were utilized throughout the analysis process to create an item pool for measure development. The process consisted of five steps: initial coding based on three richest transcripts, revision based on the auditor’s feedback for the initial coding, coding for all transcripts, addressing coder-auditor disagreements, and rephrasing statements to generate a PYD item pool.

First, the first author created a codebook with themes (Cs) and codes (subconstructs of Cs) based on both deductive and inductive coding of the three richest interviews. New themes and codes were introduced for statements that did not fit the existing Five Cs framework. Second, the auditor provided feedback on the initial coding, and the first author refined the codebook based on their discussions. Third, using the refined codebook as a guide, the first author conducted qualitative coding for all remaining interview transcripts. Fourth, the auditor reviewed all codes from the interviews and discussed feedback with the first author. Further, the first author rephrased statements during coding to ensure clarity and completeness, making them suitable for further examination and validation as items in PYD measures. Finally, under the auditor’s supervision, the first author rephrased and simplified statements that were too lengthy or ambiguous, and these revised statements were included as items in the revised PYD measure. Analytic memos were maintained throughout the research process and were discussed with the auditor. The second author reviewed the coding and the themes afterwards.

Authors’ Positionality.

Both authors of this study were born in China and have experience living in in Chinese culture. The primary coder (the first author) is the mother of two second-generation Chinese American children and possesses a research background in PYD and Chinese American studies. The second author had experiences in qualitative analysis and have worked with Chinese American population across different age groups. Authors engaged in the reflexivity processes during the qualitative analyses, allowing them to manage their perspectives and stay close to the data during the analysis (Morrow, 2005).

Rigor.

Rigor was pursued by closely engaging with the participants, involving an auditor (a qualitative expert in PYD and immigrant youth development), and presenting transparent and detailed analytical procedures for every step. First, the first author’s eight-year active research and community engagement in the Chinese community in the U.S. contributed to a deeper understanding of PYD in the studied youth group and informed the analysis of their interviews. Second, an auditor was engaged in the qualitative analysis and results presentation process. The auditor’s involvement helped minimize bias, ensure transparent and detailed presentation of results, and enhance the reliability and repeatability of the analysis (Morrow, 2005). Finally, to minimize the influence of the authors’ experiences on the interview analysis, the authors also integrated theories, empirical research findings about Chinese American youth development, and feedback from parents and practitioners at community organizations during the coding process, especially when new themes or codes emerged.

Results

Creating Initial Codes Based on Three Richest Interviews

There were 76 potential items extracted from three richest interviews. The auditor and the first author discussed modifications to the items, such as revising rephrased statements. The auditor identified 13 new items from statements that involved multiple meanings. For example, based on the statement “I can see that my parents were really happy about it and like seeing them being happy like makes me really, really happy and I want to continue like doing well in education,” the first author extracted one item “Seeing my parents happy makes me happy” whereas the auditor identified an extra item “I do well in school to make my parents proud.” In addition, the auditor identified grammatical errors in five extracted items (6.58%). In general, the auditor agreed with 82.89% of the 76 items extracted from the three interviews.

After consulting with the auditor, the first author established specific criteria for extracting statements from the remaining 14 interviews and creating additional items. These criteria were as follows: (a) Positive statements were identified based on interviewees’ complete responses to specific questions rather than individual sentences within their responses; (b) If a statement reflected multiple positive attributes, it was rephrased into multiple items to ensure each item represented only one positive attribute; and (c) Rephrased statements were made to be simple, clear, and complete sentences. These criteria were applied to maintain clarity and accuracy in the process of item creation.

Creating Item Pool for Measures of PYD

Using the criteria developed based on initial coding, the first author identified a total of 682 positive statements from all 17 interviews. Under the auditor’s supervision, each statement was rephrased into simple, clear, and complete items and assigned unique IDs based on the extraction order. These items constituted the initial item pool, which was organized in an Excel sheet with participant and item IDs to track prominence within and across participants. To refine the item pool for PYD measures, the first author implemented seven steps to improve the extracted items.

Step 1. Merging Duplicate Items Within and Across Interviews.

The first author reviewed the original item pool and identified items with shared or similar meanings. Under the auditor’s supervision, duplicates were merged based on their alignment with predefined constructs of the Five Cs model (Lerner et al., 2015). Additionally, items not associated with the Five Cs but important for understanding positive development, either due to their recurrence in the data (Buetow, 2010) or relevance to existing literature on Chinese American youth development, were combined into a new theme or code, such as “Culture,” with sub-codes like “positive attitudes towards diversity,” and “cultural pride.” Some items received multiple codes if linked to multiple attributes (see Table A1 for all codes). The first author then re-ordered the items based on the codes to group all items corresponding to the same code. The analysis involved examining the meaning of each item coded with the same label to decide which ones to retain and to identify and merge redundant items. Several criteria were followed for this process, considering the recurrence or infrequency of certain items in the interviews:

1. Items that were recurrent in the interviews and had unique meanings were directly retained in the item pool. None of the items appeared only once.

2. If two or more items had similar meanings and were highly recurrent (e.g., extracted at least five times from at least one interview), both items were kept in the item pool. A cutoff of five extractions was chosen to ensure within-group variation in the eventual survey.

3. When similar items had varying extraction frequencies (e.g., one item was extracted more than five times across interviews, while the other was attracted four or fewer times), the item with more than five extractions was retained.

4. The first author marked items with multiple extractions but limited prominence across the entire sample in a coding memo for future analyses and potential revisions to the PYD measure.

5. A separate memo recorded items not prominent within or across participants but highly relevant to PYD. Although extracted once from one participant, these theoretically associated items were included in the survey for expert raters, resulting in an item pool of 11 such items.

The above criteria were approved by the auditor and two senior PYD scientists. Based on these criteria, the first author merged redundant items within and across interviews, resulting in 56 items remained in the item pool.

In the final merging step, the first author referred to the PYD-SF, a well-verified short version of the PYD measure, to rephrase some items in the pool. Items that closely matched those in the PYD-SF were adapted to reflect the exact language used in the PYD-SF. For example, the first author replaced an extracted item “I am really good at class work” with an original PYD-SF item “I do very well at class work in school” because these two items shared similar meaning about academic competence. However, items that represented similar positive aspects but differed slightly in meaning from the PYD-SF were kept without modification. For instance, extracted items about athletic skills (e.g., “I am good at sports” and “I am athletic”) were kept in the item pool although they shared similar meaning with items in the PYD-SF (“I am better than others my age at sports” and “I could do well at just about any new physical or athletic activity”), because they might potentially reflect differences between Chinese American and Western youth in confidence in athletic skills. After these adjustments, the item pool contained 156 items.

Step 2. Checking Readability.

To ensure these items would be readable to the youngest participants (12 years old; about 6–7th grades) in subsequent phases of this study, the first author used the online version of the Hemingway Editor. Considering that there might be students with learning disabilities, the first author decided to use Grade 5 or lower as the readability of these items. The overall readability of all items was Grade 3. The readability of every item was also checked and results indicated that the readability of 43 items (27.56%) was higher than Grade 5. The first author rephrased 43 items (27.56%) that are with a readablity higher than Grade 5 by shortening the sentences and/or replacing difficult words with simpler ones to to ensure that the readability is Grade 5 or lower.

Step 3. Finalizing Extracted Items.

The auditor and a PYD scientist provided feedback for the modified items. They identified five (3.21%) double-barrelled items (e.g., “My teachers are nice and supportive”), seven (4.49%) unclear items, five (3.21%) items that may have needed to be reverse coded (e.g., “I have not seen other people in trouble because of their race or ethnicity”), and two (1.28%) items that may not be indicators of PYD (e.g., “Race is not important for me when I make friends”). The first author revised these items by: (a) Breaking each double-barrelled item into two items so that every individual item only involved one concept (three extracted items were merged with another three items because of duplication); (b) Rephrasing unclear items to clarify them further; (c) Reverse coding items that involved a negative valence; and (d) Removing items that may not be indicators of PYD. The first author asked two graduate students to proofread the changes she made. After making changes (primarily about wording) based on their feedback, the item pool still involved 156 items (See Table A1).

Step 4. Evaluating the Theoretical Suitability of EXTRACTED ITems: Findings From Expert Raters.

To evaluate the theoretical suitability of the items the first author extracted, an online survey of expert raters was conducted with eight PYD scholars invited to serve as expert raters for these items and to evaluate whether the items were appropriate to be used to assess PYD among second-generation Chinese American youth.

These expert raters were asked to rate the extent to which each item was theoretically suitable to be used to assess positive development among second-generation Chinese American youth (1 = not at all suitable to 5 = extremely suitable). The expert raters were also asked to report their ethnic identity (i.e., Chinese, Chinese American, Asian, American, other) and how much they understood Chinese, American, and Chinese American cultures, respectively (1 = not at all, 2 = fair, 3 = well, and 4 = very well).

Among the expert raters, one self-identified as Chinese, two self-identified as Chinese Americans, four self-identified as Americans, and one self-identified as another ethnicity. The average ratings of their understanding of Chinese culture, American culture, and Chinese American culture were 2.25 (SD = 1.05), 3.38 (SD = 0.92), and 2.13 (SD = 0.99), respectively. The range of experts’ averaged ratings on all items was between 2.50 to 4.86 (SD ranging from 0.38 to 1.64). Items with an average rating equal to or higher than 4 were considered suitable to be items in the PYD measure. After dropping 61 items (average ratings < 4), the item pool contained 93 items.

Step 5. Empirically Evaluating the Readability of Remaining Items: Findings From Youth Raters.

Two youth (one was 12 years old, and the other was 15 years old) were invited to help evaluate if they could understand the remaining items (1 = very difficult to understand to 5 = very easy to understand). The average ratings of the two raters on each item were between 4.00 and 5.00, suggesting that all these items were understandable to these youth.

Step 6. Identifying Potential Constructs of PYD for Remaining Items.

Before conducting a final merging of items with the PYD-SF, the first author reexamined the codes she assigned to each item to evaluate their theoretical associations with potential PYD constructs, especially with the new potential construct, Culture. The reexamination included two parts: (a) Reviewing and revising the codes (i.e., attributes) identified as corresponding to each item; and (b) Conceptualizing a potential sixth C of Culture from the coded data.

First, the first author reviewed and revised the codes assigned to each item under the supervision of the auditor. The auditor agreed with 87.50% of all codes that the first author assigned to these items. Disagreements were primarily about items that could arguably fit well with two or more potential codes (i.e., attributes) and the conceptual relevancy of items to PYD. Disagreements were discussed between the first author and the auditor until they reached 100% agreement. Through these discussions, one item (i.e., “I am fair to people from different races and cultures.”) was recoded and two items were deleted. For example, the auditor disagreed with my application of one of the two codes (“Character- righteousness”) that the first author gave to the item “I am fair to people from different races and cultures.” The auditor thought “Character - tolerance” might be a more accurate way of coding this statement that was still in keeping with the PYD framework. Additionally, (e.g., “I want to have success in the future” and “I want to have a good life in the future”).

Second, the auditor and the first author discussed the conceptualization of statements that were not associated with any of the Five Cs but were temporarily coded as components of Culture (e.g., Culture – cultural pride). The auditor suggested that several coded statements seemed to reflect the ethnic identity literature (e.g., “Being bilingual is helpful to my life.” and “I feel proud as a member of my cultural group.”) more than the PYD framework. They discussed the specific statements and codes and came to an agreement about all statements. For example, they discussed: (a) How descriptions from participants about their positive attitudes towards their ethnic group, bilingualism, and cultural diversity related to previous research on ethnic identity; and (b) Whether these codes could simultaneously be indicators of ethnic identity and aspects of PYD for these youth. Through these discussions, they agreed to extend the application of the code of “Culture – cultural pride” to items associated with positive attitudes towards various aspects of their ethnic group. They determined that it was important to continue to account for these attributes in the assessment of PYD in participants.

The auditor and the first author also agreed that the overarching code of Culture (not only Culture-cultural pride) may be an important part of assessing PYD in Chinese American youth. Indeed, according to literature about the development of Asian and Chinese Americans (e.g., Lee et al., 2016; Mistry et al., 2016; Mistry & Wu, 2010; Okazaki et al., 2007) and discussions about PYD in diverse sociocultural contexts (Motti-Stefanidi et al., 2012; Petersen et al., 2017), Culture is an important component in the PYD of Chinese American youth.

Thus, the first author used a new C, Culture, for all codes and corresponding statements that were not defined in the Five Cs model but appeared to relate to the cultural background of Chinese American participants. The first author defined the Culture construct in PYD as a sense of ethnic belonging and pride, positive ethnic behaviors and practices, and positive experience of being in a culturally diverse context. In total, two sub-codes and 18 statements that were temporarily coded as Culture were confirmed to be indicators of the main code of Culture.

After ensuring that all items corresponded to one of the Six Cs, the first author analyzed the frequency of each code (positive attribute) identified among the 93 remaining items. Results (see Table 1) showed that 29 codes (e.g., Competence-social competence, Character-diligence, Connection-family, Culture-cultural pride) repeatedly appeared in the interviews and each of these codes referred to a positive attribute that was identified to be related to the PYD of second-generation Chinese American youth. For items that were associated with two codes, the first author determined the primary and the secondary code based on the literature and feedback from the auditor. For example, the coder used “Culture-positive attitudes towards diversity” as the primary code and “Character-tolerance” as the secondary code for the item “I am fair to people from different races and cultures” because this item was more associated with Culture. The first author then matched the codes with one of six constructs (e.g., Competence, Confidence, Character, Caring, Connection, and Culture). These codes became the potential sub-constructs of these six superordinate constructs. After matching items, codes, and constructs, each item was linked to corresponding sub-constructs and constructs. Items that were grouped into the sub-constructs of any of the six constructs were viewed as potential indicators of the construct.

Table 1.

A Summary of Positive Attributes and Constructs Identified Among Remaining Items (# of Items).

Sub-constructs\Constructs	CARI	CHAR	COMP	CONF	CONN	CULT
Caring	4
Character-conduct behavior		2
Character-diligence		4
Character-righteousness		2
Character-social conscience		1
Character-cheerfulness		1
Character-curiosity		1
Character-helpfulness		4
Character-honesty		1
Character-independence		1
Character-leadership		1
Character-open-mindedness		1
Character-optimism		2
Character-resilience		1
Character-tolerance		2
Competence-academic			3
Competence-pursuing a good future			6
Competence-problem solving			4
Competence-social competence			6
Confidence-future				2
Confidence-identity				2
Confidence-self-worth				3
Connection-community					3
Connection-family					10
Connection-peers					10
Connection-others					3
Connection-school and teachers					6
Culture- positive attitudes towards diversity						9
Culture- cultural pride						9

Note: CARI = Caring; Char = Character; COMP = Competence; CONF = Confidence; COON = Connection; CULT = Culture. Six items associated with dual or multiple codes were counted.

Summary

Through qualitative analyses, the authors created a PYD item pool (See Table A2) comprising of 93 items that may be theoretically appropriate and developmental suitable to assess the PYD of second-generation Chinese American youth in quantitative research. These items were identified to be associated with six potential constructs of PYD, including Competence (17 items), Confidence (seven items), Caring (four items), Character (23 items), Connection (30 items), and Culture (17 items; newly identified). Among these items, six of them corresponded to more than one construct whereas other items were only linked to one construct. Subconstructs are presented in Table 1.

Discussion

The present qualitative study aimed to extract information about positive development and to create items for a PYD measure to be evaluated in future quantitative studies. Through both inductive and deductive analyses of 17 qualitative interviews from second-generation Chinese American youth and rigorous procedures of investigation and evaluation, 93 items associated with six PYD constructs (Competence, Confidence, Caring, Character, Connection, and Culture) were developed. Among extracted items that were identified as theoretically appropriate, most items were associated with the Five Cs that had been defined in the PYD model (Lerner et al., 2005), 18 items were not closely associated with the definitions of the Five Cs but reflected positive views, perceptions, and behaviors about cultural diversity and ethnic groups, such as cultural pride and positive attitudes towards diversity. These items might be associated with culture-relevant components of development (e.g., diversity, ethnic identity, and ethnic behaviors and practices) that have been discussed in the literature (e.g., Phinney, 1992). As such, they were coded as indicators of another PYD construct, Culture (defined as a sense of ethnic belonging and pride, positive ethnic behaviors and practices, and positive attitudes and experience of being in a culturally diverse context).

Second-generation Chinese American youth are likely to navigate between Chinese culture and other cultures in the U.S. (Motti-Stefanidi et al., 2012). Some of them may experience different challenges (e.g., race-related discrimination or bias) and resources (e.g., culture values) that influence their positive development within such contexts. Therefore, they may need to develop culture-related attributes (e.g., cultural pride and positive attitudes towards diversity) in order to successfully adapt to the culturally diverse context and therefore be exposed to ecological assets that build on their culture in unique ways. This PYD measure may allow for the relations between cultural challenges or assets and culture-related attributes to be assessed empirically. However, further quantitative research using this measure is needed to examine if Culture is indeed a PYD construct distinct from the Five Cs or whether it is embedded in the Five Cs. Moreover, quantitative research is needed to provide psychometric support (e.g., the presence of a predicted factorial structure) for the use of this measure with second-generation Chinese American youth. Moreover, further triangulated analysis of both qualitative and quantitative analyses may provide insights about the definitions and components of PYD and of each C, including the relationships between Culture and the Five Cs as well as the boundaries between culture-relevant components (e.g., cultural pride) and other components within or across constructs.

Additionally, although the Five Cs were all identified among second-generation Chinese American youth, the meaning and the content of these constructs were slightly different from those identified in research with youth from western countries. For example, whereas academic, physical, and social competence tended to be important for the PYD of youth from western (Geldhof et al., 2014), academic and social competence, problem solving, and competency of achieving future goals, seemed to be the most important components of Competence for second-generation Chinese American youth based on the interviews and statements extracted from those interviews. The construct of Character also reflected some potentially unique cultural characteristics. For example, several character attributes echoed some Confucian virtues such as righteousness (“yi”), diligence (“qin”), and trustworthiness/honesty (“xin”). The present analyses also identified Character attributes that have been identified in PYD research among youth from western countries, including helpfulness, cheerfulness, social conscience, and conduct behavior (Geldhof et al., 2014; Wang et al., 2015) and, as well, other virtues that are important for these youth, such as leadership, curiosity, open-mindedness, optimism, resilience, and independence. In addition to positive bonding to people (e.g., peers and teachers) and contexts (e.g., family, school, and community) that have been assessed in previous PYD research (Geldhof et al., 2014), Connection here included positive bonding to role models and others. Being confident about their future emerged to be a new aspect of Confidence for the youth in this study. The construct of Caring was operationalized similarly to that in previous PYD research among other Western youth. These results support Lerner et al.’s (2017) view that the definitions and components of PYD may need to reflect the unique characteristics of specific cultures and contexts. Although several PYD measures (e.g., PYD-SF; Geldhof et al., 2014) associated with the Five Cs model (Lerner et al., 2015) have been validated among youth from different sociocultural contexts (e.g., Conway et al., 2015; Guo & Lin, 2016), culture- or context-relevant components (e.g., character attributes valued by the culture or the context) have rarely been included in research about the conceptualization and assessment of the Five Cs for youth living in cultural settings that are different from western cultures. More research is needed to reexamine and reevaluate the factorial structure and the content of each C for second-generation Chinese American youth.

Limitations

The present study has several limitations. First, similar to other qualitative studies, the small sample size did not allow for the exploration of differences across subgroups of Chinese American youth (e.g., gender, age groups, and social class), limiting enable the generalization of the findings to all second-generation Chinese American youth in the U.S. Future research may be needed to examine if these items are equally applicable to different subgroups. Second, although a qualitative expert served as the auditor of the analyses and results presentation, the auditor only supervised the analysis process and my interpretations of the analysis. Although the authors followed several criteria to achieve rigor in the analyses and results presentation, the coding process may still be affected by some bias relevant to the authors’ backgrounds and experiences (e.g., ethnicity-related challenges) and/or research hypotheses. Third, given that the analysis primarily focused on extracting information and creating items to be used in a PYD measure, no in-depth analysis of these interviews was conducted. There might be a lack of contextual information in the coding process. Future in-depth analyses are needed to explore the basis of PYD among these youth, how it might develop, and to potentially ascertain other important aspects of their development. Finally, the expert ratings were primarily from PYD experts and Asian scholars who might have different levels of understanding about Chinese culture, American culture, and Chinese American culture. Their ratings might show a higher level of validity if experts on culture were also included and the ratings across research fields (PYD research, Asian studies, and Culture research) were compared.

Implications

The study conducted a rigorous analysis of qualitative interviews generated a set of items that may be theoretically and developmentally suitable for assessing PYD among second-generation Chinese American youth. These items will be included in a PYD measure to be quantitatively evaluated and evaluated in future research. For example, Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) and Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) can be used in quantitative studies with larger samples to ensure these items have good reliability and validity. Our approach may be applied to future research aiming to extract items for the creation of PYD measures for youth from other cultural contexts. Further, the initial identification and analysis of positive attributes among second-generation Chinese American youth, may facilitate further in-depth qualitative analyses in regard to the conceptualization and definition of PYD among these youth. For example, in-depth qualitative analysis based on these data can be conducted to deepen the understanding of PYD constructs and subconstructs by extracting statement quotes. In addition, this study also provided evidence that may inform future modifications of PYD framework for youth living in culturally diverse settings, specifically in regard to the discussions about the PYD structure and content of each C. Qualitative findings confirmed the hypothesis that the PYD of these youth may need to be operationalized in ways that differ from those of youth from western countries. They can provide important insights advancing the understanding of the positive development of these youth, particularly regarding the role of Culture in youth’s positive development.

Biographies

Dr. Shaobing Su is an assistant professor at the Department of Psychiatry and Behaviral Sciences of UMass Chan Medical School. Her research focuses on mental health and positive development in children and families, particularly those affected by immigration and family separation in diverse sociocultural contexts.

Dr. Xihan Yang is a postdoctoral fellow at the Department of Psychiatry and Behaviral Sciences of UMass Chan Medical School. Her research intends to investigate how cultural contexts shape the experiences and needs of neurodiverse children and adolescents in underserved family, especially autistic children.

Appendix

Interview Protocol

Interviewer:

I’m going to ask you some questions about your life and your school. There are no right or wrong answers; I just want to hear about your experience. If you do not understand a question, just tell me and we can move on to the next one. You can also skip any questions that you do not feel comfortable answering. Please do not say your name or any other identification information during the interview. Remember that everything you tell me will be kept private. This means I won’t share what you say with anyone. We are going to start now. Are you ready?

1. How are you doing today? How old are you?

2. Can you describe yourself in a few sentences or words?

3. What would you do when you find other people or your friends are in trouble (e.g., being bullied, being hurt or upset, or being taking advantaged of)? Can you give me an example?

4. How do you generally behave with your parents/teachers/friends/other adults? Can you give me examples?

5. What are your future goals? /What do you want to do when you grow up? Are you confident with achieving these goals? How hard do you work to help you reach these goals now?

6. How many friends do you have? What do you usually do with friends? How do you feel being with friends?

7. Do you have any problems/difficulties in your life? If so, how do you think about these difficulties? Do you have any successful experience in solving problems/difficulties? Can you give me an example? What do you usually do when you feel upset?

8. Do you think you are able to tell right from wrong? Do you know what you should do and what you should not do? How did you learn about this?

9. Can you describe your parents? How do you feel about your relationship with your parents?

10. How is your relationship with teachers? Who is your favorite teacher? Can you briefly describe him/her?

11. How is your relationship with other adults, like your relatives, your mentor, or your coach?

12. How many Chinese American friends do you have? How do you like them?

13. In your view, what is a successful and happy youth like? Can you describe this person?

14. Do you have friends of other races or ethnicities? How many? Do you like them?

15. Which group of friends do you find more comfortable being with, Asian Americans or friends of other races or ethnicities? Why?

16. What languages do you usually speak? How do you feel about being able to speak Chinese? Is being bilingual helpful to your life?

17. How do you feel about your ethnicity? Do you feel more like an American or a Chinese?

18. Have you encountered any challenge because of your race or ethnicity? What challenges have you had? How do you feel about these challenges? How did you deal with such challenges? Did you receive any support from other people or organizations? If so, who are they? How are they helpful in these situations?

19. What do you think are the important things in your life, family, school, community, or other things?

20. How do you like your school?

21. Do you participate in any out-of-school-time programs? If yes, how do you like it/them?

22. Can you describe the community where you are living? How do you like living in your community?

23. What is your religious preference? How often do you attend religious service?

24. Have you had any chance to learn about traditional Chinese culture? If yes, how did you Learn this information? Do you find it helpful? Why?

25. Is there anything else we haven’t talked about that you would like to say about yourself? Do you have any questions for me?

Table A1.

Codes Identified from Interviews.

Codes	Sub-codes	Example items
Caring	Caring-peers Caring-other people Caring-family	I care about my friends. I feel sorry for people who are treated badly. I am concerned when my parents stress out.
Character	Character-filial piety Character-personal values Character-future hopefulness Character-gratitude Character- diligence Character-helpfulness Character-honesty Character-humor Character-independence Character-Cheerfulness Character- righteousness Character-kindness Character-leadership Character- conduct behavior Character-obedience Character-optimism Character-outgoing Character- social conscience Character-popularity Character-resilience Character-open-mindedness Character-curiosity	Seeing my parents happy makes me happy. Stress helps me grow to be a better person. I feel great about my future because I know I will have a lot of career options. I am thankful for having things that other people do not have. I work hard in school. I help my friends when they are in trouble or upset. I am honest. I have a sense of humor. I am able to take care of my own needs. I am happy most of the time. I stand up for my friends or myself when people treat us badly. I am nice to everyone. I have been a leader of some programs (e.g., club). I hardly ever do things I know I shouldn’t do. I obey my parents because they know more than me in dealing with many issues. I feel that I will succeed if I continue to work hard. I am outgoing. I would like there to be peace in the world. People usually like me. I still have a good life, no matter how people treat me. I am open to different ideas and new things. I like trying new things.
Competence	Competence-academic Competence-creativity Competence- language Competence-cognitive competence Competence-emotional competence Competence-future goals Competence-problem solving Competence-social competence Competence-sports Competence-time management	I do very well in my class work at school. I am creative. I can speak at least two languages. I can deal with different problems. I can deal with a bad mood or troubles on my own. I think about my goals for the future. I can deal with different problems. I have a lot of friends. I play sports. I use my time well.
Confidence	Confidence-self-worth Confidence-identity Confidence-future	I feel good about myself. I am doing well. I will be able to get whatever job I want.
Connection	Connection-Community Connection-education Connection-family Connection-peers Connection-others Connection-programs Connection-school and teachers	I feel comfortable in the town that I live in. I have had a good education. I feel very close with my family (e.g., parents and siblings). My friends and I support each other in many things (e.g., school work, difficulties). When I need help, there are always other people to help me. I take part in some out-of-school-time programs (e.g., Chinese school, sports, music) to learn different things. I feel comfortable at school.
Culture	Culture-positive ethnic identity Culture-positive attitudes towards diversity	I feel proud as a member of my cultural group. I like being a part of a society that includes people from diverse races and cultures.

Table A2.

Extracted Items Remaining in the Final Item Pool (93 items).

Item #	Items	Primary code	Second code
4	Being bilingual is helpful to my life.	Culture-cultural pride
6	I care about my friends.	Caring
8	I care about other people.	Caring
9	I feel sorry for people who are treated badly.	Caring
14	I like trying new things.	Character-curiosity
15	I am fair to people from different races and cultures.	Culture- positive attitudes towards diversity	Character- tolerance
19	I am happy most of the time.	Character-cheerfulness
20	I help my friends when they are in trouble or upset.	Character-helpfulness
21	I am helpful to other people.	Character-helpfulness
22	I help my family when I see there is a need.	Character-helpfulness
23	I am an important person in the institutions or programs I take part in.	Connection-community
24	I would like to help the community with my own effort.	Character-helpfulness
25	I am honest.	Character-honesty
26	I make my friends happy and proud.	Connection-peers
28	I am able to take care of my own needs.	Character-independence
29	I stand up for my friends or myself when people treat us badly.	Character- righteousness
31	I have been a leader of some programs (e.g., club).	Character-leadership
32	I make good decisions about who to be friends with.	Competence-social competence
36	I always make sure that I am getting along with my friends.	Competence-social competence
37	I am prepared for future stress (e.g., school problems).	Competence-problem solving	Confidence-future
39	Stress helps me grow to be a better person.	Character-resilience and optimism
40	I hardly ever do things I know I shouldn’t do.	Character- conduct behavior
41	People usually like me.	Competence-social competence
42	I can deal with different problems.	Competence-problem solving
43	I do very well in my class work at school.	Competence-academic
46	I am good at solving problems.	Competence-problem solving
48	I am open to different ideas and new things.	Character-open-mindedness
51	I do well in more than one area (e.g., school work, sports) of my life.	Competence-general
52	I find ways to deal with problems most of the time.	Competence-problem solving
53	I am pretty smart.	Competence-academic
54	I get along well with people who are different from me.	Culture- positive attitudes towards diversity	Character-tolerance
55	I treat people the way I want to be treated.	Competence-social competence	Character- conduct behavior
56	I seek help from other people when I need it.	Competence-social competence
57	I know how to get good support to solve different problems in my life.	Competence-social competence
59	I feel good about myself.	Confidence-self-worth
60	I am successful.	Confidence-Identity
61	I feel that I will succeed if I continue to work hard.	Character-optimism	Confidence-future
62	I am happy the way I am.	Confidence-self-worth
66	I feel I will make my future goals come true.	Confidence-future
68	I am doing well.	Confidence-identity
69	I feel I can do well in life.	Confidence-self-worth
70	I feel comfortable in the town that I live in.	Connection-community
71	People in my town treat my family and me well.	Connection-community
72	I feel very close with my family (e.g., parents and siblings).	Connection-family
73	My parents do everything they can to support me.	Connection-family
74	I get help from my family when I need it.	Connection-family
76	My family is important to me.	Connection-family
77	I like my family.	Connection-family
78	My parents respect my wishes most of the time.	Connection-family
80	I have good communication with my parents.	Connection-family
81	My family is nice.	Connection-family
82	I am thankful that my parents have been trying to guide me.	Connection-family
84	I enjoy being with my friends.	Connection-peers
85	Most of my friends care about me.	Connection-peers
86	I have close friends who share some common things (e.g., interests, values, and goals) with me.	Connection-peers
87	My friends are really nice.	Connection-peers
88	My friends are important to me.	Connection-peers
89	I hang out with friends who are good people.	Connection-peers
90	My friends and I support each other in many things (e.g., school work, difficulties).	Connection-peers
93	I learn many things from friends from my race or culture.	Connection-peers
96	Some places (e.g., church, language school) of my culture give me support.	Culture-cultural pride
97	I learn many good things (e.g., character, behavior) from my role models.	Connection-others
101	When I need help, there are always other people to help me.	Connection-others
102	People from other races or cultures treat me well.	Culture-Positive attitudes towards diversity	Connection-others
105	I like my school.	Connection-school and teachers
106	I learn a lot of good things at school.	Connection- school and teachers
107	I feel comfortable at school.	Connection- school and teachers
108	My teachers are helpful to me.	Connection- school and teachers
109	My teachers are nice.	Connection- school and teachers
110	My teachers are supportive.	Connection- school and teachers
115	I feel good about my ethnic identity.	Culture-cultural pride
116	Learning about Chinese culture is helpful to me.	Culture-cultural pride
117	A diverse society is good for me.	Culture- positive attitudes towards diversity
118	I like Chinese culture.	Culture-cultural pride
119	I like being a part of a society that includes people from diverse races and cultures.	Culture- positive attitudes towards diversity
120	I feel good being connected to different cultures.	Culture- positive attitudes towards diversity
121	I get along with people from different races and cultures.	Culture- positive attitudes towards diversity
123	I am comfortable being in both US and Chinese cultures.	Culture-cultural pride
124	My strong cultural values help me to succeed in life.	Culture-cultural pride
125	I understand and accept other cultures in the U.S.	Culture-cultural pride
126	I feel proud as a member of my cultural group.	Culture-cultural pride
129	When I see other people being treated badly, I feel sorry for them.	Caring
133	I know how to deal with racial bias.	Culture- positive attitudes towards diversity
134	I think about my goals for the future.	Competence-achieving future goals
135	I am working towards my future goals now.	Character- diligence
142	I want to make the world a better place to live.	Character- social conscience
138	I want to have success in the future.	Competence-future goals
140	I want to be a person who can influence others in a positive way.	Character-conduct behavior
143	I can make good choices about my future.	Competence-achieving future goals
146	I am enjoying my life while I work hard for my future goals.	Competence-achieving future goals
147	I work hard in school.	Character- diligence
148	I value hard work.	Character- diligence
150	I work hard even in areas that I am not good at.	Character- diligence

Those are all of my questions. Thank you so much for speaking with me today!

Data Availability Statement

Data available per requests to the authors.