3/12/14 Student Engagement and Risk Taking Behavior
Imad Zaheer, M.Ed
Lee Kern, Ph.D
Lehigh University
NASP 2014
Main Ideas
¤  Youth with emotional/behavioral problems have
significant mental health concerns that can lead to risktaking behaviors
¤  Student engagement has been shown to be promising
area for addressing risk taking behavior
¤  New concepts and measures of student engagement
provide better ways to address risk-taking behavior and
general mental health in school settings
1 3/12/14 Youth with Emotional/Behavioral Problems
¤  Prevalence and Short-term Outcomes
¤  Approximately 1 in 5 youth have a diagnosable mental health
problem
¤  More than 1 in 10 school-age youth experience serious
emotional/behavioral problems significant enough to impair
functioning in home, family, or school contexts
¤  Youth with emotional/behavioral problems are at an
increased risk for school withdrawal and school failure
¤  Learning difficulties, poor social relations, comorbid problems
¤  Academic problems, failure, and school dropout
¤  Poor transition to continued education or employment
Davis, Young, Hardman, & Winters, 2011; Merinkangas et al., 2010
Risk Taking Behavior
¤  Risk taking behavior is common and developmentally
appropriate among adolescents
¤  In certain context, it can be a positive milestone in
development
¤  For example, increase risk taking in classrooms by
answering questions
¤  However, risk taking behavior can also negatively impact
students
¤  Compared to adults, adolescents minimize the perceived
risk of health-threatening activities (Cohn et al., 1995)
2 3/12/14 Risk Taking Behavior
¤  Adolescents in particular engage in numerous unhealthy
risk behaviors including (Farrington, 2009; Piguero, Farrington, & Blumstein,
2003)
¤  Reckless driving
¤  Drug use
¤  Risky Sexual behavior
¤  Criminal activity
¤  Males are generally more likely than females to engage
in risk-taking behaviors (Brynes, Miller & Schafer, 1999)
Student engagement and Risky
behavior
¤  Student engagement in schools has been linked to
numerous positive outcomes (Borofsky et al., 2013; Wang & Peck,
2013)
¤  These include:
¤  Academic
¤  School functioning
¤  Mental Health
¤  Community/home functioning
¤  Student engagement has also been shown to be a
protective factor against risky taking behavior (Chapman,
2011; Klein, Cornell, & Konold, 2012)
3 3/12/14 Types of Student Engagement
¤  Traditionally, engagement has been described as having
two components of behavioral and affective
engagement (Finn, 1989)
¤  Others have conceptualized engagement as having
three components (Fredericks et al, 2004; Jimerson et al., 2003)
¤  Behavioral (conduct, effort)
¤  Cognitive (learning goals)
¤  Emotional or affective (attitudes towards learning)
New Conceptualization of Student
Engagement
¤  More recently, Appleton and colleagues (2006) have
proposed a new, four part definition of engagement
¤  Academic
¤  Behavioral
¤  Cognitive
¤  Psychological
4 3/12/14 New Conceptualization of Student
Engagement
¤  Cognitive and psychological engagement have not been
as widely studied as academic and behavioral
engagement(Appleton et al., 2006)
¤  Largely due to the ease of assessing behavioral and academic
outcomes compared to cognitive/psychological
¤  “Student Engagement Instrument” (SEI) was specifically
designed to address cognitive and psychological
engagement
¤  Fills the need for reliable and easy method for assessment
purposes
¤  Subsets of each type of engagement is linked to paths towards
interventions (i.e., student-teacher relationships)
Student Engagement Instrument
¤  SEI further breaks down into six-subcomponents
¤  Psychological Engagement
¤  Student teacher relationships
¤  Peer support for learning
¤  Family support for learning
¤  Cognitive Engagement
¤  Control and relevance of school work
¤  Future aspirations and goals
¤  Extrinsic motivation
5 3/12/14 Research on SEI
¤  The SEI has had good preliminary research
¤  Large scale exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis
have demonstrated that the engagement categories
provide a strong fit among middle and high school
students
Appleton et al., 2006; Betts et al, 2010
Research Gaps
¤  Research on SEI has been limited regarding moderators
within clinical samples
¤  Gender
¤  Ethnicity
¤  Educational placements
¤  Moreover, research has not explored cognitive and
psychological engagement relates specific outcomes
such as:
¤  Risk taking behavior
¤  Positive development (life satisfaction)
¤  Clinical concerns
6 3/12/14 Current Study
¤  Are there differences in engagement and risk taking
behavior based on gender, ethnicity and special
education placement.
¤  Overall and by subcategories
¤  Do the subcategories of SEI differentially predict risk
taking behavior, life satisfaction and clinical severity
(externalizing and internalizing)
Method
¤  Sample
¤  High school students participating in an RCT examining
evidence-based treatments for youth with emotional/
behavioral and academic problems
¤  739 adolescents recruited in 54 high schools across five states
¤  Students were nominated by educators, administrators, and
school mental health professionals as experiencing significant
impairment due to emotional and behavioral problems.
¤  Students must be attending public high school at least half days
¤  All data used in these analyses were collected at baseline prior
to randomization to intervention or community care control
conditions
Center for Adolescent Research in Schools (CARS) funded by
Institute for Education Sciences
7 3/12/14 Risk Taking Behavior Measure
¤  Youth Risk Behavior Survey (YRBS)
¤  Adapted from Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance System
(YRBSS)
¤  Included the following categories:
¤ 
¤ 
¤ 
¤ 
¤ 
Driving
Physical violence and relationships
Drugs 1 (smoking & alcohol)
Drugs 2 (marijuana & other drugs)
Sexual Behavior
Life Satisfaction Measure
¤  Brief Multidimensional Students’ Life Satisfaction Scale
¤  Family life
¤  Friendships
¤  School experience
¤  Myself
¤  Where I live
¤  However, due to the high levels of correlations between
these sub domains and overall life satisfaction, only the
total score is used as an indicator of overall life
satisfaction
8 3/12/14 Clinical Severity
¤  Behavior Assessment System for Children- Second Edition
(BASC-2)
¤  Parent report
¤  Looked at internalizing and externalizing composites as
general measures of clinical severity
Demographic Measures
¤  Self-made measure that included the components of the
following:
¤  Service Assessment for Children and Adolescent (SACA)
¤  Services for Children and Adolescents–Parent Interview
(SCA-PI)
¤  This information was all based on parent report
9 3/12/14 Demographics
¤  Gender
¤  Ethnicity
¤  School Communities
¤  Grade Levels
¤  Special Education Labels
Participants
University of
Kansas
10%
Lehigh
University
17%
University of
South Carolina
29%
University
of Missouri
9%
Ohio University
35%
Gender
Frequency
Percent
Female
212
28.7
Male
415
56.2
Total
627
84.8
10 3/12/14 Ethnicity and School Communities
Hispanic/
Latino
5%
Other
4%
Urban
24%
African
American
39%
Caucasian
52%
Rural
37%
Suburban
39%
Family Incomes (SES)
40
36
32.3
Percentage
35
30
25
20
13.4
15
8
10
3
5
0
$0 $20,000
$20,001 $40,000
$40,001 $60,000
$60,001 $80,000
$80,001 $100,000
2.8
0.4
1.2
$100,001 - $120,001 - $140,001 +
$120,000
$140,000
11 3/12/14 Age and Grade Levels
29.4
30
25.4
18.3
20
Grade Levels
15
10
8.4
3.2
5
15
16
17
18
Percentage
14
35.9
35
0
13
38.3
40
0.1
Age
30
25
20
15
10
5.5
3.9
5
0
8
9
10
11
Special Education and General
Education
25.0
21.0
Special
Education
49%
General
Education
51%
20.0
Percentage
Percentage
25
15.0
10.3
8.4
10.0
6.5
5.0
2.4
0.0
Learning
Disability
Emotional
Disturbance
Other
Health
Impairment
Other
Missing
12 3/12/14 Special Education and Adolescents
with Emotional & Behavioral Problems
¤  Of those students who teachers and school mental
health professionals believe are most impaired by
emotional and behavioral problems, slightly less than half
are in special education and most of those who are, are
classified as learning disabled
¤  Access to special education services not solely based on
need
Ethnicity by School Community
80.0
70.0
60.0
50.0
White/Caucasian
Black/African American
40.0
Hispanic/Latino
Other
30.0
20.0
10.0
0.0
Rural
suburban
Urban
13 3/12/14 Family Income by School
Communities
50.0
45.0
40.0
Percentage
35.0
30.0
Rural
25.0
suburban
Urban
20.0
15.0
10.0
5.0
0.0
$0 - $20,000
$20,001 - $40,000
$40,001 - $60,000
$60,001 - $80,000
$80,001 - $140,000 +
Strengths & Weaknesses of Sample
¤  Sample
¤  Strengths
¤  Students teachers and SMHP believe most impaired by emotional
and behavioral problems
¤  Good distribution across urban, suburban & rural
¤  Large portion of sample is African-American
¤  Large portion (68.3%) of sample family incomes under $40,000
¤  Weaknesses
¤  Does not include adolescents who are in alternative settings or
dropped out
¤  Small Hispanic portion of sample
¤  Not representative of upper middle and upper income families
14 3/12/14 Research Question 1
¤  Are there differences in engagement and risk taking
behavior based on gender, ethnicity and special
education placement.
¤  Overall and by subcategories
¤  MANOVA
Main Effects
¤  Overall Gender effects were significant (p<.001)
¤  Females significantly higher than males in engagement
¤  Males significantly higher than females in risky behavior
¤  Overall Ethnicity effects were significant (p<.001)
¤  Engagement
¤  African American > Caucasian > Hispanic > Other
¤  Risk Taking Behavior
¤  Caucasian > African American > Other > Hispanic
¤  No significant differences between special education and general education
students(p=.744)
15 3/12/14 Follow up Analysis: Gender
¤  Psychological Engagement
¤  Peer Supports (p=.006)
¤  Mean ranks: Females > Males
¤  Risk Taking Behavior
¤  Physical violence and relationships (p=.047)
¤  Mean ranks: Males > Females
Follow up Analysis: Ethnicity
¤  Engagement (Cognitive)
¤  Control and Relevance of school work (p<.001)
¤  Mean ranks. African American > Hispanic > Caucasian > Other
¤  Future aspirations (p<.001)
¤  Mean ranks: African American > Other > Caucasian > Hispanic
¤  Risk Taking Behavior
¤  Physical violence and relationships (p=.015)
¤  Mean ranks: Other > Caucasian > Hispanic > African American
¤  Smoking & Alcohol (p<.001)
¤  Mean ranks: Caucasian > African American > Hispanic > Other
16 3/12/14 Discussion
¤  Female students had higher levels of engagement and
lower levels of risk taking behavior
¤  May indicate a relationship between the two but previous
research indicates female students tend to take less risk
¤  Ethnicity differences indicated that African American
students had higher levels of engagement and other/
Caucasian students had higher risk taking behavior
¤  Other areas of risk
¤  Special education v. general education was not significant
¤  May need to do analysis for specific SPED categories
Research Question 2
¤  Do the subcategories of SEI differentially predict risk
taking behavior, life satisfaction and clinical severity
(externalizing and internalizing)
¤  Hierarchical Regression
17 3/12/14 Engagement and Risk Taking
Behavior
¤  Does engagement predict risky behavior?
¤  Model 1: Ethnicity, Gender
¤  p=.023; R2=.017; <1% of variance explained
¤  Change R2 = .02, p = .023
¤  Model 2: Grade levels
¤  p<.001; R2 =.046; <1% of the variance explained
¤  Change R2 = .03, p < .001
¤  Model 3: Six subcategories of engagement
¤  p<.001; R2 =.17; 17 % of variance explained
¤  Change R2 = .13, p < .001
Engagement and Risk Taking
Behavior
¤  Model 1 (Ethnicity and Gender)
¤  Ethnicity was significant (p=.008)
¤  Gender was not (p=.642)
¤  Model 2 (Grade levels added)
¤  Ethnicity remained significant (p=.009)
¤  Grade levels were found to be significant (p<.001)
18 3/12/14 Engagement and Risk Taking
Behavior
¤  Model 3 (Student Engagement added)
¤  Ethnicity and grades remained significant (p=.001; p<.001)
¤  Six subcomponents of SEI
¤  Psychological Engagement
¤  Teacher student relationships (p<.001)
¤  Peer supports (p=.001)
¤  Family supports (p=.69)
¤  Cognitive Engagement
¤  Control & relevance of school work (p=.216)
¤  Future aspirations and goals (p=.002)
¤  Extrinsic motivation (p=.54)
Engagement and Life Satisfaction
¤  Model 1: Ethnicity, Gender
¤  p<.001; R2=.036; <1% of variance explained
¤  Change R2 = .04, p<.001
¤  Model 2: Grade levels
¤  p<.001; R2 =.038; <1% of the variance explained
¤  Change R2 = .03, p=.288
¤  Model 3: Six subcategories of engagement
¤  p<.001; R2=.20; 20% of variance explained
¤  Change R2 = .16, p< .001
19 3/12/14 Engagement and Life Satisfaction
¤  Model 1 (Ethnicity and Gender)
¤  Ethnicity was not significant (p=.852)
¤  Gender was significant (p<.001)
¤  Model 2 (Grade levels added)
¤  Gender remained significant (p<.001)
¤  Grade levels were found to be not significant (p=.288)
Engagement and Life Satisfaction
¤  Model 3 (Student Engagement added)
¤  Gender remained significant (p<.001)
¤  Six subcomponents of SEI
¤  Psychological Engagement
¤  Teacher student relationships (p=.474)
¤  Peer supports (p=.001)
¤  Family supports (p=.003)
¤  Cognitive Engagement
¤  Control & relevance of school work (p=.413)
¤  Future aspirations and goals (p=.096)
¤  Extrinsic motivation (p=.010)
20 3/12/14 Engagement and Externalizing
Problems
¤  Model 1: Ethnicity, Gender
¤  p=.006; R2=.014; <1% of variance explained
¤  Change R2 = .04, p=.006
¤  Model 2: Grade levels
¤  p=.004; R2 =.023; <1% of the variance explained
¤  Change R2 = .03, p=.077
¤  Model 3: Six subcategories of engagement
¤  p<.001; R2=.065; <1% of variance explained
¤  Change R2 = .16, p< .001
Engagement and Internalizing
Problems
¤  Model 1: Ethnicity, Gender
¤  p=.021;
¤  R2=.01; <1% of variance explained
¤  Change R2 = .02, p=.006
¤  Model 2: Grade levels
¤  p=.004;
¤  R2 =.02; <1% of the variance explained
¤  Change R2 = .01, p=.077
¤  Model 3: Six subcategories of engagement
¤  p<.001;
¤  R2=.06; <1% of variance explained
¤  Change R2 = .03, p< .001
21 3/12/14 Discussion
¤  Psychological engagement predicted both risk taking
behavior and life satisfaction
¤  Risk taking behavior
¤  Teacher-student relationships and peer support were the
significant predictors for lower levels of risk taking
behavior
¤  Life satisfaction
¤  Family and peer support were significant predictors of
higher levels of life satisfaction
Discussion
¤  Cognitive engagement also predicted both risk taking
behavior and life satisfaction
¤  Risk taking behavior
¤  Future aspirations and goals predicted lower levels of risk
¤  Life satisfaction
¤  Extrinsic motivation predicted higher levels of life
satisfaction
¤  “I’ll learn but only if the teacher gives me rewards”
22 3/12/14 Discussions
¤  Overall, relationships came up as one of the common
themes across the results
¤  Peer, family and teacher relationships were the most
common predictors for lower risk taking behavior and
increase in life satisfaction
¤  Peer support in particular was a significant predictor for
both categories, supporting interventions that target peer
relationships and social skills
Limitations
¤  A highly clinical sample was used in this study
¤  A typical levels of risk and engagement
¤  Risk measure (YRBS) was adapted
¤  Psychometrics
¤  Most predictors accounted for low to moderate amount
of variance
¤  Not intended to be used as stand alone measure
23 3/12/14 Limitations
¤  Sample did not include those not attending public
schools
¤  Although sample was recruited from 54 high schools in
five states, only included schools with administrators
agreeable to two year clinical trial
¤  Low number of Hispanic/Latino participants
Implications & Future Research
¤  Current study provides some preliminary evidence for SEI’s
ability to predict risk taking behavior and life satisfaction
¤  Sub categories can be targeted for intervention
¤  Investigate SEI subcategories other populations
¤  Younger age groups
¤  Ethnically diverse groups of students
¤  Evaluate SEI with positive risk taking behaviors (participating)
¤  Evaluate the treatment utility of SEI subcategories to see if
how much they inform intervention and result in desired
outcomes
24 3/12/14 Questions?
Contact & Additional Information
¤  Emails
¤  Imad Zaheer [email protected]
¤  Website
¤  http://www.lehigh.edu/~incars/overview.html
25 3/12/14 References
¤ 
Appleton, J. J., Christenson, S. L., Kim, D., & Reschly, A. L. (2006). Measuring cognitive and psychological
engagement: Validation of the Student Engagement Instrument. Journal of School Psychology, 44, 427 –
445
¤ 
Betts, J., Appleton, J.J., Reschly, A.L., Christenson, S.L., & Huebner, E.S. (2010). A study of the reliability and
construct validity of the Student Engagement Instrument across multiple grades. School Psychology
Quarterly, 25, 84-93.
¤ 
Borofsky, L.A., Kellerman, L., Baucom, B., Oliver, P.H. & Margolin, G. (2013). Community violence exposure
and adolescents’ school engagement and academic achievement over time. Psychology of Violence,
3, 381-395.
¤ 
Byrnes, J. P., Miller, D. C., & Schafer, W. D. (1999). Gender differences in risk taking: a meta-analysis.
Psychological Bulletin, 125, 367-383.
¤ 
Chapman, R. L., Buckley, L., Sheehan, M., Shochet, I. M., & Romaniuk, M. (2011) The impact of school
connectedness on violent behavior, transport risk taking behavior and associated injuries in
adolescence. Journal of School Psychology, 49(4), 399-410.
¤ 
Cohn, L.D., Macfarlane, S.. Yanez, C. & Imai, W.K. (1995). Risk-perception: Differences between
adolescents and adults. Health Psychology, 14, 217-222.
References
¤ 
Farrington, D. P. (2009). Conduct disorder, aggression, and delinquency. In R. M. Lerner & L. Steinberg
(Eds.), Handbook of adolescent psychology: Vol. 1. Individual bases of adolescent development (3rd
ed., pp. 683-722). Hoboken, NJ US: John Wiley & Sons.
¤ 
Finn, J. D. (1989). Withdrawing from school. Review of Educational Research, 59, 117-142.
¤ 
Fredericks, J.A., Blumenfield, P.C. & Paris, A.H. (2004). School engagement: Potential of the concept,
state of the evidence. Review of Educational Research, 74, 59-109.
¤ 
Jimerson, S. R., Campos, E., & Greif, J. L. (2003). Toward an understanding of definitions and measures of
school engagement and related terms. California School Psychologist, 8, 7 – 27.
¤ 
Klein, J., Cornell, D., Konold, T. (2012). Relationships between school climate and student risk behaviors.
School Psychology Quarterly, 27(3), 154-169.
¤ 
Piquero, A. R., Farrington, D. P., & Blumstein, A. (2003). The criminal career paradigm. Crime and Justice,
30, 359-506.
¤ 
Wang, M. T., & Peck, S. (2013). Adolescent educational success and mental health vary across school
engagement profiles. Developmental Psychology, 49, 1266-1276.
26