search ffci

:: Home:: Current / Past Issues:: Call for Manuscripts:: For Authors:: For Reviewers:: The
Forum Board
Assessing Decision-making Skills of Youth
January 2003, Vol. 8, No. 1
ISSN 1540 5273
Claudia C. Mincemoyer and Daniel F. Perkins
Abstract
The 4-H youth program helps youth to develop life skills through participation in a variety of programs
and activities. Many programs and projects are designed to teach decision-making skills. However,
no scientifically tested instrument is available to assist local youth and family educators in assessing
youths decision-making skills. Knowledge of decision-making deficiencies among youth participants
can provide information that will assist curriculum developers and program planners in modifying or
increasing the decision-making skills practiced by youth in programs.
The purpose of this study was to develop and validate an assessment tool to measure decision-
making skills of youth ages 13-19. The importance of decision-making skills in adolescence, in
combination with the fact that these skills can be taught and practiced, provides strong rationale for
the development of a decision-making skills assessment instrument. Research in non-formal
educational environments, such as 4-H, is needed to determine whether these environments and the
curricula designed to teach decision-making skills are effective and successful.
Introduction
In this rapidly changing world, youth need to be equipped with skills to guide them as they make
decisions. Young people make lifestyle and career choices that impact their futures and the future of
society. Life skills of personal finance and consumerism are grounded in the ability to make sound
decisions (Jump$tart Coalition 2002). Youth who make decisions to engage in risky behavior can
negatively affect themselves and society in general. Making sound decisions not only assists youth in
resisting pressure to engage in risky behaviors, but also fosters social skills and social awareness,
and encourages them to think about consequences, decide on goals, and understand their own and
others' feelings (Elias and Tobias 1990). Jacobs (1998) found that 7th and 8th graders who made
snap decisions were more likely to be involved in risky behaviors than those youth who carefully
thought about options and evaluated potential consequences.
Decision-making is defined as an intellectual process leading to a response to circumstances through
selection among alternatives (Nelson 1984). The skills needed to make sound decisions can be
taught. Baron and Brown (1991) note that instructing adolescents in decision-making can prevent the
development of poor reasoning habits and, when combined with practice, can instill better habits.
Dybdal and Sondag (2000) advocate the use of a teaching technique that uses pre-written scenarios
or critical incidents as teaching tools, emphasizing the need for decision-making activities based in
content area. Elias and Tobias (1990) also underscore the importance of teaching decision-making
skills in daily academic and social contexts that relate to "real life." Gregan-Paxton (1995) studied pre-
decisional skills of preschool and grade school children and found that training young children about
decision-making is relevant and that general rules can be taught. McMorris (1999) examined the
effects of cognitive development on the acquisition of decision-making skills in sports. He notes that
information on the optimal time for teaching and the critical period for learning decision-making skills
is lacking, but that practice does increase performance in decision-making.
From infancy to early adolescence, there is a period of exuberant synapse growth followed by a
period of synaptic "pruning" (Board on Children, Youth and Families, 2002). With puberty, there is a
second "pruning" of cells. The cells and connections that are used survive while those that are not
used perish (Board on Children, Youth and Families, 2002). Given this new brain research, it may be
that adolescents who practice decision-making skills may increase the likelihood that the brain cells
related to that process remain and are not pruned away. Mann, Harmoni, and Power (1989) conclude
that by age 15, many adolescents have achieved a reasonable degree of decision-making
competence. However, adolescents do not consistently apply sound decision-making skills to all
decisions, especially when dealing with a stressful or conflict-laden situation.
Beginning instruction in decision-making in early adolescence (ages 12-14) seems especially
important. Mann, Harmoni and Power (1989) found that younger adolescents are less able to identify
options, identify a range of risks and benefits, understand or predict the risks and benefits, and
accurately assess the information received from sources that may have vested interests in the
decision. Jacobs and Ganzel (1993) note that even when youth are equipped with information-
processing decision-making skills, motivation to make decisions differs from adults, as the social,
emotional, and developmental differences affect adolescents' decision-making ability. Emotions are
also a factor in adolescent decision-making. Adolescents who often experience strong emotions that
can affect decision-making can be taught how to recognize the effects of their emotions. Thus,
adolescents who understand the decision-making process and think through a decision may rely less
on emotion (Fischoff, Crowell, and Kipke 1999).
Purpose of the study
The importance of decision-making skills, in combination with the fact that these skills can be taught
and practiced, provides strong rationale for the development of a decision-making skills assessment
instrument. The use of a scientifically based, decision-making skills assessment instrument would be
a valuable tool for program evaluation of youth programs designed to increase youth's decision-
making skills. For example, the instrument, if used as a pretest, could guide the development of
decision-making activities that provide opportunities for youth to learn and practice decision-making
skills. Most of the research conducted on the development and practice of decision-making skills was
conducted in formal classroom settings. Research in non-formal educational environments, such as 4-
H, is needed to determine whether non-formal youth programs and curricula designed to teach
decision-making skills are effective and successful. The purpose of this study was to develop and
validate an assessment tool to measure decision-making skills of youth ages 12-19. This paper also
describes research efforts currently underway to measure decision-making skills learned in 4-H
curricula.
The 4-H youth program fosters life skills through participation in a variety of programs and activities
based on non-formal education. Many projects are designed to teach decision-making skills.
However, no instrument is available to assist local youth and family educators in the assessment of
such projects. Knowledge of decision-making deficiencies among youth participants can provide
information that will assist curriculum developers and program planners in modifying or increasing the
decision-making skills practiced by youth in programs.
Assessment instrument development
Our first step in developing an assessment instrument was to conduct a review of the literature
focusing on the skills needed to make sound decisions. There are numerous decision-making models
to describe the process of decision-making and the skills needed for good decision-making.
A comprehensive literature review was completed about decision-making. Table 1 outlines in matrix
format the sub-skills garnered from the empirical research on decision-making. Those skills identified
by at least 50 percent of the research articles examined were considered the skill set used to
measure decision-making for the assessment instrument.
Table 1. Matrix of skills identified in published research as components of decision-making
Factors Sub-skills Published Research
Define Problem
Systematic goal formation
Coscarelli (1983)
Dybdal & Sondag
(2000)
Elias & Tobias
(1990)
Ochoa-Becker
(1999)
Nelson (1984)
Precise description of problem
Elias & Tobias
(1990)
Hartoonian &
Laughlin (1986)
Ochoa-Becker
(1999)
Reaction to situations or incidents
Dybdal & Sondag
(2000)
Analytical thinking and interpretation
of the situation
Coscarelli (1983)
Dybdal & Sondag
(2000)
Hartoonian &
Laughlin (1986)
Ability to ask probing questions about
prevailing situation
Hartoonian &
Laughlin (1986)
Ochoa-Becker
(1999)
Creative problem-solving helps to define
the problem
Mann, Harmoni &
Power (1989)
Willingness to make a choice and
comprehension that decision-making is
a cognitive process
Mann, Harmoni &
Power (1989)
Generate
Alternatives
Ability to question possible choices
Ochoa-Becker
(1999)
Nelson (1984)
Searches for new information about
choice
Janis & Mann
(1977)
Analysis of different choices/ defining
sources of alternatives/assess credibility
Coscarelli (1983)
Dybdal & Sondag
of information (2000)
Elias & Tobias
(1990)
Hartoonian &
Laughlin (1986)
Mann, Harmoni &
Power (1989)
Ross (1981)
Schlitcher (1981)
Nelson (1984)
Describe facts and note accuracy of
information about the alternatives
Dybdal & Sondag
(2000)
Creative combination of choice
alternatives
Mann, Harmoni &
Power (1989)
Check Risks and
Consequences
Describe advantages and disadvantages
of decision/ Consequentiality
Dybdal & Sondag
(2000)
Elias & Tobias
(1990)
Hartoonian &
Laughlin (1986)
Janis & Mann
(1977)
Mann, Harmoni &
Power (1989)
Nelson (1984)
Compromise/ability to modify
unobtainable ideal for less favorable but
viable option
Mann, Harmoni &
Power
(1989)
Check range of objectives and values
implicated by choice
Janis & Mann
(1977)
Develop criteria for discussing possible
solutions
Hartoonian &
Laughlin (1986)
Select Alternative
Make a choice from among listed
alternatives
Dybdal & Sondag
(2000)
Elias & Tobias
(1990)
Hartoonian &
Laughlin (1986)
Schlitcher (1981)
Nelson (1984)
Plan for implementation of decision
Janis & Mann
(1977)
Commitment to selected alternative
Coscarelli (1983)
Mann, Harmoni &
Power (1989)
Evaluation
Observe and interpret outcomes
Hartoonian &
Laughlin (1986)
Ross (1981)
State criteria for judging worth or
benefit of action taken
Ochoa-Becker
(1999)
Schlitcher (1981)
Nelson (1984)
Judge worth of decisions made
Dybdal & Sondag
(2000)
Correctness of choice-some choices are
more "reasonable" than others
Mann, Harmoni &
Power (1989)
Understand need to use information for
future decision making
Elias & Tobias
(1990)
The factors found in the literature to comprise decision-making were
1. define the problem;
2. generate alternatives;
3. check risks and consequences of choices;
4. select an alternative; and
5. evaluate the decision.
Within each factor were items that contributed to the skill. In order to capture each factor on the
assessment instrument, multiple questions based on the sub-skills were employed. Generally, there
were three to five questions that related to each factor asked on the assessment instrument. The
response category for each question was a five-point Likert-type scale (1 = never to 5 = always)
designed to determine frequency of use. For example, the items or questions that defined the sub-
skill, "define the problem" were
I easily identify my problem.
I think about the problem before I take action.
I look for information to help me understand the problem.
I ask others to help me identify my problem.
Pilot-testing the assessment instrument
The evaluation instrument was pilot tested with 203 youth who attended a 4-H state achievement
event. Parental consent and youth consent was acquired for youth to complete the decision-making
assessment instrument. Adult volunteer leaders and/or county extension educators were given
detailed information about administering the assessment instrument. Printed instructions were also
provided for referral. The youth completed the assessment instrument during an orientation session
with their adult leader or extension agent.
The assessment instruments were entered and analyzed following the completion of the instruments
by youth. Specifically, the analysis involved conducting reliability tests to determine whether items that
were designed to address a factor actually hung together. Only the items for the "identifying
alternatives" factor were found to have a low reliability coefficient. This scale was revised and re-
tested with a smaller group of youth. For the other factors, the items behaved similarly and had
Cronbach's Alpha coefficients that ranged from .63 to .88 (see Table 2). Following the reliability
analysis, three of the items were removed, in addition to the revision of the items for the "identifying
alternatives" factor. Next, a Confirmatory Principal Component Analysis was conducted to test the
item loadings for each of the factors. Factor loadings ranged from .508 to .878 (see Table 2). One
item from the factor, entitled, "Identifying Alternatives" was removed, as it did not successfully load on
this scale or any other scale. An item from the factor entitled, "Evaluate Decision" loaded higher on
the factor "Select an Alternative" and was moved to that factor. The revised decision-making
assessment instrument can be obtained by contacting the authors.
Table 2: Reliability and confirmatory principal component analysis
Factor Item
Principal
Component
Analysis
Define the Problem
(alpha = .6340)
I easily identify my problem. .609
I think about the problem before I take
action.
.779
I look for information to help me understand
the problem.
.781
I ask others to help me identify my problem. .580
Identify Alternatives
(alpha = .7057)
I think about ways of dealing with my
problem.
.809
I think before making a choice. .738
I discuss choices with my friends. .896
I discuss choices with my parents. .738
Identify Risks and
Consequences
(alpha = .6577)
I look for positive points of possible choices. .769
I look for negative points of possible choices. .750
I consider the risks of a choice before
making a decision.
.824
I consider the benefits of a choice before .816
making a decision.
Select an Alternative
(alpha = .8456)
I make decisions based on what my parents
tell me.
.508
When faced with a decision, I realize that
some choices are better than others.
.765
I make a decision by thinking about all the
information I have about the different
choices.
.829
I prioritize my choices before making a
decision.
.752
Evaluate Decision
(alpha = .8960)
Before making another decision, I think
about how the last one turned out.
.837
I do think of past choices when making new
decisions.
.878
If I experience negative consequences, I
change my decision the next time.
.764
Application of assessment instrument within extension
Similar to the Barkman model (Barkman 2002), this assessment instrument is available to 4-H youth
and family and consumer science educators to use as a pre-post or post-post assessment of
decision-making skills among youth in their programs. Recently, the assessment instrument was
placed on the Web and educators can enter their own data for a group of youth enrolled in their
program. However, to use the assessment instrument with youth in a particular program, the program
must have at least five one-hour sessions, as one-session events are not considered a program by
this definition. The five or more sessions can be conducted over the course of several months or all
occur in one week.
After the data are entered, the educators are able to run a statistical program that provides them with
a summary analysis indicating the percent change in decision-making skills from the two (pre/post or
post/post) assessments. A t-value is also calculated to indicate significant change for the factors and
individual items. Interpretation is limited to correlational analysis; a causal relationship between the
program and individual's changes in decision-making skills cannot be examined under the current
design. Many other factors, including influences from family, school, other educational programs,
religion, and even maturation of youth, may influence the percent change in use of skills. However,
the change in frequency in decision-making skills and trends may be associated with the impact of the
non-formal educational youth program as well.
Conclusion
Decision-making can be taught in a variety of curriculum areas, such as resource management, food
and nutrition, textile science, health, and personal development. Educational resources are needed
for teachers and volunteers using curricula to effectively convey the steps in the decision-making
process to ensure that youth understand and practice the skills necessary to make sound decisions.
Youth curricula should be designed to include both activities that teach decision-making skills and
opportunities for youth to practice these skills.
Further research is needed to explore the frequency of use of decision-making skills among different
groups of youth. Comparing 4-H participants' use of sound decision-making skills with youth who do
not join organizations or who join other non-formal educational programs (e.g., Boys Scouts, Girls
Scouts, Boys and Girls Clubs) would provide information for educators and curriculum developers
regarding needed educational resources. Developing a parallel assessment instrument for younger
youth is also needed. In addition, how to assist practitioners in the use of such assessment
instruments for program evaluation, both formative and summative, also needs to be examined.
References
Barkman, S. 2002. The Four Fold Youth Development Model. On-line: http://www.four-
h.purdue.edu/fourfold/.
Board on Children, Youth and Families. 2002. New Research on Brain Development During the
Adolescent Years. On-line:http:/www7nationalacadamies.org/boycf/index.htmlBOCYFProjects.
Coscarelli, W.C. 1983. Development of a decision-making inventory to assess Johnson's decision-
making styles. Journal of Measurement and Evaluation, 6(3):149-60.
Dybdal, L., and K.A. Sondag. 2000. Developing decision-making skills through the use of critical
incidents. Journal of Health Education, 31(2): 115-118.
Elias, M.J., and S.E. Tobias. 1990. Problem Solving/decision-making for social academic
success. Washington D.C.: National Education Association of the United States.
Fischhoff, B., N. Crowell, and M. Kipke. 1999. Adolescent decision making: Implications for prevention
programs: Summary of a workshop. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Hartoonian, H.M., And M. Laughlin. 1986. Decision-making skills. (The Elementary Economist). New
York, NY: Joint Council on Economic Education. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No.
ED279570).
Jacobs, J.1998. Problem behaviors and decision-making: How are they related? Paper presented at
the biennial meeting of the Society for Research on Adolescence, San Diego.
Jacobs, J., and A. Ganzel. 1993. Decision-making in adolescence: Are we asking the right questions?
In Pintrich, P. and M. Maehr. (Eds.), Advances in motivation and achievement, 8:1-31. Greenwich,
CT: JAI Press.
Jump$tart Coalition 1997. Personal finance standards and benchmarks. On-
line:http://www.jumpstartcoalition.com/upload/benchmarks2.htm.
Larson, R., and M. Richards. 1994. Family emotions. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 4 (4): 567-
583.
Mann, L., R. Harmoni, and C. Power. 1989. Adolescent decision-making: the development of
competence. Journal of Adolescence, 12: 265-278.
McMorris, T. 1999. Cognitive development and the acquisition of decision-making skills.International
Journal of Sport Psychology, 30 (2): 151-172.
Nelson, G.D. 1984. Assessment of health decision-making skills of adolescents.Washington, DC: US
Department of Education. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED220257).
Ochoa-Becker, A.S. 1999. Decision-making in middle school social studies: An imperative for youth
and democracy. Clearing House 72, 6:337-340.
Schlitcher, C.L. 1981. Decision-making: An instructional strategy for the rural gifted student. US
Department of Education. National Institute of Education.
Schvaneveldt, J., and G. Adams. 1983. Adolescents and the decision-making process.Theory into
Practice, 32 (2): 98-104.
Authors
Claudia C. Mincemoyer, Ph.D., Assistant Professor, Department of Agricultural and Extension
Education, Penn State University.
Daniel F. Perkins, Ph.D., Associate Professor, Department of Agricultural and Extension Education,
Penn State University.
Cite this article:
Mincemoyer, Claudia C., and Daniel F. Perkins. 2003. Assessing decision-making skills of youth. The
Forum for Family and Consumer Issues 8(1).
Department of 4-H Youth Development and Family & Consumer Sciences |
ISSN 1540-5273 | Policy Disclaimer |
North Carolina State University |

Campus Box 7605 |
Raleigh, NC 27695-7605 |
About The Forum |
Contact Us |
Phone: 919.515.9148 |

Fax: 919.515.2786 |

Email: ffci@ncsu.edu |
Copyright |
Site Credits