259 Jarvis St. Toronto,
ON M5B 2C2
Research &
Our cutting-edge Sport for Development research helps youth excel, right here in Toronto & around the world
Evidence-based Research
Direct Youth Participation
MLSE LaunchPad members regularly share input through short, user-friendly questionnaires designed specifically for them. Youth and parents also meet with research staff in focus groups, where they share their insights on a range of topics from registration processes to the design of new program curriculum.
Our goal is to learn how sports help youth recognize & reach their potential - and to use that information to improve our programs & catalyze community impact.
Our “MISSION" measurement model acronym encompasses best practices that emerged from six years of experience working in our setting.
These principles have been applied to all our research & evaluation work, informing the design of our frameworks, processes & tools, as well as our research partnerships.
M
Minimal – Only survey youth when results will be used in decision-making.
This principle decreases the burden on youth, helps to avoid survey fatigue, and encourages high engagement by demonstrating to youth that their feedback leads to changes they can see. The end results are increased efficacy and administrative clarity on how evaluation data will be used, i.e. for the specific decision-making purpose that the data were collected to support.
I
I-statements – Phrase survey items as personal statements.
In our experience surveying more than 10,000 youth participants, I-statements elicit a stronger personal connection and make more sense to youth respondents because they can easily “try the statement on” – resulting in more honest responses that better reflect youth outcomes. For example, we use “I see myself as a leader” or “I feel I have a lot to be proud of” instead of “Do you see yourself as a leader?” or “Do you feel you have a lot to be proud of?”
S
Short – Use the fewest survey items needed to achieve meaningful results.
We strive to keep our outcome measures brief, with most consisting of approximately ten items. In cases where a program wishes to measure two outcomes (e.g. self-esteem and social competence), the resulting survey will be about 20 items long. This cuts down on time spent completing surveys, keeps youth engaged in the process, and decreases the risk of less reliable data that can result from youth scrolling through a long survey as quickly as possible without really reading and considering the items or response options. Limiting the number of outcome measures also leaves room to incorporate additional process-related questions, such as level of interest in a new initiative, satisfaction with an existing program, or the best day of the week to schedule a special event; or questions of special interest to funders.
S
Strengths-based – Phrase survey items positively to reinforce positive youth outcomes.
Positively phrased survey items keep the focus on strengths and not on weaknesses, while still allowing a youth to indicate that they do not currently experience the positive attribute being referenced by disagreeing with the statement. Negatively worded items are of questionable utility in surveying youth (Jackson Barnette, 2000), can project a diagnostic sentiment, and create a survey completion experience that can elicit negative emotions or alienate youth. For example, the survey items “I feel respected at my program” or “I feel useful” encourage the respondent to reflect on positive attributes that they may already possess or be developing through the program. This is in stark contrast to the deficit-based items of “I do not feel respected at my program” and “I feel useless.”
I
Involve coaches – Enlist the coach or youth leader in survey design and delivery.
Evaluation is not a one-person job left only to evaluators, but rather a key part of the program fabric. Front line staff are among the greatest strengths of quality sport programs. Youth-adult relationships are an important determinant of positive youth outcomes, and many youth develop meaningful and long-term relationships with their coaches and other program leaders. As such, coaches and program leaders are often better positioned to pass out tablets for program evaluation purposes or to work through simple surveys with very young participants than management-level or evaluation staff. At best, data collection is a collaborative effort involving each of the above parties – coaches, managers and evaluators – to maximize response rates and data quality, and ensure comprehension of instructions.
O
Online – Collect data digitally to maximize youth engagement and honesty.
Current research suggests youth are more honest with technology than they are face-to-face with another human (Radovic et al., 2018). Given our increased reliance on digital technology for everything from social interaction to banking to education, this is unsurprising. We can capitalize on this reality by collecting data through engaging digital platforms that incorporate elements of gamification and competition, much like youth’s favorite mobile games and apps. A SurveyMonkey questionnaire achieves part of the aim but presents a bland and unappealing design. Using more enticing mobile-friendly platforms can result in greater enjoyment for youth respondents, increased response rates, and increased buy-in from staff when youth complete program evaluations on their own time – saving valuable program time. At MLSE LaunchPad, on average, 2/3 of youth complete their pre-program survey independently in advance of the first program session. On average, we achieve an 86% response rate.
N
No Neutrality – Use yes/no and 4-point scales. Eliminate “unsure” as an option.
A Likert scale is a type of rating scale used to measure attitudes or opinions. Respondents are asked to rate items based on level of agreement, frequency of a thought or action, or importance of the survey item (Iowa State University, 2010). Youth prefer Likert scales over other survey formats, finding them easier to complete (van Laerhoven et al., 2007). However, within a five-point Likert scale, youth tend towards a neutral point when it is offered as an option (Dalal et al., 2014). Based on our experiences, MLSE LaunchPad uses 4-point scales with response options ranging from Strongly Disagree to Strongly Agree, or Yes/No questions in cases where the nuanced response that a Likert scale allows is not required.
Minimal
Only survey youth when results will be used in decision-making.
This principle decreases the burden on youth, helps to avoid survey fatigue, and encourages high engagement by demonstrating to youth that their feedback leads to changes they can see. The end results are increased efficacy and administrative clarity on how evaluation data will be used, i.e. for the specific decision-making purpose that the data were collected to support.
I-statements
Phrase survey items as personal statements.
This principle decreases the burden on youth, helps to avoid survey fatigue, and encourages high engagement by demonstrating to youth that their feedback leads to changes they can see. The end results are increased efficacy and administrative clarity on how evaluation data will be used, i.e. for the specific decision-making purpose that the data were collected to support.
Short
Use the fewest survey items needed to achieve meaningful results.
We strive to keep our outcome measures brief, with most consisting of approximately ten items. In cases where a program wishes to measure two outcomes (e.g. self-esteem and social competence), the resulting survey will be about 20 items long. This cuts down on time spent completing surveys, keeps youth engaged in the process, and decreases the risk of less reliable data that can result from youth scrolling through a long survey as quickly as possible without really reading and considering the items or response options. Limiting the number of outcome measures also leaves room to incorporate additional process-related questions, such as level of interest in a new initiative, satisfaction with an existing program, or the best day of the week to schedule a special event; or questions of special interest to funders.
Strengths-based
Phrase survey items positively to reinforce positive youth outcomes
Positively phrased survey items keep the focus on strengths and not on weaknesses, while still allowing a youth to indicate that they do not currently experience the positive attribute being referenced by disagreeing with the statement. Negatively worded items are of questionable utility in surveying youth (Jackson Barnette, 2000), can project a diagnostic sentiment, and create a survey completion experience that can elicit negative emotions or alienate youth. For example, the survey items “I feel respected at my program” or “I feel useful” encourage the respondent to reflect on positive attributes that they may already possess or be developing through the program. This is in stark contrast to the deficit-based items of “I do not feel respected at my program” and “I feel useless.”
Involve coaches
Enlist the coach or youth leader in survey design and delivery
Evaluation is not a one-person job left only to evaluators, but rather a key part of the program fabric. Front line staff are among the greatest strengths of quality sport programs. Youth-adult relationships are an important determinant of positive youth outcomes, and many youth develop meaningful and long-term relationships with their coaches and other program leaders. As such, coaches and program leaders are often better positioned to pass out tablets for program evaluation purposes or to work through simple surveys with very young participants than management-level or evaluation staff. At best, data collection is a collaborative effort involving each of the above parties – coaches, managers and evaluators – to maximize response rates and data quality, and ensure comprehension of instructions.
Online
Collect data digitally to maximize youth engagement and honesty
Current research suggests youth are more honest with technology than they are face-to-face with another human (Radovic et al., 2018). Given our increased reliance on digital technology for everything from social interaction to banking to education, this is unsurprising. We can capitalize on this reality by collecting data through engaging digital platforms that incorporate elements of gamification and competition, much like youth’s favorite mobile games and apps. A SurveyMonkey questionnaire achieves part of the aim but presents a bland and unappealing design. Using more enticing mobile-friendly platforms can result in greater enjoyment for youth respondents, increased response rates, and increased buy-in from staff when youth complete program evaluations on their own time – saving valuable program time. At MLSE LaunchPad, on average, 2/3 of youth complete their pre-program survey independently in advance of the first program session. On average, we achieve an 86% response rate.
No Neutrality
Use yes/no and 4-point scales. Eliminate “unsure” as an option
A Likert scale is a type of rating scale used to measure attitudes or opinions. Respondents are asked to rate items based on level of agreement, frequency of a thought or action, or importance of the survey item (Iowa State University, 2010). Youth prefer Likert scales over other survey formats, finding them easier to complete (van Laerhoven et al., 2007). However, within a five-point Likert scale, youth tend towards a neutral point when it is offered as an option (Dalal et al., 2014). Based on our experiences, MLSE LaunchPad uses 4-point scales with response options ranging from Strongly Disagree to Strongly Agree, or Yes/No questions in cases where the nuanced response that a Likert scale allows is not required.
We leverage our Theory of Change model when exploring innovative use of sport, to support positive youth & community outcomes.
The model illustrates and explains why & how our MLSE LaunchPad activities create our intended impacts.
We also use a Sport for Development Metrics Framework in our research to collectively define, measure & improve youth outcomes.
01
02
A Standardized Process
The sport for development framework is about creating a shared approach to defining and measuring research methods across various organizations.
03
A Resource For Others
The Framework includes 18 different process, outcome and quality assessment measures
to provide a resource for youth sport organizations looking to achieve positive youth development outcomes in their programming, who may not know what to measure, or don’t have access to youth-friendly, relevant standardized tools to use in program evaluation.
to provide a resource for youth sport organizations looking to achieve positive youth development outcomes in their programming, who may not know what to measure, or don’t have access to youth-friendly, relevant standardized tools to use in program evaluation.
For queries regarding potential data partnerships, access to specific measures within the framework and recommended usage guidelines, please contact bryan.heal@mlselaunchpad.org for more info.
Our research advisory committee participates meaningfully in ongoing research & evaluation decisions, implementation & knowledge mobilization activities.
Oversight of academic research partnerships
Review Of Evaluation Plans
Assessment & Selection Of Indicators & Outcome Measures
Design & planning of quantitative and qualitative research processes
Input into ongoing development of Scoreboard TM, MLSE LaunchPad’s digital youth engagement & evaluation platform
Translation of evaluation findings into recommendations & tactics
Evidence-based program design & revision
Participation in planning & implementation of knowledge mobilization activities
Occasional data collection & analysis support
Build lasting relationships, gain hands on experience and create endless networking opportunities.
Does Research Interest You? Join Our Team!
Meetings take place quarterly, virtually or at MLSE LaunchPad. We regularly welcome new members. Youth, parents or guardians, and subject matter experts in youth sport, positive youth development or research who are interested in volunteering contact us!
Our research is focused on learning how sport helps youth to recognize & reach their potential
1
Radical Inclusion Project
Overview
This project focuses on how to better support racialized and marginalized persons in sport programming by reimagining activities to foster self-expression, acceptance and belonging in sport cultures.
Details
Framework
By exploring the experiences of racialized and marginalized persons using a co-creative approach, the project will design models of activity shaped as the participants’ preferred ways to operate together, where a wider range of human experiences can be valued.
About Co-Creation
The study incorporates a participatory action framework in its design and implementation involving participants with a wide range of perspectives to shape how the project is envisioned and delivered, including past and present participants from MLSE LaunchPad.
Goals
Using co-creation as the project’s foundation helps to balance power relations between researchers and participants and allows for intentional participation by those often excluded from the process. The project is being implemented in partnership with Toronto Metropolitan University.
Objective 1
Examine the relationships of stakeholders, including community sport organizations, to develop best practices for inclusion applicable to the sport for development and the sport industry.
Objective 2
Develop new innovative applications or activities that hold value-structures based on decolonial praxis and anti-racism tenets
2
Day-Camp Intervention to Develop Physical Literacy
Overview
MLSE LaunchPad, Nipissing University and the YMCA of Northeastern Ontario are collaborating on this 2-year longitudinal research study to better understanding the impact COVID-19 has had on social identity, mental health, and overall physical activity in youth.
Details
Objective 1
Examine the relationships of stakeholders, including community sport organizations, to develop best practices for inclusion applicable to the sport for development and the sport industry.
Objective 2
Develop new innovative applications or activities that hold value-structures based on decolonial praxis and anti-racism tenets
Objective 3
Design artifacts, models, and/or programs that foster dialogue about diversity, equity, and inclusion and how to better envision change towards more socially just practices
Objective 4
Explore the challenges of implementing diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives in sport and sport for development
3
Trauma & Violence-Informed Physical Activity
Overview
A 4-year multi-phase project that aims to leverage TVIPA to support self-identified women & children who have experienced or are experiencing family violence through community-based participatory projects & research.
Details
About Co-Creation
The study incorporates a participatory action framework in its design and implementation involving participants with a wide range of perspectives to shape how the project is envisioned and delivered, including past and present participants from MLSE LaunchPad.
Goals
Using co-creation as the project’s foundation helps to balance power relations between researchers and participants and allows for intentional participation by those often excluded from the process. The project is being implemented in partnership with Toronto Metropolitan University.
Research & Evaluation Team
Ben Arhen
Coordinator of Research & Evaluation
Bhanu Sharma
Mitacs Post-Doctoral Fellow
Bryan Heal
Social Impact Research Lead
Jackie Robinson
Manager of Research & Evaluation
Marika Warner
Director of Research & Evaluation
Olu Paynter
Coordinator of Research & Evaluation
Patrick Antonio
Manager of Scoreboard
Research Advisory Committee
Ameera Hassan
Youth Mentor, MLSE LaunchPad
Basma Tayeb
Staff Supervisor
Beje Melamed-Turkish
Development & Communications, Scadding Court Community Centre
Bhanu Sharma
Post-Doctoral Fellow, McMaster University
Charlotte Hermans
Parent Representative
Courtney Peat
Parent Representative
Giezel Saludar
Student
Julia Ferreira Gomes
PhD Student, York University
Mai Kilany
Parent Representative
Maikel Fam
MBA Student, Esade
Mardi Daley
Youth Mentor, MLSE LaunchPad
Mitch McSweeney
Assistant Professor, University of Minnesota
Olivia Giardetti
Student
Serena Celebre Feizi
Coach
Stacie Smith
Young Canadians Roundtable on Health
Tuyet Binh Duong
Parent Representative
Academic
Partners
Alison Doherty, Professor
School of Kinesiology, Western University
Andrew Webb, Associate Professor
Sprott School of Business, Carleton University
Ann Pegoraro, Professor
Gordon S. Lang School of Business and Economics, University of Guelph
Barbi Law, Professor
Faculty of Education and Professional Studies, Nipissing University
Brenda Bruner, Professor
Faculty of Education and Professional Studies, Nipissing University
Bruno da Costa, Post-Doctoral Fellow
Faculty of Education and Professional Studies, Nipissing University
Catherine Sabiston, Professor
Faculty of Kinesiology & Physical Education, University of Toronto
Cheri Bradish, Professor
School of Business Management, Toronto Metropolitan University
Colin McLaren, Assistant Professor
Department of Experiential Studies in Community and Sport, Cape Breton University
Corliss Bean, Assistant Professor
Faculty of Applied Health Sciences, Brock University
Daniel Eisenkraft Klein, Doctoral Candidate
Dalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto
Francine Darroch, Assistant Professor
Faculty of Health Sciences, Carleton University
Gamal Abdel Shehid, Associate Professor
Faculty of Liberal Arts & Professional Studies, York University
James Mandigo, Provost and Vice-President
University of the Fraser Valley
Janelle Joseph, Assistant Professor
Faculty of Kinesiology & Physical Education, University of Toronto
Jason Vescovi, Director
Center for Sport Science, USA Lacrosse
Jessica Fraser-Thomas, Associate Professor
Faculty of Health, York University
John Cairney, Professor
Faculty of Health and Behavioural Sciences, University of Queensland
Jonathan Hood, Assistant Professor
Gerlad Schwartz School of Business, St. Francis Xavier University
Katherine Babiak, Professor
School of Kinesiology, University of Michigan
Kelly Arbour-Nicitopoulos, Associate Professor
Faculty of Kinesiology & Physical Education, University of Toronto
Kyle Rich, Associate Professor
Faculty of Applied Health Sciences, Brock University
Larena Hoeber, Professor
Faculty of Kinesiology and Health Studies, University of Regina
Lin Fang, Associate Professor
Factor-Inwentash Faculty of Social Work, University of Toronto
Lisa Kihl, Associate Professor
School of Kinesiology, University of Minnesota
Lisa Kikulis, Associate Professor
Faculty of Applied Health Sciences, Brock University
Lyndsay Hayhurst, Associate Professor
Faculty of Health, York University
Mark Bruner, Professor
Faculty of Education and Professional Studies, Nipissing University
Martin Camire, Professor
Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Ottawa
Michael Naraine, Associate Professor
Faculty of Applied Health Sciences, Brock University
Mitch McSweeney, Assistant Professor
School of Kinesiology, University of Minnesota
Nathania Ofori, Doctoral Student
Faculty of Health, York University
Nick Bellissimo, Associate Professor
School of Nutrition, Toronto Metropolitan University
Patti Millar, Associate Professor
Faculty of Human Kinetics, University of Windsor
Richard Norman, Post-Doctoral Fellow
Ted Rogers School of Management, Toronto Metropolitan University
Ryan Clutterbuck, Assistant Professor
Faculty of Applied Health Sciences, Brock University
Sara Kramers, PhD Candidate
Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Ottawa
Sarah Gee, Associate Professor
Faculty of Human Kinetics, University of Windsor
Shannon Kerwin, Associate Professor
Faculty of Applied Health Sciences, Brock University
Simon Darnell, Associate Professor
Faculty of Kinesiology & Physical Education, University of Toronto
Terry Eddy, Assistant Professor
Faculty of Human Kinetics, University of Windsor
Timothy Chan, Professor
Faculty of Engineering, University of Toronto