Cited by 11Mentoring and Academic DevelopmentYouth Development and Social SupportCritical Race Theory in Education

A pilot study of Big Brothers Big Sisters programs and youth development: An application of critical race theory

Park, Hyejoon, Yoon, Jina, Crosby, Shantel D.·2016·Children and Youth Services Review

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.childyouth.2015.12.010

Cites

52 of 52 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

3 of the 55 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Park, H., Yoon, J., & Crosby, S. D.
Affiliations
  • Pittsburg State University (US)
  • University of Arizona (US)
  • Wayne State University (US)
Corresponding author
Park, Hyejoon
Venue
Children and Youth Services Review
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2016-02
Volume
61
Pages
83-89
ISSN
0190-7409 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2195214937
Cited by
11
References
55
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 1 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 1
FWCI
0.55
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Children and Youth Services Review (publishedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Mentoring and Academic Development
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Youth Development and Social Support
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Critical Race Theory in Education
Keywords
Big Brothers Big Sisters, youth development, critical race theory, mentoring relationships, competence, caring, program participation duration, developmental outcomes

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review