The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Retention in an Urban Extended Day Program: A Process-Based Assessment
Abstract
Evaluations of extended day programs in underserved communities have shown that participants usually drop out by the time they are 11–12 years old. Most of these programs, especially those that focus on physical activity, do not promote broadly developmental and empowerment-based processes and outcomes advocated by the emerging field of youth development. This article investigates both the retention issue and youth development processes and outcomes for two sequential physical activity extended day programs in an underserved community. Retention data and participant program evaluations were collected over a nine-year period, and these data together with a selective review of related studies are analyzed to determine the extent of linkage between the promotion of positive youth development and retention beyond 11–12 years old.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
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?
In the citing paper
“Of the 37 studies that did include some form of model/framework, the most frequently used was Hellison and Wright’s (2003) TPSR, which was cited in 10 studies.”
From A grounded theory of positive youth development through sport based on results from a qualitative meta-study (2017) · cites this paper as Hellison and Wright’s (2003)
Citations
Cited by
Holt, N. L., Neely, K. C., Slater, L. G., Camiré, M., Côté, J., Fraser-Thomas, J., MacDonald, D., Strachan, L., & Tamminen, K. A. (2017) · International Review of Sport and Exercise Psychology · doi:10.1080/1750984x.2016.1180704 · Cited by 720
“…Peer review Martinek, Schilling, and Hellison (2006) To describe how youth leadership evolved into two programs for lowincome minority youth US TPSR (Hellison & Wright, 2003) Not Specified Not specified Not specified Not specified Focus groups, interviews, leaders written reflections, field notes…”
BackgroundMethodInfluential
Metadata
- Authors
- Hellison, D., & Wright, P.
- Affiliations
- University of Illinois Chicago (US)
- University of Memphis (US)
- ORCID
- Wright, Paul
- Venue
- Journal of Teaching in Physical Education
- Publisher
- Human Kinetics
- Published
- 2003-07
- Volume
- 22
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 369-381
- ISSN
- 0273-5024 (ISSN-L)
- 1543-2769
- OpenAlex
- W2109470295
- Cited by
- 82
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2025: 2 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 1 · 2013: 6 · 2012: 7
- FWCI
- 2.44
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Journal of Teaching in Physical Education (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Youth Development and Social Support
- Social Sciences › Education › Physical Education and Pedagogy
- Social Sciences › Life-span and Life-course Studies › Recreational Sport and Physical Activity
- Keywords
- extended day programs, program retention, youth development, positive youth development, physical activity programs, underserved populations, urban youth, program evaluation, developmental processes
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Retention in an Urban Extended Day Program: A Process-Based Assessment. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1123/jtpe.22.4.369
- The paper
- Hellison, D., & Wright, P. (2003). Retention in an Urban Extended Day Program: A Process-Based Assessment. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education. https://doi.org/10.1123/jtpe.22.4.369
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
