MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1515629871 · doi:10.1177/019874290903400204

Concurrent Validity of Office Discipline Referrals and Cut Points Used in Schoolwide Positive Behavior Support

2009· article· en· W1515629871 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueBehavioral Disorders · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicBehavioral and Psychological Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyPositive behavior supportConcurrent validityRating scaleScale (ratio)Test validityClinical psychologyPredictive validityApplied psychologyDevelopmental psychologySocial psychologyPsychometricsIntervention (counseling)Psychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Office discipline referrals (ODRs) are commonly used by school teams implementing schoolwide positive behavior support to indicate individual student need for additional behavior support. However, little is known about the technical adequacy of ODRs when used in this manner. In this study, the authors assessed (a) the concurrent validity of number of ODRs received with a contemporary standardized behavior rating scale (the BASC-2 Teacher Report Form) and (b) the validity of common cut points to determine level of support needed (i.e., 0 to 1, 2 to 5, and 6 or more ODRs). Results indicated strong correlations between ODRs and rating of externalizing behavior and statistically and clinically significant differences in behavior ratings based on existing ODR cut points, but there was no significant relation between ODRs and ratings of internalizing problems. Results are discussed in terms of recommended use of ODRs as a screening measure to indicate level of behavior support required.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.108
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.235
GPT teacher head0.421
Teacher spread0.186 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it