The Strengths Assessment Inventory–Youth Version: An evaluation of the psychometric properties with male and female justice-involved youth.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Strengths constitute an important element of developmental assessments. It is consistent with evidence-based practice to use assessment tools that adequately measure a given construct and are appropriate for use with their targeted population. The Strengths Assessment Inventory-Youth Version (SAI-Y; Rawana & Brownlee, 2010)-a self-report measure of personal strengths, self-concept, and emotional functioning-was administered to 230 male and female adolescent offenders. Confirmatory factor analyses revealed that the SAI-Y's factor structure demonstrated an acceptable fit overall, while some factors fit the data well, and fewer factors displayed a questionable fit. A majority of scale scores were found to exhibit good reliability for both sexes, with three empirical scale scores demonstrating poor reliability. In addition, scores on the SAI-Y also achieved satisfactory convergent and divergent validity. Total strength scores were significantly correlated in the expected direction with most theoretically related measures of emotional and behavioral functioning (e.g., self-esteem, treatment readiness, antisocial attitudes). Lastly, moderate gender effects and small ethnicity differences in response patterns were found. This was the first validation study of the SAI-Y with a justice-involved sample and the results suggest it is an appropriate measure for use with both male and female justice-involved young persons in detention and in the community. (PsycINFO Database Record
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".