MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1964119779 · doi:10.5430/wje.v4n4p61

Factorial Composition of Counsellor Effectiveness Scale

2014· article· en· W1964119779 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Adeyemo Emily Oluseyi, Shaba Veronica Oreoluwa

Bibliographic record

VenueWorld Journal of Education · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEducation and Islamic Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVarimax rotationPsychologyPrincipal component analysisExploratory factor analysisScale (ratio)Factorial analysisApplied psychologySocial psychologyStatisticsMathematicsCronbach's alphaClinical psychologyPsychometricsGeographyCartography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The study developed a set of items that could measure counsellor effectiveness. It reduced the initial set of variablesrelated to counsellor effectiveness to such number of variables that are generally perceived as indicative ofcounsellor effectiveness and determined the factorial composition of the scale. in order to identify the major factorsthat underpin counsellor effectiveness with a view of developing an homogeneous items of counsellor effectivenessscale suitable for Nigeria Schools. The study design was exploratory using Principal Component Analysis (PCA)with interaction. The sample size consisted of 50 counsellors selected by convenience sampling from the populationof counsellors in 148 schools in Ondo State as at the time of the study. Alongside, an initial 800 counsellee who weresecondary school students were purposively selected from 12 secondary schools in six local government areas of thestate. The instrument used for this study was Questionnaire that measured counsellor effectiveness. This consisted ofan initial number of 51 items describing an effective counsellor in terms of personality characteristics, personalqualities, and performance indicators. These were derived from available description and characteristics ofcounsellor effectiveness in literatures. The responses were coded and analyzed using Principal Component Analysis.Items that failed to meet the baseline scores of eligibility into the final list were dropped. The final list consisted of35 items were subjected to Principal Component Analysis which provided the initial factor. These were rotated usingOrthogonal (Varimax) Method which yielded five underlying components of counsellor effectiveness. These wereidentified as expertness, sense of responsibility, pleasantness and integrity. The fifth factor could not beconceptualized from the regression weights and factor loadings of the items.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.347
Threshold uncertainty score0.159

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.338
Teacher spread0.323 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWorld Journal of EducationSame topicEducation and Islamic StudiesFrench-language works237,207