MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1966717280 · doi:10.1177/1049731513480840

Confirmatory Factor Analysis on the Professional Suitability Scale for Social Work Practice

2013· article· en· W1966717280 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

VenueResearch on Social Work Practice · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicInterprofessional Education and Collaboration
Canadian institutionsThe King's UniversityUniversity of ReginaWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConfirmatory factor analysisCronbach's alphaScale (ratio)Reliability (semiconductor)PsychologyMultivariate statisticsSocial workMultivariate analysisConstruct validityApplied psychologyInternal consistencyPsychometricsStatisticsClinical psychologySocial psychologyStructural equation modelingMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objective: This article presents a validation study to examine the factor structure of an instrument designed to measure professional suitability for social work practice. Method: Data were collected from registered social workers in a provincial mailed survey. The response rate was 23.2%. After eliminating five cases with multivariate outliers, confirmatory factor analysis using maximum likelihood estimation was performed on 285 cases. Results: A 22-item four-factor model achieved an acceptable good fit. Reliability testing results indicate an overall Cronbach’s α valued at .90 and subscale αs ranged between .75 and .89. Conclusion: Findings affirm good-to-excellent internal consistency of the Professional Suitability scale with two previous studies and provide acceptable results on construct validity.

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)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.022
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Science and technology studies, Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.696
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.022
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.005
Science and technology studies0.0140.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.005

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 head0.234
GPT teacher head0.601
Teacher spread0.367 · 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