MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1973215149 · doi:10.1177/0163278714540681

An 8-Item Short Form of the Inventory of Dimensions of Emerging Adulthood (IDEA) Among Young Swiss Men

2014· article· en· W1973215149 on OpenAlexaff
Stéphanie Baggio, Katia Iglesias, Joseph Studer, Gerhard Gmel

Bibliographic record

VenueEvaluation & the Health Professions · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicIdentity, Memory, and Therapy
Canadian institutionsCentre for Addiction and Mental Health
FundersSchweizerischer Nationalfonds zur Förderung der Wissenschaftlichen ForschungNational Science Foundation
KeywordsPsychologyYoung adultFeelingScale (ratio)PsychopathologyLongitudinal studyMental healthClinical psychologyDevelopmental psychologyPsychiatryMedicineSocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Emerging adulthood is a period of life transition, in which youths are no longer adolescents but have not yet reached full adulthood. Measuring emerging adulthood is crucial because of its association with psychopathology and risky behaviors such as substance use. Unfortunately, the only validated scale for such measurement has a long format (Inventory of Dimensions of Emerging Adulthood [IDEA]-31 items). This study aimed to test whether a shorter form yields satisfactory results without substantial loss of information among a sample of young Swiss men. Data from the longitudinal Cohort Study on Substance Use Risk Factors were used (N = 5,049). IDEA, adulthood markers (e.g., parenthood or financial independence), and risk factors (i.e., substance use and mental health issues) were assessed. The results showed that an 8-item, short-form scale (IDEA-8) with four factors (experimentation, negativity, identity exploration, and feeling in between) returned satisfactory results, including good psychometric properties, high convergence with the initial scale, and strong empirical validity. This study was a step toward downsizing a measure of emerging adulthood. Indeed, this 8-item short form is a good alternative to the 31-item long form and could be more convenient for surveys with constraints on questionnaire length. Moreover, it should help health care practitioners in identifying at-risk populations to prevent and treat risky behaviors.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.079
GPT teacher head0.443
Teacher spread0.364 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations48
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEvaluation & the Health ProfessionsSame topicIdentity, Memory, and TherapyFrench-language works237,207