Measuring the Self-Esteem of Adolescents with Mental Health Problems: Theory Meets Practice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Occupational therapists frequently address the self-esteem of young clients despite little empirical evidence that the clients have low self-esteem to begin with, and that occupational therapy intervention is effective in addressing self-esteem. This article examines the self-esteem of 39 adolescents with mental health problems referred to a pre-vocational programme in an effort to compare clinical practice with empirical findings. The Self-Perception Profile for Adolescents and the Importance Rating Scale for Adolescents are employed to compare the self-esteem of the adolescents with mental health problems with the normative sample, prior to (n = 39) and upon completion of the pre-vocational programme (n = 14). Results indicate no difference between the two groups' self-esteem and no change in self-esteem scores following participation in the pre-vocational programme. Global self-esteem is significantly correlated with physical appearance and behavioural conduct (n = 39). Competence-importance discrepancy scores are significantly related to global self-esteem (n = 14). This finding supports the theory that it is the domain of self-concept which is low and important to the adolescent which will influence his/her self-esteem. These results are consistent with previous studies. Possible explanations for the discrepancy between clinical perceptions and objective findings are discussed. Implications for practice are presented.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".