Measuring awareness of financial skills: reliability and validity of a new measure
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper examines the psychometric properties of a three-part (participant, informant, and performance) Measure for assessing Awareness of Financial Skills (MAFS). The MAFS was administered to 10 seniors with dementia and 25 well-functioning seniors, and their informants. Measures of cognitive functioning, social desirability, neuroticism, and perceived control were administered to each participant to allow for an assessment of validity. Internal consistency estimates for the participant and informant questionnaires were found to be 0.92 and 0.97, respectively. Convergent validity analysis indicated that performance on this measure was related to level of cognitive functioning, with higher level of unawareness associated with decreased cognitive ability. Discriminant validity analysis showed that performance on this measure was not related to social desirability or neuroticism. This study provides evidence that the MAFS is a reliable and valid tool for assessing awareness of financial skills in older adults.
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 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 | 0.001 | 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 it