Development and Validation of the Social and Emotional Competencies Evaluation Questionnaire
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study presents the construction and validation of an instrument for assessing social and emotional competencies in adolescents. The Social and Emotional Competences Evaluation Questionnaire (QACSE) is based on three previous instruments and constructed according to the theoretical framework proposed by the Collaborative for Academic, Social and Emotional Learning (2005). The questionnaire was validated in a sample of 683 high middle school students (7th to 9th grade), with an average age of 12.91 years. Six teachers also participated by filling the teacher version regarding 111 students on the sample. Results showed that the QACSE presents good levels of reliability and validity; including a sound five dimension factor structure. The final version of the QACSE is composed by 39 items, organized into five scales that assess the following social and emotional competencies: self-control, social awareness, relationship skills, social isolation and social anxiety. The QACSE takes around 10 minutes to fill and is appropriate for individual or group use for the evaluation of the aforementioned competencies. This questionnaire assesses most of the key competencies identified by the Collaborative for Academic Social and Emotional Learning (2012).
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 | 0.033 | 0.037 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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.
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".