MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1994036140 · doi:10.1037/1040-3590.16.1.27

A Multidimensional Perspective of Relations Between Self-Concept (Self Description Questionnaire II) and Adolescent Mental Health (Youth Self-Report).

2004· article· en· W1994036140 on OpenAlexaff
Herbert W. Marsh, Roberto H. Parada, Violaine Ayotte

Bibliographic record

VenuePsychological Assessment · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicChild and Adolescent Psychosocial and Emotional Development
Canadian institutionsMontreal Police Service
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyMental healthPerspective (graphical)Confirmatory factor analysisDevelopmental psychologyPsychometricsSelf-conceptSelf-report studySelfClinical psychologySocial psychologyStructural equation modelingPsychiatryStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Relations between self-concept and mental health are best understood from a multidimensional perspective. For responses by 903 adolescents (mean age = 12.6) to a new French translation of the Self Description Questionnaire II (SDQII), confirmatory factor analysis demonstrated a well-defined multidimensional factor structure of reliable, highly differentiated self-concept factors. Correlations between 11 SDQII factors and 7 mental health problems (Youth Self-Report; YSR) varied substantially (.11 to -.83; mean r = -.35). Single higher-order factors could not explain relations among SDQII factors, among YSR factors, or between the SDQII and YSR factors. This highly differentiated multivariate pattern of relations supports a multidimensional perspective of self-concept, not the unidimensional perspective still prevalent in mental health research and assessment.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.024

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.031
GPT teacher head0.349
Teacher spread0.318 · 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

Citations152
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePsychological AssessmentSame topicChild and Adolescent Psychosocial and Emotional DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207