MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Development of a Family Dynamic Environment Scale for Korean Adolescents

2007· article· en· W1995059000 on OpenAlexaff
Hyun‐Sil Kim, Hun‐Soo Kim

Bibliographic record

VenuePublic Health Nursing · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicChild and Adolescent Psychosocial and Emotional Development
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCronbach's alphaDysfunctional familyPsychologyStratified samplingInternal consistencyScale (ratio)Clinical psychologyReliability (semiconductor)Test (biology)Family Environment ScaleMental healthDevelopmental psychologyPsychometricsMedicinePsychiatryGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The objective of this study was to develop a short and reliable Family Dynamic Environment Scale (FDES) that would better serve the needs of mental health professionals in detecting the potential for delinquent behavior in Korean adolescents related to a dysfunctional family dynamic environment. Semi-structured interviews with 30 adolescents were initially conducted to generate a set of items, after which, 44 participants were included in method test-retest reliability test. Finally, 544 participants recruited by proportional stratified random sampling were included in a factor analysis. The original version of the FDES had 60 items in 7 categories; the final version included 42 items grouped into 5 factors. Both test-retest reliability and Cronbach's alpha coefficient were high for the final version of the scale. As a result of factor analysis, five factors were extracted: family psychological climate, parent-child relationship, paternal parenting attitude, family cohesion, and maternal parenting attitude. These contributed 50.3% of the variance in the item scores. All 42 items loaded above .35 on their respective factors. The Cronbach's alpha coefficients for internal consistency were .95 for the total 42 items and .92, .81, .82, .78, and .71, respectively, for each of the 5 factors.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.976
Threshold uncertainty score0.681

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.055
GPT teacher head0.354
Teacher spread0.299 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designOther design
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

Citations8
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePublic Health NursingSame topicChild and Adolescent Psychosocial and Emotional DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207