MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2009047093 · doi:10.1080/02673843.2001.9747871

Normative Data and Mental Health Construct Validity for the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale in British Adolescents

2001· article· en· W2009047093 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Christopher Bagley, Kanka Mallick

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Adolescence and Youth · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicChild and Adolescent Psychosocial and Emotional Development
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNormativeSelf-esteemPsychologyMental healthLikert scaleScale (ratio)Construct validityConstruct (python library)Clinical psychologyDevelopmental psychologyStratified samplingSocial psychologyPsychometricsPsychiatryMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT Self-esteem is a potentially important measure for screening problems of social adaptation which underlie and predict mental health problems. Measuring change in self-esteem is also an important way of assessing success of therapeutic programmes of various kinds. The usefulness of the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale (RSES) is indicated from a review of various studies in Canada and America. In the present study, a stratified sample of four comprehensive schools in England, and of classes in two sixth form colleges yielded normative data on the Likert-scaled RSES for 665 male and 665 female pupils aged 12 to 19. Among the measures completed was the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale (RSES). In each age group females had significantly lower self-esteem than males, and females were more than twice as likely to have “devastated” self-esteem. Some evidence of construct validity is available for both sex groups within age categories, from significant correlations with previously validated measures of mental health problem categories, using scales from the Ontario Child Health Survey.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.068
Threshold uncertainty score0.369

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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.326
Teacher spread0.285 · 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 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

Citations108
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Adolescence and YouthSame topicChild and Adolescent Psychosocial and Emotional DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207