Reliability and validity of the Leisure Satisfaction Scale (LSS – short form) and the Adolescent Leisure Interest Profile (ALIP)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study aimed to evaluate the reliability and validity of the Leisure Satisfaction Scale (LSS short form) and the Adolescent Leisure Interest Profile (ALIP). The LSS and the ALIP are instruments that occupational therapists can use to evaluate the leisure activities that clients enjoy. Evaluation of leisure interest and participation will assist in creating goals for therapy to maximize a client's ability to participate in leisure activities. This study examined the test retest reliability and concurrent validity of the LSS and the ALIP using a sample of 37 adolescents between the ages of 13 and 17 with no known impairments. The assessments were administered individually or in small groups 7 to 17 days apart. Cronbach's alpha was used to determine the internal consistency. Pearson product moment correlations were calculated to examine the test retest reliability of the 60 subscales and the six question totals of the ALIP, as well as for the 6 subscales and total score of the LSS. Concurrent validity was evaluated between the 'How often?' question of the ALIP and the LSS (short form). Based on the study results, the ALIP and the LSS seem to have good test retest reliability levels when used with adolescents with no known physical or mental impairments. The concurrent validity between the two instruments was not supported, with many of the scores indicating only weak or no association to each of the subscales, suggesting that the assessments differ in some fundamental way. However, the evidence of some relationships between subscales may indicate some areas where the ALIP and the LSS are similar.
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 | 0.011 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".