MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2034329956 · doi:10.1177/1049731511428619

Validation of the Child and Youth Resilience Measure-28 (CYRM-28) Among Canadian Youth

2011· article· en· W2034329956 on OpenAlexaffabout
Linda Liebenberg, Michael Ungar, Fons van de Vijver

Bibliographic record

VenueResearch on Social Work Practice · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicResilience and Mental Health
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychological resilienceConfirmatory factor analysisResilience (materials science)PsychologyMeasure (data warehouse)Positive Youth DevelopmentScale (ratio)Clinical psychologyExploratory factor analysisPsychometricsDevelopmental psychologyApplied psychologyStructural equation modelingSocial psychologyComputer scienceGeographyData mining

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objectives: This article presents the validation of the 28-item Child and Youth Resilience Measure (CYRM-28) among two Canadian samples of youth with complex needs. Method: The CYRM-28 was administered to two groups of concurrent service using youth in Atlantic Canada ( n 1 = 497; n 2 = 410) allowing for use of exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis. Results: Reproducibility agreement is achieved and subscales of the measure are confirmed and show adequate psychometric properties. Conclusions: Findings add support to the CYRM-28 as a reliable and valid self-report instrument that measures three components of resilience processes in the lives of complex needs youth. Advanced statistical modeling yielded evidence that the scale, originally developed for use in various countries, can be used to assess resilience in youth from various ethnocultural backgrounds in Atlantic Canada.

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)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.015
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.030
Threshold uncertainty score0.144

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0050.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.217
GPT teacher head0.466
Teacher spread0.249 · 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

Citations355
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueResearch on Social Work PracticeSame topicResilience and Mental HealthFrench-language works237,207